Padula, William V.

AbstractCOVID‐19 has infected millions of patients and impacted healthcare workers worldwide. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is a key component of protecting frontline clinicians against infection. The benefits of PPE far outweigh the risks, nonetheless, many clinicians are exhibiting skin injury caused by PPE worn incorrectly. These skin injuries, ranging from lesions to open wounds are concerning because they increase the susceptibility of viral infection and transmission to other individuals. Early into the COVID‐19 pandemic (April 2020), the U. S. National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) developed a series of position statements to improve wear‐ability of PPE and protect healthcare professionals and their patients as safe from harm as possible under the circumstances. The NPIAP positions, which were formed by conducting a systematic review of what was known at the time, include: (a) Prepare skin before and after wearing PPE with skin sealants, barrier creams and moisturisers; (b) Frequent PPE offloading to relieve pressure and shear applied to skin; (c) treat visible skin injuries immediately caused by PPE to minimise future infection; (d) non‐porous dressings may provide additional skin protection, but lack evidence; (e) health systems should take care to educate clinicians about placement and personal hygiene related to handling PPE. Throughout all of these practices, handwashing remains a top priority to handle PPE. These NPIAP positions provided early guidance to reduce the risk of skin injury caused by PPE based on available research regarding PPE injuries, a cautious application of evidence‐based recommendations on prevention of device‐related pressure injuries in patients and the expert opinion of the NPIAP Board of Directors. Clinicians who adhere to these recommendations reduce the prospects of skin damage and long‐term effects (e.g. scarring). These simple steps to minimise the risk of skin injury and reduce the risk of coronavirus infection from PPE can help.

ObjectiveLaryngotracheal stenosis (LTS) is resource‐intensive disease. The cost‐effectiveness of LTS treatments has not been adequately explored. We aimed to conduct a cost‐effectiveness analysis comparing open reconstruction (cricotracheal/tracheal resection [CTR/TR]) with endoscopic dilation in the treatment of LTS.Study DesignRetrospective cohort.SettingTertiary referral center (2013‐2017).Subjects and MethodsThirty‐four LTS patients were recruited. Annual costs were derived from the Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University. Cost‐effectiveness analysis compared CTR/TR versus endoscopic dilation at a willingness‐to‐pay threshold of $50,000 per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) over 5‐ and 10‐year time horizons. The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with deterministic analysis and tested for sensitivity with univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.ResultsMean LTS costs were $4080.09 (SE, $569.29) annually for related health care visits. The major risk factor for increased cost was etiology of stenosis. As compared with idiopathic patients, patients with intubation‐related stenosis had significantly higher annual costs ($5286.56 vs $2873.62, P =. 03). The cost of CTR/TR was $8583.91 (SE, $2263.22). Over a 5‐year time horizon, CTR/TR gained $896 per QALY over serial dilations and was cost‐effective. Over a 10‐year time horizon, CTR/TR dominated dilations with a lower cost and higher QALY.ConclusionThe cost of treatment for LTS is significant. Patients with intubation‐related stenosis have significantly higher annual costs than do idiopathic patients. CTR/TR contributes significantly to cost in LTS but is cost‐effective versus endoscopic dilations for appropriately selected patients over a 5‐ and 10‐year horizon.