Dataset Information

Safe surgery during the coronavirus disease 2019 crisis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has created a global pandemic. Surgical care has been impacted, with concerns raised around surgical safety, especially in terms of laparoscopic versus open surgery. Due to potential aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, precautions during aerosol-generating procedures and production of surgical plume are paramount for the safety of surgical teams.

Methods

A rapid review methodology was used with evidence sourced from PubMed, Departments of Health, surgical colleges and other health authorities. From this, a working group of expert surgeons developed recommendations for surgical safety in the current environment.

Results

Pre-operative testing of surgical patients with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction does not guarantee lack of infectivity due to a demonstrated false-negative rate of up to 30%. All bodily tissues and fluids should therefore be treated as a potential source of COVID-19 infection during operative management. Caution must be taken, especially when using an energy source that produces surgical plumes, and an appropriate capture device should also be used. Limiting the use of such devices or using lower energy devices is desirable. To reduce perceived risks association with desufflation of pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic surgery, an appropriate suction irrigator system, attached to a high-efficiency particulate air filter, should be used. Additionally, appropriate use of personal protective equipment by the surgical team is necessary during high-risk aerosol-generating procedures.

Conclusions

As a result of the rapid review, evidence-based guidance has been produced to support safe surgical practice.

SUBMITTER: Tivey DR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7361254 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis and consequent changes in medical practice have engendered feelings of distress in diverse populations, potentially adversely affecting the psychological well-being of cancer patients.AimThe purpose of this observational longitudinal study was to evaluate psychosocial perspectives among patients with cancer on intravenous treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods and resultsThe study recruited 164 cancer patients undergoing intravenous anti-neoplastic therapy in a tertiary cancer center. Psychosocial indices were assessed at two points in time, corresponding with the beginning of the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in Israel (March 2020) and the time of easing of restrictions implemented to curtail spread of infection (May 2020). At Time 1 (T1), elevated COVID-19 distress levels (score 1 and 2 on 5-point scale) were observed in 44% of patients, and associated with pre-existing hypertension and lung disease in multivariate analyses but no demographic or cancer related factors. At Time 2 (T2), 10% had elevated anxiety and 24% depression as indicated by Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A/D). COVID-19 distress at T1 was related to higher levels of HADS-A at T2 (Spearman 0.33 p < .01), but not HADS-D. Patients with breast cancer expressed greater COVID-19 distress compared with other cancer types (p < .01), while both HADS-A and HADS-D were highest for patients with GI cancer. Patient report of loneliness and decreased support from relatives were factors associated with HADS-A (p = .03 and p < .01, respectively), while HADS-D was not similarly related to the factors evaluated.ConclusionPatients with cancer undergoing intravenous treatment may be vulnerable to acute adverse psychological ramifications of COVID-19, specifically exhibiting high levels of anxiety. These appear unrelated to patient age or disease stage. Those with underlying comorbidities, breast cancer or reduced social support may be at higher risk.

Project description:To establish the feasibility of empirically testing crisis standards of care guidelines.DesignRetrospective single-center study.SettingICUs at a large academic medical center in the United States.SubjectsAdult, critically ill patients admitted to ICU, with 27 patients admitted for acute respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 and 37 patients admitted for diagnoses other than coronavirus disease 2019.InterventionsReview of electronic health record.Measurements and main resultsMany U.S. states released crisis standards of care guidelines with algorithms to allocate scarce healthcare resources during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We compared state guidelines that represent different approaches to incorporating disease severity and comorbidities: New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. Following each algorithm, we calculated priority scores at the time of ICU admission for a cohort of patients with primary diagnoses of coronavirus disease 2019 and diseases other than coronavirus disease 2019 (n = 64). We assessed discrimination of 28-day mortality by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. We simulated real-time decision-making by applying the triage algorithms to groups of two, five, or 10 patients. For prediction of 28-day mortality by priority scores, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.56, 0.49, 0.53, 0.66, and 0.69 for New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and raw Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score algorithms, respectively. For groups of five patients, the percentage of decisions made without deferring to a lottery were 1%, 57%, 80%, 88%, and 95% for New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and raw Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score algorithms, respectively. The percentage of decisions made without lottery was higher in the subcohort without coronavirus disease 2019, compared with the subcohort with coronavirus disease 2019.ConclusionsInclusion of comorbidities does not consistently improve an algorithm's performance in predicting 28-day mortality. Crisis standards of care algorithms result in a substantial percentage of tied priority scores. Crisis standards of care algorithms operate differently in cohorts with and without coronavirus disease 2019. This proof-of-principle study demonstrates the feasibility and importance of empirical testing of crisis standards of care guidelines to understand whether they meet their goals.

