OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection with the use of universal testing in our obstetric population presenting for scheduled deliveries, as well as the concordance or discordance rate among their support persons during the initial 2-week period of testing. Additionally, we assessed the utility of a screening tool in predicting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing results in our cohort. METHODS: This was an observational study in which all women who were scheduled for a planned delivery within the Mount Sinai Health system from April 4 to April 15, 2020, were contacted and provided with an appointment for themselves as well as their support persons to undergo COVID-19 testing 1 day before their scheduled delivery. Both the patients and the support persons were administered a standardized screen specific for COVID-19 infection by telephone interview. Those support persons who screened positive were not permitted to attend the birth. All patients and screen-negative support persons underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing. RESULTS: During the study period, 155 patients and 146 support persons underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing. The prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection was 15.5% (CI 9.8-21.2%) and 9.6% (CI 4.8-14.4%) among patients and support persons, respectively. The rate of discordance among tested pairs was 7.5%. Among patients with COVID-19 infection, 58% of their support persons also had infection; in patients without infection, fewer than 3.0% of their support persons had infection. CONCLUSION: We found that more than 15% of asymptomatic maternity patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection despite having screened negative with the use of a telephone screening tool. Additionally, 58% of their asymptomatic, screen-negative support persons also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Alternatively, testing of the support persons of women who had tested negative for COVID-19 infection had a low yield for positive results. This has important implications for obstetric and newborn care practices as well as for health care professionals.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection with the use of universal testing in our obstetric population presenting for scheduled deliveries, as well as the concordance or discordance rate among their support persons during the initial 2-week period of testing. Additionally, we assessed the utility of a screening tool in predicting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing results in our cohort. METHODS: This was an observational study in which all women who were scheduled for a planned delivery within the Mount Sinai Health system from April 4 to April 15, 2020, were contacted and provided with an appointment for themselves as well as their support persons to undergo COVID-19 testing 1 day before their scheduled delivery. Both the patients and the support persons were administered a standardized screen specific for COVID-19infection by telephone interview. Those support persons who screened positive were not permitted to attend the birth. All patients and screen-negative support persons underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing. RESULTS: During the study period, 155 patients and 146 support persons underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing. The prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19infection was 15.5% (CI 9.8-21.2%) and 9.6% (CI 4.8-14.4%) among patients and support persons, respectively. The rate of discordance among tested pairs was 7.5%. Among patients with COVID-19infection, 58% of their support persons also had infection; in patients without infection, fewer than 3.0% of their support persons had infection. CONCLUSION: We found that more than 15% of asymptomatic maternity patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection despite having screened negative with the use of a telephone screening tool. Additionally, 58% of their asymptomatic, screen-negative support persons also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Alternatively, testing of the support persons of women who had tested negative for COVID-19infection had a low yield for positive results. This has important implications for obstetric and newborn care practices as well as for health care professionals.
Authors: Teresa Janevic; Whitney Lieb; Erona Ibroci; Jezelle Lynch; Molly Lieber; Nina M Molenaar; Anna-Sophie Rommel; Lotje de Witte; Sophie Ohrn; Juan Manuel Carreño; Florian Krammer; Lauren B Zapata; Margaret Christine Snead; Rachel I Brody; Rebecca H Jessel; Stephanie Sestito; Alan Adler; Omara Afzal; Frederieke Gigase; Roy Missall; Daniel Carrión; Joanne Stone; Veerle Bergink; Siobhan M Dolan; Elizabeth A Howell Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM Date: 2022-04-21
Authors: Keshava Rajagopal; Steven P Keller; Bindu Akkanti; Christian Bime; Pranav Loyalka; Faisal H Cheema; Joseph B Zwischenberger; Aly El Banayosy; Federico Pappalardo; Mark S Slaughter; Marvin J Slepian Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Ermengol Coma Redon; Nuria Mora; Albert Prats-Uribe; Francesc Fina Avilés; Daniel Prieto-Alhambra; Manuel Medina Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Mercedes Yanes-Lane; Nicholas Winters; Federica Fregonese; Mayara Bastos; Sara Perlman-Arrow; Jonathon R Campbell; Dick Menzies Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Garrett W Burnett; Daniel Katz; Chang H Park; Jaime B Hyman; Elisha Dickstein; Matthew A Levin; Alan Sim; Benjamin Salter; Robert M Owen; Andrew B Leibowitz; Joshua Hamburger Journal: J Anesth Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 2.078