Response of Cardiac Surgery Units to COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had an unprecedented global effect on health care.We quantified the experience and changes implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic across cardiac surgery centers participating in an international research consortium.A 40-question questionnaire was e-mailed to all centers participating in the international ROMA trial (Randomized Comparison of the Outcome of Single Versus Multiple Arterial Grafts) 1 on March 23, 2020.Participation was voluntary and anonymized.The questionnaire assessed each center's pandemic response according to regional disease prevalence; local resources and logistics; and institutional, regional, or national policies.The numbers of infections by country were obtained from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center 2 and adjusted by population size per million inhabitants.We used incidence data contemporary to the date of surveys compilation.Correlations between the adjusted number of COVID-19 infections and survey variables were calculated using the Pearson correlation coefficient.The study did not require institutional review board approval.Of the 61 centers approached, 60 (98.3%) completed the survey: 7 from Asia, 2 from Australia, 31 from Europe, 16 from North America, and 4 from South America.Of the survey responses, 57 out of 60 (95%) came from cardiac surgeons holding an administrative leadership position at their center.The median reduction in cardiac surgery case volume was 50% to 75%, correlating with the number of local of COVID-19 cases (correlation coefficient [r]=0.36;P<0.001).A third of the centers reported >50% reduction in the number of dedicated cardiac operating rooms and intensive care unit beds.Most centers restricted cardiac surgery activity to urgent and emergent cases; 5% had canceled all cases including emergencies.Almost a third of the centers relocated personnel to other departments; the majority was relocated to the intensive care unit, highly correlating (r=0.86,P<0.001) with the local number of COVID-19 infections.Half of the centers still permitted fellows and residents to participate in cardiac surgeries, and about half had suspended all research activity.There was no significant difference between continents with respect to relocation of personnel or suspension of cardiac surgery research.South American centers reported lesser reductions in cardiac surgery case volume (P=0.02).Asian centers more frequently were performing elective surgery (P=0.03).There was no statistically significant difference between low-(≤25th percentile) and high-volume (≥75 th percentile) centers in terms of case volume reduction, personnel relocation, suspension of research, or allowed cardiac surgery activity.Most centers discussed ethical issues around decision making during a surge that would overwhelm all healthcare services.Almost all centers instituted protocols to restrict visitors to their cardiac surgery unit, and one third continued to perform in-person patient follow-up.A majority of centers anticipated that the restrictions preventing full cardiac surgery activity would last >1 month (Table ).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".