Literature DB >> 32838259

Universal testing of patients and their support persons for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 when presenting for admission to labor and delivery at Mount Sinai Health System.

Ayisha Buckley1, Angela Bianco2, Joanne Stone2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32838259      PMCID: PMC7242944          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100147

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM


× No keyword cloud information.
To the Editors: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. The disease spread at an accelerated rate in densely populated cities such as New York City, which is considered an epicenter for the disease in the United States. Within the Mount Sinai Health System, we began to care for pregnant women with COVID-19 in March of 2020. In April 2020, a policy was implemented to perform universal SARS-CoV-2 testing for women planning to deliver at Mount Sinai Health System and their designated support persons to inform obstetrical and neonatal practices. During the testing period from April 4th to April 15th, 2020, 307 women with no symptoms of COVID-19 who presented for admission to labor and delivery in 2 institutions at Mount Sinai Health System underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing. Among the 307 women, 50 had a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 infections, and the prevalence of asymptomatic infection in this group was 16.3% (50/307). Among these 307 women, 91 did not have a support person present. Of the remaining 216 support persons, 17 declined testing, leaving 199 available for testing. All support persons were administered an infectious screening tool on entry, and all tests results returned negative. Of these 199 support persons who underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing, the prevalence of infection was found to be 19.6%, with 39 support persons having a positive test result for infection (39/199). We explored the concordance and discordance rates between patients and support persons. With regard to support persons with patients with a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 23 of 28 (82.1%) had a positive test result. However, for patients who had a negative test result for infection, only 16 of 171 (9.4%) support persons tested positive for infection (Table ). The comparison of patients with a positive test result with those who had a negative test result corresponds to a difference in the risk of the support person being positive for infection of 72.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 57.9–87.6) and a relative risk of infection of 8.8 (95% CI, 5.3–14.4).
Table

Overall test results of pregnant patients and support persons tested for SARS-CoV-2

Delivery typePatient resultSupport person result
All
Negative
Positive
N%
N%N%
SpontaneousNegative15590.6169.4171100.0
Positive517.92382.128100.0
All16080.43919.6199100.0

Ninety-one patients did not have a support person present. Of the remaining 216 support persons, 17 declined testing leaving 199 available for testing.

SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Buckley et al. Universal testing of patients and their support persons for COVID-19 when presenting for admission to L&D within the Mount Sinai Health System. AJOG MFM 2020.

Overall test results of pregnant patients and support persons tested for SARS-CoV-2 Ninety-one patients did not have a support person present. Of the remaining 216 support persons, 17 declined testing leaving 199 available for testing. SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Buckley et al. Universal testing of patients and their support persons for COVID-19 when presenting for admission to L&D within the Mount Sinai Health System. AJOG MFM 2020. Based on these findings, it is apparent that there was a high proportion of patients and support persons who were asymptomatic at the height of the pandemic in New York City hospitals. Our data suggest that universal testing of patients and support persons may address the use of personal protective equipment to further protect healthcare workers. Testing of support persons may also affect newborn care precautions. In addition, SARS-CoV-2 testing informs hospitals to separate patients who test positive for infection in the postpartum units. This initiative offers protection to healthcare workers, mothers, and newborns who are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Given the high rate of asymptomatic maternity patients and support persons, universal testing provides enhanced safety for all.
  7 in total

Review 1.  Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Pregnancy and Outcomes Among Pregnant Women and Neonates: A Literature Review.

Authors:  Elyse G Mark; Samuel McAleese; W Christopher Golden; Maureen M Gilmore; Anna Sick-Samuels; Melanie S Curless; Lawrence M Nogee; Aaron M Milstone; Julia Johnson
Journal:  Pediatr Infect Dis J       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 2.129

2.  The Psychological Experience of Obstetric Patients and Health Care Workers after Implementation of Universal SARS-CoV-2 Testing.

Authors:  Whitney R Bender; Sindhu Srinivas; Paulina Coutifaris; Alexandra Acker; Adi Hirshberg
Journal:  Am J Perinatol       Date:  2020-08-05       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 3.  Samba II PCR testing for COVID-19 in pregnant women: a retrospective cohort study and literature review.

Authors:  Ruiling Xu; Tara Alicia Pauley; Hannah Missfelder-Lobos; Richard John Haddon; Ravindra Kumar Gupta; Hsu Phern Chong
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-03-17       Impact factor: 3.007

4.  Universal Testing Policy for COVID-19 in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Nur Amirah Farhanah Hashim; Zaleha Abdullah Mahdy; Rahana Abdul Rahman; Aida Hani Mohd Kalok; Rosnah Sutan
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-02-08

5.  Evaluating the Immediate Response of Country-Wide Health Systems to the Covid-19 Pandemic: Applying the Gray Incidence Analysis Model.

Authors:  Tehmina Fiaz Qazi; Muhammad Zeeshan Shaukat; Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi; Abdul Basit
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2021-07-15

Review 6.  The Epidemiology of COVID-19 in Pregnancy.

Authors:  Eve E Overton; Dena Goffman; Alexander M Friedman
Journal:  Clin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 2.190

7.  Clinical manifestations, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnancy: living systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  John Allotey; Elena Stallings; Mercedes Bonet; Magnus Yap; Shaunak Chatterjee; Tania Kew; Luke Debenham; Anna Clavé Llavall; Anushka Dixit; Dengyi Zhou; Rishab Balaji; Siang Ing Lee; Xiu Qiu; Mingyang Yuan; Dyuti Coomar; Jameela Sheikh; Heidi Lawson; Kehkashan Ansari; Madelon van Wely; Elizabeth van Leeuwen; Elena Kostova; Heinke Kunst; Asma Khalil; Simon Tiberi; Vanessa Brizuela; Nathalie Broutet; Edna Kara; Caron Rahn Kim; Anna Thorson; Olufemi T Oladapo; Lynne Mofenson; Javier Zamora; Shakila Thangaratinam
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2020-09-01
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.