Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 15 de 15
Filter
2.
Turk J Gastroenterol ; 32(10): 879-887, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1524376

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus-2019 disease (COVID-19) pandemic has markedly restricted endoscopic and clinical activities in gastroenterology (GI), with a negative impact on trainee education. We aimed to inve stigate how and to what extent has GI trainees in Turkey are affected by the current pandemic in terms of general, psychological, and educational status. METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey sent electronically to 103 official GI trainees in Turkey from 37 centers. The 32-item survey included questions to capture demographic (5-questions), endoscopic (7-questions), personal protective equipment (PPE) (3-questions), psychological and general well-being (11-questions), and educational (6-questions) data. RESULTS: Ninety-six (93.2%) trainees completed the survey, of which 56.3% (n = 54) reported a decrease in independently performed endoscopic procedures. Due to pandemic, 91.7% of standard diagnostic endoscopic procedures, 57.2% of standard therapeutic procedures, and 67.7% of advanced endoscopic procedures were decreased. Out of 96 respondents, we detected signs of anxiety in 88.5%, exposure concern in 92.7%, concerns for prolongation of training period in 49%, loss of concentration and interest in 47.9%, and burnout syndrome in 63.5%. Female gender (odds-ratio: 3.856, 95% confidence interval: 1.221-12.174, P = .021) was the only independently associated factor with pandemic-related anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 pandemic has led to high amounts of anxiety and non-negligible rates of burnout syndrome among GI trainees, with a significant reduction in endoscopic activities. More effort and novel strategies are required to deliver sufficient competence and general-psychological well-being to GI trainees.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Endoscopy/statistics & numerical data , Fellowships and Scholarships , Gastroenterology/education , Pandemics , Adult , Education, Medical, Graduate , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Turkey/epidemiology
4.
J Laryngol Otol ; 135(10): 897-903, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1368885

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare treatment outcomes in patients with laryngeal and tracheal stenosis treated during and prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic period. METHOD: Patients treated for laryngotracheal lesions with impending airway compromise during the active pandemic period were matched with those treated for similar lesions in the preceding years in a monocentric tertiary hospital setting. RESULTS: During the pandemic period of 55 days, 31 patients underwent 47 procedures. Seven patients (2 children, 5 adults) had open airway surgery, and one had an operation-specific complication. Twenty-four patients (10 children, 14 adults) underwent 40 endoscopic interventions without any complications. Operation specific results during and prior to the pandemic were comparable. CONCLUSION: The management strategy in patients with laryngotracheal lesions and impending airway compromise should not be altered during periods of risk from coronavirus disease 2019. Avoiding a tracheostomy by performing primary corrective surgery or proceeding with a definitive decannulation would be beneficial in these patients to reduce the risk of contagion.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , Endoscopy/statistics & numerical data , Laryngostenosis/surgery , Tracheal Stenosis/surgery , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Catheterization/adverse effects , Child, Preschool , Clinical Decision-Making/ethics , Endoscopy/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Male , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Tertiary Care Centers/statistics & numerical data , Tracheostomy/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome
6.
Endoscopy ; 53(2): 162-165, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-780072

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy, only fast-track endoscopic procedures have been performed; nevertheless, a significant drop in their number has been reported. We evaluated whether the pandemic has impacted the appropriateness and diagnostic yield of fast-track endoscopic procedures compared with those performed in 2019. METHODS: This retrospective study involved endoscopy services in Northern Italy. We compared data regarding endoscopic procedures performed in March and April 2020 with those performed during the same period in 2019. RESULTS: In 2020, there was a 53.6 % reduction in the number of fast-track endoscopic procedures compared with 2019. Patients undergoing endoscopy in 2020 were younger than in 2019. Both appropriate referral and diagnostic yield increased in 2020 for both upper and lower endoscopy. A higher rate of cancer was diagnosed in 2020 by upper endoscopy (3.6 % vs. 6.6 %; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The high level of inappropriate endoscopy referrals registered in 2019 significantly improved during the COVID-19 outbreak of 2020, with an increase in the diagnostic yield.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Endoscopy/statistics & numerical data , Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Pandemics , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies
8.
Am J Gastroenterol ; 115(10): 1609-1616, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-717821

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Although current literature has addressed gastrointestinal presentations including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abnormal liver chemistries, and hyperlipasemia as possible coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) manifestations, the risk and type of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in this population is not well characterized. METHODS: This is a matched case-control (1:2) study with 41 cases of GIB (31 upper and 10 lower) in patients with COVID-19 and 82 matched controls of patients with COVID-19 without GIB. The primary objective was to characterize bleeding etiologies, and our secondary aim was to discuss outcomes and therapeutic approaches. RESULTS: There was no difference in the presenting symptoms of the cases and controls, and no difference in severity of COVID-19 manifestations (P > 0.05) was observed. Ten (32%) patients with upper GIB underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy and 5 (50%) patients with lower GIBs underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. The most common upper and lower GIB etiologies were gastric or duodenal ulcers (80%) and rectal ulcers related to rectal tubes (60%), respectively. Four of the esophagogastroduodenoscopies resulted in therapeutic interventions, and the 3 patients with rectal ulcers were referred to colorectal surgery for rectal packing. Successful hemostasis was achieved in all 7 cases that required interventions. Transfusion requirements between patients who underwent endoscopic therapy and those who were conservatively managed were not significantly different. Anticoagulation and rectal tube usage trended toward being a risk factor for GIB, although it did not reach statistical significance. DISCUSSION: In COVID-19 patients with GIB, compared with matched controls of COVID-19 patients without GIB, there seemed to be no difference in initial presenting symptoms. Of those with upper and lower GIB, the most common etiology was peptic ulcer disease and rectal ulcers from rectal tubes, respectively. Conservative management seems to be a reasonable initial approach in managing these complex cases, but larger studies are needed to guide management.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/epidemiology , Peptic Ulcer/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Rectal Diseases/epidemiology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Blood Transfusion/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 , Case-Control Studies , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Endoscopy/statistics & numerical data , Enema/adverse effects , Enema/instrumentation , Female , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/etiology , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/therapy , Hemostatic Techniques/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Peptic Ulcer/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Rectal Diseases/etiology , Rectal Diseases/therapy , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Scand J Gastroenterol ; 55(7): 870-876, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-630900

ABSTRACT

Objective: COVID-19 pandemic has seriously affected Italy. Radical changes occurred in the Italian NHS and thus in GI departments, as only urgent endoscopies were guaranteed. The study aimed to report how the demand for urgent endoscopy changed during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy and to evaluate the appropriateness of urgent referrals in the Endoscopy Unit.Material and methods: Nation-wide, cross-sectional survey study in 54 Italian GI Units. Data were collected regarding urgent endoscopies (EGD, CS, ERCP) in two different time periods: March 2019 and March 2020.Results: Thirty-five (64.8%) GI endoscopy Units responded to the survey. The entity of reduction of overall urgent EGDs and CSs performed in March 2020 versus March 2019 was statistically significant: 541 versus 974 (-80%), p < .001 for EGD and 171 versus 265 (-55%), p < .008, for CS, respectively. No statistically significant reduction of urgent ERCP performed in March 2020 versus March 2019 was found. The increase in overall diagnostic yield for urgent EGD in March 2020 versus March 2019 was 7.3% (CI [0.028-0.117], p = .001). No statistically significant difference in diagnostic yield for CS between 2019 and 2020 was found.Conclusion: The study showed a statistically significant reduction of urgent EGD and CS performed during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, in March 2020, compared to March 2019. The diagnostic yield of urgent EGD performed in March 2020 was significantly higher than that of March 2019. No statistically significant difference was found in terms of diagnostic yield of urgent CS between March 2020 and March 2019.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Endoscopy/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , COVID-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Italy , Pandemics , Procedures and Techniques Utilization , Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2
11.
Gastrointest Endosc ; 92(4): 925-935, 2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-593460

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected endoscopy services globally, the impact on trainees has not been evaluated. We aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on procedural volumes and on the emotional well-being of endoscopy trainees worldwide. METHODS: An international survey was disseminated over a 3-week period in April 2020. The primary outcome was the percentage reduction in monthly procedure volume before and during COVID-19. Secondary outcomes included potential variation of COVID-19 impact between different continents and rates and predictors of anxiety and burnout among trainees. RESULTS: Across 770 trainees from 63 countries, 93.8% reported a reduction in endoscopy case volume. The median percentage reduction in total procedures was 99% (interquartile range, 85%-100%), which varied internationally (P < .001) and was greatest for colonoscopy procedures. Restrictions in case volume and trainee activity were common barriers. A total of 71.9% were concerned that the COVID-19 pandemic could prolonged training. Anxiety was reported in 52.4% of respondents and burnout in 18.8%. Anxiety was independently associated with female gender (odds ratio [OR], 2.15; P < .001), adequacy of personal protective equipment (OR, 1.75; P = .005), lack of institutional support for emotional health (OR, 1.67; P = .008), and concerns regarding prolongation of training (OR, 1.60; P = .013). Modifying existing national guidelines to support adequate endoscopy training during the pandemic was supported by 68.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to restrictions in endoscopic volumes and endoscopy training, with high rates of anxiety and burnout among endoscopy trainees worldwide. Targeted measures by training programs to address these key issues are warranted to improve trainee well-being and support trainee education.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/epidemiology , Betacoronavirus , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Endoscopy/education , Internationality , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Adult , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Endoscopy/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
12.
Am J Otolaryngol ; 41(6): 102569, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-457105

