Search

Objective The COVID-19 pandemic has forced the cancellation of planned surgery and led to significant surgical service reductions. Early intervention in aortovascular disease is often critical and cannot be deferred despite these reductions. There is urgent need to evaluate the provision and outcomes of thoracic aortovascular intervention during the peak of the pandemic. Methods Prospective data was collected for patients receiving open and endovascular thoracic aortovascular intervention over two-time points; January-May 2020 and January-May 2019 at three tertiary cardiovascular centres. Baseline demographics, cardiovascular risk and COVID-19 screening results were noted. Primary outcomes were median length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, intra-operative mortality, 30-day mortality, post-operative stroke, and spinal cord injury. Results Patients operated in 2020 (41) had significantly higher median EuroSCORE II than 2019 (53) (7.44 vs. 5.86, P = 0.032) and rates of previous cardiac (19.5% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.019), aortic (14.6% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.041), and endovascular (22.0% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.009) intervention. There was an increase in proportion of urgent cases in 2020 (31.7% vs. 18.9%). There were no intra-operative deaths in 2020 and 1 in 2019 (P = 1.00). There were no significant differences (P ≥ 0.05) in 30-day mortality (4.9% vs. 13.2%), median intensive care unit length of stay (72 vs. 70 hr), median hospital length of stay (8 vs. 9 days), post-operative stroke (3 vs. 6), or spinal cord injury (2 vs. 1) between 2020 and 2019 respectively. Conclusions Despite the increased mortality risk of patients and urgency of cases during COVID-19, complicated by the introduction of cohorting and screening regimens, thoracic aortovascular intervention remained safe with comparable in outcomes to pre-COVID-19.

Highlights • Cases of COVID-19 may be housed outside isolation wards prior to detection. • A bundle of infrastructural enhancements, improved PPE and social distancing was implemented. • Of 253 staff close-contacts and 45 patient close-contacts of 28 index cases, one patient contact tested positive. • Environmental sampling was positive for SARS-CoV-2 in 5 out of 28 cases. • An infection control bundle mitigated COVID-19 transmission in a general ward setting., Background During an ongoing outbreak of COVID-19, unsuspected cases may be housed outside of dedicated isolation wards. Aim At a Singaporean tertiary hospital, individuals with clinical syndromes compatible with COVID-19 but no epidemiologic risk were placed in cohorted general wards for COVID-19 testing. To mitigate risk, an infection control bundle was implemented comprising infrastructural enhancements, improved personal-protective-equipment (PPE), and social distancing. We assessed the impact on environmental contamination and transmission. Method Upon detection of a case of COVID-19 in the dedicated general ward, patients and healthcare workers (HCWs) contacts were identified. All patient and staff-close contacts were placed on 14-day phone surveillance and followed-up for 28 days; symptomatic contacts were tested. Environmental samples were also obtained. Findings Over a 3-month period, 28 unsuspected cases of COVID-19 were contained in the dedicated general ward. In 5 of the 28 cases, sampling of the patient's environment yielded SARS-CoV-2; index cases who required supplemental oxygen had higher odds of environmental contamination (p=0.01). A total of 253 staff close-contacts and 45 patient close-contacts were identified; only 3 HCWs (1.2%, 3/253) required quarantine. On 28-day follow-up, no patient-to-HCW transmission was documented; only one symptomatic patient close-contact tested positive. Conclusion Our institution successfully implemented an intervention bundle to mitigate COVID-19 transmission in a multi-bedded cohorted general ward setting.

Objective To identify core practices for workforce management of communication and swallowing functions in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) positive patients within the intensive care unit (ICU). Design A modified Delphi methodology was used, with 3 electronic voting rounds. AGREE II and an adapted COVID-19 survey framework from physiotherapy were used to develop survey statements. Sixty-six statements pertaining to workforce planning and management of communication and swallowing function in the ICU were included. Setting Electronic modified Delphi process. Participants Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) (N=35) from 6 continents representing 12 countries. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures The main outcome was consensus agreement, defined a priori as ≥70% of participants with a mean Likert score ≥7.0 (11-point scale: 0=strongly disagree, 10=strongly agree). Prioritization rank order of statements in a fourth round was also conducted. Results SLPs with a median of 15 years of ICU experience, working primarily in clinical (54%), academic (29%), or managerial positions (17%), completed all voting rounds. After the third round, 64 statements (97%) met criteria. Rank ordering identified issues of high importance. Conclusions A set of global consensus statements to facilitate planning and delivery of rehabilitative care for patients admitted to the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic were agreed by an international expert SLP group. Statements focused on considerations for workforce preparation, resourcing and training, and the management of communication and swallowing functions. These statements support and provide direction for all members of the rehabilitation team to use for patients admitted to the ICU during a global pandemic.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has swept the globe and is causing significant morbidity and mortality. Given that the virus is transmitted via droplets, open airway procedures such as bronchoscopy pose a significant risk to health-care workers (HCWs). The goal of this guideline was to examine the current evidence on the role of bronchoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic and the optimal protection of patients and HCWs. Research Question ▪▪▪ Study Design and Methods A group of approved panelists developed key clinical questions by using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) format that addressed specific topics on bronchoscopy related to COVID-19 infection and transmission. MEDLINE (via PubMed) was systematically searched for relevant literature and references were screened for inclusion. Validated evaluation tools were used to assess the quality of studies and to grade the level of evidence to support each recommendation. When evidence did not exist, suggestions were developed based on consensus using the modified Delphi process. Results The systematic review and critical analysis of the literature based on six PICO questions resulted in six statements: one evidence-based graded recommendation and 5 ungraded consensus-based statements. Interpretation The evidence on the role of bronchoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic is sparse. To maximize protection of patients and HCWs, bronchoscopy should be used sparingly in the evaluation and management of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infections. In an area where community transmission of COVID-19 infection is present, bronchoscopy should be deferred for nonurgent indications, and if necessary to perform, HCWs should wear personal protective equipment while performing the procedure even on asymptomatic patients.