Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in a health care worker population during the early pandemic

BACKGROUND

While others have reported severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2(SARS-CoV-2) seroprevalence studies in health care workers (HCWs), we leverage the use of a highly sensitive coronavirus antigen microarray to identify a group of seropositive health care workers who were missed by daily symptom screening that was instituted prior to any epidemiologically significant local outbreak. Given that most health care facilities rely on daily symptom screening as the primary method to identify SARS-CoV-2 among health care workers, here, we aim to determine how demographic, occupational, and clinical variables influence SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among health care workers.

METHODS

We designed a cross-sectional survey of HCWs for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity conducted from May 15th to June 30th 2020 at a 418-bed academic hospital in Orange County, California. From an eligible population of 5,349 HCWs, study participants were recruited in two ways: an open cohort, and a targeted cohort. The open cohort was open to anyone, whereas the targeted cohort that recruited HCWs previously screened for COVID-19 or work in high-risk units. A total of 1,557 HCWs completed the survey and provided specimens, including 1,044 in the open cohort and 513 in the targeted cohort. Demographic, occupational, and clinical variables were surveyed electronically. SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was assessed using a coronavirus antigen microarray (CoVAM), which measures antibodies against eleven viral antigens to identify prior infection with 98% specificity and 93% sensitivity.

RESULTS

Among tested HCWs (n = 1,557), SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was 10.8%, and risk factors included male gender (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.05-2.06), exposure to COVID-19 outside of work (2.29, 1.14-4.29), working in food or environmental services (4.85, 1.51-14.85), and working in COVID-19 units (ICU: 2.28, 1.29-3.96; ward: 1.59, 1.01-2.48). Amongst 1,103 HCWs not previously screened, seropositivity was 8.0%, and additional risk factors included younger age (1.57, 1.00-2.45) and working in administration (2.69, 1.10-7.10).

CONCLUSION

SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity is significantly higher than reported case counts even among HCWs who are meticulously screened. Seropositive HCWs missed by screening were more likely to be younger, work outside direct patient care, or have exposure outside of work.

Increased cost burden associated with robot-assisted rectopexy: do patient outcomes justify increased expenditure?

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgical techniques have flourished over the years, with refinement in instrumentation and optics allowing for adaptation and increasing utilization across surgical fields. Transabdominal rectopexy with mesh for rectal prolapse may stand to benefit significantly from the use of a robotic platform. However, increased operative times and immediate associated costs of robotic surgery may provide a counterargument to widespread adoption.

METHODS

To determine which approach to the treatment of rectal prolapse, laparoscopic or robotic, is more cost effective and provides better outcomes with fewer complications, a retrospective review was performed at a single tertiary care academic institution from May 2013 to December 2020. Twenty-two patients underwent transabdominal mesh rectopexy through a robot-assisted DaVinci platform (Intuitive Sunnyvale, CA), and thirty through a laparoscopic platform. Main outcome measures included operative, hospital, and total cost as defined by total charges billed. Secondary outcomes included rate of recurrence, intra-operative complications, median operative time, post-operative complications, average hospital length of stay, inpatient pain medication usage, and post-operative functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Cost analysis for robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectopexy demonstrated operating room costs of $46,118 ± $9329 for the robotic group, versus $33,090 ± $15,395 (p = 0.002) for the laparoscopic group. Inpatient hospital costs were $60,723 ± $20,170 vs. $40,798 ± $14,325 (p = 0.001), and total costs were $106,841 ± $25,513 vs. $73,888 ± $28,129 (p ≤ 0.001). When secondary outcomes were compared for the robotic versus laparoscopic groups, there were no differences in any of the aforementioned outcome variables except for operative time, which was 79 min longer in the robotic group (p ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted mesh rectopexy demonstrated no clinical benefit over traditional laparoscopic mesh rectopexy, with significantly higher operative and hospital costs. A reduction in the acquisition and maintenance costs for robotic surgery is needed before large-scale adoption and implementation of the robotic platform for this procedure.