COVID-19's impact on family medicine resident training and wellness.

Background: The COVID-19 global pandemic has raised many challenges in training family medicine residents. Family medicine is at the frontline for treating and managing patients with COVID-19. Attention is needed on the critical issue of the effect of the pandemic on resident training, the safety of those performing needed medical services, and the psychological well-being of trainees. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional, 25-question survey-based study to evaluate the perceived effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on family medicine residents' training and residents' well-being in the state of Texas. Results: A total of 250 Texas-based family medicine residents were surveyed with a response rate of 12.8% (n = 32). After the pandemic began, all residents worried about exposing their loved ones to COVID-19, and 65% felt like the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted their training overall. Respondents indicated that changes occurred in their respective residency curricula that altered training such as canceling of scheduled lectures (84.3%) and more telemedicine visits (56.25%). There was a significant difference for postgraduate year level and the effect on rotation assignments, with more disruption to the first- and third-year residents (P = 0.03). Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a notable impact on the perception of quality of training and mental health within family medicine. Our findings may guide programs in how to proactively target pandemic-related training challenges.

Daily oxygenation support for patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 in an integrated health system.

Background: Many studies of novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) are constructed to report hospitalization outcomes, with few large multi-center population-based reports on the time course of intra-hospitalization characteristics, including daily oxygenation support requirements. Comprehensive epidemiologic profiles of oxygenation methods used by day and by week during hospitalization across all severities are important to illustrate the clinical and economic burden of COVID-19 hospitalizations.Methods: This is a retrospective, multicenter observational cohort study of 15,361 consecutive hospitalizations of patients with COVID-19 at 25 adult acute care hospitals in Texas participating in the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS) COVID-19 registryResults: At initial hospitalization, the majority required nasal cannula (44.0%) with increasing proportion of invasive mechanical ventilation in the first week and particularly the weeks to follow. After four weeks of acute illness, 69.9% of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 required intermediate (e.g., high-flow nasal cannula, non-invasive ventilation) or advanced respiratory support (e.g., invasive mechanical ventilation), with similar proportions extending to hospitalizations lasting 6 weeks or longer.Conclusions: Data representation of intra-hospital processes of care drawn from hospitals with varied size, teaching and trauma designations is important to presenting a balanced perspective of care delivery mechanisms employed, such as daily oxygen method utilization.

Development and validation of a prediction model for estimating one-month mortality of adult COVID-19 patients presenting at emergency department with suspected pneumonia: a multicenter analysis.

There are only a few models developed for risk-stratifying COVID-19 patients with suspected pneumonia in the emergency department (ED). We aimed to develop and validate a model, the COVID-19 ED pneumonia mortality index (CoV-ED-PMI), for predicting mortality in this population. We retrospectively included adult COVID-19 patients who visited EDs of five study hospitals in Texas and who were diagnosed with suspected pneumonia between March and November 2020. The primary outcome was 1-month mortality after the index ED visit. In the derivation cohort, multivariable logistic regression was used to develop the CoV-ED-PMI model. In the chronologically split validation cohort, the discriminative performance of the CoV-ED-PMI was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared with other existing models. A total of 1678 adult ED records were included for analysis. Of them, 180 patients sustained 1-month mortality. There were 1174 and 504 patients in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. Age, body mass index, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, hepatitis, history of transplant, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lactate dehydrogenase, and national early warning score were included in the CoV-ED-PMI. The model was validated with good discriminative performance (AUC: 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.87), which was significantly better than the CURB-65 (AUC: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.69-0.79, p-value: < 0.001). The CoV-ED-PMI had a good predictive performance for 1-month mortality in COVID-19 patients with suspected pneumonia presenting at ED. This free tool is accessible online, and could be useful for clinical decision-making in the ED.

COVID-19 Vaccine-Associated Subclinical Axillary Lymphadenopathy on Screening Mammogram.

BACKGROUND: Women who received a COVID-19 vaccination may display subclinical unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy on screening mammography, which can appear suspicious for malignancy, leading to additional diagnostic evaluation. PURPOSE: To evaluate the prevalence of subclinical unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy (sLAD) on screening mammogram in women who received either the first or second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech (Pfizer) or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines compared to women who have not. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this IRB-approved, HIPAA complaint study from 12/14/2020 to 4/14/2021, 1027 patients presented for screening mammography and met study inclusion criteria. Patients with history of baseline lymphadenopathy or prior cancer diagnosis were excluded. RESULTS: Of the 1027 women, 43 were recalled for unilateral sLAD. 34 women received a COVID-19 vaccination ipsilateral to the sLAD (Pfizer n=19, 44.2%; Moderna n=15, 34.9%), 9 did not (20.9%). Incidence of unilateral axillary sLAD was significantly higher (p-value<0.01) in those who received a COVID-19 vaccination within approximately 7 weeks preceding screening mammogram. 13.2% of patients who received the Pfizer vaccine and 9.5% of patients who received the Moderna vaccine developed sLAD. Moderna's vaccine elicited a more robust reaction in the elderly (Moderna 63.7 years vs. Pfizer 59.7 years). For both vaccines, sLAD resolved on average 46.5 days after the last COVID-19 vaccine (p=0.44). CONCLUSION: Women who have received either mRNA COVID-19 vaccines may benefit from scheduling their screening mammogram before vaccination or consider delaying screening mammography 8 weeks. While Pfizer may have an overall more robust immune response, Moderna may elicit a stronger immune response in elderly women. SUMMARY: Women who received a COVID-19 vaccination before screening mammography were significantly more likely to present with subclinical axillary lymphadenopathy than women who did not receive the vaccine. KEY RESULTS: 13.2% of women who received a Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine exhibited subclinical axillary lymphadenopathy compared to 9.5% of those who received the Moderna vaccine. Only 1.2 % of those who did not receive a vaccine presented with subclinical unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy. The average time of resolution of the lymphadenopathy on diagnostic mammogram was 46.5 days overall, with Pfizer-BioNTech taking 50.7 days and Moderna 41.5 days.

Mortality Variations of COVID-19 from Different Hospital Settings During Different Pandemic Phases: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: Diverse coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortalities have been reported but focused on identifying susceptible patients at risk of more severe disease or death. This study aims to investigate the mortality variations of COVID-19 from different hospital settings during different pandemic phases. METHODS: We retrospectively included adult (≥18 years) patients who visited emergency departments (ED) of five hospitals in the state of Texas and who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between March-November 2020. The included hospitals were dichotomized into urban and suburban based on their geographic location. The primary outcome was mortality that occurred either during hospital admission or within 30 days after the index ED visit. We used multivariable logistic regression to investigate the associations between independent variables and outcome. Generalized additive models were employed to explore the mortality variation during different pandemic phases. RESULTS: A total of 1,788 adult patients who tested positive for COVID-19 were included in the study. The median patient age was 54.6 years, and 897 (50%) patients were male. Urban hospitals saw approximately 59.5% of the total patients. A total of 197 patients died after the index ED visit. The analysis indicated visits to the urban hospitals (odds ratio [OR] 2.14, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41, 3.23), from March to April (OR 2.04, 95% CI, 1.08, 3.86), and from August to November (OR 2.15, 95% CI, 1.37, 3.38) were positively associated with mortality. CONCLUSION: Visits to the urban hospitals were associated with a higher risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 when compared to visits to the suburban hospitals. The mortality risk rebounded and showed significant difference between urban and suburban hospitals since August 2020. Optimal allocation of medical resources may be necessary to bridge this gap in the foreseeable future.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of surgery delays and survival in breast, lung and colon cancers: Implication for surgical triage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Thousands of cancer surgeries were delayed during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examines if surgical delays impact survival for breast, lung and colon cancers. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched. Articles evaluating the relationship between delays in surgery and overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) or cancer-specific survival (CSS) were included. RESULTS: Of the 14,422 articles screened, 25 were included in the review and 18 (totaling 2,533,355 patients) were pooled for meta-analyses. Delaying surgery for 12 weeks may decrease OS in breast (HR 1.46, 95%CI 1.28-1.65), lung (HR 1.04, 95%CI 1.02-1.06) and colon (HR 1.24, 95%CI 1.12-1.38) cancers. When breast cancers were analyzed by stage, OS was decreased in stages I (HR 1.27, 95%CI 1.16-1.40) and II (HR 1.13, 95%CI 1.02-1.24) but not in stage III (HR 1.20, 95%CI 0.94-1.53). CONCLUSION: Delaying breast, lung and colon cancer surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic may decrease survival.