• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Obstet Gynecol Testing of Patients and Support Persons for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Infection Before Scheduled Deliveries

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Obstet Gynecol


. 2020 May 19.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003985. Online ahead of print.
Testing of Patients and Support Persons for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Infection Before Scheduled Deliveries

Angela Bianco, Ayisha B Buckley, Jessica Overbey, Scott Smilen, Brian Wagner, Cheryl Dinglas, Holly Loudon, Alan Garely, Michael Brodman, Joanne Stone

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection with the use of universal testing in our obstetric population presenting for scheduled deliveries, as well as the concordance or discordance rate among their support persons during the initial 2-week period of testing. Additionally, we assessed the utility of a screening tool in predicting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing results in our cohort.
Methods: This was an observational study in which all women who were scheduled for a planned delivery within the Mount Sinai Health system from April 4 to April 15, 2020, were contacted and provided with an appointment for themselves as well as their support persons to undergo COVID-19 testing 1 day before their scheduled delivery. Both the patients and the support persons were administered a standardized screen specific for COVID-19 infection by telephone interview. Those support persons who screened positive were not permitted to attend the birth. All patients and screen-negative support persons underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing.
Results: During the study period, 155 patients and 146 support persons underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing. The prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection was 15.5% (CI 9.8-21.2%) and 9.6% (CI 4.8-14.4%) among patients and support persons, respectively. The rate of discordance among tested pairs was 7.5%. Among patients with COVID-19 infection, 58% of their support persons also had infection; in patients without infection, fewer than 3.0% of their support persons had infection.
Conclusion: We found that more than 15% of asymptomatic maternity patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection despite having screened negative with the use of a telephone screening tool. Additionally, 58% of their asymptomatic, screen-negative support persons also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Alternatively, testing of the support persons of women who had tested negative for COVID-19 infection had a low yield for positive results. This has important implications for obstetric and newborn care practices as well as for health care professionals.
 
Back
Top Bottom