PURPOSE: COVID-19 has altered healthcare delivery. Previous work has focused on patients with cancer and COVID-19, but little has been reported on healthcare system changes among patients without COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients with breast cancer (BC) in New York City between February 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020. New patients were included as were patients scheduled to receive intravenous or injectable therapy. Patients with COVID-19 were excluded. Demographic and treatment information were obtained by chart review. Delays and/or changes in systemic therapy, surgery, radiation, and radiology related to the pandemic were tracked, along with the reasons for delay and/or change. Univariate and multivariable analysis were used to identify factors associated with delay and/or change. RESULTS: We identified 350 eligible patients, of whom 149 (42.6%) experienced a delay and/or change, and practice reduction (51.0%) was the most common reason. The patients who identified as Black or African American, Asian, or Other races were more likely to experience a delay and/or change compared with White patients (Black, 44.4%; Asian, 47.1%; Other, 55.6%; White, 31.4%; P = .001). In multivariable analysis, Medicaid compared with commercial insurance (odds ratio [OR], 3.04; 95% CI, 1.32 to 7.27) was associated with increased odds of a delay and/or change, whereas stage II or III BC compared with stage I (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.95; and OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.092, respectively) was associated with decreased odds of a delay and/or change. CONCLUSION: Almost half of the patients with BC without COVID-19 had a delay and/or change. We found racial and socioeconomic disparities in the likelihood of a delay and/or change. Further studies are needed to determine the impact these care alterations have on BC outcomes.

Background Medical student education in the era of the COVID-19 outbreak is vastly different than the standard education we have become accustomed to. Medical student assessment is an important aspect of adjusting curriculums in the era of increased virtual learning. Methods Students took our previously validated free response clinical skills exam (CSE) at the end of the scheduled clerkship as an open-book exam to eliminate any concern for breaches in the honor code and then grades were adjusted based on historic norms. The National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) shelf exam was taken with a virtual proctor. Students whose clerkship was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic were compared to the students from a similarly timed surgery block the previous 3 years. Primary outcomes included CSE and NBME exam scores. Secondary outcomes included clinical evaluations and the percentage of students who received grades of Honors, High Pass, and Pass. After the surgery clerkship was completed, we surveyed all students who participated in the surgery clerkship during the COVID-19 crisis. Results There were 19 students during the COVID-interrupted clerkship and 61 students in similarly timed clerkships between 2017 and 2019. Prior to adjustment and compared to historic scores, the COVID-interrupted clerkship group scored higher on the CSE, NBME exam, and performance evaluations (median, CSE:75.2 vs 68.7, shelf:68.0 vs 64.0, performance evaluation mean: 2.96 vs 2.78). The percentage of students with an honors was marginally higher in the group affected by COVID (42% vs 32%). Out of 19 students surveyed, 9 students responded. Seven students stated they would have preferred a closed-book CSE, citing a few drawbacks of the open-book format such as modifying their exam preparation, being discouraged from thinking prior to searching online during the test, and second guessing their answers. Conclusions During the initial outbreak of COVID-19, we found that an open book exam and a virtually proctored shelf exam was a reasonable option. However, to avoid adjustments and student dissatisfaction, we would recommend virtual proctoring if available.

No abstract

Objective: To determine the optimal surgical strategy for performing tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients. Background: Many ventilated COVID-19 patients require prolonged ventilation. We do not know if tracheostomy will improve their care. Given the paucity of data on this topic, the optimal surgical approach has yet to be elucidated. Methods: This is a cohort study of 143 ventilator dependent COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy at an academic medical center from April 15th to May 15th, 2020, with follow up until June 1, 2020. We included adult patients admitted to a NYC medical center with COVID-19 who required invasive mechanical ventilation for greater than 2 weeks who were unable to be extubated and determined to have reasonable chance of recovery and fit defined tracheostomy candidate criteria. Patients underwent either a percutaneous tracheostomy (PT) or open surgical tracheostomy (ST) performed by 1 of 3 surgical services. Results: One hundred forty-three patients underwent tracheostomy, 58 (41%) via a ST, and 85 (59%) via a PT. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the 2 groups, except that more patients who had a history of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation underwent PT (11% vs 2%, P = 0.049). There were no statistical differences observed between the PT and ST groups with regard to bleeding complications (3.5%vs 10.3%, P = 0.099), tracheostomy related complications (5.9% vs 8.6%, P = 0.528), inpatient death (12% vs 5%, P = 0.178), discharge from hospital (39% vs 36%, P = 0.751) or surgeon illness (0% vs 0%, P = 1). Conclusion and Relevance: The rapid formation of a multi-disciplinary team allows for the efficient evaluation and performance of a large volume of tracheostomies in a resource-limited setting. Bedside tracheostomy in COVID-19 does not cause additional harm to patients if performed after 2 weeks from intubation. It also seems to be safe for proceduralists to perform in this timeframe. The manner of tracheostomy does not change outcomes significantly if it is performed safely and efficiently.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: The benefit and short-term safety of ketorolac have been established in previous studies however, the risk of bleeding and long-term renal impairment in patients undergoing donor nephrectomy remain unclear. We report our experience at a high-volume transplant center. Method: Between January 1996 and January 2014, 862 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Exclusion criteria included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug allergy, asthma, bleeding disorders, long-term opioid use, intraoperative blood loss >700 mL, peptic ulcer disease, bleeding diathesis, and baseline creatinine greater than 1.9 mg/dL. Intravenous ketorolac was administered within 30 minutes following the surgical procedure at a dose of 15 to 30 mg every 6 hours. Patients were categorized into 2 groups according to the administration of ketorolac after surgery. Differences between the groups were analyzed. Primary outcomes were changes in serum creatinine and hemoglobin levels. Poor outcome was defined as postsurgical complications. Results: During this time, 469 (55.3%) received ketorolac. The mean donor age was 39 years, and 360 (42.5%) were male. Left kidneys were procured in 82%. Operative time averaged 210 minutes and warm ischemia time117 seconds. Baseline demographic and operative outcomes were comparable in both groups. No statistically significant differences were found between the ketorolac group and the nonketorolac group in preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin levels and serum creatinine at 1 week, 1 year, and 5 years ( P = .6). Ketorolac use was not associated with increased perioperative morbidity ( P = NS). Conclusion: The use of intravenous ketorolac in patients undergoing donor nephrectomy was not associated with an increased risk of bleeding or renal impairment.

No abstract