Comparison of Outcomes and Process of Care for Patients Treated at Hospitals Dedicated for COVID-19 Care vs Other Hospitals.

Importance: Early in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the M Health Fairview Hospital System established dedicated hospitals for establishing cohorts and caring for patients with COVID-19, yet the association between treatment at COVID-19-dedicated hospitals and mortality and complications is not known. Objective: To analyze the mortality rate and complications associated with treatment at the COVID-19-dedicated hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study evaluated data prospectively collected from March 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021, from 11 hospitals in Minnesota, including 2 hospitals created solely to care for patients with COVID-19. Data obtained included demographic characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of interest for all patients with a confirmed COVID-19 infection admitted to this hospital system during the study period. Exposures: Patients were grouped based on whether they received treatment from 1 of the 2 COVID-19-dedicated hospitals compared with the remainder of the hospitals within the hospital system. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariate analyses, including risk-adjusted logistic regression and propensity score matching, were performed to evaluate the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes, including complications and use of COVID-specific therapeutics. Results: There were 5504 patients with COVID-19 admitted during the study period (median age, 62.5 [IQR, 45.0-75.6] years; 2854 women [51.9%]). Of these, 2077 patients (37.7%) (median age, 63.4 [IQR, 50.7-76.1] years; 1080 men [52.0%]) were treated at 1 of the 2 COVID-19-dedicated hospitals compared with 3427 (62.3%; median age, 62.0 [40.0-75.1] years; 1857 women (54.2%) treated at other hospitals. The mortality rate was 11.6% (n = 241) at the dedicated hospitals compared with 8.0% (n = 274) at the other hospitals (P < .001). However, risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was significantly lower for patients in the COVID-19-dedicated hospitals in both the unmatched group (n = 2077; odds ratio [OR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95) and the propensity score-matched group (n = 1317; OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-0.99). The rate of overall complications in the propensity score-matched group was significantly lower (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99) and the use of COVID-19-specific therapeutics including deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis (83.9% vs 56.9%; P < .001), high-dose corticosteroids (56.1% vs 22.2%; P < .001), remdesivir (61.5% vs 44.5%; P < .001), and tocilizumab (7.9% vs 2.0; P < .001) was significantly higher. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, COVID-19-dedicated hospitals had multiple benefits, including providing high-volume repetitive treatment and isolating patients with the infection. This experience suggests improved in-hospital mortality for patients treated at dedicated hospitals owing to improved processes of care and supports the use of establishing cohorts for future pandemics.

Evaluation of Minnesota Score in the Allocation of Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation During Resource Scarcity.

Background: In this study, we evaluate the previously reported novel Minnesota Score for association with in-hospital mortality and allocation of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome with or without SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study across four extracorporeal membrane oxygenation centers in Minnesota. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between the scores and in-hospital mortality, duration of ECMO cannulation, and discharge disposition. Priority groups were established statistically by maximizing the sum of sensitivity and specificity and compared to the previous qualitatively established priority groups. Results: Of 124 patients included in the study, 38% were treated for COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome. The median age was 48 years, and 73% were male. The in-hospital mortality rate was 38%. The Minnesota Score was significantly associated with in-hospital mortality only (OR 1.13, p=0.02). Statistically determined cut points were similar to qualitative cut points. SARS-CoV-2 status did not change the findings. Conclusions: In our patient cohort, the Minnesota Score is associated with increased mortality. With further validation, proposed priority groups could be utilized for allocation of ECMO in times of increasing scarcity.

