Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 23
Filter
1.
Int J Disaster Risk Reduct ; 80: 103191, 2022 Oct 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1936512

ABSTRACT

This paper compares economic recovery in the COVID-19 pandemic with other types of disasters, at the scale of businesses. As countries around the world struggle to emerge from the pandemic, studies of business impact and recovery have proliferated; however, pandemic research is often undertaken without the benefit of insights from long-standing research on past large-scale disruptive events, such as floods, storms, and earthquakes. This paper builds synergies between established knowledge on business recovery in disasters and emerging insights from the COVID-19 pandemic. It first proposes a disaster event taxonomy that allows the pandemic to be compared with natural hazard events from the perspective of economic disruption. The paper then identifies five key lessons on business recovery from disasters and compares them to empirical findings from the COVID-19 pandemic. For synthesis, a conceptual framework on business recovery is developed to support policy-makers to anticipate business recovery needs in economically disruptive events, including disasters. Findings from the pandemic largely resonate with those from disasters. Recovery tends to be more difficult for small businesses, those vulnerable to supply chain problems, those facing disrupted markets, and locally-oriented businesses in heavily impacted neighborhoods. Disaster assistance that is fast and less restrictive provides more effective support for business recovery. Some differences emerge, however: substantial business disruption in the pandemic derived from changes in demand due to regulatory measures as well as consumer behaviour; businesses in high-income neighborhoods and central business districts were especially affected; and traditional forms of financial assistance may need to be reconsidered.

3.
Ann Thorac Surg ; 114(1): 70-75, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1906777

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause acute respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. Venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used in patients in whom conventional mechanical ventilatory support has failed. To date, published data have focused on survival from ECMO and survival to discharge. In addition to survival to discharge, this study reports 1-year follow-up data for patients who were successfully discharged from the hospital. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective review of all patients with severe COVID-19 who were cannulated for VV-ECMO between March 10, 2020 and May 1, 2020 was performed. A multidisciplinary ECMO team evaluated, selected, and managed patients with ECMO support. The primary outcome of this study was survival to discharge. Available 1-year follow-up data are also reported. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were supported with VV-ECMO, and 27 patients (90%) survived to discharge. All patients were discharged home or to acute rehabilitation on room air, except for 1 patient (3.7%), who required supplemental oxygen therapy. At a median follow-up of 10.8 months (interquartile range [IQR], 8.9-14.4 months) since ECMO cannulation, survival was 86.7%, including 1 patient who underwent lung transplantation. Of the patients discharged from the hospital, 44.4% (12/27) had pulmonary function testing, with a median percent predicted forced expiratory volume of 100% (IQR, 91%-110%). For survivors, a 6-minute walk test was performed in 59.3% (16/27), with a median value of 350 m (IQR, 286-379 m). CONCLUSIONS: A well-defined patient selection and management strategy of VV-ECMO support in patients with severe COVID-19 resulted in exceptional survival to discharge that was sustained at 1-year after ECMO cannulation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Humans , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies
4.
ASAIO J ; 2022 May 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1860980

ABSTRACT

A retrospective study was performed examining the trend of inflammatory markers, including D-dimers, in 29 COVID-19 patients requiring veno-venous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. We observed that COVID-19 patients with pre-cannulation D-dimer levels >3,000 ng/mL had a significantly shorter time from admission to cannulation (4.78 vs. 8.44 days, p = 0.049) compared to those with D-dimer <3,000 ng/mL. Furthermore, patients with D-dimer >3,000 ng/mL had a trend of lower pH (7.24 vs. 7.33), higher pCO2 (61.33 vs. 50.69), and higher vasoactive inotropic score (7.23 vs. 3.97) at time of cannulation, however, these were not statistically significant. This cohort of patients also required a longer duration of ECMO support (51.44 vs. 31.25 days). However, 13 patients required at least one ECMO-circuit exchange and 16 patients did not require any exchanges. There was a consistent drop in D-dimer values after every circuit exchange, which was not observed in any of the other examined inflammatory markers, including ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, or C-reactive protein. We propose that elevated D-dimer levels (>3,000 ng/mL) reflect increased disease severity in COVID-19, and predict a longer ECMO course. Once on ECMO, however, the D-Dimer level consistently decreased with every circuit exchange, which may reflect thrombus within the oxygenator rather than just disease severity.

6.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-311067

ABSTRACT

Background: Severity of illness and mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is consistently lower in women than in men. While this outcome difference is not well understood, focus on sex as a biologic factor may suggest potential therapeutic intervention for this disease. We assessed whether adding progesterone, a steroid hormone with immune-modulatory properties, to standard of care, would improve clinical outcomes of hospitalized men with moderate to severe COVID-19.Method: We conducted a Phase 1, randomised, open-label, controlled trial at a large academic hospital in Los Angeles, CA, USA, of subcutaneous progesterone in men hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using block randomization and a computer-generated randomization sequence, to receive standard of care (SOC) plus progesterone (100 mg subcutaneously twice daily for up to five days) or SOC alone. In addition to assessment of safety, the primary outcome was change in clinical status based on a 7-point ordinal scale noted at baseline compared to that on Day 7 of the trial. Control patients with significant clinical deterioration or absence of clinical improvement by Day 7 were permitted to cross over to receive progesterone therapy. Intention to treat analysis was performed and the patient’s last clinical assessment prior to receiving the study drug was imputed as the Day 7 assessment. Findings: Forty-two patients were enrolled in the study from April 27 to August 20, 2020;22 were randomised to the control group and 20 to the progesterone group. Of the 20 patients in the progesterone group, two withdrew from the study prior to receiving progesterone and were excluded from analysis. There was an overall improvement in clinical status from baseline to Day 7 in patients in the progesterone group as compared to controls (95% CI: 0-2;P = 0·010). There were no serious adverse events attributable to progesterone.Interpretation: Progesterone at a dose of 100 mg, twice daily by subcutaneous injection in addition to standard of care may represent a safe and novel approach for the treatment in men with moderate to severe COVID-19.Trial Registration: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04365127.Funding Statement: The Institut Biochimique SA (IBSA, Lugano, Switzerland)Declaration of Interests: SG, YM, SP, TK, DN, JH, SC, RIG, JM, CB, ML, VT report grants and nonfinancial support from Institut Biochimique SA (IBSA, Lugano, Switzerland), during the conduct of the study;SG,SP report patent pending on method of use of progesterone agonist for treatment of COVID-19 VT reports grants from NIH/NIAID ACTT (ACTT 1-3), outside the submitted work. DS, HG declare no competing interests.Ethics Approval Statement: This study was approved by the Cedars-Sinai Institutional Review Board (IRB).

7.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-311027

ABSTRACT

Background: and aim of the study: Patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) develop a profound cytokine-mediated pro-inflammatory response. This study reports outcomes in 10 patients with COVID-19 supported on veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) who were selected for the emergency use of a hemoadsorption column integrated in the ECMO circuit. Materials and Methods: Pre and post treatment, clinical data and inflammatory markers were assessed to determine the safety and feasibility of using this system, and to evaluate the clinical effect. Results: During hemoadsorption, median levels of interleukin (IL)-2R, IL-6, and IL-10 decreased by 54%, 86%, and 64% respectively. Reductions in other markers were observed for LDH (-49%), ferritin (-46%), D-dimer (-7%), C-reactive protein (-55%), procalcitonin (-76%) and lactate (-44%). Vasoactive-inotrope scores decreased significantly over the treatment interval (-80%). The median hospital length of stay was 53 days (36-85) and at 90-days post cannulation, survival was 90% which was similar to a group of patients without the use of hemoadsorption. Conclusions: Addition of hemoadsorption to VV-ECMO in patients with severe COVID-19 is feasible and reduces measured cytokine levels. However, in this small series, the precise impact on the overall clinical course and survival benefit still remains unknown.

8.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-308049

ABSTRACT

This Working Group focuses on the economic recovery of businesses and economies from the COVID-19 pandemic. With communities around the world experiencing severe economic impacts, we anticipate a proliferation of efforts to track, assess, explain, and improve economic recovery. We have discussed key concepts, resources, and priority research topics to enable comparable data collection and mutual learning in this pandemic, as summarized below.

9.
Critical Care Medicine ; 50:135-135, 2022.
Article in English | Academic Search Complete | ID: covidwho-1592239

ABSTRACT

To date, one report found a higher incidence and mortality in COVID-19 patients with barotrauma during the winter surge. B Introduction: b Barotrauma is a complication seen in COVID-19 pneumonia seen in 1% of hospitalized patients to 15% in mechanically ventilated patients. B Conclusions: b Our results concurred with an earlier report that the incidence and mortality associated with barotrauma among COVID-19 inpatients during the winter were higher than in the spring. [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Critical Care Medicine is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

10.
Front Surg ; 8: 769962, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1497188

ABSTRACT

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic remains a disruptive force upon the health care system, with particular import for thoracic surgery given the pulmonary pathophysiology and disease implications of the virus. The rapid and severe onset of disease required expedient innovation and change in patient management and novel approaches to care delivery and nimbleness of workforce. In this review, we detail our approaches to patients with COVID-19, including those that required surgical intervention, our expedited and novel approach to bronchoscopy and tracheostomy, and our expansion of telehealth. The pandemic has created a unique opportunity to reflect on our delivery of care in thoracic surgery and apply lessons learned during this time to "rethink" how to optimize resources and deliver excellent and cutting-edge patient care.

11.
Crit Care Med ; 49(7): 1058-1067, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1494030

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of percutaneous dilational tracheostomy in coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring mechanical ventilation and the risk for healthcare providers. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study; patients were enrolled between March 11, and April 29, 2020. The date of final follow-up was July 30, 2020. We used a propensity score matching approach to compare outcomes. Study outcomes were formulated before data collection and analysis. SETTING: Critical care units at two large metropolitan hospitals in New York City. PATIENTS: Five-hundred forty-one patients with confirmed severe coronavirus disease 2019 respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: Bedside percutaneous dilational tracheostomy with modified visualization and ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Required time for discontinuation off mechanical ventilation, total length of hospitalization, and overall patient survival. Of the 541 patients, 394 patients were eligible for a tracheostomy. One-hundred sixteen were early percutaneous dilational tracheostomies with median time of 9 days after initiation of mechanical ventilation (interquartile range, 7-12 d), whereas 89 were late percutaneous dilational tracheostomies with a median time of 19 days after initiation of mechanical ventilation (interquartile range, 16-24 d). Compared with patients with no tracheostomy, patients with an early percutaneous dilational tracheostomy had a higher probability of discontinuation from mechanical ventilation (absolute difference, 30%; p < 0.001; hazard ratio for successful discontinuation, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.34-5.84; p = 0.006) and a lower mortality (absolute difference, 34%, p < 0.001; hazard ratio for death, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.06-0.22; p < 0.001). Compared with patients with late percutaneous dilational tracheostomy, patients with early percutaneous dilational tracheostomy had higher discontinuation rates from mechanical ventilation (absolute difference 7%; p < 0.35; hazard ratio for successful discontinuation, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.3; p = 0.04) and had a shorter median duration of mechanical ventilation in survivors (absolute difference, -15 d; p < 0.001). None of the healthcare providers who performed all the percutaneous dilational tracheostomies procedures had clinical symptoms or any positive laboratory test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. CONCLUSIONS: In coronavirus disease 2019 patients on mechanical ventilation, an early modified percutaneous dilational tracheostomy was safe for patients and healthcare providers and associated with improved clinical outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Tracheostomy/methods , Aged , Cohort Studies , Critical Care , Dilatation/methods , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , New York City/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors
12.
Ann Thorac Surg ; 2021 Sep 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1385025

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to report the incidence, management, and outcomes of patients who developed a secondary pneumothorax while admitted for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective review of patients admitted for COVID-19 with a diagnosis of pneumothorax between March 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020, was performed. The primary assessment was the incidence of pneumothorax. Secondarily, we analyzed clinical outcomes of patients requiring tube thoracostomy, including those requiring operative intervention. RESULTS: From March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2020, 118 of 1595 patients (7.4%) admitted for COVID-19 developed a pneumothorax. Of these, 92 (5.8%) required tube thoracostomy drainage for a median of 12 days (interquartile range 5-25 days). The majority of patients (95 of 118, 80.5%) were on mechanical ventilation at the time of pneumothorax, 17 (14.4%) were iatrogenic, and 25 patients (21.2%) demonstrated tension physiology. Placement of a large-bore chest tube (20 F or greater) was associated with fewer tube-related complications than a small-bore tube (14 F or less) (14 vs 26 events, P = .011). Six patients with pneumothorax (5.1%) required operative management for a persistent alveolar-pleural fistula. In patients with pneumothorax, median hospital stay was 36 days (interquartile range 20-63 days) and in-hospital mortality was significantly higher than for those without pneumothorax (58% vs 13%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of secondary pneumothorax in patients admitted for COVID-19 is 7.4%, most commonly occurring in patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and is associated with an in-hospital mortality rate of 58%. Placement of large-bore chest tubes is associated with fewer complications than small-bore tubes.

13.
ASAIO J ; 67(8): 856-861, 2021 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1337296

ABSTRACT

Hemoadsorption with CytoSorb has been used as an adjunct in the treatment of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related respiratory failure. It remains unknown if CytoSorb hemoadsorption will alter sedative and analgesic dosing in critically ill patients on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). We conducted a retrospective review of patients with severe COVID-19 requiring VV-ECMO for respiratory support. Patients who were enrolled in a clinical study of CytoSorb were compared with patients on VV-ECMO alone. Data were collected for the 72-hour CytoSorb therapy and an additional 72 hours post-CytoSorb, or a corresponding control time period. Sedative and analgesic doses were totaled for each day and converted to midazolam or fentanyl equivalents, respectively. The primary endpoint, change in sedative and analgesic requirements over time, were compared using a two-way mixed analysis of variance. Of the 30 patients cannulated for VV-ECMO for COVID-19, 4 were excluded, leaving 8 patients in the CytoSorb arm and 18 in the Control. There was no effect of CytoSorb therapy on midazolam equivalents over the 72-hour therapy (p = 0.71) or the 72 hours post-CytoSorb (p = 0.11). In contrast, there was a significant effect of CytoSorb therapy on fentanyl equivalents over the first 72 hours (p = 0.01), but this was not consistent over the 72-hours post-CytoSorb (p = 0.23). CytoSorb therapy led to significant increases in analgesic requirements without impacting sedative requirements. Further research is needed to define the relevance of CytoSorb hemoadsorption on critical care pharmacotherapy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/adverse effects , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
14.
J Card Surg ; 36(11): 4256-4264, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1295079

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) develop a profound cytokine-mediated pro-inflammatory response. This study reports outcomes in 10 patients with COVID-19 supported on veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) who were selected for the emergency use of a hemoadsorption column integrated in the ECMO circuit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre and posttreatment, clinical data, and inflammatory markers were assessed to determine the safety and feasibility of using this system and to evaluate the clinical effect. RESULTS: During hemoadsorption, median levels of interleukin (IL)-2R, IL-6, and IL-10 decreased by 54%, 86%, and 64%, respectively. Reductions in other markers were observed for lactate dehydrogenase (-49%), ferritin (-46%), d-dimer (-7%), C-reactive protein (-55%), procalcitonin (-76%), and lactate (-44%). Vasoactive-inotrope scores decreased significantly over the treatment interval (-80%). The median hospital length of stay was 53 days (36-85) and at 90-days post cannulation, survival was 90% which was similar to a group of patients without the use of hemoadsorption. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of hemoadsorption to VV-ECMO in patients with severe COVID-19 is feasible and reduces measured cytokine levels. However, in this small series, the precise impact on the overall clinical course and survival benefit still remains unknown.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Catheterization , Humans , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Chest ; 160(1): 74-84, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1258346

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severity of illness in COVID-19 is consistently lower in women. A focus on sex as a biological factor may suggest a potential therapeutic intervention for this disease. We assessed whether adding progesterone to standard of care (SOC) would improve clinical outcomes of hospitalized men with moderate to severe COVID-19. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does short-term subcutaneous administration of progesterone safely improve clinical outcome in hypoxemic men hospitalized with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a pilot, randomized, open-label, controlled trial of subcutaneous progesterone in men hospitalized with confirmed moderate to severe COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned to receive SOC plus progesterone (100 mg subcutaneously twice daily for up to 5 days) or SOC alone. In addition to assessment of safety, the primary outcome was change in clinical status on day 7. Length of hospital stay and number of days on supplemental oxygen were key secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were enrolled from April 2020 to August 2020; 22 were randomized to the control group and 20 to the progesterone group. Two patients from the progesterone group withdrew from the study before receiving progesterone. There was a 1.5-point overall improvement in median clinical status score on a seven-point ordinal scale from baseline to day 7 in patients in the progesterone group as compared with control subjects (95% CI, 0.0-2.0; P = .024). There were no serious adverse events attributable to progesterone. Patients treated with progesterone required three fewer days of supplemental oxygen (median, 4.5 vs 7.5 days) and were hospitalized for 2.5 fewer days (median, 7.0 vs 9.5 days) as compared with control subjects. INTERPRETATION: Progesterone at a dose of 100 mg, twice daily by subcutaneous injection in addition to SOC, may represent a safe and effective approach for treatment in hypoxemic men with moderate to severe COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04365127; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Progesterone/administration & dosage , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/therapy , Clinical Protocols/standards , Drug Monitoring , Humans , Hypoxia/diagnosis , Hypoxia/etiology , Injections, Subcutaneous , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Pilot Projects , Progestins/administration & dosage , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
16.
Front Surg ; 8: 663364, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1201440

ABSTRACT

Management of patients with lung cancer continues to be challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the increased risk of complications in this subset of patients. During the COVID-19 surge in New York City, New York University Langone Health adopted triage strategies to help with care for lung cancer patients, with good surgical outcomes and no transmission of COVID-19 to patients or healthcare workers. Here, we will review current recommendations regarding screening and management of lung cancer patients during both a non-surge phase and surge phase of COVID-19.

17.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg ; 162(6): 1654-1664, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1108501

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: As the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic continues, appropriate management of thoracic complications from Coronavirus Disease 2019 needs to be determined. Our objective is to evaluate which complications occurring in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 require thoracic surgery and to report the early outcomes. METHODS: This study is a single-institution retrospective case series at New York University Langone Health Manhattan campus evaluating patients with confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 infection who were hospitalized and required thoracic surgery from March 13 to July 18, 2020. RESULTS: From March 13 to August 8, 2020, 1954 patients were admitted to New York University Langone Health for Coronavirus Disease 2019. Of these patients, 13 (0.7%) required thoracic surgery. Two patients (15%) required surgery for complicated pneumothoraces, 5 patients (38%) underwent pneumatocele resection, 1 patient (8%) had an empyema requiring decortication, and 5 patients (38%) developed a hemothorax that required surgery. Three patients (23%) died after surgery, 9 patients (69%) were discharged, and 1 patient (8%) remains in the hospital. No healthcare providers were positive for Coronavirus Disease 2019 after the surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: Given the 77% survival, with a majority of patients already discharged from the hospital, thoracic surgery is feasible for the small percent of patients hospitalized with Coronavirus Disease 2019 who underwent surgery for complex pneumothorax, pneumatocele, empyema, or hemothorax. Our experience also supports the safety of surgical intervention for healthcare providers who operate on patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/surgery , Empyema, Pleural/surgery , Hemothorax/surgery , Pandemics , Pneumothorax/surgery , Thoracic Surgical Procedures/methods , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Empyema, Pleural/diagnosis , Empyema, Pleural/etiology , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Hemothorax/diagnosis , Hemothorax/etiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , New York/epidemiology , Pneumothorax/diagnosis , Pneumothorax/etiology , RNA, Viral/analysis , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Treatment Outcome
18.
Front Surg ; 7: 596970, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-993503

ABSTRACT

The use of telemedicine and telehealth services has grown exponentially over the past decade and has become increasingly relevant and necessary during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. There remains ample opportunity to electronically connect cardiothoracic surgeons with their patients during both preoperative and postoperative visits. In this review, we examine the various implementations of telemedicine within thoracic surgery and explore future applications in this quickly developing field.

19.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg ; 58(6): 1222-1227, 2020 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-910370

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in patient reluctance to seek care due to fear of contracting the virus, especially in New York City which was the epicentre during the surge. The primary objectives of this study are to evaluate the safety of patients who have undergone pulmonary resection for lung cancer as well as provider safety, using COVID-19 testing, symptoms and early patient outcomes. METHODS: Patients with confirmed or suspected pulmonary malignancy who underwent resection from 13 March to 4 May 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Between 13 March and 4 May 2020, 2087 COVID-19 patients were admitted, with a median daily census of 299, to one of our Manhattan campuses (80% of hospital capacity). During this time, 21 patients (median age 72 years) out of 45 eligible surgical candidates underwent pulmonary resection-13 lobectomies, 6 segmentectomies and 2 pneumonectomies were performed by the same providers who were caring for COVID-19 patients. None of the patients developed major complications, 5 had minor complications, and the median length of hospital stay was 2 days. No previously COVID-19-negative patient (n = 20/21) or healthcare provider (n = 9: 3 surgeons, 3 surgical assistants, 3 anaesthesiologists) developed symptoms of or tested positive for COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary resection for lung cancer is safe in selected patients, even when performed by providers who care for COVID-19 patients in a hospital with a large COVID-19 census. None of our patients or providers developed symptoms of COVID-19 and no patient experienced major morbidity or mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/surgery , Infection Control/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Lung Neoplasms/surgery , Pneumonectomy , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Adenocarcinoma/surgery , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Testing , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Health Services Accessibility , Hospitalization , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , New York City/epidemiology , Pandemics , Patient Safety/statistics & numerical data , Patient Selection , Perioperative Care/methods , Postoperative Complications/diagnosis , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL