Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
2.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 714387, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1639203

ABSTRACT

This paper reports a complete case of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), who presented with rapid deterioration of oxygenation during hospitalization despite escalating high-flow nasal cannulation to invasive mechanical ventilation. After inefficacy with lung-protective ventilation, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration, prone position, we administered extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a salvage respiratory support with ultra-protective ventilation for 47 days and finally discharged the patient home with a good quality of life with a Barthel Index Score of 100 after 76 days of hospitalization. The purpose of this paper is to provide a clinical reference for the management of ECMO and respiratory strategy of critical patients with COVID-19-related ARDS.

3.
PLoS One ; 16(11): e0259706, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526685

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: China is vulnerable to zoonotic disease transmission due to a large agricultural work force, sizable domestic livestock population, and a highly biodiverse ecology. To better address this threat, representatives from the human, animal, and environmental health sectors in China held a One Health Zoonotic Disease Prioritization (OHZDP) workshop in May 2019 to develop a list of priority zoonotic diseases for multisectoral, One Health collaboration. METHODS: Representatives used the OHZDP Process, developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US CDC), to prioritize zoonotic diseases for China. Representatives defined the criteria used for prioritization and determined questions and weights for each individual criterion. A review of English and Chinese literature was conducted prior to the workshop to collect disease specific information on prevalence, morbidity, mortality, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) from China and the Western Pacific Region for zoonotic diseases considered for prioritization. RESULTS: Thirty zoonotic diseases were evaluated for prioritization. Criteria selected included: 1) disease hazard/severity (case fatality rate) in humans, 2) epidemic scale and intensity (in humans and animals) in China, 3) economic impact, 4) prevention and control, and 5) social impact. Disease specific information was obtained from 792 articles (637 in English and 155 in Chinese) and subject matter experts for the prioritization process. Following discussion of the OHZDP Tool output among disease experts, five priority zoonotic diseases were identified for China: avian influenza, echinococcosis, rabies, plague, and brucellosis. CONCLUSION: Representatives agreed on a list of five priority zoonotic diseases that can serve as a foundation to strengthen One Health collaboration for disease prevention and control in China; this list was developed prior to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic. Next steps focused on establishing a multisectoral, One Health coordination mechanism, improving multisectoral linkages in laboratory testing and surveillance platforms, creating multisectoral preparedness and response plans, and increasing workforce capacity.


Subject(s)
Consensus Development Conferences as Topic , Zoonoses/prevention & control , Animals , China , Humans , Zoonoses/epidemiology , Zoonoses/transmission
4.
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis ; 31(1): 106163, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1482759

ABSTRACT

The SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has resulted in millions of worldwide deaths. When the SARS-CoV-2 virus emerged from Wuhan, China in December 2019, reports of patients with COVID-19 revealed that hospitalized patients had acute changes in mental status, cognition, and encephalopathy. Neurologic complications can be a consequence from overall severity of the systemic infection, direct viral invasion of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the central nervous system, and possible immune mediated mechanisms. We will examine the landscape regarding this topic in this review in addition to current understandings of COVID-19 and hemostasis, treatment, and prevention, as well as vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Central Nervous System/virology , Nervous System Diseases , Thrombophilia/prevention & control , Anticoagulants , Hemostasis , Humans , Nervous System Diseases/diagnosis , Nervous System Diseases/etiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Thrombophilia/diagnosis
5.
Blood ; 136(Supplement 1):58-59, 2020.
Article in English | PMC | ID: covidwho-1338952