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of the novel coronavirus pandemic on practice patterns, clinical behavior, personal health, and emotional/psychological concerns of rhinologists. METHODS: A 15-question survey was sent out to the American Rhinologic Society's (ARS) membership to determine the impact of COVID-19 during the crisis. Demographic factors and practice patterns were collected and evaluated. RESULTS: There were 224 total respondents out of 835 ARS members queried (26.8% response rate). Study queries were sent in April 2020. Notably, 17.8% reported illness in themselves or their staff and 74.4% noted a psychological/emotional impact. A plurality of rhinologists noted their practice volume and in-office procedure volume has become 20.0% and 0.0% of their prior volumes, respectively. In addition, 96.2% were noted to be using telemedicine in our subspecialty. CONCLUSION: In addition to severely impacting volume and the perception of future decreases in patients and revenue, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a physical and emotional impact on rhinologists in ways that need to be further studied. These data include significantly novel and objective information. The COVID-19 crisis also reveals the important role of telemedicine in rhinology. Guidelines regarding personal protective equipment for in-office visits, nasal endoscopy, and other in-office and operating room procedures would be particularly helpful as future waves are expected.


Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Otolaryngologists , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Endoscopy/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Office Visits/statistics & numerical data , Otolaryngologists/psychology , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data , United States/epidemiology
13.
Urology ; 141: 1-6, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-175693

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the personal protective equipment (PPE) utilized in common urologic procedures before and during the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States. As elective urologic procedures are being reduced to conserve resources, we sought to quantify the PPE used per case to determine the impact on potentially limited resources needed for protecting healthcare providers treating COVID-19 patients. METHODS: An IRB approved retrospective analysis of all urologic procedures in March 2019 and March 2020 was performed. Additionally, all urologic procedures performed by vascular interventional radiology (VIR) in May 2019 and March 2020 were included in the analysis. Case length, surgical and operating room staff present and number of articles of PPE were quantified. Articles of PPE were defined as surgical bonnet/hat and mask, and disposable or reusable gown with 1 pair of surgical gloves. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-seven urologic and VIR procedures were included in the analysis. The mean PPE per case varied significantly between endoscopic and robotic categories. Robotic assisted laparoscopic cystectomy required the most hats and masks (14.5 per case in March 2019) whereas percutaneous nephrostomy tube placement by VIR required the fewest (3.1 in May 2019 and March 2020). CONCLUSION: PPE consumption varied significantly across urologic procedures. Robotic-assisted cases require the most PPE and percutaneous nephrostomy placement by VIR requires the fewest. While PPE shortages are currently being addressed national and internationally, our results provide a baseline benchmark for articles of PPE required should another pandemic or global disaster requiring careful attention to resource allocation occur in the future.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Urologic Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Endoscopy/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Procedures and Techniques Utilization , Retrospective Studies , Robotic Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
15.
Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi ; 23(4): 327-331, 2020 Apr 25.
Article in Chinese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-88633

ABSTRACT

Objective: To explore the necessity and safety of selective endoscopy to detect gastrointestinal (GI) malignancy during the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was carried out to analyze the clinical data of selective endoscopy performed at the Endoscopic Center, Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University from February 20 to March 6, 2020. Clinical data included epidemiological questionnaire, chief complaints, endoscopic findings and biopsy pathology results, etc. All medical staff had blood test for IgM/IgG antibodies of COVID-19. Patients and their families were followed up by phone to determine whether they were infected with COVID-19. Meanwhile, the clinical data of selective endoscopy during the same period from February 20 to March 6, 2019 were collected as the control group to compare the overall results of endoscopy examinations during the epidemic and the detection rate of GI malignancy. Results: A total of 911 patients underwent endoscopy in the epidemic period group, and a total of 5746 cases in the control group, which was 6.3 times over the epidemic period group. In the epidemic period group, 544 cases received gastroscopy and 367 cases received colonoscopy, while 3433 cases received gastroscopy and 2313 cases received colonoscopy in the control group, which were both 6.3 times of epidemic period group. Gastroscopy revealed that 39 patients (7.2%) were diagnosed with upper GI malignancies in the epidemic period group and 77 patients (2.2%) in the control group with significant difference (χ(2)=40.243, P<0.001). The detection rate of gastric cancer in these two groups was 3.3% (n=18) and 1.7% (n=59) respectively with significant difference (χ(2)=6.254,P=0.012). The detection rate of esophageal cancer was 3.7% (n=20) and 0.5% (n=18) respectively with significant difference (χ(2)=49.303,P<0.001). Colonoscopy revealed that colorectal cancer was found in 32 cases (8.7%) of the epidemic period group and 88 cases (3.8%) of the control group with significant difference (χ(2)=17.888, P<0.001). During the epidemic period, no infection of medical staff was found through the blood test of IgM/IgG antibodies on COVID-19. No patient and family members were infected with COVID-19 by phone follow-up. Conclusion: Compared with the same period in 2019, the number of selective endoscopy decreases sharply during the epidemic period, while the detection rate of various GI malignant tumors increases significantly, which indicates that patients with high-risk symptoms of GI malignancies should still receive endoscopy as soon as possible. Provided strict adherence to the epidemic prevention standards formulated by the state and professional societies, it is necessary to carry out clinical diagnosis and treatment as soon as possible.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Endoscopy/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Stomach Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , China , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Humans , Medical Staff , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...