Coronavirus Disease 2019 Unit Research Articles

Long-Term X-ray Findings in Patients With Coronavirus Disease-2019.

Introduction: Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and chest X-ray (CXR) are commonly used techniques for diagnosing and assessing prognosis in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). This study aims to highlight the long-term radiological findings observed on CXR after recovery, in patients with COVID-19. This will help identify patients suffering from long-term consequences of COVID-19 and help them provide adequate care.Methods: This study was conducted in the COVID-19 unit of a tertiary care hospital, Pakistan from August 2020 to February 2021. CXR of patients who were being discharged after negative PCR was done. Participants with positive X-ray findings, which included consolidation, reticular thickening, ground-glass opacities (GGO), pulmonary nodules, and pleural effusions, were enrolled in the study after getting informed consent. All findings were recorded in a self-structured questionnaire. Participants were scheduled to come for follow-up on day 30 after their initial CXR, where their CXR was repeated.Result: Our results showed that n=429 (60.2%) participants had positive CXR at the time of discharge. After 30 days, n=371 participants returned for a follow-up X-ray. Out of the 371 participants, after 30 days, 123 participants still had positive CXR. Fatigue (41.4%) was the common symptom after 30 days. The most common finding was consolidation (82.1%), followed by reticular thickening (23.5%) on day 30.Conclusion: In this study, although most of the patients completely recovered serologically from COVID-19, they still had radiological findings in their chest X-rays. Radiological findings are especially important in predicting the clinical course of the disease and may be used to monitor long-term complications.

Predisposition of COVID-19 patients to secondary infections: set in stone or subject to change?

There likely are several predisposing factors to secondary infections in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), some of which may be preventable. The aim of this review is to explore the literature, summarize potential predisposing factors to secondary infections and their incidence. It also summarizes a variety of healthcare scenarios in which different kinds of secondary infections occur. Apart from immune dysregulation, severe resource limitations in healthcare settings have made COVID-19 units conducive to a variety of secondary infections. Long-term effect of excess antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients is yet to be studied. Very few studies have assessed secondary infections as the primary outcome measure making it difficult to know the true incidence. Mortality attributable to secondary infections in COVID-19 patients is also unclear. Incidence of secondary infections in COVID-19 patients is likely higher than what is reported in the literature. Well designed studies are needed to understand the incidence and impact of secondary infections in this patient population. Many of these may be preventable especially now, as personal protective equipment and other healthcare resources are recovering. Infection prevention and control (IPC) and antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASP) must reassess current situation to correct any breaches that could potentially cause more harm in these already vulnerable patients as we brace for a future surge with another pandemic wave.

Inpatient Telehealth and Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outcomes: Experiences in Alabama.

Background: During the early months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, hospitals were concerned about preserving personal protective equipment. UAB Hospital Medicine designed a strategy to outfit acute care patient rooms on a COVID-19 unit with telemedicine technology to allow for remote clinician rounding.Objective: To describe one hospital's experience with inpatient telehealth and compare outcomes between patients with and without inpatient telehealth visits.Design and Methods: Retrospective chart review of patients admitted to UAB Hospital Medicine with COVID-19 between March 16, 2020 and April 24, 2020. Logistic and negative binomial regression models were used to examine the relationship between telehealth visits and the likelihood of a subsequent transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU), ventilation, and number of ICU days. Clinician interviews provided additional insight into the telehealth implementation.Findings: One-quarter of the patients received a telehealth visit. Half were admitted to the ICU, and one-third received ventilation. Regression models did not identify statistically significant differences in transfer to the ICU, number of ICU days, and ventilation between patients with and without telehealth visits. Older age and increased respiratory rate were associated with higher odds of ICU admission. Patients with a cough were associated with lower odds of ventilation and fewer ICU days.Discussion: Implementation challenges included difficulties associated with assisting patients with operating the tablets. However, clinicians noted that there was a great benefit to patients being able to see an unmasked physician. Furthermore, the telehealth program proved to be a viable strategy for connecting patients in isolation with their families. Findings can inform the future development of inpatient telemedicine strategies.

