Background: There is currently a paucity of data describing bacterial coinfections, related antibiotic prescribing patterns, and the potential role of antimicrobial stewardship in the care of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Methods: This prospective, observational study was conducted from March 10, 2020 to April 21, 2020 in admitted patients with confirmed COVID-19. Patients were included if ≥ 18 years old and admitted to the hospital for further treatment. Data was collected via chart review from the enterprise electronic health record database. Data collected include factors driving antibiotic choice, indication, and duration of therapy as well as microbiological data. Findings: Antibiotics were initiated on admission in 87/147 (59%) patients. Of these, 85/87 (98%) prescriptions were empiric. The most common indication for empiric antibiotics was concern for community-acquired pneumonia (76/85, 89%) with the most prescribed antibiotics being ceftriaxone and azithromycin. The median duration of antibiotic therapy was two days (interquartile range 1-5). No patients had a community-acquired bacterial respiratory coinfection, but 10/147 (7%) of patients were found to have concurrent bacterial infections from a non-respiratory source, and one patient was diagnosed with active pulmonary tuberculosis at the time of admission for COVID-19. Interpretation: Bacterial coinfection in patients with COVID-19 was infrequent. Antibiotics are likely unnecessary in patients with mild symptoms. There is little role for broad-spectrum antibiotics to empirically treat multidrug resistant organisms in patients with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. Antimicrobial stewardship remains important in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Background Active esophageal cooling is increasingly utilized as an alternative to luminal esophageal temperature (LET) monitoring for protection against thermal injury during pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) when treating atrial fibrillation (AF). Published data demonstrate the efficacy of active cooling in reducing thermal injury, but impacts on procedural efficiency are not as well characterized. LET monitoring compels pauses in ablation due to heat stacking and temperature overheating alarms that in turn delay progress of the PVI procedure, whereas active esophageal cooling allows avoidance of this phenomenon. Our objective was to measure the change in PVI procedure duration after implementation of active esophageal cooling as a protective measure against esophageal injury. Methods We performed a retrospective review under IRB approval of patients with AF undergoing PVI between January 2018 and February 2020. For each patient, we recorded age, gender, and total procedure time. We then compared procedure times before and after the implementation of active esophageal cooling as a replacement for LET monitoring. Results A total of 373 patients received PVI over the study period. LET monitoring using a multi-sensor probe was performed in 198 patients, and active esophageal cooling using a dedicated device was performed in 175 patients. Patient characteristics did not significantly differ between groups (mean age of 67 years, and gender 37.4% female). Mean procedure time was 146 ± 51 min in the LET-monitored patients, and 110 ± 39 min in the actively cooled patients, representing a reduction of 36 min, or 24.7% of total procedure time (p < .001). Median procedure time was 141 [IQR 104 to 174] min in the LET-monitored patients and 100 [IQR 84 to 122] min in the actively cooled patients, for a reduction of 41 min, or 29.1% of total procedure time (p < .001). Conclusions Implementation of active esophageal cooling for protection against esophageal injury during PVI was associated with a significantly large reduction in procedure duration.

Background Active esophageal cooling during pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with radiofrequency (RF) ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) is increasingly being utilized to reduce esophageal injury and atrioesophageal fistula formation. Randomized controlled data also show trends towards increased freedom from AF when using active cooling. This study aimed to compare 1-year arrhythmia recurrence rates between patients treated with luminal esophageal temperature (LET) monitoring versus active esophageal cooling during left atrial ablation. Method Data from two healthcare systems (including 3 hospitals and 4 electrophysiologists) were reviewed for patient rhythm status at 1-year follow-up after receiving PVI for the treatment of AF. Results were compared between patients receiving active esophageal cooling (ensoETM, Attune Medical, Chicago, IL) and those treated with traditional LET monitoring using Kaplan–Meier estimates. Results A total of 513 patients were reviewed; 253 received LET monitoring using either single or multi-sensor temperature probes; and 260 received active cooling. The mean age was 66.8 (SD ± 10) years, and 36.8% were female. Arrhythmias were 60.1% paroxysmal AF, 34.3% persistent AF, and 5.6% long-standing persistent AF, with no significant difference between groups. At 1-year follow-up, KM estimates for freedom from AF were 58.2% for LET-monitored patients and 72.2% for actively cooled patients, for an absolute increase in freedom from AF of 14% with active esophageal cooling (p = .03). Adjustment for the confounders of patient age, gender, type of AF, and operator with an inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox proportional hazards model yielded a hazard ratio of 0.6 for the effect of cooling on AF recurrence (p = 0.045). Conclusions In this first study to date of the association between esophageal protection strategy and long-term efficacy of left atrial RF ablation, a clinically and statistically significant improvement in freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 1 year was found in patients treated with active esophageal cooling when compared to patients who received LET monitoring. More rigorous prospective studies or randomized studies are required to validate the findings of the current study.

No abstract

No abstract