Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
Add filters

Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Open Forum Infectious Diseases ; 9(Supplement 2):S186-S187, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2189594

ABSTRACT

Background. Pulmonary barotrauma has been increasingly reported as a complication of COVID-19. Although a rare phenomenon, pneumomediastinum has been shown to be more prevalent in COVID-19 patients than in historical patients with adult respiratory distress syndrome. Methods. We performed a Workbench report to identify 1046 patients admitted to our community hospital in Evanston, Illinois, with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19 from March 1, 2020, to January 31, 2022. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Results. The incidence proportion risk was 3.15%. The median age was 66 years (interquartile range [IQR], 49.5 - 75.5 years), 84.8% (28/33) were males, 24.2% (8/33) were Asian, 18.2% (6/33) were White, 18.2% (6/33) were Latinx, and 9.1% (3/33) were long-term care facility residents. Pneumothorax was present in 21 patients (63.6%): unilateral 18/21 (54.5%);bilateral 3/21 (9.1%). Pneumomediastinum was present in 22 patients (66.7%). The median onset time of pneumothorax or pneumomediastinum after COVID-19 onset was 18 days (IQR, 11.5 - 25.5 days). Among 28 (84.8%) patients that required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), 6 (18.2%) developed pneumothorax or pneumomediastinum prior IMV;5 (15.2%) patients developed pneumothorax or pneumomediastinum without IMV. The median onset time of pneumothorax or pneumomediastinum after IMV was 4 days (IQR, 0 - 8 days). Only 4 (9.1%) patients were ultimately discharged, 24 (72.7%) died, 2 (6.1%) were transitioned to hospice care, 3 (9.1%) were transferred to long-term care acute care, and 1 (3%) patient was transferred for ECMO. The fatality rate was higher compared to case reports available in the literature (5/23, 21.7% fatality rate. Table 1). Available data in the literature per case reports of pneumomediastinum and pneumothorax in COVID-19 patients Abbreviations: A-fib, atrial fibrillation;CAD, coronary artery disease;CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure, DM, type 2 diabetes;F, female;HLD, hyperlipidemia;HTN, hypertension;IMV, invasive mechanical ventilation;M, male;NC, nasal cannula;NIV, non-invasive ventilation;NRB, non-rebreather mask;OSA;obstructive sleep apnea;PMD, pneumomediastinum;PTX, pneumothorax;yo, years old. Conclusion. The practitioners have to be alerted of the association of COVID-19 with pneumomediastinum, especially on the fact that this complication may happen in patients who never received mechanical ventilation or positive airway pressure support. Further research is needed into the exact pathogenesis, prevalence of this complication, and the impact on the clinical outcomes.