Daily multidisciplinary COVID-19 meeting: Experiences from a French university hospital

ObjectivesIn March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic. In absence of official recommendations, implementing daily multidisciplinary team (MDT) COVID-19 meetings was urgently needed. Our aim was to describe our initial institutional standard operating procedures for implementing these meetings, and their impact on daily practice. MethodsAll consecutive patients who were hospitalized in our institution due to COVID 19, from March 31 to April 15, 2020, were included. Criteria to be presented at MDT meetings were defined as a proven COVID-19 by PCR or strongly suspected on CT scan, requiring hospitalization and treatment not included in the standard of care. Three investigators identified the patients who met the predefined criteria and compared the treatment and outcomes of patients with predefined criteria that were presented during MDT meeting with those not presented during MDT meeting. COVID-19 MDT meeting implementation and adhesion were also assessed by a hospital medical staff survey. ResultsIn all, 318 patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 were examined in our hospital. Of these, 230 (87%) were hospitalized in a COVID-19 unit, 91 (40%) of whom met predefined MDT meeting criteria. Fifty (55%) patients were presented at a MDT meeting versus 41 (45%) were not. Complementary exploration and inclusion in the CorImmuno cohort were higher in MDT meeting group (respectively 35 vs. 15%, P=0.03 and 80 versus 49%, P=0.0007). Prescription of hydrocortisone hemisuccinate was higher in group of patients not presented during MDT meeting (24 vs. 51%, P=0.007). Almost half of the patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were not presented at MDT meeting, which can be partly explained by technical software issues. ConclusionsMultidisciplinary COVID-19 meetings helped implementing a single standard of care, avoided using treatments that were untested or currently being tested, and facilitated the inclusion of patients in prospective cohorts and therapeutic trials.

Placement on COVID-19 Units Does Not Increase Seroconversion Rate of Pediatric Graduate Medical Residents.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its associated disease COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) has presented graduate medical education (GME) training programs with a unique set of challenges. One of the most pressing is how should hospital systems that rely on graduate medical residents provide appropriate care for patients while protecting trainees. This question is of particular concern as healthcare workers are at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure.Objective: This cross-sectional study sought to assess the impact of hospital COVID-19 patient placement on pediatric graduate medical residents by comparing rates of SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion rates of residents who worked on designated COVID-19 teams and those who did not.Methods: Forty-four pediatric and medicine–pediatric residents at Riley Children's Hospital (Indianapolis, IN) were tested for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG seroconversion in May 2020 using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (Abnova catalog no. KA5826), 2 months after the first known COVID-19 case in Indiana. These residents were divided into two groups: those residents who worked on designated COVID-19 teams, and those who did not. Groups were compared using χ2 or Fisher exact test for categorical variables, and continuous variables were compared using Student t testing.Results: Forty-four of 104 eligible residents participated in this study. Despite high rates of seroconversion, there was no difference in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion between residents who worked on designated COVID-19 teams (26% or 8/31) and those who did not (31% or 4/13). Eleven of 44 residents (25%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG, whereas only 5/44 (11.4%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgM, without a detectable difference between exposure groups.Conclusion: We did not observe a difference in SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion between different exposure groups. These data are consistent with growing evidence supporting the efficacy of personal protective equipment. Further population-based research on the role of children in transmitting the SARS-CoV-2 virus is needed to allow for a more evidence-based approach toward managing the COVID-19 pandemic.

How does working in pandemic units affect the risk of occupational hand eczema in healthcare workers during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: A comparative analysis with nonpandemic units.

BackgroundHand eczema (HE) has increased among healthcare workers (HCWs) working in coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19) units, and was associated with increased hand hygiene practices.ObjectivesTo compare the prevalence and clinical characteristics of HE, and hand hygiene practices in HCWs working in COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 units.MethodsA total of 244 HCWs working in COVID‐19 (n = 118) and non‐COVID‐19 patient care units (n = 126) were examined by dermatologists with regard to demographic parameters and hand hygiene practices. The COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 groups were matched at a 1:1 ratio according to age, atopy, and generalized dry skin.ResultsHE was more frequent in the COVID‐19 group (48.3% vs 12.7%, P < .001), whereas working years (P < .05) and additional housework at home (P < .001) were longer in the non‐COVID‐19 group. After the development of HE, moisturizing creams were reported to be more frequently used in the COVID group (P < .001). Topical corticosteroids were used in a minority (40% in the COVID group and 26.7% in the non‐COVID group).ConclusionsHCWs in COVID‐19 units developed HE more frequently. A majority increased the frequency of moisturizer use, instead of using topical corticosteroids, after the development of HE for the purpose of treating eczema. New approaches are needed for the prevention and management of HE in HCWs, especially by facilitating access to dermatologists.

Pediatric Oncology Patients and COVID-19: An Experience from the Tertiary COVID Care Facility in Eastern India: A Prospective Observational Study

Abstract Introduction Pediatric oncology patients presumably are one of the most vulnerable groups during this ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Not only they are immunocompromised thanks to their inherent disease and treatment regimens, but delay in initiation and maintenance of their treatment in this pandemic era also poses great concern. But the magnitude of this effect on pediatric oncology patients has not been well established due to paucity of data. Objective This study was proposed to assess clinicoepidemiological profile and outcome of the pediatric oncology patients who were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus attending a COVID-19 care facility. Materials and Methods This was a prospective observational study conducted in a tertiary care hospital. All confirmed oncology patients up to age 12 years who either attended the oncology outpatient department or referred to COVID-19 care center from other cancer treatment facility were included in the study from May 2020 to September 2020. Data on demography, clinical features, investigations, treatment, complications, and outcome were collected. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed and common relevant investigations were compared between non-intensive care unit (ICU) and ICU group. Results The rate of COVID-19 positivity among the pediatric oncology patient attending oncology clinic of the hospital is 8.21%. Total 28 patients (12 from oncology clinic of our hospital and 16 from other hospitals referred to our COVID-19 unit) were included in our study. The most common malignancy was acute lymphoblastic leukemia (64.28%). The most common symptom was fever (64.28%). Oxygen therapy was needed for 42.85% patients. Eight patients required ICU admission (two required invasive ventilation and one required noninvasive ventilation). Positive C-reactive protein value was associated with severe disease requiring ICU admission. Mean delay in starting chemotherapy in newly diagnosed cases was 28.77 days (standard deviation = 9.67). One newly diagnosed patient expired due to preexisting disease. Conclusion Though vulnerable, most of the pediatric oncology patients suffered a mild COVID-19 infection without any significant COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality. There is a significant delay in starting specific oncology therapy, that is, chemotherapy as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in newly diagnosed pediatric oncology patients, which can increase morbidities and mortality related to malignancy.

Assessment of Disparities Associated With a Crisis Standards of Care Resource Allocation Algorithm for Patients in 2 US Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Significant concern has been raised that crisis standards of care policies aimed at guiding resource allocation may be biased against people based on race/ethnicity. To evaluate whether unanticipated disparities by race or ethnicity arise from a single institution's resource allocation policy. This cohort study included adults (aged ≥18 years) who were cared for on a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ward or in a monitored unit requiring invasive or noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula between May 26 and July 14, 2020, at 2 academic hospitals in Miami, Florida. Race (ie, White, Black, Asian, multiracial) and ethnicity (ie, non-Hispanic, Hispanic). The primary outcome was based on a resource allocation priority score (range, 1-8, with 1 indicating highest and 8 indicating lowest priority) that was assigned daily based on both estimated short-term (using Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score) and longer-term (using comorbidities) mortality. There were 2 coprimary outcomes: maximum and minimum score for each patient over all eligible patient-days. Standard summary statistics were used to describe the cohort, and multivariable Poisson regression was used to identify associations of race and ethnicity with each outcome. The cohort consisted of 5613 patient-days of data from 1127 patients (median [interquartile range {IQR}] age, 62.7 [51.7-73.7]; 607 [53.9%] men). Of these, 711 (63.1%) were White patients, 323 (28.7%) were Black patients, 8 (0.7%) were Asian patients, and 31 (2.8%) were multiracial patients; 480 (42.6%) were non-Hispanic patients, and 611 (54.2%) were Hispanic patients. The median (IQR) maximum priority score for the cohort was 3 (1-4); the median (IQR) minimum score was 2 (1-3). After adjustment, there was no association of race with maximum priority score using White patients as the reference group (Black patients: incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.12; Asian patients: IRR, 0.95; 95% CI. 0.62-1.45; multiracial patients: IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.72-1.19) or of ethnicity using non-Hispanic patients as the reference group (Hispanic patients: IRR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.10); similarly, no association was found with minimum score for race, again with White patients as the reference group (Black patients: IRR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90-1.14; Asian patients: IRR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.62-1.49; multiracial patients: IRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.07) or ethnicity, again with non-Hispanic patients as the reference group (Hispanic patients: IRR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.13). In this cohort study of adult patients admitted to a COVID-19 unit at 2 US hospitals, there was no association of race or ethnicity with the priority score underpinning the resource allocation policy. Despite this finding, any policy to guide altered standards of care during a crisis should be monitored to ensure equitable distribution of resources.

SARS-CoV-2 is associated with high viral loads in asymptomatic and recently symptomatic healthcare workers.

BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCW) are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from both patients and other HCW with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values of SARS-CoV-2 ≤ 34 and the first 7–9 days of symptoms are associated with enhanced infectivity. We determined Ct values and duration of symptoms of HCW with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. As HCW often assume their greatest risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 is working on a COVID-19 unit, we also determined Ct values and symptom duration of inpatients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.MethodsFrom 6/24/2020-8/23/2020, Ct values and duration of symptoms from 13 HCW, 12 outpatients, and 28 inpatients who had a positive nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 were analyzed.ResultsAmong HCW with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, 46.2% (6/13) were asymptomatic and requested testing due to an exposure to someone with COVID-19; 83.3% (5/6) of those exposures occurred in the community rather than in the hospital. The median Ct value of HCW was 23.2, and 84.6% (11/13) had a Ct value ≤ 34. The median Ct value of 29.0 among outpatients with COVID-19 did not significantly differ from HCW. In contrast, inpatients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test had a median Ct value of 34.0 (p = 0.003), which translated into a median ~1,000-fold lower viral load than observed in HCW. Among those with symptoms related to COVID-19, no (0/6) HCW compared to 50% (6/12) of inpatients had symptoms for at least one week (p = 0.04).ConclusionsAt our institution, asymptomatic COVID-19 accounted for nearly half of the cases among HCW. Symptomatic HCW had high viral loads and short duration of symptoms, both of which are associated with peak infectivity. Infection prevention programs should educate HCW on these findings in an effort to increase adherence to the requirement to maintain six feet separation in workspaces and breakrooms, in addition to consistently wearing personal protection equipment.

Design and Implementation of a Skilled Nursing Facility COVID-19 Unit

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has challenged the health care system's capacity to care for acutely ill patients. In a collaborative partnership between a health system and a skilled nursing facility (SNF), we developed and implemented an SNF COVID-19 unit to allow expedited hospital discharge of COVID-positive older adults who are clinically improving, and to provide an alternative to hospitalization for those who require SNF care but do not require or necessarily desire aggressive disease-modifying interventions.

Candida auris Outbreak in a COVID-19 Specialty Care Unit - Florida, July-August 2020.

