1.COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test: Role in Screening Prior to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Ashok DALAL ; Ujjwal SONIKA ; Manish KUMAR ; Roshan GEORGE ; Ajay KUMAR ; Siddharth SRIVASTAVA ; Sanjeev SACHDEVA ; Barjesh Chander SHARMA
Clinical Endoscopy 2021;54(4):522-525
Background/Aims:
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has affected the gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy units globally owing to the risk of transmission. We present our data on the use of rapid antigen test (RAT) as a screening tool prior to endoscopy to prevent the transmission of coronavirus disease (COVID-19).
Methods:
This study was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent any GI endoscopic procedure from July 2020 to October 2020 at a tertiary referral center in New Delhi, India. All patients underwent screening for COVID-19 using RAT, and endoscopy was performed only when the RAT was negative. The data are presented as numbers and percentages.
Results:
A total of 3,002 endoscopic procedures were performed during the study period. Only one endoscopic procedure was performed in a COVID-19 positive patient. A total of 53 healthcare workers were involved in conducting these procedures. Only 2 healthcare workers (3.8%) were diagnosed COVID-19 positive, presumably due to community-acquired infection, during this period.
Conclusions
The COVID-19 RAT is easily usable as a simple screening tool prior to GI endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic.
2.COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test: Role in Screening Prior to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Ashok DALAL ; Ujjwal SONIKA ; Manish KUMAR ; Roshan GEORGE ; Ajay KUMAR ; Siddharth SRIVASTAVA ; Sanjeev SACHDEVA ; Barjesh Chander SHARMA
Clinical Endoscopy 2021;54(4):522-525
Background/Aims:
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has affected the gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy units globally owing to the risk of transmission. We present our data on the use of rapid antigen test (RAT) as a screening tool prior to endoscopy to prevent the transmission of coronavirus disease (COVID-19).
Methods:
This study was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent any GI endoscopic procedure from July 2020 to October 2020 at a tertiary referral center in New Delhi, India. All patients underwent screening for COVID-19 using RAT, and endoscopy was performed only when the RAT was negative. The data are presented as numbers and percentages.
Results:
A total of 3,002 endoscopic procedures were performed during the study period. Only one endoscopic procedure was performed in a COVID-19 positive patient. A total of 53 healthcare workers were involved in conducting these procedures. Only 2 healthcare workers (3.8%) were diagnosed COVID-19 positive, presumably due to community-acquired infection, during this period.
Conclusions
The COVID-19 RAT is easily usable as a simple screening tool prior to GI endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic.
3.Evaluation of massive transfusion protocol practices by type of trauma at a level I trauma center.
Roshan GIVERGIS ; Swapna MUNNANGI ; ; Anthony BOUTIN ; Luis Carlos ZAPATA ; Ld George ANGUS
Chinese Journal of Traumatology 2018;21(5):261-266
PURPOSETo evaluate massive transfusion protocol practices by trauma type at a level I trauma center.
METHODSA retrospective analysis was performed on a sample of 76 trauma patients with MTP activation between March 2010 and January 2015 at a regional trauma center. Patient demographics, transfusion practices, and clinical outcomes were compared by type of trauma sustained.
RESULTSPenetrating trauma patients who required MTP activation were significantly younger, had lower injury severity score (ISS), higher probability of survival (POS), decreased mortality, and higher Glasgow Coma scale (GCS) compared to blunt trauma patients. Overall, the mortality rate was 38.16%. The most common injury sustained among blunt trauma patients was head injury (36.21%), whereas the majority of the penetrating trauma patients sustained abdominal injuries (55.56%). Although the admission coagulation parameters and timing of coagulopathy were not significantly different between the two groups of patients, a significantly higher proportion of penetrating trauma patients received high plasma content therapy relative to blunt trauma patients (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONDespite the use of the same MTP for all injured patients requiring massive transfusion, significant differences existed between blunt trauma patients and penetrating trauma patients. These differences in transfusion characteristics and outcomes following MTP activation underscore the complexity of implementing MTPs and warrant vigilant transfusion practices to improve outcomes in trauma patients.