Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 15 de 15
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 17(3): e0263688, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1896443

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 surge in Taiwan, the Far East Memorial Hospital established a system including a centralized quarantine unit and triage admission protocol to facilitate acute care surgical inpatient services, prevent nosocomial COVID-19 infection and maintain the efficiency and quality of health care service during the pandemics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing acute care surgery. The triage admission protocol was based on rapid antigen tests, Liat® PCR and RT-PCT tests. Type of surgical procedure, patient characteristics, and efficacy indices of the centralized quarantine unit and emergency department (ED) were collected and analyzed before (Phase I: May 11 to July 2, 2021) and after (Phase II: July 3 to July 31, 2021) the system started. RESULTS: A total of 287 patients (105 in Phase I and 182 in Phase II) were enrolled. Nosocomial COVID-19 infection occur in 27 patients in phase I but zero in phase II. More patients received traumatological, orthopedic, and neurologic surgeries in phase II than in phase I. The patients' surgical risk classification, median total hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and the number of patients requiring postoperative ICU care were similar in both groups. The duration of ED stay and waiting time for acute care surgery were longer in Phase II (397 vs. 532 minutes, p < 0.0001). The duration of ED stay was positively correlated with the number of surgical patients visiting the ED (median = 66 patients, Spearman's ρ = 0.207) and the occupancy ratio in the centralized quarantine unit on that day (median = 90.63%, Spearman's ρ = 0.191). CONCLUSIONS: The triage admission protocol provided resilient quarantine needs and sustainable acute care surgical services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The efficiency was related to the number of medical staff dedicated to the centralized quarantine unit and number of surgical patients visited in ED.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Critical Care/methods , Triage/methods , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Female , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient Admission/standards , Quarantine , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Surgical Procedures, Operative , Taiwan/epidemiology , Tertiary Care Centers , Time-to-Treatment , Young Adult
2.
PLoS One ; 15(10): e0241149, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1388891

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Early reports described decreased admissions for acute cardiovascular events during the SarsCoV-2 pandemic. We aimed to explore whether the lockdown enforced during the SARSCoV-2 pandemic in Israel impacted the characteristics of presentation, reperfusion times, and early outcomes of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. METHODS: A multicenter prospective cohort comprising all STEMI patients treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention admitted to four high-volume cardiac centers in Israel during lockdown (20/3/2020-30/4/2020). STEMI patients treated during the same period in 2019 served as controls. RESULTS: The study comprised 243 patients, 107 during the lockdown period of 2020 and 136 during the same period in 2019, with no difference in demographics and clinical characteristics. Patients admitted in 2020 had higher admission and peak troponin levels, had a 2.4 fold greater likelihood of Door-to-balloon times> 90 min (95%CI: 1.2-4.9, p = 0.01) and 3.3 fold greater likelihood of pain-to-balloon times> 12 hours (OR 3.3, 95%CI: 1.3-8.1, p<0.01). They experienced higher rates hemodynamic instability (25.2% vs 14.7%, p = 0.04), longer hospital stay (median, IQR [4, 3-6 Vs 5, 4-6, p = 0.03]), and fewer early (<72 hours) discharge (12.4% Vs 32.4%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The lockdown imposed during the SARSCoV-2 pandemic was associated with a significant lag in the time to reperfusion of STEMI patients. Measures to improves this metric should be implemented during future lockdowns.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/surgery , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , Female , Humans , Israel/epidemiology , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Admission/standards , Patient Discharge/statistics & numerical data , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/statistics & numerical data , Prospective Studies , Registries/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/diagnosis , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
3.
Ann R Coll Surg Engl ; 103(7): 496-498, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1288680

