Is Virtual Learning Here to Stay? A Multispecialty Survey of Residents, Fellows, and Faculty.

The transition to virtual learning during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic marks a paradigm shift in graduate medical education (GME). From June to September 2021, we conducted a dual-center, multispecialty survey of residents, fellows, and faculty members to determine overall perceptions about virtual learning and assess its benefits, drawbacks, and future role in GME. We discovered a mainly positive view of virtual education among trainees (138/207, 0.67, 95% CI 0.59-0.73) and faculty (180/278, 0.65, 0.59-0.70). Large group sessions, such as didactic lectures, grand rounds, and national conferences, were ranked best-suited for the virtual environment, whereas small groups and procedural training were the lowest ranked. Major benefits and drawbacks to virtual learning was identified. A hybrid approach, combining in-person and virtual sessions, was the preferred format among trainees (167/207, 0.81, 0.75-0.86) and faculty (229/278, 0.82, 0.77-0.87). Virtual learning offers a valuable educational experience that should be retained in postpandemic GME curriculums.

Cardiac macrophage density in Covid-19 infection: relationship to myocyte necrosis and acute lung injury.

SARS-Cov-2 infection is not limited to the respiratory tract and can involve other organs including the heart, blood vessels, kidneys, liver, gastrointestinal tract, placenta, and skin. Covid-19 patients with cardiac involvement usually have higher morbidity and mortality compared to those without cardiac involvement. The frequency and the specificity of the myocardial pathological changes in patients who die after documented infection with SARS-Cov-2 is uncertain. Macrophages can be found in the normal heart (interstitium, around the endothelial cells and in the epicardial adipose tissue), and they are considered part of the major immune cell population in the heart. In this case-control autopsy study, we compare the gross and microscopic cardiac findings, and the available clinical characteristics between a group of 10 Covid-19 decedents and a control group of 20 patients who died with non-SARS-Cov-2 severe bronchopneumonia and/or diffuse alveolar damage. The objectives of this semi-quantitative study are to study single myocyte necrosis and its relation to the strain on the heart caused by lung injury as a causative mechanism, and to study the density of myocardial and epicardial macrophages in Covid-19 hearts in comparison to the control group, and in Covid-19 hearts with single myocyte necrosis in comparison to Covid-19 hearts without single myocyte necrosis. Lymphocytic myocarditis was not identified in any of the hearts from the Covid-19 or the control group. Single myocyte necrosis is more frequent in the Covid-19 group compared to the control group, suggesting that it is unrelated to the strain on the heart caused by underlying lung injury. The density of the macrophages in the epicardium and myocardium in the hearts of the Covid-19 group is higher compared to those in the control group. The density of epicardial macrophages is higher in the Covid-19 hearts with single myocyte necrosis than in those without. These observations contribute to our increasing appreciation of the role of macrophages in the pathophysiologic response to infection by SARS-CoV-2.

Lessons Learned During the Pandemic: Correlation of QT Intervals Between Telemetry and 12-Lead Electrocardiogram.

Background and objective QT prolongation is associated with an increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias. Since some patients on contact or droplet precautions require QT-prolonging medications, monitoring the QT interval may become imperative to prevent fatal arrhythmias. To limit the exposure of staff to patients during and even after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and judiciously use personal protective equipment (PPE), it is important to find alternatives to frequent 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECG). The objective of this study was to compare QT intervals measured on telemetry to those measured on 12-lead ECG to determine whether telemetry QT interval measurements could be used in place of 12-lead measurements. Methods Simultaneous telemetry recordings via a Philips telemetry monitoring system (Philips Healthcare, Eindhoven, Netherlands) and 12-lead ECGs were obtained from 50 patients. Patients were from cardiac telemetry and cardiac intensive care units. QT interval from the telemetry system was compared to the QT interval on the 12-lead ECG. QT intervals on two telemetry strips were uninterpretable as the termination of the T-wave could not be defined appropriately; therefore, these patients were excluded. Results In 33 of 48 patients (69%), QT intervals from the telemetry studies matched the QT intervals measured by 12-lead ECG. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between telemetry QT and 12-lead ECG QT was 0.887 (95% CI: 0.809-0.934; p<0.001). In 15 of 48 patients (31%), the QT intervals measured from telemetry were different from those measured by 12-lead ECG. These patients either had an abnormal rhythm, conduction abnormalities, or repolarization abnormalities at baseline. Conclusion Telemetry is a suitable alternative for measuring QT intervals in the majority of patients. However, those with baseline ECG abnormalities should have serial 12-lead ECGs. This can reduce the risk of staff exposure to pathogens and prevent overuse of PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic and for other patients in isolation.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The nucleotide analogue prodrug remdesivir was among the first antiviral therapies to be tested in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for COVID-19. We performed a meta-analysis to understand efficacy and safety. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases (from January 1, 2020 to November 5, 2020). We included RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of remdesivir to control/placebo in COVID-19. Two independent investigators abstracted data, assessed the quality of evidence, and rated the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 4 RCTs with 7334 patients with COVID-19 were included. At a follow-up of 28-29 days from randomization, very low certainty evidence showed that use of remdesivir compared with control group (placebo and/or standard of care) was not associated with a significant decrease in time to clinical improvement (standardized mean difference -0.80 day; [CI, -2.12, 0.53]). However, moderate certainty of evidence showed that remdesivir was associated with higher rates of recovered patients (risk difference [RD] 0.07 [0.05, 0.08]) and discharged patients (RD 0.07 [0.03, 0.11]) and lower rates of developing serious adverse events (RD -0.05 [-0.10, -0.01]) compared with control. Moderate and very low certainty of evidence showed there was no significant difference in deaths at 28-29 days follow-up (RD -0.01 [-0.03, 0.01]) and developing any adverse events (RD 0.01 [-0.17, 0.19]) between both groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients given remdesivir are more likely to demonstrate recovery and were associated with higher rates of hospital discharge, but not with significant reduction in mean time to clinical improvement or mortality.

Incidence of Stress Cardiomyopathy During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in severe psychological, social, and economic stress in people's lives. It is not known whether the stress of the pandemic is associated with an increase in the incidence of stress cardiomyopathy. Objective: To determine the incidence and outcomes of stress cardiomyopathy during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with before the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study at cardiac catheterization laboratories with primary percutaneous coronary intervention capability at 2 hospitals in the Cleveland Clinic health system in Northeast Ohio examined the incidence of stress cardiomyopathy (also known as Takotsubo syndrome) in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome who underwent coronary arteriography. Patients presenting during the COVID-19 pandemic, between March 1 and April 30, 2020, were compared with 4 control groups of patients with acute coronary syndrome presenting prior to the pandemic across 4 distinct timelines: March to April 2018, January to February 2019, March to April 2019, and January to February 2020. Data were analyzed in May 2020. Exposures: Patients were divided into 5 groups based on the date of their clinical presentation in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence of stress cardiomyopathy. Results: Among 1914 patient presenting with acute coronary syndrome, 1656 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 67 [59-74]; 1094 [66.1%] men) presented during the pre-COVID-19 period (390 patients in March-April 2018, 309 patients in January-February 2019, 679 patients in March-April 2019, and 278 patients in January-February 2020), and 258 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 67 [57-75]; 175 [67.8%] men) presented during the COVID-19 pandemic period (ie, March-April 2020). There was a significant increase in the incidence of stress cardiomyopathy during the COVID-19 period, with a total of 20 patients with stress cardiomyopathy (incidence proportion, 7.8%), compared with prepandemic timelines, which ranged from 5 to 12 patients with stress cardiomyopathy (incidence proportion range, 1.5%-1.8%). The rate ratio comparing the COVID-19 pandemic period to the combined prepandemic period was 4.58 (95% CI, 4.11-5.11; P < .001). All patients during the COVID-19 pandemic had negative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test results for COVID-19. Patients with stress cardiomyopathy during the COVID-19 pandemic had a longer median (interquartile range) hospital length of stay compared with those hospitalized in the prepandemic period (COVID-19 period: 8 [6-9] days; March-April 2018: 4 [3-4] days; January-February 2019: 5 [3-6] days; March-April 2019: 4 [4-8] days; January-February: 5 [4-5] days; P = .006). There were no significant differences between the COVID-19 period and the overall pre-COVID-19 period in mortality (1 patient [5.0%] vs 1 patient [3.6%], respectively; P = .81) or 30-day rehospitalization (4 patients [22.2%] vs 6 patients [21.4%], respectively; P = .90). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that there was a significant increase in the incidence of stress cardiomyopathy during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared with prepandemic periods.