Risk of COVID-19 transmission in esophageal, anorectal manometry and 24-hour impedance-pH monitoring
- Julio A. Pérez de la Serna Bueno 1
- Antonio Ruiz de León San Juan 1
- C. Sevilla Mantilla 1
- Constanza Ciriza de los Ríos 1
- Ana Zatarain Valles 1
- Marta Aparicio Cabezudo 1
- Laura García Pravia 1
- David Olivares 1
- Enrique Rey Díaz Rubio 1
- 1 Hospital Clínico San Carlos. Madrid, Spain
ISSN: 2340-416, 1130-0108
Año de publicación: 2021
Volumen: 113
Número: 5
Páginas: 332-338
Tipo: Artículo
Otras publicaciones en: Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas
Resumen
Background: the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the interruption of most manometry or impedance-pH monitoring studies. The risk of restarting activities is unknown. Objective: assess the risk of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection, both to patients and healthcare workers, in relation to esophageal and anorectal functional tests during the pandemic without protective measures. Method: a questionnaire was designed to determine whether patients and healthcare workers had COVID-19, confirmed by either a test or compatible symptoms, after functional studies were performed from January until March 2020. Results: the survey was answered by 263 (92.9 %) patients. Four (1.52 %) patients had confirmed COVID-19 in the two weeks after the functional test (adjusted rate 8.34 cases per 1,000 [95 % CI -0.06-16.74], OR 0.84 [95 % CI: 0.83-0.85], p < 0.001) and no patient after anorectal manometry. Another five had only compatible symptoms, for a total of nine patients (3.42 %) (adjusted rate 27.50 cases/1,000 [95 % CI: 7.27-47.74], OR 2.84 [95 % CI: 2.81-2.87]). In the total study period, 18.25 % had confirmed COVID-19 or compatible symptoms. The average number of days between the procedure and the first day of symptoms was progressively shortened (January: 56 days, February: 33 days, March: 10.5 days). Two of ten healthcare workers (20 %) had confirmed COVID-19. Conclusions: the risk of COVID-19 infection when performing functional tests is low and more related to the evolution of the pandemic rather than to the procedure itself. The small number of healthcare workers included in the study does not allow a definitive conclusion to be drawn on their risk of infection.