Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19: Comparison of Outcomes to Non-COVID-19-Related Viral Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome From the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry.

To compare complications and mortality between patients that required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 viral pathogens. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Adult patients in the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry. PATIENTS: Nine-thousand two-hundred ninety-one patients that required ECMO for viral mediated ARDS between January 2017 and December 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcomes of interest were mortality during ECMO support and prior to hospital discharge. Time-to-event analysis and logistic regression were used to compare outcomes between the groups. Among 9,291 included patients, 1,155 required ECMO for non-COVID-19 viral ARDS and 8,136 required ECMO for ARDS due to COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 had longer duration of ECMO (19.6 d [interquartile range (IQR), 10.1-34.0 d] vs 10.7 d [IQR, 6.3-19.7 d]; p < 0.001), higher mortality during ECMO support (44.4% vs 27.5%; p < 0.001), and higher in-hospital mortality (50.2% vs 34.5%; p < 0.001). Further, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to experience mechanical and clinical complications (membrane lung failure, pneumothorax, intracranial hemorrhage, and superimposed infection). After adjusting for pre-ECMO disease severity, patients with COVID-19 were more than two times as likely to die in the hospital compared with patients with non-COVID-19 viral ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 that require ECMO have longer duration of ECMO, more complications, and higher in-hospital mortality compared with patients with non-COVID-19-related viral ARDS. Further study in patients with COVID-19 is critical to identify the patient phenotype most likely to benefit from ECMO and to better define the role of ECMO in the management of this disease process.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19: Comparison of Outcomes to Non-COVID-19–Related Viral Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome From the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry

OBJECTIVES: To compare complications and mortality between patients that required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 viral pathogens. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Adult patients in the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry. PATIENTS: Nine-thousand two-hundred ninety-one patients that required ECMO for viral mediated ARDS between January 2017 and December 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcomes of interest were mortality during ECMO support and prior to hospital discharge. Time-to-event analysis and logistic regression were used to compare outcomes between the groups. Among 9,291 included patients, 1,155 required ECMO for non-COVID-19 viral ARDS and 8,136 required ECMO for ARDS due to COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 had longer duration of ECMO (19.6 d [interquartile range (IQR), 10.1–34.0 d] vs 10.7 d [IQR, 6.3–19.7 d];p < 0.001), higher mortality during ECMO support (44.4% vs 27.5%;p < 0.001), and higher in-hospital mortality (50.2% vs 34.5%;p < 0.001). Further, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to experience mechanical and clinical complications (membrane lung failure, pneumothorax, intracranial hemorrhage, and superimposed infection). After adjusting for pre-ECMO disease severity, patients with COVID-19 were more than two times as likely to die in the hospital compared with patients with non-COVID-19 viral ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 that require ECMO have longer duration of ECMO, more complications, and higher in-hospital mortality compared with patients with non-COVID-19–related viral ARDS. Further study in patients with COVID-19 is critical to identify the patient phenotype most likely to benefit from ECMO and to better define the role of ECMO in the management of this disease process.

Racial and ethnic disparities in access to primary care during COVID-19.

Context: Early evidence suggests that many patients chose to forgo or delay necessary medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Existing and well-documented racial and ethnic disparities in access to care were exacerbated by the pandemic for many reasons, potentially including the additional barriers involved in a rapid shift to telehealth for certain groups of patients. Objectives: 1) Examine changes in primary care visit volume and telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. 2) Test for racial and ethnic differences in primary care in-person and telehealth visits during the pandemic relative to pre-pandemic levels. Study design: Longitudinal. Datasets: EHR data including patient visits, procedures, and demographics captured in the American Board of Family Medicine's PRIME Registry. Population studied: 2,966,859 patients seeing 1,477 primary care clinicians enrolled in the PRIME Registry. Outcome measures: 7-day average of weekly visits per clinician, both in-person and telehealth, tracking trends in the volume of care provided before and during the pandemic by patient race/ethnicity. We defined telehealth conversion ratio (TCR) as the number of telehealth visits during the pandemic divided by the total number of pre-pandemic visits. We calculated TCR and visit volume changes from March 15 through the end of 2020 relative to the same period in 2019. Results: During the pandemic we observed decreases of 12% and 22% in the average number of total and in-person visits, respectively, as well as a 10% TCR. Total visits reached a nadir in April 2020 with a 29% decrease from the same point in 2019. Telehealth visits peaked the following week with 23% of that week's total visits, and 139 times more than 2019. Total visits decreased and telehealth visits increased for patients of all races/ethnicities. The magnitude of these changes differed, with Black (5% decline, 15% in-person decline, 10% TCR) and Hispanic (9%, 24%, 15%) patients seeing less of a decrease in total visits than White (12%, 21%, 9%) and Asian (16%, 30%, 14%) patients. Conclusion: Declines in primary care visits during the pandemic were partially offset by an increase in telehealth use. Utilization in our sample suggests less decline in Black and Hispanic patient primary care utilization during the pandemic than expected, in contrast to Asian patients, who demonstrated the largest declines. This metric and these results are novel and foundational for ongoing & further study using other data sources.

Pandemic Disruption in Residency Did Not Alter Trends in Intended Scope of Practice.

We found the intended scope of practice remained unchanged in graduating family medicine residents between pre-pandemic and pandemic period. Tracking these trends with later cohorts will fully assess the pandemics' impact on training so that residencies can adjust their education accordingly.

Drastic changes in the practice of end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This article discusses drastic changes in the practice of end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic. It reviews the ethical dilemmas of individual autonomy versus societal justice, human beneficence versus public health non-maleficence that arose during the pandemic due to prolonged, high acutity,= critical illness in the setting of a highly contageous respiratory virus, protective personal equipment shortages,m crisis standards of care to distribute scarce medical resources, and changes in interactions between treating clinicians, patients, and visitors. The lessons learned during the pandemic response will directly inform and impact the appraoch to future pandemic events.

Primary Care Practice Finances In The United States Amid The COVID-19 Pandemic.

As a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, virtually all in-person outpatient visits were canceled in many parts of the country between March and May 2020. We sought to estimate the potential impact of COVID-19 on the operating expenses and revenues of primary care practices. Using a microsimulation model incorporating national data on primary care use, staffing, expenditures, and reimbursements, including telemedicine visits, we estimated that over the course of calendar year 2020, primary care practices would be expected to lose 67,774 in gross revenue per full-time-equivalent physician (the difference between 2020 gross revenue with COVID-19 and the anticipated gross revenue if COVID-19 had not occurred). We further estimated that the cost at a national level to neutralize the revenue losses caused by COVID-19 among primary care practices would be $15.1 billion. This could more than double if COVID-19 telemedicine payment policies are not sustained.