ABSTRACT
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare short-term outcomes of CT-guided percutaneous pericardial drainage (PPD) versus subxiphoid surgical pericardial window (PW) drainage and analyze the risk factors associated with their outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent either percutaneous drainage with drainage catheter placement or PW with surgical drain placement for symptomatic pericardial effusion between January 1, 2006 and August 31, 2016 was performed after institutional review board approval (decision number 16-783). The primary objective was to test for associations between the short-term (≤30 days post procedure) complication and recurrence rates in patients with symptomatic pericardial effusions. The secondary objectives were to test for associations between short-term complications with changes in vital signs. RESULTS: Of the 257 procedures included in the final analysis, 142 were in the percutaneous drainage group. Short-term complication rate was significantly greater (p < 0.001) in patients undergoing PW, 17% (19/114), as compared with PPD, 2% (3/142). The estimated odds of having complications in the PW cohort was 9 times greater than the percutaneous drainage cohort (OR = 9.3, 95% CI: 2.7-32.3). No significant difference was observed between whether or not a patient experienced a short-term recurrence and any of the explanatory variables (patient demographics, imaging, and vital signs). CONCLUSION: CT-guided PPD is a safer alternative to surgical PW as it leads to fewer complications without a significant difference in recurrence rate of pericardial effusion.
ABSTRACT
Background: Health care systems in the United States are continuously expanding and contracting spaces to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in intensive care units (ICUs). As a result, hospitals must effectively decontaminate and contain severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in constructed and deconstructed ICUs that care for patients with COVID-19. We assessed decontamination of a COVID-19 ICU and examined the containment efficacy of combined contact and droplet precautions in creating and maintaining a SARS-CoV-2-negative ICU "antechamber". Methods: To examine the efficacy of chemical decontamination, we used high-density, semi-quantitative environmental sampling to detect SARS-CoV-2 on surfaces in a COVID-19 ICU and COVID-19 ICU antechamber. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction was used to measure viral RNA on surfaces. Viral location mapping revealed the distribution of viral RNA in the COVID-19 ICU and COVID-19 ICU antechamber. Results were further assessed using loop-mediated isothermal amplification. Results: We collected 224 surface samples pre-decontamination and 193 samples post-decontamination from a COVID-19 ICU and adjoining COVID-19 ICU antechamber. We found that 46% of antechamber objects were positive for SARS-CoV-2 pre-decontamination despite the construction of a swinging door barrier system, implementation of contact precautions, and installation of high-efficiency particulate air filters. The object positivity rate reduced to 32.1% and viral particle rate reduced by 95.4% following decontamination. Matched items had an average of 432.2 ± 2729 viral copies/cm2 pre-decontamination and 19.2 ± 118 viral copies/cm2 post-decontamination, demonstrating significantly reduced viral surface distribution (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Environmental sampling is an effective method for evaluating decontamination protocols and validating measures used to contain SARS-CoV-2 viral particles. While chemical decontamination effectively removes detectable viral RNA from surfaces, our approach to droplet/contact containment with an antechamber was not highly effective. These data suggest that hospitals should plan for the potential of aerosolized virions when creating strategies to contain SARS-CoV-2.
