Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Positivity in Pediatric Surgical Patients Amid the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in New York City.

INTRODUCTION: New York State implemented an 11-week elective surgery ban in response to the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, during which pediatric patients from the 10 New York Presbyterian network hospitals requiring urgent or emergent surgical procedures were cared for at Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital (MSCH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was abstracted from the electronic medical record of all patients aged 0 to 20 years who had surgery at MSCH from March 23, 2020 to June 7, 2020. Comparative analysis of demographic and clinical data elements between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-positive and negative cohorts was conducted using the Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: A total of 505 surgical procedures were performed in 451 patients, with 32 procedures (6.3%) performed in 21 SARS-CoV-2-positive children. The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 positivity in Medicaid beneficiaries was more than twice the prevalence in commercially insured (6.8% vs. 2.6%, P=0.04) children. SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were more likely to undergo multiple surgical procedures (23.8% vs. 7.2%, P=0.02), and to have higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class designations (69.8% III to V vs. 47.4% I to II, P=0.03). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 positivity across sex, age, race, or ethnicity groups, or in emergent case status or surgical procedure type. Thirty-day mortality rate was <0.1% overall, with no deaths in the SARS-CoV-2-positive group. CONCLUSIONS: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City, we found a higher prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 positivity in urgent/emergent pediatric surgical patients compared with other institutions in the United States. SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were more likely to be Medicaid beneficiaries, were clinically more complex, and had more surgical procedures.

COVID-19 in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic has been an enormous global health burden, resulting in hundreds of millions of documented infections and more than 3 million deaths. Increasing reports characterizing the effects of COVID-19 in pediatric populations have been published during the course of the pandemic. We performed a systematic review to assess the scope of diagnosis, treatment, and management of COVID-19 in pediatric patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase for studies published between January 1, 2020, and May 1, 2021. Each result was screened by 2 authors independently, and discordant findings were adjudicated by a third party. Data extracted included demographic data, symptom data, and clinical data including mortality, severe illness, laboratory data, radiologic data, and treatment. Bias assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies. RESULTS: We found a total of 16,266 search results, and we accepted 63 manuscripts into the review. The quality of evidence was low. It was difficult to estimate the risk of mortality in pediatric patients with COVID-19 given the quality of the evidence, but overall it is likely below 1%. The most common symptoms in symptomatic pediatric COVID-19 patients were fever (58%) and cough (50%). There was a high proportion of asymptomatic infection (65%). DISCUSSION: Pediatric COVID-19 infection is mild and frequently asymptomatic. There is a low risk of severe illness or death in children who contract COVID-19. High-quality studies should be conducted to develop best practices for prevention, diagnosis, and management of symptomatic illness.

Design of Clinical Trials Evaluating Sedation in Critically Ill Adults Undergoing Mechanical Ventilation: Recommendations From Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research (SCEPTER) Recommendation III.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of sedative medication use in critically ill adults undergoing mechanical ventilation differ considerably in their methodological approach. This heterogeneity impedes the ability to compare results across studies. The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations convened a meeting of multidisciplinary experts to develop recommendations for key methodologic elements of sedation trials in the ICU to help guide academic and industry clinical investigators. DESIGN: A 2-day in-person meeting was held in Washington, DC, on March 28-29, 2019, followed by a three-round, online modified Delphi consensus process. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-six participants from academia, industry, and the Food and Drug Administration with expertise in relevant content areas, including two former ICU patients attended the in-person meeting, and the majority completed an online follow-up survey and participated in the modified Delphi process. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The final recommendations were iteratively refined based on the survey results, participants' reactions to those results, summaries written by panel moderators, and a review of the meeting transcripts made from audio recordings. Fifteen recommendations were developed for study design and conduct, subject enrollment, outcomes, and measurement instruments. Consensus recommendations included obtaining input from ICU survivors and/or their families, ensuring adequate training for personnel using validated instruments for assessments of sedation, pain, and delirium in the ICU environment, and the need for methodological standardization. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations are intended to assist researchers in the design, conduct, selection of endpoints, and reporting of clinical trials involving sedative medications and/or sedation protocols for adult ICU patients who require mechanical ventilation. These recommendations should be viewed as a starting point to improve clinical trials and help reduce methodological heterogeneity in future clinical trials.