Clinical Assistant Professor, Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine
Fellowship, UCSF, Liver Transplantation (2021)
Fellowship: UCSF Anesthesiology Fellowships (2021) CA
Residency: Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Anesthesiology Residency (2020) NY
Medical Education: Stony Brook University School of Medicine (2016) NY
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) VITAL Ventilator (3/2020 - 6/2020)
Development of an Easily Reproducible Cough Simulator With Droplets and Aerosols for Rapidly Testing Novel Personal Protective Equipment.
Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare
INTRODUCTION: The current COVID-19 pandemic has produced numerous innovations in personal protective equipment, barrier devices, and infection mitigation strategies, which have not been validated. During high-risk procedures such as airway manipulation, coughs are common and discrete events that may expose healthcare workers to large amounts of viral particles. A simulated cough under controlled circumstances can rapidly test novel devices and protocols and thus aid in their evaluation and the development of implementation guidelines. Physiologic cough simulators exist but require significant expertise and specialized equipment not available to most clinicians.METHODS: Using components commonly found in healthcare settings, a cough simulator was designed for clinicians to easily assemble and use. Both droplet and aerosol particle generators were incorporated into a bimodal experimental system. High-speed flash photography was used for data collection.RESULTS: Using a gas flow analyzer, video recordings, and high-speed digital photography, the cough and particle simulators were quantitatively and qualitatively compared with known physiologic cough parameters and in vivo Schlieren imaging of human coughs.CONCLUSIONS: Based on our validation studies, this cough and particle simulator model approximates a physiologic, human cough in the context of testing personal protective equipment, barrier devices, and infection prevention measures.
View details for DOI 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000644
View details for PubMedID 35238849
"The use of bilateral continuous erector spinae plane blocks for postoperative analgesia after right-sided living donor hepatectomy: A feasibility study"
2021; 35 (9): e14413
Postoperative pain after living donor hepatectomy is significant. Postoperative coagulopathy may limit the use of epidural analgesia, the gold standard for pain control in abdominal surgery. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a novel regional anesthesia technique that has been shown to provide effective analgesia in abdominal surgery. In this study, we examined the effect of continuous ESPB, administered via catheters, on perioperative opioid requirements after right living donor hepatectomies for liver transplantation.We performed a retrospective cohort study in patients undergoing right living donor hepatectomy. Twenty-four patients who received preoperative ESPB were compared to 51 historical controls who did not receive regional anesthesia. The primary endpoint was the total amount of oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) required on the day of surgery and postoperative day (POD) 1.Patients in the ESPB group required a lower total amount of OMEs on the day of surgery and POD 1 [141 (107-188) mg] compared the control group [293 (220-380) mg; P < .001].The use of continuous ESPB significantly reduced opioid consumption following right living donor hepatectomy.
View details for DOI 10.1111/ctr.14413
View details for Web of Science ID 000674359500001
View details for PubMedID 34196437
Barrier Devices, Intubation, and Aerosol Mitigation Strategies: Personal Protective Equipment in the Time of Coronavirus Disease 2019
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA
2021; 132 (1): 38-45
Numerous barrier devices have recently been developed and rapidly deployed worldwide in an effort to protect health care workers (HCWs) from exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during high-risk procedures. However, only a few studies have examined their impact on the dispersion of droplets and aerosols, which are both thought to be significant contributors to the spread of COVID-19.Two commonly used barrier devices, an intubation box and a clear plastic intubation sheet, were evaluated using a physiologically accurate cough simulator. Aerosols were modeled using a commercially available fog machine, and droplets were modeled with fluorescein dye. Both particles were propelled by the cough simulator in a simulated intubation environment. Data were captured by high-speed flash photography, and aerosol and droplet dispersion were assessed qualitatively with and without a barrier in place.Droplet contamination after a simulated cough was seemingly contained by both barrier devices. Simulated aerosol escaped the barriers and flowed toward the head of the bed. During barrier removal, simulated aerosol trapped underneath was released and propelled toward the HCW at the head of the bed. Usage of the intubation sheet concentrated droplets onto a smaller area. If no barrier was used, positioning the patient in slight reverse Trendelenburg directed aerosols away from the HCW located at the head of the bed.Our observations imply that intubation boxes and sheets may reduce HCW exposure to droplets, but they both may merely redirect aerosolized particles, potentially resulting in increased exposure to aerosols in certain circumstances. Aerosols may remain within the barrier device after a cough, and manipulation of the box may release them. Patients should be positioned to facilitate intubation, but slight reverse Trendelenburg may direct infectious aerosols away from the HCW. Novel barrier devices should be used with caution, and further validation studies are necessary.
View details for DOI 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005249
View details for Web of Science ID 000596954900011
View details for PubMedID 33315602
View details for PubMedCentralID PMC7523478
Differential Ventilation Using Flow Control Valves as a Potential Bridge to Full Ventilatory Support during the COVID-19 Crisis From Bench to Bedside
2020; 133 (4): 892-904
During the COVID-19 pandemic, ventilator sharing was suggested to increase availability of mechanical ventilation. The safety and feasibility of ventilator sharing is unknown.A single ventilator in pressure control mode was used with flow control valves to simultaneously ventilate two patients with different lung compliances. The system was first evaluated using high-fidelity human patient simulator mannequins and then tested for 1 h in two pairs of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure. Patients were matched on positive end-expiratory pressure, fractional inspired oxygen tension, and respiratory rate. Tidal volume and peak airway pressure (PMAX) were recorded from each patient using separate independent spirometers and arterial blood gas samples drawn at 0, 30, and 60 min. The authors assessed acid-base status, oxygenation, tidal volume, and PMAX for each patient. Stability was assessed by calculating the coefficient of variation.The valves performed as expected in simulation, providing a stable tidal volume of 400 ml each to two mannequins with compliance ratios varying from 20:20 to 20:90 ml/cm H2O. The system was then tested in two pairs of patients. Pair 1 was a 49-yr-old woman, ideal body weight 46 kg, and a 55-yr-old man, ideal body weight 64 kg, with lung compliance 27 ml/cm H2O versus 35 ml/cm H2O. The coefficient of variation for tidal volume was 0.2 to 1.7%, and for PMAX 0 to 1.1%. Pair 2 was a 32-yr-old man, ideal body weight 62 kg, and a 56-yr-old woman, ideal body weight 46 kg, with lung compliance 12 ml/cm H2O versus 21 ml/cm H2O. The coefficient of variation for tidal volume was 0.4 to 5.6%, and for PMAX 0 to 2.1%.Differential ventilation using a single ventilator is feasible. Flow control valves enable delivery of stable tidal volume and PMAX similar to those provided by individual ventilators.
View details for DOI 10.1097/ALN.0000000000003473
View details for Web of Science ID 000572414900024
View details for PubMedID 32639236
View details for PubMedCentralID PMC7359901
Intravenous Fluid Management Practices in Kidney Transplant Patients: A Multicenter Observational Cohort Pilot Study.
Seminars in cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia
2020; 24 (3): 256-264
Limited evidence exists with regard to best practices in fluid management during kidney transplantation, which may directly affect the incidence of DGF. The authors of this study embarked on a collaborative observational multicenter pilot study to evaluate fluid administration practices in different transplant centers, with a focus on the relationship between total administered crystalloid volume and its association with DGF.Twenty consecutive kidney transplant patients were included from 9 academic medical centers in the United States. One hundred eighty patients were included in the final cohort and variables were compared between patients with and without DGF. Administered crystalloid volume was the primary variable of interest; however, additional patient and surgical variables were compared between patients with and without DGF. Variation in crystalloid administration was explored between centers by comparing median administered crystalloid volumes per kilogram of body weight. Also, unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analyses were performed to determine which variables were independently associated with DGF.Multivariable regression modeling demonstrated that cold ischemic time and ephedrine use during surgery were independently associated with DGF. There was no independent association between administered crystalloid volume and DGF.In this study of patients having kidney transplantation, we did not find an independent association between administered crystalloid volume and DGF, although there was significant variability in crystalloid administration between centers. Our data suggest that DGF was driven mainly by surgical factors such as cold ischemic time. Ephedrine was also independently associated with DGF, which should be explored in future studies.
View details for DOI 10.1177/1089253220901665
View details for PubMedID 31994444