Project description:ObjectivesThe coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has overwhelmed healthcare resources even in wealthy nations, necessitating rationing of limited resources without previously established crisis standards of care protocols. In Massachusetts, triage guidelines were designed based on acute illness and chronic life-limiting conditions. In this study, we sought to retrospectively validate this protocol to cohorts of critically ill patients from our hospital.DesignWe applied our hospital-adopted guidelines, which defined severe and major chronic conditions as those associated with a greater than 50% likelihood of 1- and 5-year mortality, respectively, to a critically ill patient population. We investigated mortality for the same intervals.SettingAn urban safety-net hospital ICU.PatientsAll adults hospitalized during April of 2015 and April 2019 identified through a clinical database search.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsOf 365 admitted patients, 15.89% had one or more defined chronic life-limiting conditions. These patients had higher 1-year (46.55% vs 13.68%; p < 0.01) and 5-year (50.00% vs 17.22%; p < 0.01) mortality rates than those without underlying conditions. Irrespective of classification of disease severity, patients with metastatic cancer, congestive heart failure, end-stage renal disease, and neurodegenerative disease had greater than 50% 1-year mortality, whereas patients with chronic lung disease and cirrhosis had less than 50% 1-year mortality. Observed 1- and 5-year mortality for cirrhosis, heart failure, and metastatic cancer were more variable when subdivided into severe and major categories.ConclusionsPatients with major and severe chronic medical conditions overall had 46.55% and 50.00% mortality at 1 and 5 years, respectively. However, mortality varied between conditions. Our findings appear to support a crisis standards protocol which focuses on acute illness severity and only considers underlying conditions carrying a greater than 50% predicted likelihood of 1-year mortality. Modifications to the chronic lung disease, congestive heart failure, and cirrhosis criteria should be refined if they are to be included in future models.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The current ongoing pandemic outbreak of COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) has globally affected 213 countries and territories with more than 2.5 million confirmed cases and thousands of casualties. The unpredictable and uncertain COVID-19 outbreak has the potential of adversely affecting the psychological health on individual and community level. Currently all efforts are focused on the understanding of epidemiology, clinical features, mode of transmission, counteract the spread of the virus, and challenges of global health, while crucially significant mental health has been overlooked in this endeavor. METHOD:This review is to evaluate past outbreaks to understand the extent of adverse effects on psychological health, psychological crisis intervention, and mental health management plans. Published previous and current articles on PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Elsevier about psychological impact of infectious diseases outbreaks and COVID-19 has been considered and reviewed. COMMENTS:COVID-19 is leading to intense psychosocial issues and comprising mental health marking a secondary health concern all around the world. Globally implementing preventive and controlling measures, and cultivating coping and resilience are challenging factors; modified lifestyle (lockdown curfew, self-isolation, social distancing and quarantine); conspiracy theories, misinformation and disinformation about the origin, scale, signs, symptoms, transmission, prevention and treatment; global socioeconomic crisis; travel restrictions; workplace hazard control; postponement and cancellation of religious, sports, cultural and entertainment events; panic buying and hoarding; incidents of racism, xenophobia, discrimination, stigma, psychological pressure of productivity, marginalization and violence; overwhelmed medical centers and health organizations, and general impact on education, politics, socioeconomic, culture, environment and climate - are some of the risk factors to aggravate further problems.