New protection barrier for endoscopic procedures in the era of pandemic COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sabbagh L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7218364 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
New protection barrier for endoscopic procedures in the era of pandemic COVID-19.
Sabbagh Luis L Huertas Margarita M Preciado Javier J Sabbagh Daniela D
VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 20200513 12
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7495179 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, several questions have arisen about which endoscopic procedures (EPs) must be performed and which ones can be postponed. The aim of this study was to conduct a nationwide survey regarding the appropriate timing of EPs during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis prospective study was performed through a nationwide electronic survey. The survey consisted of 15 questions divided into three sections. The first evaluated the agreement for EPs classified as "time sensitive" and "not time sensitive". Two other sections assessed "high-priority" and "low-priority" scenarios. Agreement was considered when > 75% of respondents answered a question in the same direction.ResultsThe response rate was 27.2% (214/784). Among the respondents, agreement for the need to perform EP in < 72 h was only reached for variceal bleeding (93.4%). Dysphagia with alarm symptoms was the scenario in which the highest percentage of physicians (95.9%) agreed that an EP needed to be performed within a month. Less than 30% of endoscopists would perform an EP within the first 72 h for patients with mild cholangitis, non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding without hemodynamic instability, or severe anaemia without overt bleeding. In time-sensitive clinical scenarios suggestive of benign disease, none of the scenarios reached agreement in any sense. Among the time-sensitive clinical scenarios suggestive of malignancy, > 90% of the surveyed respondents considered that EP could not be postponed for > 8 weeks.ConclusionsThere was no consensus among endoscopists about the timing of EPs in patients with pathologies considered time sensitive or in those with high-priority pathologies. Agreement was only reached in five (17%) of the evaluated clinical scenarios.
| S-EPMC7831145 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims Unbiased communication is crucial for excellent teamwork in high-quality endoscopy. Personal protective equipment (PPE) (FFP-masks and face-shields) worn by endoscopists that are ubiquitous in the current COVID-19 pandemic strikingly impair communication. Digital enhancement approaches to maintain team communication, especially during complex endoscopic procedures, are urgently warranted. Materials and methods A prospective, two-armed interventional study was performed at an endoscopy unit at a tertiary center in Germany. Two hundred and three endoscopic procedures with PPE se according to pandemic risk level were randomly assigned (1:1) to a group performed by an endoscopy team equipped with digital enhanced cordless telecommunication (DECT) or one without digital-enhanced communication. The primary outcome was the team-reported number of communication-associated events (CAEs) defined as misunderstandings that impaired workflow during endoscopic examination. Secondary outcomes included perceived voice and headphone quality and overall comfort with DECT during endoscopic work. Results The use of DECT was associated with a significant reduction in communication-associated events in endoscopic procedures and overall, was perceived positively. Conclusions Digital enhancement of communication is a promising and easy-to- establish tool for improving team communication quality in endoscopy.
| S-EPMC8759928 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7211574 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST1055 | biostudies-other
Project description:In the emerging post-pandemic era (the 'wavelet' era), humans must coexist with viruses for the foreseeable future, and personal protective behaviors will largely replace national-level preventive measures. In this new normal, encouraging the public to implement proper personal protective behaviors against the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is vital to the sustainable development of cities and communities. This knowledge-attitude-practice (KAP) survey conducted in Chengdu (N = 900) narrowed the knowledge gap regarding post-pandemic public practices of protective behavior. Findings show that:(1) approximately 1/3 of the respondents are currently not concerned about COVID-19 at all; (2) respondents with different demographics and individual COVID-19-related factors showed significant differences in practice behaviors indoors and outdoors; (3) vulnerable groups performed better in practice behavior indoors/outdoors; (4) because the public may relax their vigilance outdoors, public places may become a transmission threat in the next outbreak; (5) attitudes are important, but limited incentives for practice; and (6) when knowledge increases beyond a threshold (68.75-75% in this study), protective behaviors decrease. Our results suggest that authorities must continue to educate and motivate the public, extending measures to cover personal protective practices, and have targeted policies for specific demographics to ensure equity in healthcare in the event of another pandemic (COVID-19 and alike crisis). Besides, comparing the results of the current study with similar studies conducted in other parts of the world can provide insights into how different populations respond to and adopt COVID-19 protective behaviors. The epidemiologists can use the data collected by this and other KAP surveys to refine epidemiologic models, which can help predict the spread of the virus and the impact of interventions in different settings.
| S-EPMC11195805 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated widespread shortages of filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and the creation and sharing of proposed substitutes (novel designs, repurposed materials) with limited testing against regulatory standards. We aimed to categorically test the efficacy and fit of potential N95 respirator substitutes using protocols that can be replicated in university laboratories.SettingAcademic medical centre with occupational health-supervised fit testing along with laboratory studies.ParticipantsSeven adult volunteers who passed quantitative fit testing for small-sized (n=2) and regular-sized (n=5) commercial N95 respirators.MethodsFive open-source potential N95 respirator substitutes were evaluated and compared with commercial National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-approved N95 respirators as controls. Fit testing using the 7-minute standardised Occupational Safety and Health Administration fit test was performed. In addition, protocols that can be performed in university laboratories for materials testing (filtration efficiency, air resistance and fluid resistance) were developed to evaluate alternate filtration materials.ResultsAmong five open-source, improvised substitutes evaluated in this study, only one (which included a commercial elastomeric mask and commercial HEPA filter) passed a standard quantitative fit test. The four alternative materials evaluated for filtration efficiency (67%-89%) failed to meet the 95% threshold at a face velocity (7.6 cm/s) equivalent to that of a NIOSH particle filtration test for the control N95 FFR. In addition, for all but one material, the small surface area of two 3D-printed substitutes resulted in air resistance that was above the maximum in the NIOSH standard.ConclusionsTesting protocols such as those described here are essential to evaluate proposed improvised respiratory protection substitutes, and our testing platform could be replicated by teams with similar cross-disciplinary research capacity. Healthcare professionals should be cautious of claims associated with improvised respirators when suggested as FFR substitutes.
| S-EPMC8413478 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has modified the activities of endoscopy units worldwide. Herein, we investigated the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on anesthesiologist assistance for endoscopic procedures in Lombardy, Italy.MethodsA questionnaire concerning anesthesiologist assistance provided from October 26 to December 6, 2020, in comparison with the same period in 2019, was sent to endoscopic units in Lombardy.ResultsApproximately 54% (34/63) of the units responded. A reduction in the number of all endoscopies (-33.5%; 18792 in 2020 vs. 28264 in 2019) and anesthesiologist-assisted endoscopies (-15.3%; 2652 in 2020 vs. 3132 in 2019) was reported. A greater reduction in anesthesiologist assistance was observed in government community units (-29.5%) than in academic (-14%) and private community units (-4.6%). Among all units, 85% reported a reduction in anesthesiologist assistance; 65% observed a delay/cancellation of procedures; 59%, a restricted patient selection; 17%, the need to transfer some patients to other hospitals; and 32%, a related worsening of procedure quality.ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic compromised the anesthesiologist assistance for endoscopic procedures in Lombardy, which worsened the procedure quality mainly in government community units. The COVID-19 "stress test" suggests a more balanced allocation of anesthesiologic resources in the future.
| S-EPMC8831403 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveIntroducing a new, simple and inexpensive portable equipment for lifeguards, consisting of a pre-assembled full-size plastic blanket with a mask and HEPA filter, which could offer significant time-saving advantages to reduce COVID-19 risk transmission in the first few minutes of CPR after water rescue, avoiding the negative impact of delayed ventilation.MethodA pilot study was carried out to determine the feasibility of the pre-assembled kit of face-mask and HEPA filter adapted on a pre-set plastic-blanket. The first step consisted of washing hands, putting on safety glasses and gloves as the first personal protection equipment (PPE) and then covering the victim with an assembled plastic blanket. The second step consisted of 10 min of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with PPE and plastic blanket, following the technical recommendations for ventilation during COVID-19.ResultsTen rescuers took part in the pilot study. The average time to wear PPE and place the pre-assembly kit on the victim was 82 s [IC 58-105]. After 10 min the quality of the resuscitation (QCPR) was 91% [87-94]. Quality chest compressions (CC) were 22% better than ventilations (V). Most of the rescuers (60%) thought that placing the plastic blanket on the victim on the beach was somewhat simple or very simple.ConclusionsResuscitation techniques in COVID-19 era at the beach have added complexities for the correct use of PPE. Plastic blanket plus basic ventilations equipment resource could be a new alternative to be considered for lifeguards to keep ventilation on use while reducing risk transmission.
| S-EPMC7492152 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7248632 | biostudies-literature