In July 2020, the Florida Department of Health was alerted to three Candida auris bloodstream infections and one urinary tract infection in four patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who received care in the same dedicated COVID-19 unit of an acute care hospital (hospital A). C. auris is a multidrug-resistant yeast that can cause invasive infection. Its ability to colonize patients asymptomatically and persist on surfaces has contributed to previous C. auris outbreaks in health care settings (1-7). Since the first C. auris case was identified in Florida in 2017, aggressive measures have been implemented to limit spread, including contact tracing and screening upon detection of a new case. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, hospital A conducted admission screening for C. auris and admitted colonized patients to a separate dedicated ward.

Blood Biomarkers for Assessing Headaches in Healthcare Workers after Wearing Biological Personal Protective Equipment in a COVID-19 Field Hospital.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to a pandemic, which among other things, has highlighted biosafety as a key cornerstone in the management of disease transmission. The aim of this work was to analyze the role played by different blood biomarkers in predicting the appearance of headaches in healthcare workers wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) in a COVID-19 treatment unit. A prospective cohort study of 38 healthcare workers was performed during April 2020. Blood analysis, performed just before the start of a 4 hour shift, was carried out on all volunteers equipped with PPE. At the end of their shifts and after decontamination, they were asked if they had suffered from headache in order to obtain a binary outcome. The baseline creatinine value reflected a specific odds ratio of 241.36 (95% CI: 2.50–23,295.43; p = 0.019) and an area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.737 (95%CI: 0.57–0.90; p < 0.01). Blood creatinine is a good candidate for predicting the appearance of a de novo headache in healthcare workers after wearing PPE for four hours in a COVID-19 unit.

When Pediatric Hospitalists Took Care of Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

In April 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic raged through our hospital system in Connecticut.1 Medical teams for adult patients mobilized their staff and units for the incessant surge. Patient volume and acuity on the adult units began to rise amid the uncertainty of personal protective equipment (PPE) supplies, fear of a formidable impact, and potential depletion of the clinical workforce. In preparation, the pediatrics department chair of our children’s hospital within a larger academic medical center asked for volunteers to help the adult teams. The pediatric wards were strangely quiet as patients and families stayed away from the hospital and elective surgeries were canceled. In comparison, admissions to adult units in our hospital continued to rise exponentially (3 cases of COVID-19 on March 15 and 354 on April 9), further displaying the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on adults. Because pediatric hospitalizations to COVID-19 remained low and the demand for beds for hospitalized adults continued to rise, we initially gave two of our pediatric units to internal medicine clinician teams for adult admissions. Along with more hospitalized patients, the need for more clinicians to care for patients became more apparent. We heard that our pediatric critical care and pediatric emergency department faculty were helping to staff with adult medical ICUs. We knew that would be us soon and began work to brush up on our internal medicine skills.2 Instead of waiting to be asked, we decided proactively to offer our services to the internal medicine department as a team of pediatric nurses, pediatric housestaff, and pediatric hospitalists under the guidance of medicine-pediatrics hospitalists and medicine-pediatrics housestaff. Shortly, we were deployed to open a new adult COVID-19 …

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Residents in the Americas

Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected the physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) specialty globally. The effects of this pandemic on PRM residents in 14 countries of the Americas are described in this study. Materials and Methods: This study is based on the international survey done by the World Youth Forum of the International Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. The cross-sectional data obtained were analyzed for a point-of-view study (August 2020). Results: PRM residents reported multiple challenges in their training program including mental health issues during the pandemic. In all the countries, there was either complete or partial closure of services provided by PRM specialists at the height of the crisis. In some areas, there was a necessity to temporarily transform the rehabilitation service into a COVID-19 unit and to assign residents to medical and intensive care units. Residency programs in 13 countries introduced virtual lectures and examinations. The duration of residency will probably increase in three countries, may not be affected in another six, and is still undetermined in five. The specialty licensing examination was temporally suspended/postponed in four countries, administered in a modified way in one, and has not been affected yet in four. Conclusion: COVID-19 pandemic adversely affected the training of PRM residents in the Americas. Despite the efforts to overcome this, the residents need more support including well-being programs. Every country and training program should continue to evolve to adapt to the crisis and anticipate additional challenges in the near future.

Minimal Population Prevalence and Mortality of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Healthcare Personnel.

Among 3926 healthcare personnel in a multisite healthcare system, the minimal population prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was 4.4% (bootstrap 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.7%–5.0%), and the infection fatality rate was 0.6% (bootstrap 95% CI, 0.0%–1.7%). Rates reflected both local community prevalence and hospital exposures but not specifically exposure on COVID-19 units.

Time for lessons from the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. A case report of a patient with acute psychosis and COVID-19 and later virus reactivation

A case of a middle-aged male, suffering from acute psychosis while in self-isolation due to COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) is presented. The patient required urgent hospital admission due to psychosis, which was only possible to COVID-19 unit of the Department of Infectious Diseases at the time. After transfer to psychiatric hospital, stool sample, taken as an additional preventive measure, was positive for the novel coronavirus. In addition, the patient experienced spontaneous virus reactivation few weeks later. This case report describes certain dilemmas, based on care for patients with mental illness as Europe stands on the brink of COVID-19 second wave.

The Role of Vitamin C as Adjuvant Therapy in COVID-19.

Background and objectiveThe anti-inflammatory properties of vitamin C (VC) and the promising results it has shown in the treatment for common cold have prompted clinicians to use it as adjuvant therapy in the treatment of COVID-19. The purpose of this study was to find out the role of VC as adjunctive therapy in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodologyThis study was conducted from March to July 2020 in the COVID-19 unit of a tertiary care hospital in Karachi. In this randomized controlled trial (RCT), one group received the intervention [50 mg/kg/day of intravenous (IV) VC] along with the standard therapy, and the other group received standard therapy only. Data such as age, gender, vitals, and biochemical values as well as outcomes including the number of days required for treatment, hospital stay, need for ventilation, and mortality were compared between the two groups and recorded using a self-structured questionnaire.ResultsCOVID-19 patients who received IV VC became symptom-free earlier (7.1 ± 1.8 vs. 9.6 ± 2.1 days, p-value: <0.0001) and spent fewer days in the hospital (8.1 ± 1.8 vs. 10.7 ± 2.2 days, p-value: <0.0001) compared to those who received standard therapy only. However, there was no significant difference in the need for mechanical ventilation (p-value: 0.406) and mortality (p-value: 0.31) between the two groups.ConclusionVC can significantly improve clinical symptoms in patients affected with COVID-19; however, it had no impact on mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation. More large-scale studies are required to further assess the role of VC in the treatment of COVID-19.

Clinical Management of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Pregnancy and Outcome- Case Reports

Bangladesh is a South East Asian country; the first case of COVID-19 was detected in early March 2020. In a land where 2.11% of the total world population resides; a devastating surge of the Pandemic of COVID-19 was anticipated to overwhelm the health sectors [1]. Specific high risk groups were identified and possible efforts to minimize both morbidity and mortality have been ensured. Pilot health projects launched with mass campaigns on preventive measures from COVID-19 and to educate people about mode of transmission, home treatment and isolations in mild cases. Apart from general cases, the obstetric cases became a delicate challenge for health professionals. Here both mother and babies requires standard treatment protocol, care along with unprecedented psychological support system for the mothers in all three antepartam, intrapartam and postpartam periods. A well designed care protocol introduced for neonatal care. A national guideline on clinical management of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been developed on 30th March 2020 by Disease Control Division in combination with Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh [2]. The guidelines have been updated time to time to incorporate latest evidence and recommendations of WHO. New COVID-19 units reconstructed both in Government and Private sectors with adequate logistics, ICU support and trained stuffs with proper mother and baby isolation centers. A comprehensive infection prevention and control (IPC) is strictly maintained in every aspects of case management from community to hospital ICU. Severe and critical cases are treated in designated COVID-19 hospitals or units. Laboratory for patient screening tests and triage became a huge challenge for health facilities required constant supervision. Proper early diagnosis and case detection became the success tool of the disease. Two obstetric cases COVID-19 (SARS CoV2 virus) treatment and outcome have been discussed in this topic to highlight the management issue and to adopting national protocol.

Incidence of venous thromboembolism in coronavirus disease 2019: An experience from a single large academic center

BackgroundInfection with the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been associated with a hypercoagulable state. Emerging data from China and Europe have consistently shown an increased incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We aimed to identify the VTE incidence and early predictors of VTE at our high-volume tertiary care center. MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of 147 patients who had been admitted to Temple University Hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from April 1, 2020 to April 27, 2020. We first identified the VTE (pulmonary embolism [PE] and deep vein thrombosis [DVT]) incidence in our cohort. The VTE and no-VTE groups were compared by univariable analysis for demographics, comorbidities, laboratory data, and treatment outcomes. Subsequently, multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the early predictors of VTE. ResultsThe 147 patients (20.9% of all admissions) admitted to a designated COVID-19 unit at Temple University Hospital with a high clinical suspicion of acute VTE had undergone testing for VTE using computed tomography pulmonary angiography and/or extremity venous duplex ultrasonography. The overall incidence of VTE was 17% (25 of 147). Of the 25 patients, 16 had had acute PE, 14 had had acute DVT, and 5 had had both PE and DVT. The need for invasive mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio, 3.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-9.55) and the admission D-dimer level ≥1500 ng/mL (adjusted odds ratio, 3.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-9.78) were independent markers associated with VTE. The all-cause mortality in the VTE group was greater than that in the non-VTE group (48% vs 22%; P = .007). ConclusionsOur study represents one of the earliest reported from the United States on the incidence rate of VTE in patients with COVID-19. Patients with a high clinical suspicion and the identified risk factors (invasive mechanical ventilation, admission D-dimer level ≥1500 ng/mL) should be considered for early VTE testing. We did not screen all patients admitted for VTE; therefore, the true incidence of VTE could have been underestimated. Our findings require confirmation in future prospective studies.

Cardiac injury and mortality in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): insights from a mediation analysis

BackgroundsPatients at greatest risk of severe clinical conditions from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and death are elderly and comorbid patients. Increased levels of cardiac troponins identify patients with poor outcome. The present study aimed to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of a cohort of Italian inpatients, admitted to a medical COVID-19 Unit, and to investigate the relative role of cardiac injury on in-hospital mortality.Methods and resultsWe analyzed all consecutive patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 referred to our dedicated medical Unit between February 26th and March 31st 2020. Patients’ clinical data including comorbidities, laboratory values, and outcomes were collected. Predictors of in-hospital mortality were investigated. A mediation analysis was performed to identify the potential mediators in the relationship between cardiac injury and mortality. A total of 109 COVID-19 inpatients (female 36%, median age 71 years) were included. During in-hospital stay, 20 patients (18%) died and, compared with survivors, these patients were older, had more comorbidities defined by Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 3(65% vs 24%, p = 0.001), and higher levels of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (Hs-cTnI), both at first evaluation and peak levels. A dose–response curve between Hs-cTnI and in-hospital mortality risk up to 200 ng/L was detected. Hs-cTnI, chronic kidney disease, and chronic coronary artery disease mediated most of the risk of in-hospital death, with Hs-cTnI mediating 25% of such effect. Smaller effects were observed for age, lactic dehydrogenase, and d-dimer.ConclusionsIn this cohort of elderly and comorbid COVID-19 patients, elevated Hs-cTnI levels were the most important and independent mediators of in-hospital mortality.