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Initial studies from Wuhan, China reported patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 have uncontrolled coagulopathy and an increased risk for thrombotic complications, including pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and arterial thrombosis.1 The incidence of thrombosis attributed to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ranged from 9.5% in all hospital-admitted patients to 31% in the critically ill.2,3COVID-19 has had a major impact on the Chicago metropolitan area with over 121,000 confirmed cases as of August 2020, Cook county being the 4th highest affected county after Maricopa, Miami-Dade and Los Angeles counties.4 The primary goal of this study is to describe the rate of thrombotic events in the Chicago metropolitan area, highlighting an ethnically diverse population, and identify new risk factors for thrombosis between three university health systems.Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis between three university health systems in the Chicago metropolitan area: Loyola University Health System (LUHS): comprised of one tertiary and two community hospitals, Rush University System for Health (RUSH): comprised of one tertiary and two community hospitals, and University of Illinois-Chicago (UIC): a tertiary hospital. All patients had positive SARS-CoV-2 testing and were hospitalized for COVID-19. PE, DVT or arterial thrombosis were confirmed by supportive imaging modalities. Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to test the associations of continuous variables;Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test were used to test the associations of categorical variables. All analyses were performed with SAS 9.4 and two-sided p-value <.05 were deemed statistically significant.Results: Between March and May 2020, 2,180 patients from LUHS, RUSH and UIC were hospitalized for COVID-19 and were included in our analysis. Baseline patient demographics are described in Table 1. Race/ethnicity demographics are as follows: Hispanics (H)/ African Americans (AA) represented 47%/17% of LUHS patients, 32%/42% of RUSH patients, and 36%/51% of UIC patients, respectively (Figure 1). Intensive care admissions were needed in 33% of all patients. Documented total thrombotic events are as follows: LUHS = 5.4% (41 VTE/PE, 10 arterial and 5 with both venous and arterial);RUSH = 9.7% (70 VTE/PE, 7 arterial and 4 with both venous/arterial);UIC = 6% (14 VTE/PE, 4 arterial and 0 with both venous/arterial). Patients that developed a thrombotic event were similar by age, sex, and BMI to those without a thrombotic event. Anticoagulation prophylaxis was given to 82% of pts at LUHS and UIC at time of admission. Collectively, those with thrombotic events (N=156) had higher incidence of intensive care admission, elevated white blood cell (WBC) count and a d-dimer >5X upper limit normal (ULN) at presentation. Furthermore, a higher proportion of pts that had a thrombotic event were diabetic at LUHS and RUSH (Table 2). Mortality in COVID-19 patients was 13-16% and patients that had a thrombotic event had a higher risk of death in the RUSH and UIC cohorts.Conclusions: In a racially diverse, multi-institutional cohort of patients, we demonstrate that 7.2% of COVID-19 patients had a thrombotic event. Consistent risk factors for thrombosis across the different centers included an initial d-dimer levels >5X ULN, elevated initial WBC count, diabetes, and being critically ill. Mortality differences and anticoagulation practices between the institutions as well as race/ethnicity differences regarding thrombosis will be explored in future combined multivariate analyses. Finally, based off these risk factors, identification of patients at most risk for thrombosis is needed to reduce the morbidity and mortality when diagnosed with COVID-19.References-Tang et. al. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18:844-847.-Klock et. Al. Thrombosis Research 2020;191:145-147.-Al-Samkari H, Laef RS, Dzik WH et. Al. COVID-19 and coagulation: bleeding and thrombotic manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Blood. 2020;136(4):489-500.-https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc v/cases-updates/county-map.html;accessed 8/7/20.

6.
JCO Oncol Pract ; 18(1): e36-e46, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1304416

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: COVID-19 challenged medical practice and graduate medical education. Building on previous initiatives, we describe and reflect on the formative process and goals of the Hematology-Oncology Collaborative Videoconferencing Learning Initiative, a trainee-led multi-institutional virtual COVID-19 learning model. METHODS: Clinical fellows and faculty from 13 US training institutions developed consensus needs, goals, and objectives, recruited presenters, and generated a multidisciplinary COVID-19 curriculum. Weekly Zoom conferences consisted of two trainee-led instructional segments and a trainee-moderated faculty Q&A panel. Hematology-oncology training program faculty and trainees were the targeted audience. Leadership evaluations consisted of anonymized baseline and concluding mixed methods surveys. Presenter evaluations consisted of session debriefs and two structured focus groups. Conference evaluations consisted of attendance, demographics, and pre- or postmultiple-choice questions on topic learning objectives. RESULTS: In 6 weeks, the initiative produced five conferences: antivirals, anticoagulation, pulmonology, provider resilience, and resource scarcity ethics. The average attendance was 100 (range 57-185). Among attendees providing both pre- and postconference data, group-level knowledge appeared to increase: antiviral (n = 46) pre-/postcorrect 82.6%/97.8% and incorrect 10.9%/2.2%, anticoagulation (n = 60) pre-/postcorrect 75%/93.3% and incorrect 15%/6.7%, and pulmonary (n = 21) pre-/postcorrect 66.7%/95.2% and incorrect 33.3%/4.8%. Although pulmonary management comfort appeared to increase, comfort managing of antivirals and anticoagulation was unchanged. At the conclusion of the pilot, leadership trainees reported improved self-confidence organizing multi-institutional collaborations, median (interquartile range) 58.5 (50-64) compared with baseline 34 (26-39), but did not report improved confidence in other educational or leadership skills. CONCLUSION: During crisis, trainees built a multi-institutional virtual education platform for the purposes of sharing pandemic experiences and knowledge. Accomplishment of initiative goals was mixed. Lessons learned from the process and goals may improve future disaster educational initiatives.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Education, Distance , Hematology , Hematology/education , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Videoconferencing
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL