text stringlengths 148 10.3k | conversation_id int64 77.3k 898k | embedding sequence | cluster int64 38 38 |
|---|---|---|---|
Please summerize the given abstract to a title
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department CT for suspected diverticulitis
PURPOSE: This study examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department CT use for acute nontraumatic abdominal pain, to better understand why imaging volume so drastically decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of emergency imaging volumes from January 5 to May 30, 2020. Weekly volume data were collected for total imaging studies, abdominopelvic CT, and abdominopelvic CTs positive for common causes of acute nontraumatic abdominal pain. Two emergency radiology attendings scored all diverticulitis cases independently, and weekly volume data for uncomplicated and complicated diverticulitis cases was also collected. Volume data prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic was compared, using 2019 volumes as a control. RESULTS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, overall emergency imaging volume decreased 30% compared to 2019 (p = 0.002). While the number of emergency abdominopelvic CTs positive for appendicitis and small bowel obstruction did not significantly change during the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of cases of diverticulitis decreased significantly compared to 2019 (p = 0.001). This reduction can be specifically attributed to decreased uncomplicated diverticulitis cases, as the number of uncomplicated diverticulitis cases dropped significantly (p = 0.002) while there was no significant difference in the number of complicated diverticulitis cases (p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Reduced emergency abdominopelvic CT volume during the COVID-19 pandemic can partially be explained by decreased imaging of lower acuity patients. This data may help formulate future strategies for imaging resource utilization with an improved understanding of the relationship between perceived imaging risk and symptom acuity.
| 77,275 | [
0.441162109375,
0.35986328125,
-0.16064453125,
0.271484375,
-0.309326171875,
-0.407470703125,
-0.26513671875,
0.572265625,
0.372802734375,
0.490234375,
0.9599609375,
-0.783203125,
-0.1636962890625,
-0.5,
-0.60400390625,
0.50537109375,
-0.52294921875,
-0.76953125,
0.03515625,
0.... | 38 |
Please summerize the given abstract to a title
Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Response and Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic
ABSTRACT Objectives To evaluate the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) response and outcomes in two US communities with relatively low infection rates Background Studies in areas with high COVID-19 infection rates indicate that the pandemic has had direct and indirect effects on community response to OHCA and negative impacts on survival Data from areas with lower infection rates are lacking Methods In Multnomah County, OR and Ventura County, CA, we evaluated OHCA with attempted resuscitation by EMS from March 1 – May 31, 2020 and March 1 – May 31, 2019 Results Comparing 231 OHCA in 2019 to 278 in 2020, the proportion receiving bystander CPR was lower in 2020 (61% to 51%, p=0 02) and bystander use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) declined (5% to 1%, p=0 02) EMS response time increased (6 6 ± 2 0 to 7 6 ± 3 0 minutes, p0 07), and coronavirus infection rates were low (Multnomah 143/100,000, Ventura 127/100,000 as of May 31), compared to rates of ∼1600-3000/100,000 in the New York City region at that time Conclusions The community response to OHCA was altered from March to May 2020, with less bystander CPR, delays in EMS response time, and reduced survival from OHCA These results highlight the pandemic’s indirect negative impact on OHCA even in communities with relatively low incidence of COVID-19 and point to potential opportunities for countering the impact
| 77,288 | [
0.26025390625,
0.17724609375,
-0.62060546875,
0.6943359375,
-0.48876953125,
-0.732421875,
-0.67822265625,
0.1573486328125,
0.59521484375,
0.650390625,
0.309814453125,
-0.1861572265625,
-0.3486328125,
-0.55029296875,
-0.61474609375,
0.288330078125,
-0.369873046875,
-0.3798828125,
... | 38 |
Please summerize the given abstract to a title
Immunosuppression practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multinational survey study of transplant programs
During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been wide heterogeneity in the medical management of transplant recipients. We aimed to pragmatically capture immunosuppression practices globally following the early months of the pandemic. From June to September 2020, we surveyed 1267 physicians; 40.5% from 71 countries participated. Management decisions were made on a case-by-case basis by the majority (69.6%) of the programs. Overall, 76.8% performed ≥1 transplantation and many commented on avoiding high-risk transplantations. For induction, 26.5% were less likely to give T-cell depletion and 14.8% were more likely to give non-depleting agents. These practices varied by program-level factors more so than the COVID-19 burden. In patients with mild, moderate and severe COVID-19 symptoms 59.7%, 76.0%, and 79.5% decreased/stopped anti-metabolites, 23.2%, 45.4%, and 68.2% decreased/stopped calcineurin inhibitors, and 25.7%, 43.9%, and 57.7% decreased/stopped mTOR inhibitors, respectively. Also, 2.1%, 30.6%, and 46.0% increased steroids in patients with mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 symptoms. For prevalent transplant recipients, some programs also reported decreasing/stopping steroids (1.8%), anti-metabolites (10.3%), calcineurin inhibitors (4.1%), and mTOR inhibitors (5.5%). Transplant programs changed immunosuppression practices but also avoided high-risk transplants and increased maintenance steroids. The long-term ramifications of these practices remain to be seen as programs face the aftermath of the pandemic.
| 77,318 | [
0.2347412109375,
-0.125,
-0.412841796875,
0.5341796875,
-0.356201171875,
-0.560546875,
-0.182373046875,
0.63623046875,
0.427734375,
0.373046875,
0.1651611328125,
-0.80078125,
0.03863525390625,
0.07501220703125,
-0.833984375,
0.1668701171875,
-0.30859375,
-0.6669921875,
-0.4570312... | 38 |
Please summerize the given abstract to a title
Low risk of COVID-19 infection in an ambulatory gastrointestinal endoscopy center in Argentina
Background and Objectives. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised regarding the risk of infection to both healthcare staff and patients during gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. Given the im-portance of performing routine endoscopic procedures to an individual’s future health, we sought to estimate the risk of COVID-19 infection for healthcare staff and patients undergoing endoscopic studies at an ambulatory endoscopy center during the pandemic. Material and Methods. This is a prospective(and) analytical cohort study conducted in an ambulatory gastroenterology center located in the Au-tonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Patients undergoing different endoscopic procedures were evaluated for COVID-19 between April 14 and August 31, 2020. COVID-19 was also evaluated in all healthcare and associated staff during the same time period. The risk (cumu-lative incidence) of acquiring COVID-19 in all patients and staff was calculated. Results. Between April 14 and August 31, 2020, procedures were performed in 3,745 patients with a mean age of 51.12 years;2,102 (56.18%) were male and 1,643 (43.82%) were female. Follow-up was completed in 3,492 patients, 18 of whom tested positive for COVID-19 standing for an incidence of 0.52% (95%CI 0.31 – 0.81%). Six (5.45%) out of 110 staff members were infected with COVID-19 (1 endoscopist, 4 endoscopy assistants and 1 administrative staff member). In this group, the incidence of positive tests for COVID-19 was 5.45% (95%CI: 2.03 – 11.50%). The increased rates of positive cases among our patients and healthcare professionals were respectively 7.9 and 23.6 times lower than in general pop-ulation. Conclusion. During the study period, the propor-tion of COVID-19 infections in our ambulatory specialized in gastrointestinal endoscopy was low and much lower than that in the general population for both patients and health-care professionals. Endoscopic procedures undertaken at this center were low risk, likely due to strict compliance with es-tablished pandemic protocols. Future studies should compare the risk of infection in the hospital setting.
| 77,321 | [
0.281005859375,
0.04937744140625,
-0.8291015625,
0.57177734375,
-0.392822265625,
-0.325439453125,
-0.3212890625,
0.53125,
0.375732421875,
0.82275390625,
0.6982421875,
-0.7255859375,
-0.295166015625,
-0.48974609375,
-0.5947265625,
0.2734375,
-0.64990234375,
-0.88671875,
-0.2230224... | 38 |
Please summerize the given abstract to a title
Interest in dentistry in early months of the COVID‐19 global pandemic: A Google Trends approach
BACKGROUND: In early the COVID‐19 pandemic, routine dental treatments have been delayed due to the risk of disease transmission. This delay may lead public to search for information on the Internet for a solution. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the public interest in dentistry in the early months of the COVID‐19 global pandemic in the selected countries. METHODS: The daily numbers of new COVID‐19 cases were recorded for China, South Korea, Italy, Germany, Russia, Ukraine and Turkey. For these countries, Internet search interest of the keyword ‘dentistry’, ‘coronavirus’, ‘COVID‐19’, ‘SARS‐CoV‐2’ and ‘pandemic’ in the early months of the COVID‐19 pandemic was evaluated by using Google Trends data. RESULTS: In most countries included the public Internet search interest in ‘dentistry+coronavirus+COVID‐19+SARS‐CoV‐2+pandemic’ peaked prior to the peak of new COVID‐19 cases. While a statistically significant positive correlation was observed between the number of new cases and Google Trends data in China, South Korea, Italy and Germany, a statistically significant negative correlation was observed in Turkey. CONCLUSION: The peak public interest in dentistry has been prior to the peak of COVID‐19 new cases in most countries. The use of Internet data can provide useful information about pandemics and many other diseases.
| 77,387 | [
0.25048828125,
0.358154296875,
-0.43994140625,
0.47509765625,
-0.82763671875,
-0.40673828125,
-0.345458984375,
0.29638671875,
0.67236328125,
0.72021484375,
0.67431640625,
-0.63818359375,
-0.09808349609375,
-0.6630859375,
-0.436279296875,
0.1856689453125,
-0.7294921875,
-0.75390625,... | 38 |
Please summerize the given abstract to a title
Impact of COVID-19 on heart failure hospitalizations: one year after
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rapidly spread worldwide since it first emerged in December 2019, with more than 100 million cases reported to date, causing a great impact on healthcare systems. Heart failure (HF) is a major health problem. It affects about 10 million people in Europe and is the leading cause of hospitalization for patients older than 65 years. During the first wave of COVID-19 there was an important decrease in HF hospitalizations. Data regarding HF admissions during the second and third waves and inter-waves periods is scarce. PURPOSE: To examine the impact of COVID-19 on HF hospitalizations during the first year of the pandemic and to compare the clinical characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients admitted during the three pandemic waves with those admitted the previous year during the same periods. METHODS: Data from a tertiary Heart Failure Unit in Southern Spain between 1 March 2020 and 28 February 2021 were compared to the corresponding time period in the previous year. The impact of the pandemic on weekly hospitalizations was assessed using a Poisson Regression model, with year, season and pandemic wave as covariates. Clinical characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients admitted during the three waves were compared to those admitted during the same periods one year after. RESULTS: A significantly lower weekly number of admissions for HF was observed during the three pandemic wave periods compared to all other included periods (inter-wave periods and same periods in the previous year) (p=0.002, IRR 0.81, 0.77–0.86). Figure 1 shows monthly HF admissions between 1 March 2020 and 28 February 2021 (pandemic year) and the previous year, as well as COVID-19 hospitalized cases in our area. Clinical characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients admitted during the COVID-19 waves and the same periods in the previous year are shown in Figure 2. Patients admitted during the COVID-19 waves were younger, and fewer had diabetes mellitus (DM), atrial fibrillation (AF) and valvular heart disease (VHD). There were no differences in clinical outcomes (intensive care unit admission, in-hospital mortality). CONCLUSION: There was decline in HF hospitalization during the three waves of the pandemic year, but not during the inter-wave periods. Patients admitted during the wave periods had some clinical differences but similar in-hospital outcomes. FUNDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Type of funding sources: None.
| 77,459 | [
0.330810546875,
0.1875,
-0.264892578125,
0.312255859375,
-0.6630859375,
-0.1519775390625,
-0.3369140625,
0.329833984375,
0.485595703125,
0.242431640625,
0.56005859375,
-0.368896484375,
-0.0157928466796875,
-0.79541015625,
-0.63525390625,
-0.108154296875,
-0.26025390625,
-0.73095703... | 38 |
Please summerize the given abstract to a title
Effects of COVID-19 pandemic on out-of-hospital cardiac arrests: A systematic review
INTRODUCTION: In addition to the directly attributed mortality, COVID-19 is also likely to increase mortality indirectly. In this systematic review, we investigate the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 on out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. METHODS: We searched PubMed, BioMedCentral, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies comparing out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occurring during the pandemic and a non-pandemic period. Risk of bias was assessed with the ROBINS-I tool. The primary endpoint was return of spontaneous circulation. Secondary endpoints were bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation, survival to hospital discharge, and survival with favourable neurological outcome. RESULTS: We identified six studies. In two studies, rates of return of spontaneous circulation and survival to hospital discharge decreased significantly during the pandemic. Especially in Europe, bystander-witnessed cases, bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation and resuscitation attempted by emergency medical services were reduced during the pandemic. Also, ambulance response times were significantly delayed across all studies and patients presenting with non-shockable rhythms increased in two studies. In 2020, 3.9-5.9% of tested patients were SARS-CoV-2 positive and 4.8-26% had suggestive symptoms (fever and cough or dyspnoea). CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests had worse short-term outcomes during the pandemic than a non-pandemic period suggesting direct effects of COVID-19 infection and indirect effects from lockdown and disruption of healthcare systems. Patients at high risk of deterioration should be identified outside the hospital to promptly initiate treatment and reduce fatalities. Study registration PROSPERO CRD42020195794.
| 77,553 | [
0.34228515625,
0.1466064453125,
-0.6689453125,
0.49755859375,
-0.365234375,
-0.97119140625,
-0.319091796875,
0.416748046875,
0.31884765625,
0.8671875,
0.294189453125,
-0.51318359375,
-0.422119140625,
-0.432373046875,
-0.5107421875,
0.070556640625,
-0.479248046875,
-0.58642578125,
... | 38 |
Please summerize the given abstract to a title
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer deaths due to delays in diagnosis in England, UK: a national, population-based, modelling study
BACKGROUND: Since a national lockdown was introduced across the UK in March, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer screening has been suspended, routine diagnostic work deferred, and only urgent symptomatic cases prioritised for diagnostic intervention. In this study, we estimated the impact of delays in diagnosis on cancer survival outcomes in four major tumour types. METHODS: In this national population-based modelling study, we used linked English National Health Service (NHS) cancer registration and hospital administrative datasets for patients aged 15-84 years, diagnosed with breast, colorectal, and oesophageal cancer between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2010, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2014, and diagnosed with lung cancer between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2012, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2015. We use a routes-to-diagnosis framework to estimate the impact of diagnostic delays over a 12-month period from the commencement of physical distancing measures, on March 16, 2020, up to 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis. To model the subsequent impact of diagnostic delays on survival, we reallocated patients who were on screening and routine referral pathways to urgent and emergency pathways that are associated with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis. We considered three reallocation scenarios representing the best to worst case scenarios and reflect actual changes in the diagnostic pathway being seen in the NHS, as of March 16, 2020, and estimated the impact on net survival at 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis to calculate the additional deaths that can be attributed to cancer, and the total years of life lost (YLLs) compared with pre-pandemic data. FINDINGS: We collected data for 32â583 patients with breast cancer, 24â975 with colorectal cancer, 6744 with oesophageal cancer, and 29â305 with lung cancer. Across the three different scenarios, compared with pre-pandemic figures, we estimate a 7·9-9·6% increase in the number of deaths due to breast cancer up to year 5 after diagnosis, corresponding to between 281 (95% CI 266-295) and 344 (329-358) additional deaths. For colorectal cancer, we estimate 1445 (1392-1591) to 1563 (1534-1592) additional deaths, a 15·3-16·6% increase; for lung cancer, 1235 (1220-1254) to 1372 (1343-1401) additional deaths, a 4·8-5·3% increase; and for oesophageal cancer, 330 (324-335) to 342 (336-348) additional deaths, 5·8-6·0% increase up to 5 years after diagnosis. For these four tumour types, these data correspond with 3291-3621 additional deaths across the scenarios within 5 years. The total additional YLLs across these cancers is estimated to be 59â204-63â229 years. INTERPRETATION: Substantial increases in the number of avoidable cancer deaths in England are to be expected as a result of diagnostic delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Urgent policy interventions are necessary, particularly the need to manage the backlog within routine diagnostic services to mitigate the expected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation Economic and Social Research Council.
| 77,556 | [
0.296630859375,
-0.283447265625,
-0.492431640625,
0.0548095703125,
-0.2049560546875,
-0.93212890625,
-0.15185546875,
0.19140625,
0.474365234375,
0.94287109375,
0.5205078125,
-0.79541015625,
0.284912109375,
-0.394287109375,
-0.1202392578125,
0.533203125,
-0.439208984375,
-0.74365234... | 38 |
Please summerize the given abstract to a title
Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the pre-hospital evaluation and presentation of ischemic stroke at a non-urban comprehensive stroke center
Introduction: Many reports have described a decrease in the numbers of patients seeking medical attention for typical emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic These reports primarily relate to urban areas with widespread community transmission The impact of COVID-19 on non-urban areas with minimal community transmission is less well understood Methods: Using a prospectively maintained pre-hospital quality improvement database, we reviewed our hospital EMS transports with a diagnosis of stroke from January to April 2019 (baseline) and January to April 2020 (pandemic) We compared the volume of patients, transport/presentation times, severity of presenting symptoms, and final diagnosis Results: In January, February, March, and April 2019 10, 11, 17 and 19 patients, respectively were transported in comparison to 19, 14, 10 and 8 during the same months in 2020 From January through April 2019 there was a 53% increase in transports, compared to a 42% decrease during the same months in 2020 The slopes of these trend lines are significantly different (3 30;95%CI 0 48 - 6 12 versus -3 70;95%CI -5 76 - -1 64, P = 0 001) There were no significant differences in demographics, comorbidities, symptom severity, or stroke discharge diagnoses between the two time periods However, the median interval from LKW to time of EMS dispatch was significantly longer in January to April 2020 (12 + 273 min) compared to the same time period of January through April in 2019 (7 + 115 min) Conclusion: Our data indicate not only a decrease in patient transport volumes but more alarmingly, significantly longer intervals to EMS activation for suspected stroke care These results suggest that even in a non-urban location without widespread community transmission patientswere delaying or avoiding care for severe illness such as stroke (Figure Presented)
| 77,580 | [
0.20849609375,
0.43896484375,
-0.5146484375,
0.69970703125,
-0.446533203125,
-0.66748046875,
-0.422607421875,
0.400390625,
0.021270751953125,
0.7548828125,
0.189453125,
-0.5390625,
-0.07098388671875,
-0.521484375,
-0.35107421875,
0.32421875,
-0.58642578125,
-0.41845703125,
-0.390... | 38 |
Please summerize the given abstract to a title
Delays and Disruptions in Cancer Health Care Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review
PURPOSE: There has been noteworthy concern about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on health services including the management of cancer. In addition to being considered at higher risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, people with cancer may also experience disruptions or delays in health services. This systematic review aimed to identify the delays and disruptions to cancer services globally. METHODS: This is a systematic review with a comprehensive search including specific and general databases. We considered any observational longitudinal and cross-sectional study design. The selection, data extraction, and methodological assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by specific tools. The delays and disruptions identified were categorized, and their frequency was presented. RESULTS: Among the 62 studies identified, none exhibited high methodological quality. The most frequent determinants for disruptions were provider- or system-related, mainly because of the reduction in service availability. The studies identified 38 different categories of delays and disruptions with impact on treatment, diagnosis, or general health service. Delays or disruptions most investigated included reduction in routine activity of cancer services and number of cancer surgeries; delay in radiotherapy; and delay, reschedule, or cancellation of outpatient visits. Interruptions and disruptions largely affected facilities (up to 77.5%), supply chain (up to 79%), and personnel availability (up to 60%). CONCLUSION: The remarkable frequency of delays and disruptions in health care mostly related to the reduction of the COVID-19 burden unintentionally posed a major risk on cancer care worldwide. Strategies can be proposed not only to mitigate the main delays and disruptions but also to standardize their measurement and reporting. As a high number of publications continuously are being published, it is critical to harmonize the upcoming reports and constantly update this review.
| 77,692 | [
-0.00452423095703125,
-0.2449951171875,
-0.84521484375,
0.6298828125,
-0.1380615234375,
-0.6357421875,
-0.2059326171875,
0.28759765625,
0.55615234375,
1.2578125,
0.560546875,
-0.60400390625,
0.09100341796875,
-0.55712890625,
-0.058563232421875,
0.181640625,
-0.669921875,
-0.9096679... | 38 |
Please summerize the given abstract to a title
Impact of the COVID‐19 lockdown on the arrhythmic burden of patients with implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators
BACKGROUND: In Italy, a nationwide full lockdown was declared between March and May 2020 to hinder the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. The potential individual health effects of long‐term isolation are largely unknown. The current study investigated the arrhythmic consequences of the COVID‐19 lockdown in patients with defibrillators (ICDs) living in the province of Ferrara, Italy. METHODS: Both the arrhythmias and the delivered ICD therapies as notified by the devices were prospectively collected during the lockdown period (P1) and compared to those occurred during the 10 weeks before the lockdown began (P2) and during the same period in 2019 (P3). Changes in outcome over the three study periods were evaluated for significance using McNemar's test. RESULTS: A total of 413 patients were included in the analysis. No differences were found concerning either arrhythmias or shocks or anti‐tachycardia pacing. Only the number of patients experiencing non‐sustained ventricular tachycardias (NSVTs) during P1 significantly decreased as compared to P2 (p = 0.026) and P3 (p = 0.009). The subgroup analysis showed a significant decrease in NSVTs during P1 for men (vs. P2, p = 0.014; vs. P3, p = 0.040) and younger patients (vs. P2, p = 0.002; vs. P3, p = 0.040) and for ischemic etiology (vs. P2, p = 0.003). No arrhythmic deaths occurred during P1. CONCLUSIONS: The complete nationwide lockdown, as declared by the Italian government during the first COVID‐19 pandemic peak, did not impact on the incidence of arrhythmias in an urban cohort of patients with ICDs.
| 77,700 | [
0.05224609375,
0.37451171875,
-0.48583984375,
0.63916015625,
-0.755859375,
-0.95263671875,
-0.3388671875,
0.492919921875,
0.0667724609375,
0.69921875,
0.188720703125,
-0.2099609375,
0.0614013671875,
-0.6171875,
-0.6884765625,
0.31005859375,
-0.5205078125,
-0.6171875,
-0.079345703... | 38 |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
- Downloads last month
- 9