Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
1.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-313244

ABSTRACT

Background: Concerns of contracting the highly contagious disease COVID-19 have led to a reluctance in seeking medical attention, which may contribute to delayed hospital arrival among traumatic patients. The study objective was to describe differences in time from injury to arrival for patients with traumatic hip fractures admitted during the pandemic to pre-pandemic patients. Materials: and Methods: This retrospective cohort study at six level I trauma centers included patients with traumatic hip fractures. Patients with a non-fall mechanism and those who were transferred in were excluded. Patients admitted 3/16/2019-6/30/2019 were in the “pre-pandemic” group, patients were admitted 3/16/2020-6/30/2020 were in the “pandemic” group. The primary outcome was time from injury to arrival. Secondary outcomes were time from arrival to surgical intervention, hospital length of stay (HLOS), and mortality. Results: : There were 703 patients, 352 (50.1%) pre-pandemic and 351 (49.9%) during the pandemic. Overall, 66.5% were female and the median age was 82 years old. Patients were similar in age, race, gender, and injury severity score. The median time from injury to hospital arrival was statistically shorter for pre-pandemic patients when compared to pandemic patients, 79.5 (56, 194.5) minutes vs. 91 (59, 420), p=0.04. The time from arrival to surgical intervention (p=0.64) was statistically similar between groups. For both groups, the median HLOS was 5 days, p=0.45. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher during the pandemic, 1.1% vs 3.4%, p=0.04. Conclusions: : While time from injury to hospital arrival was statistically longer during the pandemic, the difference may not be clinically important. Time from arrival to surgical intervention remained similar, despite changes made to prevent COVID-19 transmission. Physicians should anticipate a slightly delayed arrival for hip fractures and provide prompt evaluation to reach definitive care in a timely manner.

2.
Infect Dis Ther ; 11(1): 595-605, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1514083

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Inhaled therapeutics may act to directly target and attenuate lung inflammation due to COVID-19. An inhalation form of a novel biologic drug, AMP5A, is being developed as an immunomodulatory agent to treat dysregulated immune responses and is being studied in hospitalized patients to treat respiratory complications due to COVID-19. METHODS: A randomized, controlled, phase I trial was conducted to evaluate hospitalized adults with respiratory distress secondary to COVID-19. Patients received the standard care (SOC) for COVID-19, including respiratory therapy, corticosteroids, and antiviral therapies such as remdesivir. Patients were randomized 1:1 to inhalation treatment with AMP5A as an adjunct to SOC or to SOC alone (control). AMP5A was administered via inhalation daily for 5 days via hand-held nebulizer, non-invasive ventilator, or mechanical ventilation. Safety and clinical efficacy endpoints were evaluated. RESULTS: Forty subjects were enrolled and randomized (n = 19 AMP5A, n = 21 control). Remdesivir was used in fewer AMP5A subjects (26%) than control (52%), and dexamethasone was administered for most subjects (84% AMP5A, 71% control). The study met its primary endpoint with no AMP5A treatment-related adverse events (AEs), and the incidence and severity of AEs were comparable between groups: 18 AEs for control (8 mild, 1 moderate, 9 severe) and 19 AEs for AMP5A (7 mild, 7 moderate, 5 severe). Notably, subjects treated with AMP5A had fewer deaths (5% vs. 24%), shorter hospital stay (8 days vs. 12 days), fewer ICU admissions (21% vs. 33%), and a greater proportion with improved clinical outcomes than control. CONCLUSION: The phase I clinical results indicate inhaled AMP5A is safe, is well tolerated, and could lead to fewer patients experiencing deterioration or death. Based on the treatment effect (i.e., reduced mortality), a phase II trial has been initiated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04606784.

