Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Eur J Epidemiol ; 38(5): 523-531, 2023 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2249546

ABSTRACT

A substantial part of mortality during the COVID-19-pandemic occurred among nursing home residents which caused alarm in many countries. We investigate nursing home mortality in relation to the expected mortality prior to the pandemic. This nationwide register-based study included all 135,501 Danish nursing home residents between 2015 until October 6, 2021. All-cause mortality rates were calculated using a standardization method on sex and age distribution of 2020. Survival probability and lifetime lost for 180 days was calculated using Kaplan Meier estimates. Of 3,587 COVID-19 related deaths, 1137 (32%) occurred among nursing home residents. The yearly all-cause mortality rates per 100,000 person-years in 2015, 2016, and 2017 were 35,301 (95% CI: 34,671-35,943), 34,801 (95% CI: 34,180-35,432), and 35,708 (95% CI: 35,085-36,343), respectively. Slightly elevated mortality rates per 100,000 person-years were seen in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 of 38,268 (95% CI: 37,620-38,929), 36,956 (95% CI: 36,323-37,600), 37,475 (95% CI: 36,838-38,122), and 38,536 (95% CI: 37,798-39,287), respectively. For SARS-CoV-2-infected nursing home residents, lifetime lost difference was 42 days (95% CI: 38-46) in 2020 versus non-infected in 2018. Among vaccinated in 2021, lifetime lost difference was 25 days (95% CI: 18-32) for SARS-CoV-2-infected versus non-infected. Even though a high proportion of COVID-19 fatalities took place in nursing homes and SARS-CoV-2-infection increased the risk of individual death, the annual mortality was only slightly elevated. For future epidemics or pandemics reporting numbers of fatal cases in relation to expected mortality is critical.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Homes for the Aged , Mortality , Nursing Homes , Humans , Cohort Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , Denmark/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
2.
J Am Heart Assoc ; 11(6): e024140, 2022 03 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1731380

ABSTRACT

Background Little is known about how COVID-19 influenced engagement of citizen responders dispatched to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) by a smartphone application. The objective was to describe and analyze the Danish Citizen Responder Program and bystander interventions (both citizen responders and nondispatched bystanders) during the first COVID-19 lockdown in 2020. Methods and Results All OHCAs from January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2020, with citizen responder activation in 2 regions of Denmark were included. We compared citizen responder engagement for OHCA in the nonlockdown period (January 1, 2020, to March 10, 2020, and April 21, 2020, to June 30, 2020) with the lockdown period (March 11, 2020, to April 20, 2020). Data are displayed in the order lockdown versus nonlockdown period. Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation rates did not differ in the 2 periods (99% versus 92%; P=0.07). Bystander defibrillation (9% versus 14%; P=0.4) or return-of-spontaneous circulation (23% versus 23%; P=1.0) also did not differ. A similar amount of citizen responders accepted alarms during the lockdown (6 per alarm; interquartile range, 6) compared with the nonlockdown period (5 per alarm; interquartile range, 5) (P=0.05). More citizen responders reported performing chest-compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation during lockdown compared with nonlockdown (79% versus 59%; P=0.0029), whereas fewer performed standardized cardiopulmonary resuscitation, including ventilations (19% versus 38%; P=0.0061). Finally, during lockdown, more citizen responders reported being not psychologically affected by attending an OHCA compared with nonlockdown period (68% versus 56%; P<0.0001). Likewise, fewer reported being mildly affected during lockdown (26%) compared with nonlockdown (35%) (P=0.003). Conclusions The COVID-19 lockdown in Denmark was not associated with decreased bystander-initiated resuscitation in OHCAs attended by citizen responders.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Medical Services/statistics & numerical data , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Communicable Disease Control , Denmark/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/epidemiology , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Retrospective Studies
3.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(1): 1-7, 2022 01 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1621583

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Households are high-risk settings for the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is likely associated with the infectious dose of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. We therefore aimed to assess the association between SARS-CoV-2 exposure within households and COVID-19 severity. METHODS: We performed a Danish, nationwide, register-based, cohort study including laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals from 22 February 2020 to 6 October 2020. Household exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was defined as having 1 individual test positive for SARS-CoV-2 within the household. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association between "critical COVID-19" within and between households with and without secondary cases. RESULTS: From 15 063 multiperson households, 19 773 SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals were included; 11 632 were categorized as index cases without any secondary household cases; 3431 as index cases with secondary cases, that is, 22.8% of multiperson households; and 4710 as secondary cases. Critical COVID-19 occurred in 2.9% of index cases living with no secondary cases, 4.9% of index cases with secondary cases, and 1.3% of secondary cases. The adjusted hazard ratio for critical COVID-19 among index cases vs secondary cases within the same household was 2.50 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.88-3.34), 2.27 (95% CI, 1.77-2.93) for index cases in households with no secondary cases vs secondary cases, and 1.1 (95% CI, .93-1.30) for index cases with secondary cases vs index cases without secondary cases. CONCLUSIONS: We found no increased hazard ratio of critical COVID-19 among household members of infected SARS-CoV-2 index cases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Cohort Studies , Denmark/epidemiology , Family Characteristics , Humans
4.
Acta Psychiatr Scand ; 144(6): 553-562, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1408246

