How London maxillofacial units faced the demands of COVID lockdown and lessons learnt

Introduction In the UK between the 23rd of March 2020 and 10th of May 2020, the government enforced a lockdown. This, combined with COVID, caused OMFS hospitals across London to experience a change in staffing, resources and patient presentations. This study examines these changes, how patient care was adapted during this period and what can be learnt for the future. Method Data was collected from OMFS units attached to all 4 level 1 trauma centers in London. Prospective data was collected from 23rd of March 2020–10th of May 2020 (1st period). Retrospective data was collected from hospital coding records for 23rd of March - 10th of May 2019 (2nd period). Data was collected on all referrals to the OMFS team including diagnosis, patient demographics and treatment received. Results There was an 84% reduction in patients presenting with mandible fracture. 2 units with dental emergency services experienced no change in dental abscess presentations whilst the other 2 units saw a decrease of 70–75%. There was a trend towards reducing admission and general anaesthetic treatments. Most mandible fractures were treated in the outpatient setting with 1 unit discharging 100% of mandible fractures that presented to A&E. Only 13 of 72 paediatric lacerations were treated with general anaesthetic. Conclusion The COVID lockdown period, like war time, posed great challenges to healthcare provision. This paper presents the changes experienced and how patients were managed. Aiming to allow reflection and learning to guide changes in management to be adopted for the future.

COVID-19 in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease.

BACKGROUND: Adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) have been considered potentially high risk for novel coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) mortality or other complications. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to define the impact of COVID-19 in adults with CHD and to identify risk factors associated with adverse outcomes. METHODS: Adults (age 18 years or older) with CHD and with confirmed or clinically suspected COVID-19 were included from CHD centers worldwide. Data collection included anatomic diagnosis and subsequent interventions, comorbidities, medications, echocardiographic findings, presenting symptoms, course of illness, and outcomes. Predictors of death or severe infection were determined. RESULTS: From 58 adult CHD centers, the study included 1,044 infected patients (age: 35.1 ± 13.0 years; range 18 to 86 years; 51% women), 87% of whom had laboratory-confirmed coronavirus infection. The cohort included 118 (11%) patients with single ventricle and/or Fontan physiology, 87 (8%) patients with cyanosis, and 73 (7%) patients with pulmonary hypertension. There were 24 COVID-related deaths (case/fatality: 2.3%; 95% confidence interval: 1.4% to 3.2%). Factors associated with death included male sex, diabetes, cyanosis, pulmonary hypertension, renal insufficiency, and previous hospital admission for heart failure. Worse physiological stage was associated with mortality (p = 0.001), whereas anatomic complexity or defect group were not. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 mortality in adults with CHD is commensurate with the general population. The most vulnerable patients are those with worse physiological stage, such as cyanosis and pulmonary hypertension, whereas anatomic complexity does not appear to predict infection severity.

Open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19: a multicentre comparison and recommendation for future resource utilisation.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic placed an unprecedented demand on critical care services for the provision of mechanical ventilation. Tracheostomy formation facilitates liberation from mechanical ventilation with advantages for both the patient and wider critical care resource, and can be performed using both percutaneous dilatational and surgical techniques. We compared outcomes in those patients undergoing percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy to those undergoing surgical tracheostomy and make recommendations for provision of tracheostomy services in any future surge. METHODS: Multicentre multidisciplinary retrospective observational cohort study including 201 patients with COVID-19 pneumonitis admitted to an ICU in one of five NHS Trusts within the South London Adult Critical Care Network who required mechanical ventilation and subsequent tracheostomy. RESULTS: Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy was performed in 124 (62%) of patients, and surgical tracheostomy in 77 (38%) of patients. There was no difference between percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy and surgical tracheostomy in either the rate of peri-operative complications (16.9 vs. 22.1%, p = 0.46), median [IQR(range)] time to decannulation [19.0 (15.0-30.2 (5.0-65.0)] vs. 21.0 [15.5-36.0 (5.0-70.0) days] or mortality (13.7% vs. 15.6%, p = 0.84). Of the 172 patients that were alive at follow-up, two remained ventilated and 163 were decannulated. CONCLUSION: In patients with COVID-19 pneumonitis that require tracheostomy to facilitate weaning from mechanical ventilation, there was no difference in outcomes between those patients that had percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy compared with those that had surgical tracheostomy. Planning for future surges in COVID-19-related critical care demands should utilise all available resource and expertise.