3.
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open ; 6(1): e000655, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1183383

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in nationwide social distancing and shelter-in-place orders meant to curb transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The effect of the pandemic on injury patterns has not been well described in the USA. The study objective is to determine the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the distribution and determinants of traumatic injuries. METHODS: This retrospective multi-institutional cohort study included all hospital admissions for acute traumatic injury at six community level I trauma centers. Descriptive statistics were used to compare injury causes, diagnoses and procedures over two similar time periods: prepandemic (March 11-June 30, 2019) and pandemic (March 11-June 30, 2020). RESULTS: There were 7308 trauma patients included: 3862 (53%) prepandemic and 3446 (47%) during the pandemic. Cause of injury significantly differed by period (p<0.001). During the pandemic, there were decreases in motor vehicle crashes (from 17.0% to 14.0%, p<0.001), worksite injuries (from 5.2% to 4.1%, p=0.02), pedestrian injuries (from 3.0% to 2.2%, p=0.02) and recreational injuries (from 3.0% to 1.7%, p<0.001), while there were significant increases in assaults (6.9% to 8.5%, p=0.01), bicycle crashes (2.8% to 4.2%, p=0.001) and off-road vehicle injuries (1.8% to 3.0%, p<0.001). There was no change by study period in falls, motorcycle injuries, crush/strikes, firearm and self-inflicted injuries, and injuries associated with home-improvement projects. Injury diagnoses differed between time periods; during the pandemic, there were more injury diagnoses to the head (23.0% to 27.3%, p<0.001) and the knee/leg (11.7% to 14.9%, p<0.001). There were also increases in medical/surgical procedures (57.5% to 61.9%, p<0.001), administration of therapeutics/blood products (31.4% to 34.2%, p=0.01) and monitoring (11.0% to 12.9%, p=0.01). DISCUSSION: Causes of traumatic injury, diagnoses, and procedures were significantly changed by the pandemic. Trauma centers must adjust to meet the changing demands associated with altered injury patterns, as they were associated with increased use of hospital resources. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III (epidemiological).

4.
J Orthop Surg Res ; 16(1): 237, 2021 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1166922

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Concerns of contracting the highly contagious disease COVID-19 have led to a reluctance in seeking medical attention, which may contribute to delayed hospital arrival among traumatic patients. The study objective was to describe differences in time from injury to arrival for patients with traumatic hip fractures admitted during the pandemic to pre-pandemic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study at six level I trauma centers included patients with traumatic hip fractures. Patients with a non-fall mechanism and those who were transferred in were excluded. Patients admitted 16 March 2019-30 June 2019 were in the "pre-pandemic" group, patients were admitted 16 March 2020-30 June 2020 were in the "pandemic" group. The primary outcome was time from injury to arrival. Secondary outcomes were time from arrival to surgical intervention, hospital length of stay (HLOS), and mortality. RESULTS: There were 703 patients, 352 (50.1%) pre-pandemic and 351 (49.9%) during the pandemic. Overall, 66.5% were female and the median age was 82 years old. Patients were similar in age, race, gender, and injury severity score. The median time from injury to hospital arrival was statistically shorter for pre-pandemic patients when compared to pandemic patients, 79.5 (56, 194.5) min vs. 91 (59, 420), p = 0.04. The time from arrival to surgical intervention (p = 0.64) was statistically similar between groups. For both groups, the median HLOS was 5 days, p = 0.45. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher during the pandemic, 1.1% vs 3.4%, p = 0.04. CONCLUSIONS: While time from injury to hospital arrival was statistically longer during the pandemic, the difference may not be clinically important. Time from arrival to surgical intervention remained similar, despite changes made to prevent COVID-19 transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Hip Fractures/epidemiology , Patient Admission , Time-to-Treatment , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cohort Studies , Female , Hip Fractures/surgery , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Long-Term Care , Male , Pandemics , Patient Discharge , Retrospective Studies , Skilled Nursing Facilities , Trauma Centers , United States/epidemiology
5.
J Neurointerv Surg ; 14(3): 268-273, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1148172

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent Society of Neurointerventional Surgery (SNIS) recommendations affected hospital stroke metrics. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared stroke patients admitted to a comprehensive stroke center during the COVID-19 pandemic April 1 2020 to June 30 2020 (COVID-19) to patients admitted April 1 2019 to June 30 2019. We examined stroke admission volume and acute stroke treatment use. RESULTS: There were 637 stroke admissions, 52% in 2019 and 48% during COVID-19, with similar median admissions per day (4 vs 3, P=0.21). The proportion of admissions by stroke type was comparable (ischemic, P=0.69; hemorrhagic, P=0.39; transient ischemic stroke, P=0.10). Acute stroke treatment was similar in 2019 to COVID-19: tPA prior to arrival (18% vs, 18%, P=0.89), tPA treatment on arrival (6% vs 7%, P=0.85), and endovascular therapy (endovascular therapy (ET), 22% vs 25%, P=0.54). The door to needle time was also similar, P=0.12, however, the median time from arrival to groin puncture was significantly longer during COVID-19 (38 vs 43 min, P=0.002). A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving ET were intubated during COVID-19 due to SNIS guideline implementation (45% vs 96%, P<0.0001). There were no differences by study period in discharge mRS, P=0.84 or TICI score, P=0.26. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly affect stroke admission volume or acute stroke treatment utilization. Outcomes were not affected by implementing SNIS guidelines. Although there was a statistical increase in time to groin puncture for ET, it was not clinically meaningful. These results suggest hospitals managing patients efficiently can implement practices in response to COVID-19 without impacting outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Stroke , Benchmarking , Humans , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Stroke/drug therapy , Stroke/therapy , Thrombectomy , Thrombolytic Therapy/methods , Time-to-Treatment , Treatment Outcome
6.
Inj Epidemiol ; 8(1): 24, 2021 Mar 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1147005

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since the national stay-at-home order for COVID-19 was implemented, clinicians and public health authorities worldwide have expressed growing concern about the potential repercussions of drug and alcohol use due to social restrictions. We explored the impact of the national stay-at-home orders on alcohol or drug use and screenings among trauma admissions. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study at six Level I trauma centers across four states. Patients admitted during the period after the onset of the COVID-19 restrictions (defined as March 16, 2020-May 31, 2020) were compared with those admitted during the same time period in 2019. We compared 1) rate of urine drug screens and blood alcohol screens; 2) rate of positivity for drugs or alcohol (blood alcohol concentration ≥ 10 mg/dL); 3) characteristics of patients who were positive for drug or alcohol, by period using chi-squared tests or Fisher's exact tests, as appropriate. Two-tailed tests with an alpha of p < 0.05 was used on all tests. RESULTS: There were 4762 trauma admissions across the study period; 2602 (55%) in 2019 and 2160 (45%) in 2020. From 2019 to 2020, there were statistically significant increases in alcohol screens (34% vs. 37%, p = 0.03) and drug screens (21% vs. 26%, p < 0.001). Overall, the rate of alcohol positive patients significantly increased from 2019 to 2020 (32% vs. 39%, p = 0.007), while the rate of drug positive patients was unchanged (57% vs. 52%, p = 0.13). Of the 1025 (22%) patients who were positive for alcohol or drugs, there were significant increases in a history of alcoholism (41% vs. 26%, p < 0.001), and substance abuse (11% vs. 23%, p < 0.001) in the 2020 period. No other statistically significant differences were identified among alcohol or drug positive patients during COVID-19 compared to the same period in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Our first wave of COVID-19 data suggests that trauma centers were admitting significantly more patients who were alcohol positive, as well those with substance use disorders, potentially due to the impact of social restrictions and guidelines. Further longitudinal research is warranted to assess the alcohol and drug positive rates of trauma patients over the COVID-19 pandemic.

7.
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open ; 6(1): e000645, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1105538

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have reported changes in trauma volumes resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing orders (SDOs) implemented by federal and state governments. However, literature is lacking on demographic, injury and outcome patterns. METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional study included patients aged ≥18 years at six US level 1 trauma centers. Patients not discharged by the date of data acquisition were excluded. Demographic, injury and outcome variables were assessed across four time periods: period 1 (January 1, 2019-December 31, 2019); period 1b (March 16, 2019-June 30, 2019); period 2 (January 1, 2020-March 15, 2020); and period 3 (March 16, 2020-June 30, 2020). Patients admitted in period 3 were compared with patients presenting during all other periods. Categorical data were compared with χ2 and Fisher's exact tests, and continuous data were assessed with Student's t-tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. RESULTS: We identified 18 567 patients: 12 797 patients in period 1 (including 3707 in period 1b), 2488 in period 2 and 3282 in period 3. Compared with period 1, period 3 had a statistically significant decrease in mean patient volume, increase in portion of penetrating injuries, increase in higher levels of trauma activation, change in emergency department discharge disposition locations, increase in in-hospital mortality and a shorter hospital length of stay. Comparison between period 1b and period 3 demonstrated a decrease in mean patient volume, increase in penetrating injuries, increase in high acuity trauma activations and increase in in-hospital mortality rate. From period 2 to period 3, the penetrating injuries rose from 6.7% to 9.4% (p=0.004), injury severity scale ≥25 increased from 5.9% to 7.7% (p=0.002), full trauma team activations increased from 13.7% to 16.4% (p<0.001), interhospital transfers decreased from 36.7% to 31.6% (p<0.001) and the in-hospital mortality rate increased from 3.3% to 4.2% (p=0.003). DISCUSSION: Beyond altering social interactions among people, the federal SDO is associated with changes in trauma volumes, demographics and injury patterns among patients seeking care at six level 1 hospitals during the pandemic. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, prognostic and epidemiological.

8.
Am J Emerg Med ; 44: 33-37, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1062209

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Longer prehospital times were associated with increased odds for survival in trauma patients. The purpose of this study was to determine how the COVID-19 pandemic affected emergency medical services (EMS) prehospital times for trauma patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared trauma patients transported via EMS to six US level I trauma centers admitted 1/1/19-12/31/19 (2019) and 3/16/20-6/30/20 (COVID-19). Outcomes included: total EMS pre-hospital time (dispatch to hospital arrival), injury to dispatch time, response time (dispatch to scene arrival), on-scene time (scene arrival to scene departure), and transportation time (scene departure to hospital arrival). Fisher's exact, chi-squared, or Kruskal-Wallis tests were used, alpha = 0.05. All times are presented as median (IQR) minutes. RESULTS: There were 9400 trauma patients transported by EMS: 79% in 2019 and 21% during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients were similar in demographics and transportation mode. Emergency room deaths were also similar between 2019 and COVID-19 [0.6% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.13].There were no differences between 2019 and during COVID-19 for total EMS prehospital time [44 (33, 63) vs. 43 (33, 62), p = 0.12], time from injury to dispatch [16 (6, 55) vs. 16 (7, 77), p = 0.41], response time [7 (5, 12) for both groups, p = 0.27], or on-scene time [16 (12-22) vs. 17 (12,22), p = 0.31]. Compared to 2019, transportation time was significantly shorter during COVID-19 [18 (13, 28) vs. 17 (12, 26), p = 0.01]. CONCLUSION: The median transportation time for trauma patients was marginally significantly shorter during COVID-19; otherwise, EMS prehospital times were not significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergency Medical Services , Hospital Mortality , Transportation of Patients , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Time Factors , Trauma Centers , United States/epidemiology
9.
J Healthc Qual ; 43(1): 3-12, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1039763

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: As the COVID-19 pandemic spread, patient care guidelines were published and elective surgeries postponed. However, trauma admissions are not scheduled and cannot be postponed. There is a paucity of information available on continuing trauma care during the pandemic. The study purpose was to describe multicenter trauma care process changes made during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This descriptive survey summarized the response to the COVID-19 pandemic at six Level I trauma centers. The survey was completed in 05/2020. Questions were asked about personal protective equipment, ventilators, intensive care unit (ICU) beds, and negative pressure rooms. Data were summarized as proportions. RESULTS: The survey took an average of 5 days. Sixty-seven percent reused N-95 respirators; 50% sanitized them with 25% using ultraviolet light. One hospital (17%) had regional resources impacted. Thirty-three percent created ventilator allocation protocols. Most hospitals (83%) designated more beds to the ICU; 50% of hospitals designated an ICU for COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients were isolated in negative pressure rooms at all hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Level I trauma centers created processes to provide optimal trauma patient care and still protect providers. Other centers can use the processes described to continue care of trauma patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Critical Care/standards , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Intensive Care Units/standards , Trauma Centers/statistics & numerical data , Trauma Centers/standards , Humans , Pandemics , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL