Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 related mortality and hospitalization before vaccination: A meta-analysis

The literature remains scarce regarding the varying point estimates of risk factors for COVID-19 associated mortality and hospitalization. This meta-analysis investigates risk factors for mortality and hospitalization, estimates individual risk factor contribution, and determines drivers of published estimate variances. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of COVID-19 related mortality and hospitalization risk factors using PRISMA guidelines. Random effects models estimated pooled risks and meta-regression analyses estimated the impact of geographic region and study type. Studies conducted in North America and Europe were more likely to have lower effect sizes of mortality attributed to chronic kidney disease (OR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.09–0.52 and OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.10–0.63, respectively). Retrospective studies were more likely to have decreased effect sizes of mortality attributed to chronic heart failure compared to prospective studies (OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.44–0.95). Studies from Europe and Asia (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.30–0.57 and OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.28–0.84, respectively) and retrospective studies (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.47–0.73) reported lower hospitalization risk attributed to male sex. Significant geographic population-based variation was observed in published comorbidity related mortality risks while male sex had less of an impact on hospitalization among European and Asian populations or in retrospective studies.

Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 related mortality and hospitalization before vaccination: A meta-analysis.

The literature remains scarce regarding the varying point estimates of risk factors for COVID-19 associated mortality and hospitalization. This meta-analysis investigates risk factors for mortality and hospitalization, estimates individual risk factor contribution, and determines drivers of published estimate variances. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of COVID-19 related mortality and hospitalization risk factors using PRISMA guidelines. Random effects models estimated pooled risks and meta-regression analyses estimated the impact of geographic region and study type. Studies conducted in North America and Europe were more likely to have lower effect sizes of mortality attributed to chronic kidney disease (OR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.09-0.52 and OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.10-0.63, respectively). Retrospective studies were more likely to have decreased effect sizes of mortality attributed to chronic heart failure compared to prospective studies (OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.44-0.95). Studies from Europe and Asia (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.30-0.57 and OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.28-0.84, respectively) and retrospective studies (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.47-0.73) reported lower hospitalization risk attributed to male sex. Significant geographic population-based variation was observed in published comorbidity related mortality risks while male sex had less of an impact on hospitalization among European and Asian populations or in retrospective studies.

Modeling the impact of delaying transcatheter aortic valve replacement for the treatment of aortic stenosis in the era of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to model the short term and 2-year overall survival (OS) for intermediate-risk and low-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing timely or delayed transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) during the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We developed a decision analysis model to evaluate 2 treatment strategies for both low-risk and intermediate-risk patients with AS during the COVID-19 novel coronavirus pandemic. RESULTS: Prompt TAVR resulted in improved 2-year OS compared with delayed intervention for intermediate-risk patients (0.81 vs 0.67) and low-risk patients (0.95 vs 0.85), owing to the risk of death or the need for urgent/emergent TAVR in the waiting period. However, if the probability of acquiring COVID-19 novel coronavirus is >55% (intermediate-risk patients) or 47% (low-risk patients), delayed TAVR is favored over prompt intervention (0.66 vs 0.67 for intermediate risk; 0.84 vs 0.85 for low risk). CONCLUSIONS: Prompt transcatheter aortic valve replacement for both intermediate-risk and low-risk patients with symptomatic severe AS results in improved 2-year survival when local healthcare system resources are not significantly constrained by the COVID-19.

A retrospective approach to evaluating potential adverse outcomes associated with delay of procedures for cardiovascular and cancer-related diagnoses in the context of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, health systems postponed non-essential medical procedures to accommodate surge of critically-ill patients. The long-term consequences of delaying procedures in response to COVID-19 remains unknown. We developed a high-throughput approach to understand the impact of delaying procedures on patient health outcomes using electronic health record (EHR) data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used EHR data from Vanderbilt University Medical Center's (VUMC) Research and Synthetic Derivatives. Elective procedures and non-urgent visits were suspended at VUMC between March 18, 2020 and April 24, 2020. Surgical procedure data from this period were compared to a similar timeframe in 2019. Potential adverse impact of delay in cardiovascular and cancer-related procedures was evaluated using EHR data collected from January 1, 1993 to March 17, 2020. For surgical procedure delay, outcomes included length of hospitalization (days), mortality during hospitalization, and readmission within six months. For screening procedure delay, outcomes included 5-year survival and cancer stage at diagnosis. RESULTS: We identified 416 surgical procedures that were negatively impacted during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the same timeframe in 2019. Using retrospective data, we found 27 significant associations between procedure delay and adverse patient outcomes. Clinician review indicated that 88.9% of the significant associations were plausible and potentially clinically significant. Analytic pipelines for this study are available online. CONCLUSION: Our approach enables health systems to identify medical procedures affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and evaluate the effect of delay, enabling them to communicate effectively with patients and prioritize rescheduling to minimize adverse patient outcomes.

Modeling the impact of delaying surgery for early esophageal cancer in the era of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Surgical society guidelines have recommended changing the treatment strategy for early esophageal cancer during the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Delaying resection can allow for interim disease progression, but the impact of this delay on mortality is unknown. The COVID-19 infection rate at which immediate operative risk exceeds benefit is unknown. We sought to model immediate versus delayed surgical resection in a T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A decision analysis model was developed, and sensitivity analyses performed. The base case was a 65-year-old male smoker presenting with cT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma scheduled for esophagectomy during the COVID-19 pandemic. We compared immediate surgical resection to delayed resection after 3 months. The likelihood of key outcomes was derived from the literature where available. The outcome was 5-year overall survival. RESULTS: Proceeding with immediate esophagectomy for the base case scenario resulted in slightly improved 5-year overall survival when compared to delaying surgery by 3 months (5-year overall survival 0.74 for immediate and 0.73 for delayed resection). In sensitivity analyses, a delayed approach became preferred when the probability of perioperative COVID-19 infection increased above 7%. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate resection of early esophageal cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic did not decrease 5-year survival when compared to resection after 3 months for the base case scenario. However, as the risk of perioperative COVID-19 infection increases above 7%, a delayed approach has improved 5-year survival. This balance should be frequently re-examined by surgeons as infection risk changes in each hospital and community throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Modeling the Impact of Delaying Bariatric Surgery due to COVID-19: a Decision Analysis.

We developed a decision analysis model to evaluate risks and benefits of delaying scheduled bariatric surgery during the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Our base case was a 45-year-old female with diabetes and a body mass index of 45 kg/m2. We compared immediate with delayed surgery after 6 months to allow for COVID-19 prevalence to decrease. We found that immediate and delayed bariatric surgeries after 6 months resulted in similar 20-year overall survival. When the probability of COVID-19 infection exceeded 4%, then delayed surgery improved survival. If future COVID-19 infection rates were at least half those in the immediate scenario, then immediate surgery was favored and local infection rates had to exceed 9% before surgical delay improved survival. Surgeons should consider local disease prevalence and patient comorbidities associated with increased mortality before resuming bariatric surgery programs.

Modeling the Impact of Delaying the Diagnosis of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer During COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has led surgical societies to recommend delaying diagnosis and treatment of suspected lung cancer for lesions less than 2 cm. Delaying diagnosis can lead to disease progression, but the impact of this delay on mortality is unknown. The COVID-19 infection rate at which immediate operative risk exceeds benefit is unknown. We sought to model immediate versus delayed surgical resection in a suspicious lung nodule less than 2 cm. METHODS: A decision analysis model was developed, and sensitivity analyses performed. The base case was a 65-year-old male smoker with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease presenting for surgical biopsy of a 1.5 to 2 cm lung nodule highly suspicious for cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. We compared immediate surgical resection to delayed resection after 3 months. The likelihood of key outcomes was derived from the literature where available. The outcome was 5-year overall survival. RESULTS: Immediate surgical resection resulted in a similar but slightly higher 5-year overall survival when compared with delayed resection (0.77 versus 0.74) owing to the risk of disease progression. However, if the probability of acquired COVID-19 infection is greater than 13%, delayed resection is favorable (0.74 vs 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate surgical biopsy of lung nodules suspicious for cancer in hospitals with low COVID-19 prevalence likely results in improved 5-year survival. However, as the risk of perioperative COVID-19 infection increases above 13%, a delayed approach has similar or improved survival. This balance should be frequently reexamined at each health care facility throughout the curve of the pandemic.