ABSTRACT

As the COVID-19 pandemic progressed across the UK and Northern Ireland in March 2020, our otolaryngology department began to make preparations and changes in practice to accommodate for potentially large numbers of patients with COVID-19 related respiratory illness in the hospital. We retrospectively reviewed the number of non-elective admissions to our department between the months of January and May in 2019 and 2020. A significant reduction in admissions of up to 94% during the months of the pandemic was observed. Our practice shifted to manage patients with epistaxis and peritonsillar abscess on an outpatient basis, and while prospectively collecting data on this, we did not observe any significant adverse events. We view this as a positive learning point and change in our practice as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Surgical Procedures/trends , COVID-19/prevention & control , Otorhinolaryngologic Surgical Procedures/trends , Patient Admission/trends , Surgery Department, Hospital/trends , Ambulatory Surgical Procedures/standards , Ambulatory Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Epistaxis/surgery , Humans , Infection Control/standards , Northern Ireland/epidemiology , Otorhinolaryngologic Surgical Procedures/standards , Otorhinolaryngologic Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Admission/standards , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Peritonsillar Abscess/surgery , Retrospective Studies , Surgery Department, Hospital/standards , Surgery Department, Hospital/statistics & numerical data
4.
Ann R Coll Surg Engl ; 103(7): 478-480, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1288679

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on perioperative outcomes of surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic to inform continued operating into the winter period. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the rate of 30-day COVID-19 transmission and mortality of all surgical patients in the three hospitals in our trust in the East of England during the first lockdown in March 2020. All patients who underwent a swab were swabbed on or 24 hours prior to admission. RESULTS: There were 4,254 patients and an overall 30-day mortality of 0.99%. The excess surgical mortality in our region was 0.29%. There were 39 patients who were COVID-19 positive within 30 days of admission, 12 of whom died. All 12 were emergency admissions with a length of stay longer than 24 hours. There were three deaths among those who underwent day case surgery, one of whom was COVID-19 negative, and the other two were not swabbed but not suspected to have COVID-19. There were two COVID-19 positive elective cases and none in day case elective or emergency surgery. There were no COVID-19 positive deaths in elective or day case surgery. CONCLUSIONS: There was a low rate of COVID-19 transmission and mortality in elective and day case operations. Our data have allowed us to guide patients in the consent process and provided the evidence base to restart elective and day case operating with precautions and regular review. A number of regions will be similarly affected and should perform a review of their data for the winter period and beyond.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Surgical Procedures/mortality , COVID-19/epidemiology , Elective Surgical Procedures/mortality , Emergency Treatment/mortality , Ambulatory Surgical Procedures/standards , Ambulatory Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Testing/standards , COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , Elective Surgical Procedures/standards , Elective Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Service, Hospital/standards , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Treatment/standards , Emergency Treatment/statistics & numerical data , England/epidemiology , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Incidence , Infection Control/standards , Infection Control/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Patient Admission/standards , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , State Medicine/standards , State Medicine/statistics & numerical data
5.
Psychiatry Res ; 298: 113833, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1096211

ABSTRACT

Some psychiatric hospitals have instituted mandatory COVID-19 testing for all patients referred for admission. Others have permitted patients to decline testing. Little is known about the rate of COVID-19 infection in acute psychiatric inpatients. Characterizing the proportion of infected patients who have an asymptomatic presentation will help inform policy regarding universal mandatory versus symptom-based or opt-out testing protocols. We determined the COVID-19 infection rate and frequency of asymptomatic presentation in 683 consecutively admitted patients during the surge in the New York City region between April 3rd, 2020 and June 8th, 2020. Among these psychiatric inpatients, there was a 9.8 % overall rate of COVID-19 infection. Of the COVID-19 infected patients, approximately 76.1 % (51/67) either had no COVID-19 symptoms or could not offer reliable history of symptoms at the time of admission. Had they not been identified by testing and triaged to a COVID-19 positive unit, they could have infected others, leading to institutional outbreak. These findings provide justification for psychiatric facilities to maintain universal mandatory testing policies, at least until community infection rates fall and remain at very low levels.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/standards , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Hospitals, Psychiatric/standards , Mental Disorders/therapy , Patient Admission/standards , Adult , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Male , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Middle Aged , New York City/epidemiology , Referral and Consultation , Triage/standards
6.
Diabetes Metab Syndr ; 14(6): 1637-1640, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1059520

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Currently there are limited tools available for triage of patients with COVID -19. We propose a new ABCD scoring system for patients who have been tested positive for COVID-19. METHODS: The ABCD score is for patients who have been tested positive for COVID-19 and admitted in a hospital. This score includes age of the patient, blood tests included leukopenia, lymphocytopenia, CRP level, LDH level,D-Dimer, Chest radiograph and CT Scan, Comorbidities and Dyspnea. RESULTS: The triage score had letters from alphabets which included A, B, C, D. The score was developed using these variables which outputs a value from 0 to 1. We had used the code according to traffic signal system; green(mild), yellow moderate) and red(severe). The suggestions for mild (green)category: symptomatic treatment in ward, in moderate (yellow) category: active treatment, semi critical care and oxygen supplementation, in severe (red) category: critical care and intensive care. CONCLUSIONS: This study is, to our knowledge, is the first scoring tool that has been prepared by Indian health care processional's and used alphabets A, B,C,D as variables for evaluation of admitted patients with COVID-19. This triage tool will be helpful in better management of patients with COVID-19. This score component includes clinical and radiopathological findings.A multi-centre study is required to validate all available scoring systems.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Dyspnea/blood , Dyspnea/diagnostic imaging , Severity of Illness Index , Triage/methods , Age Factors , Hematologic Tests/methods , Hematologic Tests/standards , Humans , Patient Admission/standards , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/standards , Triage/standards
7.
Urology ; 147: 43-49, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-884792

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To quantify and characterize the burden of urological patients admitted to emergency department (ED) in Lombardy during Italian COVID-19 outbreak, comparing it to a reference population from 2019. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed all consecutive admissions to ED from 1 January to 9 April in both 2019 and 2020. According to the ED discharge ICD-9-CM code, patients were grouped in urological and respiratory patients. We evaluated the type of access (self-presented/ambulance), discharge priority code, ED discharge (hospitalization, home), need for urological consultation or urgent surgery. RESULTS: The number of urological diagnoses in ED was inversely associated to COVID-19 diagnoses (95% confidence interval -0.41/-0.19; Beta = -0.8; P < .0001). The average access per day was significantly lower after 10 March 2020 (1.5 ± 1.1 vs 6.5 ± 2.6; P < .0001), compared to reference period. From 11 March 2020, the inappropriate admissions to ED were reduced (10/45 vs 96/195; P = .001). Consequently, the patients admitted were generally more demanding, requiring a higher rate of urgent surgeries (4/45 vs 4/195; P = .02). This reflected in an increase of the hospitalization rate from 12.7% to 17.8% (Beta = 0.88; P < .0001) during 2020. CONCLUSION: Urological admissions to ED during lockdown differed from the same period of 2019 both qualitatively and quantitatively. The spectrum of patients seems to be relatively more critical, often requiring an urgent management. These patients may represent a challenge due to the difficult circumstances caused by the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Emergency Treatment/trends , Pandemics/prevention & control , Urologic Diseases/therapy , Academic Medical Centers/standards , Academic Medical Centers/statistics & numerical data , Academic Medical Centers/trends , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Communicable Disease Control/trends , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Service, Hospital/trends , Emergency Treatment/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Admission/standards , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Patient Admission/trends , Patient Discharge/standards , Patient Discharge/statistics & numerical data , Patient Discharge/trends , Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data , Referral and Consultation/trends , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Tertiary Care Centers/standards , Tertiary Care Centers/statistics & numerical data , Tertiary Care Centers/trends , Urologic Diseases/diagnosis , Urologic Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Urologic Surgical Procedures/trends
8.
Emerg Med J ; 37(12): 778-780, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-868343

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that patients attending the emergency department with other pathologies may not have received optimal medical care due to the lockdown measures in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients presenting with cardiovascular emergencies to four tertiary regional emergency departments in western India during the government implementation of complete lockdown. RESULTS: 25.0% of patients during the lockdown period and 17.4% of patients during the pre-lockdown period presented outside the window period (presentation after 12 hours of symptom onset) compared with only 6% during the pre-COVID period. In the pre-COVID period, 46.9% of patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction underwent emergent catheterisation, while in the pre-lockdown and lockdown periods, these values were 26.1% and 18.8%, respectively. The proportion of patients treated with intravenous thrombolytic therapy increased from 18.4% in the pre-COVID period to 32.3% in the post-lockdown period. Inhospital mortality for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) increased from 2.69% in the pre-COVID period to 7.27% in the post-lockdown period. There was also a significant decline in emergency admissions for non-ACS conditions, such as acute decompensated heart failure and high degree or complete atrioventricular block. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to delays in patients seeking care for cardiac problems and also affected the use of optimum therapy in our institutions.


Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Diseases/therapy , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Admission/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Aged , Angioplasty/standards , Angioplasty/statistics & numerical data , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , Cardiovascular Diseases/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Emergencies , Emergency Service, Hospital/standards , Emergency Treatment/standards , Emergency Treatment/statistics & numerical data , Female , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Health Services Accessibility/standards , Humans , India/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Thrombectomy/standards , Thrombectomy/statistics & numerical data
9.
Med Intensiva (Engl Ed) ; 44(6): 363-370, 2020.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-706806

ABSTRACT

In January 2020, the Chinese authorities identified a new virus of the Coronaviridae family as the cause of several cases of pneumonia of unknown aetiology. The outbreak was initially confined to Wuhan City, but then spread outside Chinese borders. On 31 January 2020, the first case was declared in Spain. On 11 March 2020, The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus outbreak a pandemic. On 16 March 2020, there were 139 countries affected. In this situation, the Scientific Societies SEMICYUC and SEEIUC have decided to draw up this Contingency Plan to guide the response of the Intensive Care Services. The objectives of this plan are to estimate the magnitude of the problem and identify the necessary human and material resources. This is to provide the Spanish Intensive Medicine Services with a tool to programme optimal response strategies.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Care/organization & administration , Needs Assessment/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Critical Care/standards , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Health Resources/organization & administration , Humans , Information Dissemination/methods , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Needs Assessment/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Admission/standards , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Personnel Staffing and Scheduling , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Resource Allocation/methods , Resource Allocation/organization & administration , SARS-CoV-2 , Software , Spain/epidemiology , Staff Development/organization & administration
10.
Oncologist ; 25(9): e1339-e1345, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-706227

ABSTRACT

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer in women in Spain. During the COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, patients with BC still require timely treatment and follow-up; however, hospitals are overwhelmed with infected patients and, if exposed, patients with BC are at higher risk for infection and serious complications if infected. Thus, health care providers need to evaluate each BC treatment and in-hospital visit to minimize pandemic-associated risks while maintaining adequate treatment efficacy. Here we present a set of guidelines regarding available options for BC patient management and treatment by BC subtype in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Owing to the lack of evidence about COVID-19 infection, these recommendations are mainly based on expert opinion, medical organizations' and societies' recommendations, and some published evidence. We consider this a useful tool to facilitate medical decision making in this health crisis situation we are facing. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This work presents a set of guidelines regarding available options for breast cancer (BC) patient management and treatment by BC subtype in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Owing to the suddenness of this health crisis, specialists have to make decisions with little evidence at hand. Thus, these expert guidelines may be a useful tool to facilitate medical decision making in the context of a worldwide pandemic with no resources to spare.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Medical Oncology/standards , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , Clinical Decision-Making , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Female , Humans , Medical Oncology/organization & administration , Patient Admission/standards , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Spain/epidemiology
11.
Surgery ; 168(4): 572-577, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-645321

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Resumption of elective surgery during the current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic crisis has been debated widely and largely discouraged. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to assess the feasibility of resuming elective operations during the current and possible future peaks of this coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: We collected data during the peak of the current pandemic in the United Kingdom on adult patients who underwent elective surgery in a "COVID-19-free" hospital from April 8 to May 29, 2020. The study included patients from various surgical specialties. Nonelective and pediatric cases were excluded. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were the rate of coronavirus disease 2019 infections, new onset of pulmonary symptoms after hospitalization, and requirement for admission to the intensive care unit. RESULTS: A total of 309 consecutive adult patients were included in this study. No patients died nor required intensive care unit admission. Operations graded "Intermediate" were the most performed procedure representing 91% of the total number. One patient was diagnosed with a coronavirus disease 2019 infection after being transferred to the nearest local emergency hospital for management of postoperative pain secondary to common bile duct stone and was successfully treated conservatively on the ward. No patient developed pulmonary complications. Three patients were admitted for greater than 23 hours. Twenty-seven patients (8.7%) developed complications. Complications graded as 2 and 3 according to the Clavien-Dindo classification occurred in 14 and 2 patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: This prospective study shows that, despite the severity and high transmissibility of novel coronavirus 2 disease, COVID-19-free hospitals can represent a safe setting to resume many types of elective surgery during the peak of a pandemic.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Elective Surgical Procedures/standards , Infection Control/standards , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Admission/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Adult , Aged , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Feasibility Studies , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Patient Selection , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom/epidemiology
12.
Transpl Infect Dis ; 22(5): e13371, 2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-640837

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Management of COVID-19 in kidney transplant recipients should include treatment of the infection, regulation of immunosuppression, and supportive therapy. However, there is no consensus on this issue yet. This study aimed to our experiences with kidney transplant recipients diagnosed with COVID-19. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Kidney transplant recipients diagnosed with COVID-19 from five major transplant centers in Istanbul, Turkey, were included in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were classified as having moderate or severe pneumonia for the analysis. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoints were acute kidney injury, the average length of hospital stay, admission to intensive care, and mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: Forty patients were reviewed retrospectively over a follow-up period of 32 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19. Cough, fever, and dyspnea were the most frequent symptoms in all patients. The frequency of previous induction and rejection therapy was significantly higher in the group with severe pneumonia compared to the moderate pneumonia group. None of the patients using cyclosporine A developed severe pneumonia. Five patients died during follow-up in the intensive care unit. None of the patients developed graft loss during follow-up. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 has been seen to more commonly cause moderate or severe pneumonia in kidney transplant recipients. Immunosuppression should be carefully reduced in these patients. Induction therapy with lymphocyte-depleting agents should be carefully avoided in kidney transplant recipients during the pandemic period.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Immunosuppression Therapy/standards , Immunosuppressive Agents/adverse effects , Kidney Transplantation/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Critical Care/methods , Critical Care/standards , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Administration Schedule , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Drug Therapy, Combination/standards , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Graft Rejection/immunology , Graft Rejection/prevention & control , Humans , Immunosuppression Therapy/adverse effects , Immunosuppression Therapy/methods , Immunosuppressive Agents/administration & dosage , Intensive Care Units/standards , Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Admission/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Respiration, Artificial/standards , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Severity of Illness Index , Transplant Recipients , Treatment Outcome , Turkey
13.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg ; 89(4): 698-702, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-630310

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic presents a threat to health care systems worldwide. Trauma centers may be uniquely impacted, given the need for rapid invasive interventions in severely injured and the growing incidence of community infection. We discuss the impact that SARS-CoV-2 has had in our trauma center and our steps to limit the potential exposures. METHODS: We performed a retrospective evaluation of the trauma service, from March 16 to 30, following the appearance of SARS-CoV-2 in our state. We recorded the daily number of trauma patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the presence of clinical symptoms or radiological signs of COVID-19, and the results of verbal symptom screen (for new admissions). The number of trauma activations, admissions, and census, as well as staff exposures and infections, was recorded daily. RESULTS: Over the 14-day evaluation period, we tested 85 trauma patients for SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 21 (25%) were found to be positive. Sixty percent of the patients in the trauma/burn intensive care unit were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Positive verbal screen results, presence of ground glass opacities on admission chest CT, and presence of clinical symptoms were not significantly different in patients with or without SARS-CoV-2 infection (p > 0.05). Many infected patients were without clinical symptoms (9/21, 43%) or radiological signs on admission (18/21, 86%) of COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Forty-five percent of trauma patients are asymptomatic at the time of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Respiratory symptoms, as well as verbal screening (recent fevers, shortness of breath, cough, international travel, and close contact with known SARS-CoV-2 carriers), are inaccurate in the trauma population. These findings demonstrate the need for comprehensive rapid testing of all trauma patients upon presentation to the trauma bay. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic tests or criteria, level III, Therapeutic/care management, level IV.


Subject(s)
Asymptomatic Infections/epidemiology , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Trauma Centers/standards , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/transmission , Cross Infection/virology , Humans , Infection Control/standards , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Admission/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Trauma Centers/organization & administration
14.
Eur J Cancer ; 135: 159-169, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-614144

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: On February 23rd, the 1st case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was diagnosed at the University Hospital Trust of Verona, Italy. On March 13th, the Oncology Section was converted into a 22-inpatient bed coronavirus disease (COVID) Unit, and we reshaped our organisation to face the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, while maintaining oncological activities. METHODS: We tracked down (i) volumes of oncological activities (January 1st - March 31st, 2020 versus the same period of 2019), (ii) patients' and caregivers' perception and (iii) SARS-CoV-2 infection rate in oncology health professionals and SARS-CoV-2 infection-related hospital admissions of "active"' oncological patients. RESULTS: As compared with the same trimester in 2019, the overall reduction in total numbers of inpatient admissions, chemotherapy administrations and specialist visits in January-March 2020 was 8%, 6% and 3%, respectively; based on the weekly average of daily accesses, reduction in some of the oncological activities became statistically significant from week 11. The overall acceptance of adopted measures, as measured by targeted questionnaires administered to a sample of 241 outpatients, was high (>70%). Overall, 8 of 85 oncology health professionals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection (all but one employed in the COVID Unit, no hospital admissions and no treatment required); among 471 patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 7 had an "active"' oncological disease (2 died of infection-related complications). CONCLUSIONS: A slight, but statistically significant reduction in oncology activity was registered during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic peak in Verona, Italy. Organisational and protective measures adopted appear to have contributed to keep infections in both oncological patients and health professionals to a minimum.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Infection Control/organization & administration , Medical Oncology/organization & administration , Neoplasms/therapy , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Female , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Infection Control/standards , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Mass Screening/standards , Medical Oncology/methods , Neoplasms/psychology , Patient Admission/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Psychosocial Support Systems , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Eur J Radiol ; 129: 109092, 2020 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-378195

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and the imaging features of routine admission chest X-ray in patients suspected for novel Coronavirus 2019 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. METHOD: We retrospectively evaluated clinical and X-ray features in all patients referred to the emergency department for suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 1st and March 13th. A single radiologist with more than 15 years of experience in chest-imaging evaluated the presence and extent of alveolar opacities, reticulations, and/or pleural effusion. The percentage of lung involvement (range <25 % to 75-100 %) was also calculated. We stratified patients in groups according to the time interval between symptoms onset and X-ray imaging (≤ 5 and > 5 days) and according to age (≤ 50 and > 50 years old). RESULTS: A total of 518 patients were enrolled. Overall 314 patients had negative and 204 had positive RT-PCR results. Lung lesions in patients with SARS-Cov2 pneumonia primarily manifested as alveolar and interstitial opacities and were mainly bilateral (60.8 %). Lung abnormalities were more frequent and more severe by symptom duration and by increasing age. The sensitivity and specificity of chest X-ray at admission in the overall cohort were 57 % (95 % CI = 47-67) and 89 % (83-94), respectively. Sensitivity was higher for patients with symptom onset > 5 days compared to ≤ 5 days (76 % [62-87] vs 37 % [24-52]) and in patients > 50 years old compared to ≤ 50 years (59 % [48-69] vs 47 % [23-72]), at the expense of a slightly lower specificity (68 % [45-86] and 82 % [73-89], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Overall chest X-ray sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia was 57 %. Sensitivity was higher when symptoms had started more than 5 days before, at the expense of lesser specificity, while slightly higher in older patients in comparison to younger ones.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Coronavirus Infections/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/methods , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/standards , Dyspnea/diagnostic imaging , Dyspnea/virology , Emergency Service, Hospital , Female , Fever/diagnostic imaging , Fever/virology , Hospitalization , Humans , Italy , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient Admission/standards , Pleural Effusion/diagnostic imaging , Pleural Effusion/virology , Point-of-Care Testing/standards , Pulmonary Alveoli/diagnostic imaging , Radiography , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Time-to-Treatment , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , X-Rays , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL