Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
European Heart Journal ; 42(SUPPL 1):1154, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1553960


Background: Myocardial injury is associated with adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, the prognostic role of myocardial injury in COVID-19 compared to other acute illnesses and the underlying mechanisms of injury are poorly understood. Methods: In a prospective, multi-centre, cohort study conducted in secondary and tertiary care hospitals in Scotland, all consecutive patients with suspected COVID-19 underwent cardiac troponin (ARCHITECTSTAT highsensitive troponin I (hs-cTnI) assay;Abbott Laboratories) testing in plasma that was surplus to clinical requirements. The results were not reported unless required by the attending clinician. We evaluated the prevalence of myocardial injury, mechanisms and outcomes in all patients. In those with any hs-cTnI concentration above the sex-specific 99th centile the diagnosis was adjudicated according to the 4th Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction. The primary outcome of all-cause mortality was compared in those with and without myocardial injury and COVID-19 by cox regression adjusted for age, sex, renal function and co-morbidities. Results: A total of 2,916 (median age 69 [interquartile range, IQR 54- 79] years, 53% women) consecutive patients with suspected COVID-19 were followed up for 228 [IQR 203-249] days. Myocardial injury occurred in 26% (750/2,916) with a median troponin concentration of 66 [35-178] ng/L;the prevalence was 41% (46/112) and 25% (704/2,804) in those with and without COVID-19, respectively. The most common mechanism was acute non-ischaemic myocardial injury occurring in 80% (37/46) and 71% (502/704) of patients with and without COVID-19, respectively. Type 1 myocardial infarction (2% and 4%), type 2 myocardial infarction (7% and 14%) and chronic myocardial injury (11% and 11%) were less common and only one patient had confirmed myocarditis. In patients with myocardial injury mortality was increased compared to those without (P<0.001 log rank), whether they had COVID-19 (54% [25/46] versus 26% [17/66]) or not (35% [248/704] versus 14% [294/2100]). Myocardial injury was an independent predictor of death in all patients (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.71 to 2.43), but this excess risk was not higher in patients with COVID-19 (aHR 1.58, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.15) compared to those without the condition (aHR 2.01, 95% CI 1.81 to 2.49). Conclusion: Myocardial injury is common in hospitalised patients with suspected COVID-19 whether or not COVID-19 was the cause of their presentation. The majority of patients had acute non-ischaemic myocardial injury rather than a defined cardiac condition. Despite this the presence of myocardial injury was an independent predictor of death in all hospitalised patients.

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ; 7(SUPPL 1):S594, 2020.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1185947


Background. Correct personal protective equipment (PPE) use is key to prevent infection. Observations on a single unit at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Tennessee Valley Healthcare System (TVHS) prior to COVID-19 (October 2019-February 2020) showed low rates of correct PPE use among healthcare workers (HCWs) (Figure 1). In response to the COVID-19 epidemic, the VA implemented new PPE protocols. Based on our initial observations, we were concerned that incorrect use of PPE may increase the risk of COVID-19 exposure among HCWs. Resident physicians, who work at many sites, may be at high-risk for incorrect PPE use due to rapid turnover and limited site-specific PPE training. We aimed to assess and improve COVID-19 PPE use among internal medicine residents rotating at the VA TVHS. Figure 1: Pre-COVID-19 Observations of Adherence to Contact Precaution Protocols at the Veterans Affairs Tennessee Valley Healthcare System Methods. We used the plan, do, study, act (PDSA) model. Prior to starting VA rotations, residents were emailed PPE education to review. We implemented a 1-hour video conference PPE protocol review at rotation start followed by in-person PPE use evaluations for residents performed by infectious diseases fellows on day 2 and day 5-6 post-review to provide just-in-time educational intervention. Errors at each PPE don/ doff step were tracked. Correct PPE use data from both observations were compared using McNemar's test. Baseline and post-implementation resident surveys assessed PPE use knowledge and comfort. Results. Pre-implementation survey response rate was 72% (21/29);19/21(91%) reported knowing which PPE to use and 16/21(76%) reported knowing how to safely don/doff PPE. Twenty of 29 (69%) residents completed both observations. Errors decreased by 55% (p=0.0045) from 17/20 (85%) to 6/20 (30%) between initial and follow up observations. Errors in hand hygiene, inclusion of all donning/doffing steps, and PPE reuse decreased, but PPE don/doff order errors increased (Figure 2). Postproject survey response rate was 16/29 (55%). All 16 reported knowing which PPE to use and how to safely don/doff PPE, and 11/16 (69%) residents felt both online and in-person interventions were helpful. Figure 2: COVID-19 PPE Errors and Correction Types by Observation Conclusion. Correct COVID-19 PPE use is essential to protect HCWs and patients. Just-in-time education intervention for PPE training may yield higher correct use compared to pre-recorded or online training.