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess the patterns in psychiatric admissions, referrals, and suicidal behavior before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This study utilized health records from hospitals and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) covering 46% of the Danish population (n = 2,693,924). In a time-trend study, we compared the number of psychiatric in-patients, referrals to mental health services and suicidal behavior in years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic to levels during the first lockdown (March 11 - May 17, 2020), inter-lockdown period (May 18 - December 15, 2020), and second lockdown (December 16, 2020 - February 28, 2021). RESULTS: During the pandemic, the rate of psychiatric in-patients declined compared to pre-pandemic levels (RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.94 - 0.96, p < 0.01), with the largest decrease of 19% observed three weeks into the first lockdown. Referrals to mental health services were not significantly different (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.92 - 1.10, p = 0.91) during the pandemic; neither was suicidal behavior among hospital contacts (RR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.94 - 1.14, p = 0.48) nor EMS contacts (RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.00 - 1.18, p = 0.06). Similar trends were observed across nearly all age groups, sexes, and types of mental disorders examined. In the age group <18, an increase in the rate of psychiatric in-patients (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.07 - 1.15, p < 0.01) was observed during the pandemic; however, this did not exceed the pre-pandemic, upwards trend in psychiatric hospitalizations in the age group <18 (p = 0.78). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with a decrease in psychiatric hospitalizations, while no significant change was observed in referrals to mental health services and suicidal behavior. Psychiatric hospitalizations among children and adolescents increased during the pandemic; however, this appears to be a continuation of a pre-pandemic trend.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Adolescent , Child , Communicable Disease Control , Denmark/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Humans , Referral and Consultation , SARS-CoV-2 , Suicidal Ideation
6.
Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes ; 7(2): 172-180, 2021 03 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-892080

ABSTRACT

AIMS: Pre-existing cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) have been proposed to identify patients at higher risk of adverse coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes, but existing evidence is conflicting. Thus, it is unclear whether pre-existing CVDs are independently important predictors for severe COVID-19. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a nationwide Danish cohort of hospital-screened COVID-19 patients aged ≥40, we investigated if pre-existing CVDs predict the 30-day risk of (i) composite outcome of severe COVID-19 and (ii) all-cause mortality. We estimated 30-day risks using a Cox regression model including age, sex, each CVD comorbidity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-asthma, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. To illustrate CVD comorbidities' importance, we evaluated the predicted risks of death and severe infection, for each sex, along ages 40-85. In total, 4090 COVID-19 hospital-screened patients were observed as of 26 August 2020; 22.1% had ≥1 CVD, 23.7% had severe infection within 30 days and 12.6% died. Predicted risks of both outcomes at age 75 among men with single CVD comorbidities did not differ in clinically meaningful amounts compared with men with no comorbidities risks for the composite outcome of severe infection; women with heart failure (28.2%; 95% CI 21.1-37.0%) or atrial fibrillation (30.0%; 95% CI: 24.2-36.9%) showed modest increases compared with women with no comorbidities (24.0%; 95% CI: 21.4-26.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The results showing only modest effects of CVDs on increased risks of poor COVID-19 outcomes are important in allowing public health authorities and clinicians to provide more tailored guidance to cardiovascular patients, who have heretofore been grouped together as high risk due to their disease status.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Cardiovascular Diseases/complications , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Hospital Mortality/trends , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Asthma/diagnosis , Asthma/epidemiology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Cardiovascular Diseases/diagnosis , Case-Control Studies , Clinical Decision Rules , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Denmark/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/diagnosis , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/epidemiology , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/diagnosis , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/epidemiology , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Severity of Illness Index
7.
Prehosp Emerg Care ; 25(1): 28-38, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-738234

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an increased need for contact with emergency medical services (EMS), and call volume might surpass capacity. The Copenhagen EMS operates two telephone line the 1-1-2 emergency number and the 1813 medical helpline. A separate coronavirus support track was implemented on the 1813 medical helpline and a web-based self-triage (web triage) system was created to reduce non-emergency call volume. The aim of this paper is to present call volume and the two measures implemented to handle the increased call volume to the Copenhagen EMS. METHODS: This is a cross sectional observational study. Call volume and queue time is presented in the first month of the COVID-19 pandemic (27th of February 2020 to 27th of march) and compared to the equivalent month from the year before (2019). Descriptive statistics are conducted on call volumes and queue times and spearman's rank correlation test are performed to test correlation between web triage and call volume. RESULTS: Total EMS call volume increase by 23.3% between 2019 and 2020 (92.670 vs. 114,250). The 1-1-2 emergency line total call volume increase by 4.4% (8,4942 vs. 8,870) and the 1813 medical helpline increased by 25.1% (84.176 vs. 105.380). The coronavirus support track handled 21,063 calls. The 1813 medical helpline queue time was a mean of 02 minutes and 23 seconds (CI: 2.22-2.25) in 2019 and 12 minutes and 2 seconds (CI 11:55-12:09) in 2020 (P < 0.001). The web triage was used 10,894 times. No correlation between call volume and web triage usage was seen. CONCLUSIONS: In the first month of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic a significant increase in call volume was observed in the 1813 medical helpline compared to 2019. A large number of calls were handled by the additional coronavirus track and diverted away from the regular tracks of the 1813 medical helpline. This likely contributed to mitigating increased call volumes and queue times. The web triage was widely used but no significant correlation was seen with 1813 medical helpline call volume. Other EMS organizations can learn from this to enhance capacity in a future epidemics.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Medical Services , Triage , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Emergency Medical Services/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Internet , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Telephone , Triage/statistics & numerical data
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL