- Critical Care
- Critical Care Medicine
Clinical Assistant Professor, Emergency Medicine
Fellowship: Stanford University Critical Care Medicine Fellowship (2020) CA
Board Certification: American Board of Emergency Medicine, Emergency Medicine (2019)
Residency: Stanford University Emergency Medicine Residency (2018) CA
Medical Education: University of Illinois College of Medicine Office of the Registrar (2015) IL
Point-of-Care Ultrasound Predicts Clinical Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19.
Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine
OBJECTIVES: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) detects the pulmonary manifestations of COVID-19 and may predict patient outcomes.METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study at four hospitals from March 2020 to January 2021 to evaluate lung POCUS and clinical outcomes of COVID-19. Inclusion criteria included adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who received lung POCUS with a 12-zone protocol. Each image was interpreted by two reviewers blinded to clinical outcomes. Our primary outcome was the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission versus no ICU admission. Secondary outcomes included intubation and supplemental oxygen usage.RESULTS: N=160 patients were included. Among critically ill patients, B-lines (94 vs 76%; P<.01) and consolidations (70 vs 46%; P<.01) were more common. For scans collected within 24hours of admission (N=101 patients), early B-lines (odds ratio [OR] 4.41 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.71-14.30]; P<.01) or consolidations (OR 2.49 [95% CI: 1.35-4.86]; P<.01) were predictive of ICU admission. Early consolidations were associated with oxygen usage after discharge (OR 2.16 [95% CI: 1.01-4.70]; P=.047). Patients with a normal scan within 24hours of admission were less likely to require ICU admission (OR 0.28 [95% CI: 0.09-0.75]; P<.01) or supplemental oxygen (OR 0.26 [95% CI: 0.11-0.61]; P<.01). Ultrasound findings did not dynamically change over a 28-day scanning window after symptom onset.CONCLUSIONS: Lung POCUS findings detected within 24hours of admission may provide expedient risk stratification for important COVID-19 clinical outcomes, including future ICU admission or need for supplemental oxygen. Conversely, a normal scan within 24hours of admission appears protective. POCUS findings appeared stable over a 28-day scanning window, suggesting that these findings, regardless of their timing, may have clinical implications.
View details for DOI 10.1002/jum.15818
View details for PubMedID 34468039
Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines Against COVID-19 Among Hospitalized Adults Aged >= 65 Years - United States, January-March 2021
MMWR-MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT
2021; 70 (18): 674–79
Adults aged ≥65 years are at increased risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19 and were identified as a priority group to receive the first COVID-19 vaccines approved for use under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States (1-3). In an evaluation at 24 hospitals in 14 states,* the effectiveness of partial or full vaccination† with Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was assessed among adults aged ≥65 years. Among 417 hospitalized adults aged ≥65 years (including 187 case-patients and 230 controls), the median age was 73 years, 48% were female, 73% were non-Hispanic White, 17% were non-Hispanic Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 4% lived in a long-term care facility. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among adults aged ≥65 years was estimated to be 94% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 49%-99%) for full vaccination and 64% (95% CI = 28%-82%) for partial vaccination. These findings are consistent with efficacy determined from clinical trials in the subgroup of adults aged ≥65 years (4,5). This multisite U.S. evaluation under real-world conditions suggests that vaccination provided protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among adults aged ≥65 years. Vaccination is a critical tool for reducing severe COVID-19 in groups at high risk.
View details for Web of Science ID 000647643800003
View details for PubMedID 33956782
Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines for Preventing Covid-19 Hospitalizations in the United States.
medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences
As SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage increases in the United States (US), there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe Covid-19 and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes.In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11 - May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent Covid-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with Covid-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.Among 1210 participants, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.8% were Hispanic, and 20.6% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 was most common variant (59.7% of sequenced viruses). Full vaccination (receipt of two vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 45/590 (7.6%) cases and 215/620 (34.7%) controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 86.9% (95% CI: 80.4 to 91.2%). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18-49 years (97.3%; 95% CI: 78.9 to 99.7%). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough Covid hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (59.2%; 95% CI: 11.9 to 81.1%) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI: 85.5 to 94.7%).During March-May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing Covid-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.
View details for DOI 10.1101/2021.07.08.21259776
View details for PubMedID 34268515
View details for PubMedCentralID PMC8282104
- Critical Care Education Day: A Novel, Multidisciplinary, and Interactive Critical Care Education Session for Emergency Medicine Residents CUREUS 2020; 12 (1)
eccSOFA: SOFA illness severity score adapted to predict in-hospital mortality in emergency critical care patients.
The American journal of emergency medicine
2020; 41: 145–51
Boarding of ICU patients in the ED is increasing. Illness severity scores may help emergency physicians stratify risk to guide earlier transfer to the ICU and assess pre-ICU interventions by adjusting for baseline mortality risk. Most existing illness severity scores are based on data that is not available at the time of the hospital admission decision or cannot be extracted from the electronic health record (EHR). We adapted the SOFA score to create a new illness severity score (eccSOFA) that can be calculated at the time of ICU admission order entry in the ED using EHR data. We evaluated this score in a cohort of emergency critical care (ECC) patients at a single academic center over a period of 3 years.This was a retrospective cohort study using EHR data to assess predictive accuracy of eccSOFA for estimating in-hospital mortality risk. The patient population included all adult patients who had a critical care admission order entered while in the ED of an academic medical center between 10/24/2013 and 9/30/2016. eccSOFA's discriminatory ability for in-hospital mortality was assessed using ROC curves.Of the 3912 patients whose in-hospital mortality risk was estimated, 2260 (57.8%) were in the low-risk group (scores 0-3), 1203 (30.8%) in the intermediate-risk group (scores 4-7), and 449 (11.5%) in the high-risk group (scores 8+). In-hospital mortality for the low-, intermediate, and high-risk groups was 4.2% (95%CI: 3.4-5.1), 15.5% (95% CI 13.5-17.6), and 37.9% (95% CI 33.4-42.3) respectively. The AUROC was 0.78 (95%CI: 0.75-0.80) for the integer score and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.72-0.77) for the categorical eccSOFA.As a predictor of in-hospital mortality, eccSOFA can be calculated based on variables that are commonly available at the time of critical care admission order entry in the ED and has discriminatory ability that is comparable to other commonly used illness severity scores. Future studies should assess the calibration of our absolute risk predictions.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.12.018
View details for PubMedID 33453549
Critical Care Education Day: A Novel, Multidisciplinary, and Interactive Critical Care Education Session for Emergency Medicine Residents.
2020; 12 (1): e6785
Critical care medicine (CCM) is central to emergency medicine (EM) resident education. We feel that the traditional lecture format is not the ideal way to teach EM critical care, which requires integration and prioritization of diagnostic workup and team-based resuscitation under time pressure. We describe a novel critical care education day where an interactive, practical, and multidisciplinary critical care educational experience was provided for EM residents using case-based small-group sessions and fast-paced simulation.
View details for DOI 10.7759/cureus.6785
View details for PubMedID 32140345
View details for PubMedCentralID PMC7045984
- The Birth of a Return to work Policy for New Resident Parents in Emergency Medicine ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2019; 26 (3): 317–26
The Birth of a Return to Work Policy for New Resident Parents in Emergency Medicine.
Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
OBJECTIVE: With the rising number of female physicians, there will be more children than ever born in residency and the current system is inadequate to handle this increase in new resident parents. Residency is stressful and rigorous in isolation, let alone when pregnant or with a new child. Policies that ease these stressful transitions are generally either insufficient or do not exist. Therefore, we created a comprehensive Return to Work Policy for resident parents and piloted its implementation. Our policy aims to: 1) establish a clear, shared understanding of the regulatory and training requirements as they pertain to parental leave, 2) facilitate a smooth transition for new parents returning back to work, and 3) summarize the local and institutional resources available for both males and females during residency training.METHOD: In Fall 2017, a task force was convened to draft a Return to Work Policy for New Resident Parents. The task force included 9 key stakeholders (i.e., residents, faculty, and administration) at our institution and was made up of 3 Graduate Medical Education (GME) Program Directors, a Vice Chair of Education, a Designated Institutional Official (DIO), a Chief Resident, and 3 members of our academic department's Faculty Affairs Committee. The task force was selected because of individual expertise in gender equity issues, mentorship of resident parents, GME, and departmental administration.RESULTS: After development, the policy was piloted from November 2017 to June 2018. Our pilot implementation period included 7 new resident parents. All of these residents received schedules that met the return to work scheduling terms of our Return to Work Policy including no overnight shifts, no sick call, no more than 3 shifts in a row. Of equal importance, throughout our pilot, the emergency department schedules at all of our clinical sites remained fully staffed and our sick call pool was unaffected.CONCLUSION: Our Return to Work Policy for New Resident Parents provides a comprehensive guide to training requirements and family leave policies, an overview of available resources, and a scheduling framework that makes for a smooth transition back to clinical duties. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
View details for PubMedID 30636353