Increasing Mortality in Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: Determine the factors associated with mortality in venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) patients with COVID-19 infection and provide an updated report of clinical outcomes for patients treated with V-V ECMO for COVID-19 in Minnesota. DESIGN: Multicenter prospective observational study. SETTING: The four adult Extracorporeal Life Support Organization-certified Centers of Excellence in Minnesota. PATIENTS: A total of 100 patients treated with V-V ECMO for COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from March 2020 to May 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was 60-day survival for patients treated with V-V ECMO for COVID-19. Outcomes of patients treated from November 2020 to May 2021(cohort 2) were compared with data from a previous cohort of patients, collected from March 2020 to October 2020 (cohort 1). The data from both cohorts were merged into a single dataset (Combined Cohort). Survival on V-V ECMO due to COVID-19-associated ARDS significantly decreased after October 2020 (63% vs 41%; p = 0.026). The median interval from hospital admission to V-V ECMO cannulation was significantly associated with 60-day mortality (10 d [6-14 d] in nonsurvivors vs 7 d [4-9 d] in survivors; p = 0.001) in the Combined Cohort and was also significantly longer in cohort 2 than cohort 1 (10 d [7-14 d] vs 6 d [4-10 d]; p < 0.001). In the Combined Cohort, the 60-day survival for patients who did not receive steroids was 86% (n = 12) versus 45% (n = 39) for patients who received at least one dose of steroids (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant increase in mortality for patients treated with V-V ECMO for COVID-19-associated ARDS in cohort 2 compared with cohort 1. Further research is required to determine the cause of the worsening trend in mortality.

Characterizing COVID-19 clinical phenotypes and associated comorbidities and complication profiles.

PURPOSE: Heterogeneity has been observed in outcomes of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Identification of clinical phenotypes may facilitate tailored therapy and improve outcomes. The purpose of this study is to identify specific clinical phenotypes across COVID-19 patients and compare admission characteristics and outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of COVID-19 patients from March 7, 2020 to August 25, 2020 at 14 U.S. hospitals. Ensemble clustering was performed on 33 variables collected within 72 hours of admission. Principal component analysis was performed to visualize variable contributions to clustering. Multinomial regression models were fit to compare patient comorbidities across phenotypes. Multivariable models were fit to estimate associations between phenotype and in-hospital complications and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The database included 1,022 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Three clinical phenotypes were identified (I, II, III), with 236 [23.1%] patients in phenotype I, 613 [60%] patients in phenotype II, and 173 [16.9%] patients in phenotype III. Patients with respiratory comorbidities were most commonly phenotype III (p = 0.002), while patients with hematologic, renal, and cardiac (all p<0.001) comorbidities were most commonly phenotype I. Adjusted odds of respiratory, renal, hepatic, metabolic (all p<0.001), and hematological (p = 0.02) complications were highest for phenotype I. Phenotypes I and II were associated with 7.30-fold (HR:7.30, 95% CI:(3.11-17.17), p<0.001) and 2.57-fold (HR:2.57, 95% CI:(1.10-6.00), p = 0.03) increases in hazard of death relative to phenotype III. CONCLUSION: We identified three clinical COVID-19 phenotypes, reflecting patient populations with different comorbidities, complications, and clinical outcomes. Future research is needed to determine the utility of these phenotypes in clinical practice and trial design.

Risk Factors of Mortality for Patients Receiving Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Background: Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) for select adults with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) cause by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is a guideline-supported therapy with associated hospital survival of 62%-74%, similar to expected survival with VV-ECMO for other indications. However, ECMO is a resource-heavy intervention, and these patients often require long ECMO runs and prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) care. Identifying factors associated with mortality in VV-ECMO patients with COVID-19 infection can inform the evaluation of ECMO candidates as well as prognostication for those patients on prolonged VV-ECMO. Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study that included all patients who received either VV- or venoarteriovenous (VAV)-ECMO at one of four ECMO Centers of Excellence in the state of Minnesota between March 1, 2020 and November 1, 2020. The primary outcome was 60-day survival. Secondary outcomes were hospital complications, infectious complications, and complications from ECMO. Results: There were 46 patients who met criteria during this study period and 30 survived to 60-day follow-up (65.2%). Prior to cannulation, older patient age (55.5 in non-survivors vs. 49.1 years in survivors; p = 0.03), lower P/F ratio (62.1 vs. 76.2; p = 0.04), and higher sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score (8.1 vs. 6.6; p = 0.02) were identified as risk factors for mortality. After ECMO cannulation, increased mortality was associated with increased number of antibiotic days (25.9 vs. 14.5; p = 0.04), increased number of transfusions (23.9 vs. 9.9; p = 0.03), elevated white blood cell (WBC) count at post-ECMO days one through three, elevated D-dimer at post-ECMO day 21-27, and decreased platelet count from post-ECMO days 14 and onward using univariable analysis. Conclusions: Multiple markers of infection including leukocytosis, thrombocytopenia, and increased antibiotic days are associated with increased mortality in patients placed on VV-ECMO for COVID-19 infection and subsequent ARDS. Knowledge of these factors may assist with determining appropriate candidates for this limited resource as well as direct goals of care in prolonged ECMO courses.

The Use of Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in COVID-19 Infection: One Region's Comprehensive Experience.

Severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) unresponsive to conventional intensive care unit (ICU) management is an accepted indication for venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) support. The frequency with which patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia are selected for V-V ECMO has not been described. This was a cohort study including all patients placed on either V-V ECMO or venoarteriovenous ECMO at the four adult ECMO Centers of Excellence. Primary outcomes evaluated were survival to decannulation from the ECMO circuit, survival to discharge, and 60-day survival. Secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, length of ECMO cannulation, and length of intubation. During the study period, which corresponded to the first surge in COVID-19 hospitalizations in Minnesota, 35 patients with ARDS were selected for V-V ECMO support out of 1,849 adult ICU patients with COVID-19 infection in the state (1.9% incidence; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6%). This represents 46 (95% CI, 34-61) expected V-V ECMO patients per 100,000 confirmed positive cases of COVID-19. Twenty-six of the 35 patients (74.3%) supported with V-V ECMO survived to 60-day post-ECMO decannulation. Recent studies have demonstrated ongoing success rescuing patients with severe ARDS in COVID-19 infection. Our data add to the support of ECMO and the consideration for encouraging cooperation among regional ECMO centers to ensure access to this highest level of care. Finally, by evaluating all the patients of a single region, we estimate overall need for this resource intensive intervention based on the overall number of COVID-19 cases and ICU admissions.

Characterizing COVID-19 Clinical Phenotypes and Associated Comorbidities and Complication Profiles.

BACKGROUND: There is limited understanding of heterogeneity in outcomes across hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Identification of distinct clinical phenotypes may facilitate tailored therapy and improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Identify specific clinical phenotypes across COVID-19 patients and compare admission characteristics and outcomes. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of 1,022 COVID-19 patient admissions from 14 Midwest U.S. hospitals between March 7, 2020 and August 25, 2020. METHODS: Ensemble clustering was performed on a set of 33 vitals and labs variables collected within 72 hours of admission. K-means based consensus clustering was used to identify three clinical phenotypes. Principal component analysis was performed on the average covariance matrix of all imputed datasets to visualize clustering and variable relationships. Multinomial regression models were fit to further compare patient comorbidities across phenotype classification. Multivariable models were fit to estimate the association between phenotype and in-hospital complications and clinical outcomes. Main outcomes and measures: Phenotype classification (I, II, III), patient characteristics associated with phenotype assignment, in-hospital complications, and clinical outcomes including ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, and mortality. RESULTS: The database included 1,022 patients requiring hospital admission with COVID-19 (median age, 62.1 [IQR: 45.9-75.8] years; 481 [48.6%] male, 412 [40.3%] required ICU admission, 437 [46.7%] were white). Three clinical phenotypes were identified (I, II, III); 236 [23.1%] patients had phenotype I, 613 [60%] patients had phenotype II, and 173 [16.9%] patients had phenotype III. When grouping comorbidities by organ system, patients with respiratory comorbidities were most commonly characterized by phenotype III (p=0.002), while patients with hematologic (p<0.001), renal (p<0.001), and cardiac (p<0.001) comorbidities were most commonly characterized by phenotype I. The adjusted odds of respiratory (p<0.001), renal (p<0.001), and metabolic (p<0.001) complications were highest for patients with phenotype I, followed by phenotype II. Patients with phenotype I had a far greater odds of hepatic (p<0.001) and hematological (p=0.02) complications than the other two phenotypes. Phenotypes I and II were associated with 7.30-fold (HR: 7.30, 95% CI: (3.11-17.17), p<0.001) and 2.57-fold (HR: 2.57, 95% CI: (1.10-6.00), p=0.03) increases in the hazard of death, respectively, when compared to phenotype III. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective analysis of patients with COVID-19, three clinical phenotypes were identified. Future research is urgently needed to determine the utility of these phenotypes in clinical practice and trial design.