New York City (NYC) was an epicenter of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in the United States during spring 2020 (1). During March-May 2020, approximately 203,000 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases were reported to the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH). To obtain more complete data, DOHMH used supplementary information sources and relied on direct data importation and matching of patient identifiers for data on hospitalization status, the occurrence of death, race/ethnicity, and presence of underlying medical conditions. The highest rates of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths were concentrated in communities of color, high-poverty areas, and among persons aged ≥75 years or with underlying conditions. The crude fatality rate was 9.2% overall and 32.1% among hospitalized patients. Using these data to prevent additional infections among NYC residents during subsequent waves of the pandemic, particularly among those at highest risk for hospitalization and death, is critical. Mitigating COVID-19 transmission among vulnerable groups at high risk for hospitalization and death is an urgent priority. Similar to NYC, other jurisdictions might find the use of supplementary information sources valuable in their efforts to prevent COVID-19 infections. This report describes cases of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among NYC residents diagnosed during February 29-June 1, 2020, that were reported to DOHMH. DOHMH began COVID-19 surveillance in January 2020 when testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) using real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was limited by strict testing criteria because of limited test availability only through CDC. The NYC and New York State public health laboratories began testing hospitalized patients at the end of February and early March. DOHMH encouraged patients with mild symptoms to remain at home rather than seek health care because of shortages of personal protective equipment and laboratory tests at hospitals and clinics. Commercial laboratories began testing for SARS-CoV-2 in mid-to late March. During February 29-March 15, patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were interviewed by DOHMH, and close contacts were identified for monitoring. The rapid rise in laboratory-confirmed cases (cases) quickly made interviewing all patients, as well as contact tracing, unsustainable. Subsequent case investigations
, approximately 6.5 million cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and 190,000 SARS-CoV-2-associated deaths have been reported in the United States (1,2). Symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection are milder in children compared with adults (3). Persons aged <21 years constitute 26% of the U.S. population (4), and this report describes characteristics of U.S. persons in that population who died in association with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as reported by public health jurisdictions. Among 121 SARS-CoV-2-associated deaths reported to CDC among persons aged <21 years in the United States during February 12-July 31, 2020, 63% occurred in males, 10% of decedents were aged <1 year, 20% were aged 1-9 years, 70% were aged 10-20 years, 45% were Hispanic persons, 29% were non-Hispanic Black (Black) persons, and 4% were non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) persons. Among these 121 decedents, 91 (75%) had an underlying medical condition,* 79 (65%) died after admission to a hospital, and 39 (32%) died at home or in the emergency department (ED). † These data show that nearly three quarters of SARS-CoV-2-associated deaths among infants, children, adolescents, and young adults have occurred in persons aged 10-20 years, with a disproportionate percentage among young adults aged 18-20 years and among Hispanics, Blacks, AI/ANs, and persons with underlying medical conditions. Careful monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 * https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/peoplewith-medical-conditions.html. † Location of death for all cases (121): hospital (79 [65.3%]), home (16 [13.2%]), ED (23 [19.0%]), hospice (one [0.8%]), and unknown (2 [1.7%]).
Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Pericardiocentesis is a lifesaving intervention performed both percutaneously or surgically. We analysed 3 years of experience in a major tertiary hospital in Sydney Australia. Purpose To examine the indications, safety and delivery of a pericardiocentesis service at a major teaching hospital. Methods We retrospectively audited consecutive patients who underwent pericardiocentesis for pericardial effusion[PE] at a major teaching hospital from February 2018 to December 2020. Eligible patients were identified from the electronic medical records with this coding diagnosis. Results 89 patients identified with mean age 60.8 ± 18.9years and 58.4%(51/89) male. Follow-up to August 2021 showed 41.5% had died, with an index hospitalisation mortality of 19%(17/89). Malignancy was the most common aetiology 30.3%(27/89) and attributable cause of hospitalisation death in 29.4%. Alternate causes included pericarditis 14.6%, idiopathic 13.4%, percutaneous-coronary-intervention(PCI) 5.6%(6/89) and electrophysiology 4.5%(4/89) complications. Three patients had aortic dissection (3.3%) and two were fatal. Clinical tamponade was present in 66.2%(55/89), PE identification occurred via echocardiography(TTE) in 55% cases (49/89) and incidental CT-diagnosis in 20.2%. TTE findings: right atrial collapse 54%(47/87), right ventricular collapse 60.9%(53/87), fixed and dilated inferior vena cava 64.7%. Pericardiocentesis was performed by cardiology trainees in 90.5% cases, 64.5% with consultant supervision and during working hours in 57.3% of cases. Percutaneous drainage was successful in 96%(72/75) of cases and was performed in the coronary care unit (30.3%), catheterisation laboratory (23.5%), emergency department (19.1%) and ICU (11.2%). Subxiphoid approach in 70%(62/89) was the most common then trans-apical 15%(13/89), parasternal 3%(3/89) and surgical 16%(14/89). TTE confirmed drain position in 76%(54/71), fluoroscopy in 28.5%(6/21) and agitated saline in 38.9%(30/77). Haemo-serous fluid noted in 77%(67/87) with average initial fluid drainage 480 ± 326mls and mean drain removal time 54 ± 33hrs. 17%(15/89) required re-drainage with adenocarcinoma found in 33.3%(5/15). Background antiplatelet treatment in 30.6%(27/88) and of these 67%(18/27) were on dual antiplatelets. 33%(29/89) patients were anticoagulated and 31.3%(9/29) required reversal prior to drainage. Complications were rare, 4%(3/75) had right heart chamber perforation needing emergency surgery. Two were post complex PCI (one died during admission from multiorgan failure) and one with pericarditis . Conclusions Pericardiocentesis is a safe and effective procedure for tamponade treatment and largely guided by echocardiography in our experience. Complications are rare and prognosis depends on aetiology with malignancy the most common. Drainage is often successfully performed emergently where the patient is located. Tamponade resulting from procedural complications are rare in our cohort.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.