Increased stroke severity and mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: An analysis from the N3C database.

BACKGROUND: Studies from early in the COVID-19 pandemic showed that patients with ischemic stroke and concurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection had increased stroke severity. We aimed to test the hypothesis that this association persisted throughout the first year of the pandemic and that a similar increase in stroke severity was present in patients with hemorrhagic stroke. METHODS: Using the National Institute of Health National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) database, we identified a cohort of patients with stroke hospitalized in the United States between March 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021. We propensity score matched patients with concurrent stroke and SARS-COV-2 infection and available NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores to all other patients with stroke in a 1:3 ratio. Nearest neighbor matching with a caliper of 0.25 was used for most factors and exact matching was used for race/ethnicity and site. We modeled stroke severity as measured by admission NIHSS and the outcomes of death and length of stay. We also explored the temporal relationship between time of SARS-COV-2 diagnosis and incidence of stroke. RESULTS: Our query identified 43,295 patients hospitalized with ischemic stroke (5765 with SARS-COV-2, 37,530 without) and 18,107 patients hospitalized with hemorrhagic stroke (2114 with SARS-COV-2, 15,993 without). Analysis of our propensity matched cohort revealed that stroke patients with concurrent SARS-COV-2 had increased NIHSS (Ischemic stroke: IRR=1.43, 95% CI:1.33-1.52, p<0.001; hemorrhagic stroke: IRR=1.20, 95% CI:1.08-1.33, p<0.001), length of stay (Ischemic stroke: estimate = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.37, 1.61, p<0.001; hemorrhagic stroke: estimate = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.47, p=0.007) and higher odds of death (Ischemic stroke: OR 2.19, 95% CI: 1.79-2.68, p<0.001; hemorrhagic stroke: OR 2.19, 95% CI: 1.79-2.68, p<0.001). We observed the highest incidence of stroke diagnosis on the same day as SARS-COV-2 diagnosis with a logarithmic decline in counts. CONCLUSION: This retrospective observational analysis suggests that stroke severity in patients with concurrent SARS-COV-2 was increased throughout the first year of the pandemic.

The Impact of Virtual Interviews on Recruitment and Implicit Bias.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated virtual residency interview adoption. The impact of virtual interviews on program directors' (PD) National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) Match satisfaction, their future interview plans, and their perceptions about virtual interviews' influence on bias are unknown. We report the results of a survey of family medicine (FM) PDs about these topics after mandatory virtual interviews in 2020-2021. METHODS: A national survey of all FM PDs was conducted in April 2021 (n=619). The response rate was 46.37% (n=287). Questions asked whether PDs conducted virtual interviews, as well as PDs' general perceptions of virtual interviews' impact on administrative burden, diversity and bias; PD's ability to communicate program culture and assess applicants' alignment with program values; PD's satisfaction with Match results; and plans for interview structure postpandemic. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four (93.1%) respondents performed only virtual interviews; 83.9% (n=220) conducting virtual interviews were satisfied with Match results, with no difference between programs with all virtual interviews vs others (OR 1.2, P=.994). PDs who communicated program values and involved residents in virtual interviews experienced higher Match satisfaction (OR 7.6, P<.001; OR 4.21, P=.001). PDs concerned about virtual interviews increasing bias against minorities before 2020 were still concerned after (OR 8.81, P<.001) and had lower Match satisfaction (OR 0.24, P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most FM PDs conducted entirely virtual interviews in 2020 and were satisfied with the Match. Interview processes including residents and conveying residency culture increased Match satisfaction. PDs are concerned about bias in virtual interviews, but more investigation about bias is needed.

The impact of COVID-19 on clinical outcomes among acute myocardial infarction patients undergoing early invasive treatment strategy.

BACKGROUND: The implications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection on outcomes after invasive therapeutic strategies among patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are not well studied. HYPOTHESIS: To assess the outcomes of COVID-19 patients presenting with AMI undergoing an early invasive treatment strategy. METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional, retrospective analysis of the National COVID Cohort Collaborative database including all patients presenting with a recorded diagnosis of AMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) and non-ST elevation MI). COVID-19 positive patients with AMI were stratified into one of four groups: (1a) patients who had a coronary angiogram with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 3 days of their AMI; (1b) PCI within 3 days of AMI with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) within 30 days; (2a) coronary angiogram without PCI and without CABG within 30 days; and (2b) coronary angiogram with CABG within 30 days. The main outcomes were respiratory failure, cardiogenic shock, prolonged length of stay, rehospitalization, and death. RESULTS: There were 10 506 COVID-19 positive patients with a diagnosis of AMI. COVID-19 positive patients with PCI had 8.2 times higher odds of respiratory failure than COVID-19 negative patients (p = .001). The odds of prolonged length of stay were 1.7 times higher in COVID-19 patients who underwent PCI (p = .024) and 1.9 times higher in patients who underwent coronary angiogram followed by CABG (p = .001). CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that COVID-19 positive patients with AMI undergoing early invasive coronary angiography had worse outcomes than COVID-19 negative patients.