Overt and Occult Hypoxemia in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

Progressive hypoxemia is the predominant mode of deterioration in COVID-19. Among hypoxemia measures, the ratio of the Pao2 to the Fio2 (P/F ratio) has optimal construct validity but poor availability because it requires arterial blood sampling. Pulse oximetry reports oxygenation continuously (ratio of the Spo2 to the Fio2 [S/F ratio]), but it is affected by skin color and occult hypoxemia can occur in Black patients. Oxygen dissociation curves allow noninvasive estimation of P/F ratios (ePFRs) but remain unproven. OBJECTIVES: Measure overt and occult hypoxemia using ePFR. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively studied COVID-19 hospital encounters (n = 5,319) at two academic centers (University of Virginia [UVA] and Emory University). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We measured primary outcomes (death or ICU transfer within 24 hr), ePFR, conventional hypoxemia measures, baseline predictors (age, sex, race, comorbidity), and acute predictors (National Early Warning Score [NEWS] and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA]). We updated predictors every 15 minutes. We assessed predictive validity using adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs). We quantified disparities (Black vs non-Black) in empirical cumulative distributions using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) two-sample test. RESULTS: Overt hypoxemia (low ePFR) predicted bad outcomes (AOR for a 100-point ePFR drop: 2.7 [UVA]; 1.7 [Emory]; p < 0.01) with better discrimination (AUROC: 0.76 [UVA]; 0.71 [Emory]) than NEWS (0.70 [both sites]) or SOFA (0.68 [UVA]; 0.65 [Emory]) and similar to S/F ratio (0.76 [UVA]; 0.70 [Emory]). We found racial differences consistent with occult hypoxemia. Black patients had better apparent oxygenation (K-S distance: 0.17 [both sites]; p < 0.01) but, for comparable ePFRs, worse outcomes than other patients (AOR: 2.2 [UVA]; 1.2 [Emory]; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The ePFR was a valid measure of overt hypoxemia. In COVID-19, it may outperform multi-organ dysfunction models. By accounting for biased oximetry as well as clinicians' real-time responses to it (supplemental oxygen adjustment), ePFRs may reveal racial disparities attributable to occult hypoxemia.

Overt and Occult Hypoxemia in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19

IMPORTANCE: Progressive hypoxemia is the predominant mode of deterioration in COVID-19. Among hypoxemia measures, the ratio of the Pao2 to the Fio2 (P/F ratio) has optimal construct validity but poor availability because it requires arterial blood sampling. Pulse oximetry reports oxygenation continuously (ratio of the Spo2 to the Fio2 [S/F ratio]), but it is affected by skin color and occult hypoxemia can occur in Black patients. Oxygen dissociation curves allow noninvasive estimation of P/F ratios (ePFRs) but remain unproven. OBJECTIVES: Measure overt and occult hypoxemia using ePFR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively studied COVID-19 hospital encounters (n = 5,319) at two academic centers (University of Virginia [UVA] and Emory University). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We measured primary outcomes (death or ICU transfer within 24 hr), ePFR, conventional hypoxemia measures, baseline predictors (age, sex, race, comorbidity), and acute predictors (National Early Warning Score [NEWS] and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA]). We updated predictors every 15 minutes. We assessed predictive validity using adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs). We quantified disparities (Black vs non-Black) in empirical cumulative distributions using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) two-sample test. RESULTS: Overt hypoxemia (low ePFR) predicted bad outcomes (AOR for a 100-point ePFR drop: 2.7 [UVA];1.7 [Emory];p < 0.01) with better discrimination (AUROC: 0.76 [UVA];0.71 [Emory]) than NEWS (0.70 [both sites]) or SOFA (0.68 [UVA];0.65 [Emory]) and similar to S/F ratio (0.76 [UVA];0.70 [Emory]). We found racial differences consistent with occult hypoxemia. Black patients had better apparent oxygenation (K-S distance: 0.17 [both sites];p < 0.01) but, for comparable ePFRs, worse outcomes than other patients (AOR: 2.2 [UVA];1.2 [Emory];p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The ePFR was a valid measure of overt hypoxemia. In COVID-19, it may outperform multi-organ dysfunction models. By accounting for biased oximetry as well as clinicians' real-time responses to it (supplemental oxygen adjustment), ePFRs may reveal racial disparities attributable to occult hypoxemia.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention and diagnosis in COVID-19: Practice patterns and outcomes at 33 hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Early reports of increased thrombosis risk with SARS-CoV-2 infection led to changes in venous thromboembolism (VTE) management. Real-world data on the prevalence, efficacy and harms of these changes informs best practices. OBJECTIVE: Define practice patterns and clinical outcomes related to VTE diagnosis, prevention, and management in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) using a multi-hospital US sample. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study of 1121 patients admitted to 33 hospitals, exposure was dose of anticoagulant prescribed for VTE prophylaxis (standard, intensified, therapeutic), and primary outcome was VTE (pulmonary embolism [PE] and deep vein thrombosis [DVT]); secondary outcomes were PE, DVT, arterial thromboembolism (ATE), and bleeding events. Multivariable logistic regression models accounting for clustering by site and adjusted for risk factors were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs). Inverse probability weighting was used to account for confounding by indication. RESULTS: 1121 patients (mean age 60 ± 18, 47% female) admitted with COVID-19 between February 2, 2020 and December 31, 2020 to 33 US hospitals were included. Pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis was prescribed in 86%. Forty-seven patients (4.2%) had PE, 51 (4.6%) had DVT, and 23 (2.1%) had ATE. Forty-six patients (4.1%) had major bleeding and 46 (4.1%) had clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Compared to standard prophylaxis, adjusted odds of VTE were 0.67 (95% CI 0.21-2.1) with no prophylaxis, 1.0 (95% CI 0.06-17) with intensified, and 3.0 (95% CI 0.89-10) with therapeutic. Adjusted odds of bleeding with no prophylaxis were 5.6 (95% CI 3.0-11) and 5.3 (95% CI 3.0-10) with therapeutic (no events on intensified dosing). CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a 3-fold increased odds of VTE and 5-fold increased odds of bleeding. While higher bleeding rates with high-intensity prophylaxis were likely due to full-dose anticoagulation, we conclude that high thrombosis rates were due to clinical concern for thrombosis before formal diagnosis.