3.
Open Forum Infectious Diseases ; 8(SUPPL 1):S378-S379, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1746446

ABSTRACT

Background. Growing evidence supports the use of remdesivir and tocilizumab for the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of remdesivir and tocilizumab for the treatment of severe COVID-19 in a community hospital setting. Methods. We used a de-identified dataset of hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19 according to the National Institutes of Health definition (SpO2 < 94% on room air, a PaO2/FiO2 < 300 mm Hg, respiratory frequency > 30/min, or lung infiltrates > 50%) admitted to our community hospital located in Evanston Illinois, between March 1, 2020, and March 1, 2021. We performed a Cox proportional hazards regression model to examine the relationship between the use of remdesivir and tocilizumab and inpatient mortality. To minimize confounders, we adjusted for age, qSOFA score, noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, and steroids, forcing these variables into the model. We implemented a sensitivity analysis calculating the E-value (with the lower confidence limit) for the obtained point estimates to assess the potential effect of unmeasured confounding. Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for in-hospital death among patients treated with and without steroids The hazard ratio was derived from a bivariable Cox regression model. The survival curves were compared with a log-rank test, where a two-sided P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for in-hospital death among patients treated with and without remdesivir The hazard ratio was derived from a bivariable Cox regression model. The survival curves were compared with a log-rank test, where a two-sided P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results. A total of 549 patients were included. The median age was 69 years (interquartile range, 59 - 80 years), 333 (59.6%) were male, 231 were White (41.3%), and 235 (42%) were admitted from long-term care facilities. 394 (70.5%) received steroids, 192 (34.3%) received remdesivir, and 49 (8.8%) received tocilizumab. By the cutoff date for data analysis, 389 (69.6%) patients survived, and 170 (30.4%) had died. The bivariable Cox regression models showed decreased hazard of in-hospital death associated with the administration of steroids (Figure 1), remdesivir (Figure 2), and tocilizumab (Figure 3). This association persisted in the multivariable Cox regression controlling for other predictors (Figure 4). The E value for the multivariable Cox regression point estimates and the lower confidence intervals are shown in Table 1. The hazard ratio was derived from a bivariable Cox regression model. The survival curves were compared with a log-rank test, where a two-sided P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The hazard ratios were derived from a multivariable Cox regression model adjusting for age as a continuous variable, qSOFA score, noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation, and invasive mechanical ventilation. Table 1. Sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding using E-values CI, confidence interval. Point estimate from multivariable Cox regression model. The E value is defined as the minimum strength of association on the risk ratio scale that an unmeasured confounder would need to have with both the exposure and the outcome, conditional on the measured covariates, to explain away a specific exposure-outcome association fully: i.e., a confounder not included in the multivariable Cox regression model associated with remdesivir or tocilizumab use and in-hospital death in patients with severe COVID-19 by a hazard ratio of 1.64-fold or 1.54-fold each, respectively, could explain away the lower confidence limit, but weaker confounding could not. Conclusion. For patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to our community hospital, the use of steroids, remdesivir, and tocilizumab were significantly associated with a slower progression to in-hospital death while controlling for other predictors included in the models.

4.
Chest ; 160(4):A549-A550, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1458267

ABSTRACT

TOPIC: Chest Infections TYPE: Original Investigations PURPOSE: Several countries have seen a two-wave pattern of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, clinical characteristics and outcomes between waves vary across regions. A study in England suggested a substantial improvement in survival amongst people admitted to critical care with COVID-19, with markedly higher survival rates in people admitted in the first wave compared with those admitted in the second wave, while a study in Africa, the second wave appeared to be much more aggressive. Therefore, regional-specific analyses are needed. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a de-identified dataset of patients with COVID-19 admitted to our community hospital ICU, from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021. Only molecularly confirmed COVID-19 cases defined by a positive result on an RT-PCR assay or NAAT of a specimen collected on a nasopharyngeal swab were included. We then identified patients from the first wave as those admitted during the initial peak of admissions observed at our hospital between March 1, 2020, and September 3, 2020. The second wave was defined as those admitted during the second peak of admissions observed between October 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021. Descriptive statistics were performed to summarize data. RESULTS: Between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021, a total of 190 patients were admitted to our community-hospital ICU. Of those, 132 (69.5%) were identified as patients from the first wave, and 58 (30.5%) were identified as patients from the second wave. The median age was not significantly different among patients from the first and second wave (69 years [IQR 59 – 78 years] vs. 69 years [IQR 61 – 77.25 years;p=.841]. Sex distribution was also not significantly different between the two waves (85/132 males [64.4%] vs. 40/58 males [69%];p=.541). A significantly higher rate of patients was admitted from long-term care facilities during the first wave compared to the second wave (77/132 [58.3%] vs. 7/58 [12.1%];p<.001). The distribution of comorbidities was similar between groups, except for neurocognitive disorders, which were mostly observed in the first wave (46/132 [34.8% vs. 7/58 [12.1%];p=.001). While the rates of invasive mechanical ventilation were similar between groups (75/132 [56.8%] vs. 36-58 [62.1%];p=.499, significant higher rates of patients received humidified high-flow nasal cannula (19/132 [14.4%] vs. 29/58 [50%];p<.001) and noninvasive ventilation (9/132 [6.8%] vs. 23/58 [39.7%];p<.001) during the second wave. Following the release of some pivotal clinical trials, more patients during the second wave received corticosteroids (87/132 [65.9%] vs. 56/58 [96.6%];p<.001) and remdesivir (19/132 [14.4%] vs. 48/58 [82.8%];p<.001). However, the in-hospital case-fatality rate was not significantly different between groups (68/132 [51.5%] vs. 32/58 [55.2%];p=.642). CONCLUSIONS: While epidemiological characteristics of patients with COVID-19 admitted to our ICU between the two waves were grossly similar, a significantly higher rate of patients was admitted from long-term care facilities during the first wave, and non-invasive ventilation and targeted therapies were used more during the second wave. The in-hospital case-fatality rate was not significantly different. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: In our community hospital in the Chicago North Shore area, the ICU case-fatality rate was not significantly different between two different waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. DISCLOSURES: No relevant relationships by Chul Won Chung, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Goar Egoryan, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Harvey Friedman, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Emre Ozcekirdek, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Ece Ozen, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Bidhya Poudel, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Daniela Trelles Garcia, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Valer a Trelles Garcia, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Maria Yanez-Bello, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Qishuo Zhang, source=Web Response

5.
Chest ; 160(4):A542-A543, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1457740

ABSTRACT

TOPIC: Chest Infections TYPE: Original Investigations PURPOSE: In late December 2019, a novel coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2 was discovered in Wuhan, China using deep unbiased sequencing in samples from patients with pneumonia. From its discovery, SARS-CoV-2 has caused global public health emergencies, economic crises, and innumerable deaths. To date, only corticosteroids have been proven to be effective in reducing mortality from COVID-19. From antiviral agents, remdesivir has been recently recognized as a promising therapy against COVID-19, but its mortality benefit is still a matter of controversy. In this study, we analyzed the effect of remdesivir on in-hospital death in our community hospital in the Chicago North Shore. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a de-identified dataset of 190 patients with COVID-19 admitted to a community hospital Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in Evanston, Illinois, from March 2020 to December 2020. Only molecularly confirmed COVID-19 cases defined by a positive result on a reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assay or nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) of a specimen collected on a nasopharyngeal swab were included. We performed a Cox proportional hazards model to analyze the effect of remdesivir on the hazard of in-hospital death in our patient population. To minimize confounders, age, qSOFA score, invasive mechanical ventilation, and other targeted COVID-19 therapies used at any given time (including corticosteroids, tocilizumab, hydroxychloroquine, colchicine, azithromycin, and atorvastatin) were forced as covariables into the model. For sensitivity analysis, we calculated the E value (with the lower confidence limit) for the obtained point estimate. The E value is defined as the minimum strength of association on the risk ratio scale that an unmeasured confounder would need to have with both the exposure and the outcome, conditional on the measured covariates, to explain away a specific exposure-outcome association fully. RESULTS: Between 190 patients admitted to the ICU, the median age was 69 years (IQR, 59 – 78 years), 125 (65.8%) were male, 62 (23.6 %) were White, and 84 (44.2%) were admitted from a long-term care facility. Of those patients, 143 (75.3) received corticosteroids, 67 (35.3%) received remdesivir, and 66 (34.7%) received both. Among survivors, 34/90 (37.8%) received remdesivir compared to 33/100 (33%) nonsurvivors. The Cox regression model showed decreased hazard of in-hospital death associated with the administration of remdesivir (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.55;95% CI 0.29 – 0.94, p=.028). The E value for the point estimate was 3.04 and the E value for the lower confidence interval was 1.32, meaning that a confounder not included in the multivariable Cox regression model associated with remdesivir use and in-hospital mortality in patients with critical COVID-19 by a hazard ratio of 1.32-fold each could explain away the lower confidence limit, but weaker confounding could not. CONCLUSIONS: According to the data presented above, we concluded that in our patient population, the patients who did not receive remdesivir had a 65% chance of dying sooner compared to the ones who did receive remdesivir (when probability = HR/HR + 1). This could indicate a potential mortality benefit of remdesivir in critically ill patients. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: In our patient population, the use of remdesivir was associated with a slower progression to death in critically ill patients with COVID-19. DISCLOSURES: No relevant relationships by Chul Won Chung, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Goar Egoryan, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Harvey Friedman, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Emre Ozcekirdek, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Ece Ozen, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Bidhya Poudel, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Daniela Trelles Garcia, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Maria Y nez-Bello, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Qishuo Zhang, source=Web Response

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL