St. John's Riverside Hospital

Introduction Preclinical animal experiments and initial feasibility studies in humans have shown encouraging outcomes using the novel Saccular Endovascular Aneurysm Lattice (SEAL™) system for the treatment of both ruptured and unruptured wide‐neck intracranial aneurysms (IAs). The SEAL™ Interventional Pivotal IDE PMA Trial (SEAL™ IT) is designed to assess the safety and efficacy of the SEAL™ in patients with saccular IAs. This ongoing, prospective, multicenter trial includes three study arms and will enroll a total of 279 participants with wide‐neck bifurcation (WNBA), sidewall (SW), or acutely ruptured IAs across 50 U.S. sites. Methods Eligibility requirements include patients aged 20‐80 years with a wide‐neck saccular intracranial aneurysm (2‐19 mm) deemed suitable for treatment with the SEAL™ Intrasaccular Device (SID). Participants receive treatment using the SEAL™ device (Galaxy Therapeutics Inc.) and are monitored at discharge, and again at 3, 6, and 12 months, followed by yearly assessments for up to 5 years. The primary efficacy outcome is defined as complete aneurysm occlusion at 12 months without evidence of parent vessel stenosis or the need for retreatment, as determined by an independent core laboratory. Key safety outcomes include neurological death within 12 months, stroke occurring within the first 30 days, and ipsilateral stroke between 30 days and 1 year. Results As of submission, 163 WNBA, 58 WNSW, and 33 ruptured for a total of 254 patients (76.3% female; mean age 61.7 ± 11.3) have been enrolled at 50 sites. Mean aneurysm width was 5.2 ± 2.1, neck size of 3.7 ± 1.4, and neck‐to‐dome ratio of 1.4 ± 0.32. SEAL Arc was used in 63.6% and SEAL Base in 36.4%. Technical device success rate is 100% for WNBA, 94.8% WNSW, and 97.0% ruptured. The interim complete occlusion rate for the primary group is 84.5% at most recent date based on available imaging. Conclusion Preliminary data for the SEAL™ intrasaccular device is promising; Safety and effectiveness updates will be presented at the SVIN Conference.

Background: Benzodiazepine withdrawal is highly heterogeneous, ranging from mild, transient symptoms to a severe, protracted syndrome. Existing descriptive approaches catalog symptoms without explaining the underlying biology, which often makes the tapering schedule the sole focus of management-an approach that provides only partial relief. Methods: Baseline data from 39 patients in a specialty taper program were analyzed. To assign phenotypes, symptoms reported in a comprehensive 233-item questionnaire were mapped onto five pre-specified mechanistic axes reflecting neurobiological and immune pathways. Results: Most patients (79.5%) clustered into one of three phenotypes: corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH)-heavy (35.9%), excitatory-neuroinflammatory (ENI) (33.3%), or Autonomic (10.3%). The remaining patients were classified as Low-symptom (17.9%) or Mixed (2.6%); no patients were classified as Basal Ganglia-Cerebellar (BG/Cer). Features consistent with mast cell activation (MCAS-overlap) were observed in just over half of the cohort (53.8%). PROMIS-29 scores demonstrated severe, multi-domain functional impairment, with notably elevated T-scores in Anxiety and Fatigue. Conclusion: Benzodiazepine withdrawal is not a unitary syndrome but clusters into reproducible, biologically grounded phenotypes. Notably, nearly 80% of patients in this cohort fell into just three of these phenotypes, suggesting that withdrawal, though heterogeneous, may follow structured and predictable patterns. Recognizing these patterns enables clinicians to anticipate vulnerabilities and personalize management, shifting the therapeutic goal from merely executing a taper to stabilizing the underlying neurobiology.

The triple aim of population health focuses on providing the right care to the right patient at the right time. Patient use of digital health tools may reduce the overuse of emergency services. We tested the safety and clinical applicability of a patient-facing, automated digital urgent care triage tool (UCTT) for patients with chest pain. The automated digital health UCTT (IVisitMD, Roslyn, NY) uses evidence-based algorithms to curate on-demand patient access to physicians, health facilities, and emergency departments (EDs). A retrospective observational study was performed on patients who presented to the ED before the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic with the complaint of chest pain. We evaluated 1372 patients who presented to the ED for chest pain; 383 patients met the criteria for the final diagnostic-related group (DRG) that reflected acute coronary syndrome. In total, 109 patients who had electronic records documenting all of the components of clinical history, medical decision making, and patient disposition were assigned to the study. Two physicians not involved in patient care independently reviewed records and determined whether the ED visit was warranted (ED+) or not (ED-), which was then compared with the UCTT recommendation. Most patients had coronary artery disease or cardiac risk factors. Cardiac DRGs were observed in 84.3% of participants; 86 patients had no high-risk DRG, with ED- 9.7% by UCTT, and 19.8% by a medical doctor (MD) (P < 0.05). The high-risk DRG patients had an acute infarction, stroke, or pulmonary embolism. Twenty-three patients with a high-risk DRG were 100% ED+ by the UCTT and MD. The estimated savings, assuming the average cost of an emergency evaluation for chest pain is $7000/patient, were $70,000 with UCTT per 100 patient visits. No high-risk conditions were missed by the UCTT. Our UCTT was more conservative than MD decision making, providing a sizable safety margin and adequate patient triage.

Few case reports discuss the incidences of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) in patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here, we present a case of SARS-CoV-2-induced AIH in a male patient who came into the emergency department with complaints of weight loss, poor oral intake, nausea, dark-colored urine, clay-colored stools, and scleral icterus, which began two weeks after he tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 PCR. Liver biopsy and subsequent histology confirmed the diagnosis of AIH with the most probable etiology being SARS-CoV-2 infection. The patient was treated with N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and steroids with clinical improvement and eventual discharge home. Our goal is to provide a clinical presentation, treatment, and outcome in a patient with SARS-CoV-2-induced AIH.

Hospitals have implemented various wellness interventions to offset the negative effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on emergency physician morale and burnout. There is limited high quality evidence regarding effectiveness of hospital-directed wellness interventions, leaving hospitals without guidance on best practices. We sought to determine intervention effectiveness and frequency of use in the spring/summer 2020. The goal was to facilitate evidence-based guidance for hospital wellness program planning. This cross-sectional observational study we used a novel survey tool piloted at a single hospital and then distributed throughout the United States via major emergency medicine (EM) society listservs and closed social media groups. Subjects reported their morale levels using a slider scale from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest) at the time of the survey and, retrospectively, at their respective COVID-19 peak in 2020. Subjects also rated effectiveness of wellness interventions using a Likert scale from 1 (not at all effective) to 5 (very effective). Subjects indicated their hospital's usage frequency of common wellness interventions. We analyzed results using descriptive statistics and t-tests. Of 76,100 EM society and closed social media group members, 522 (0.69%) subjects were enrolled. Study population demographics were similar to the national emergency physician population. Morale at the time of the survey was worse (mean [M] 4.36, SD 2.29) than the spring/summer 2020 peak (M 4.57, SD 2.13) [t(458)=-2.27, P=0.024]. The most effective interventions were hazard pay (M 3.59, SD 1.12), staff debriefing groups (M 3.51, SD 1.16), and free food (M 3.34, SD 1.14). The most frequently used interventions were free food (350/522, 67.1%), support sign display (300/522, 57.5%), and daily email updates (266/522, 51.0%). Infrequently used were hazard pay (53/522, 10.2%) and staff debriefing groups (127/522, 24.3%). There is discordance between the most effective and most frequently used hospital-directed wellness interventions. Only free food was both highly effective and frequently used. Hazard pay and staff debriefing groups were the two most effective interventions but were infrequently used. Daily email updates and support sign display were the most frequently used interventions but were not as effective. Hospitals should focus effort and resources on the most effective wellness interventions.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly contagious viral illness caused by the RNA virus Coronaviridae subtype severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Rapid infection caused by this virus became overwhelming and resulted in millions of deaths worldwide. The effects of smoking have been heavily studied and lead to increased occurrence of COVID-19 viral infections and mortality. The phenomenon of cytokine storm has been shown as one of the leading factors of mortality. However, the question remains as to what factors, either genetic or environmental, ultimately lead to the increased incidence of cytokine storms compared to others.We present a case of two cohabitating, 57-year-old, male, identical twins (Twin A and Twin B) who contracted SARS-CoV-2 simultaneously. Both Twin A and Twin B had similar medical histories, except for Twin A being a former smoker while Twin B a current smoker. While both twins presented with cough and shortness of breath, Twin A also presented with hypoxia, leukocytosis, evidence of acute kidney injury, and transaminitis while Twin B presented normoxic with solely tachycardia. Due to his presentation and vital signs, Twin B received Bamlanivimab but developed hypoxia during the infusion. Both twins were subsequently initiated on Remdesivir, dexamethasone, and supplemental oxygen daily. After completion of treatment courses, both twins had improvement in their laboratory values and were subsequently discharged with supplemental oxygen to be further weaned in the outpatient setting. Due to the twins’ cohabitation, contracting SARS-CoV-2 simultaneously, and similar medical history, we highlight the potential mechanism of nicotine’s chemical ability to blunt the subsequent inflammatory process of COVID-19.Despite nicotine’s potential ability to dampen cytokine storms, smoking has well-documented adverse effects and we, like many experts, entirely discourage it. However, given the rare situation of identical twins contracting SARS-CoV-2, we can extrapolate information regarding the effects of the virus without obfuscation from genetic and environmental factors to identify areas of research for new therapies.

BackgroundCompared to traditional ultrasound machines, emerging handheld point-of-care-ultrasound (HPOCUS) systems exhibit superior portability and affordability. Thus, they have been increasingly embraced in the intensive care setting. However, there is scarce data on patient safety and current regulatory body guidelines are lacking. Here, we critically appraise the literature with a focus on the merits, concerns, and framework of existing POCUS guidelines. Subsequently, we provide recommendations for future regulatory guidelines. MethodsA comprehensive literature review was conducted using the PubMed database employing the key words “point-of-care/handheld/portable ultrasound” and “guidelines” alone, in combination, and using thesaurus terms. Eligible articles were scrutinized for description of potential benefits and concerns of HPOCUS, especially from a patient safety perspective, as well as currently existing POCUS practice guidelines. Data was extracted, reported thematically using a narrative synthesis approach, then subsequently used to guide our proposed guidelines. ResultsThe most widely reported benefits of HPOCUS include superior portability, affordability, imaging, facilitation of expedited diagnosis and management, and integration with medical workplace flow. However, major barriers to adoption include device security/patient confidentiality and patient safety. Furthermore, except for a policy published by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) in 2018, there are few other national regulatory guidelines pertaining to handheld POCUS. In light of this, we propose a framework for HPOCUS guideline development to address these and other concerns. Such guidelines include training and credentialing, bioengineering approval, and strategic integration with electronic medical record systems. ConclusionHPOCUS can be a powerful tool for expedited diagnosis and management guidance. However, there is limited data regarding patient safety and current regulatory body guidelines are lacking. Our assessment illuminates that there remain many unsolved problems about HPOCUS, and in turn, we propose guidelines to address safe regulation and implementation.

Introduction: The reported incidence of AKI with COVID-19 varies from 0.5% to 22%. Several mechanisms were postulated as a cause of AKI in patients infected with COVID-19. The appropriate management of AKI in patients with COVID-19 remains unclear at this time. One point of absolute importance, is the consideration of volume status. Given the paucity of knowledge with regards to the role of different strategies for fluid management during an episode of AKI in patients with COVID-19, this retrospective study aims to compare renal outcome and overall prognosis in patients who received conservative versus liberal fluid management. Methods: This is a single-center retrospective observational cohort study at a community hospital in Westchester County, NY. All adult patients who tested positive for the COVID-19 infection by PCR testing of a nasopharyngeal swab and were hospitalized from March 22, 2020 to May 25, 2020 are eligible. Among those identified with AKI, patients were divided into two groups: conservative fluid administration versus liberal fluid administration. Results: Of the 136 patients, 84 (61.76%) were admitted to the ICU, with 60% of patients under the conservative fluid strategy and 40% receiving liberal fluid management. On the other hand, 52 (38.23%) patients were admitted on the medical floors, with more patients (67.31%) receiving liberal fluid management. Discussion: In our cohort of 136 patients with COVID-19 respiratory illness and AKI, there was a significant difference in renal outcome, in terms of improvement of renal function in patients receiving liberal fluid management (55.07%) versus conservative fluid management (16.41%, p ≤ 0.001), with more patients in the liberal group having lower peak creatinine before levels improved. This, as well, was associated with improvement in oxygenation, characterized by improvement in respiratory status, facilitating weaning of oxygen supplementation (p < 0.001). On the other hand, there was no significant difference between the conservative and liberal groups in terms of undergoing renal replacement therapy. Twenty-one of the 136 patients with AKI required RRT and 19 (90%) of them were admitted to the ICU and mechanically ventilated. On the other hand, there was no statistical difference in mortality rate of patients who underwent renal replacement therapy, regardless of whether they were in the conservative or liberal strategy group. Conclusion: Our data report that liberal fluid management in COVID-19 patients with AKI, had better outcomes, in terms of renal function, oxygenation and mortality rate, as compared to patients in the conservative fluid management group. Once patients are started on renal replacement therapy, however, renal and lung outcomes and mortality rate become insignificant between the two groups.