Complications Following Elective Major Noncardiac Surgery Among Patients With Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Importance: There is an urgent need for evidence to inform preoperative risk assessment for the millions of people who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection and are awaiting elective surgery, which is critical to surgical care planning and informed consent. Objective: To assess the association of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection with death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and rehospitalization after elective major noncardiac surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study included adults who had received a polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 months prior to elective major noncardiac surgery in Ontario, Canada, between April 2020 and October 2021, with 30 days follow-up. Exposures: Positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test result. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the composite of death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause rehospitalization within 30 days after surgery. Results: Of 71 144 patients who underwent elective major noncardiac surgery (median age, 66 years [IQR, 57-73 years]; 59.8% female), 960 had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (1.3%) and 70 184 had negative test results (98.7%). Prior infection was not associated with the composite risk of death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and rehospitalization within 30 days of elective major noncardiac surgery (5.3% absolute event rate [n = 3770]; 960 patients with a positive test result; adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.68-1.21). There was also no association between prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 and postoperative outcomes when the time between infection and surgery was less than 4 weeks (aRR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.64-2.09) or less than 7 weeks (aRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56-1.61) and among those who were previously vaccinated (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.52-1.26). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 was not associated with death, major adverse cardiovascular events, or rehospitalization following elective major noncardiac surgery, although low event rates and wide 95% CIs do not preclude a potentially meaningful increase in overall risk.

Variations in long-term care home resident hospitalizations before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario.

OBJECTIVES: To examine how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the demographic and clinical characteristics, in-hospital care, and outcomes of long-term care residents admitted to general medicine wards for non-COVID-19 reasons. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of long-term care residents admitted to general medicine wards, for reasons other than COVID-19, in four hospitals in Toronto, Ontario between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020. We used an autoregressive linear model to estimate the change in monthly admission volumes during the pandemic period (March-December 2020) compared to the previous two years, adjusting for any secular trend. We summarized and compared differences in the demographics, comorbidities, interventions, diagnoses, imaging, psychoactive medications, and outcomes of residents before and during the pandemic. RESULTS: Our study included 2,654 long-term care residents who were hospitalized for non-COVID-19 reasons between January 2018 and December 2020. The crude rate of hospitalizations was 79.3 per month between March-December of 2018-2019 and 56.5 per month between March-December of 2020. The was an adjusted absolute difference of 27.0 (95% CI: 10.0, 43.9) fewer hospital admissions during the pandemic period, corresponding to a relative drop of 34%. Residents admitted during the pandemic period had similar demographics and clinical characteristics but were more likely to be admitted for delirium (pandemic: 7% pre-pandemic: 5%, p = 0.01) and were less likely to be admitted for pneumonia (pandemic: 3% pre-pandemic: 6%, p = 0.004). Residents admitted during the pandemic were more likely to be prescribed antipsychotics (pandemic: 37%, pre-pandemic: 29%, p <0.001) and more likely to die in-hospital (pandemic:14% pre-pandemic: 10%, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Better integration between long-term care and hospitals systems, including programs to deliver urgent medical care services within long-term care homes, is needed to ensure that long-term care residents maintain equitable access to acute care during current and future public health emergencies.

The risk of death or unplanned readmission after discharge from a COVID-19 hospitalization in Alberta and Ontario.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of readmissions after COVID-19 hospitalizations is uncertain, as is whether current readmission prediction equations are useful for discharge risk stratification of COVID-19 survivors or for comparing among hospitals. We sought to determine the frequency and predictors of death or unplanned readmission after a COVID-19 hospital discharge. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all adults (≥ 18 yr) who were discharged alive from hospital after a nonpsychiatric, nonobstetric, acute care admission for COVID-19 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Sept. 30, 2021, in Alberta and Ontario. RESULTS: Of 843 737 individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction during the study period, 46 412 (5.5%) were adults admitted to hospital within 14 days of their positive test. Of these, 8496 died in hospital and 34 846 were discharged alive (30 336 discharged after an index admission of ≤ 30 d and 4510 discharged after an admission > 30 d). One in 9 discharged patients died or were readmitted within 30 days after discharge (3173 [10.5%] of those with stay ≤ 30 d and 579 [12.8%] of those with stay > 30 d). The LACE score (length of stay, acuity, Charlson Comorbidity Index and number of emergency visits in previous 6 months) for predicting urgent readmission or death within 30 days had a c-statistic of 0.60 in Alberta and 0.61 in Ontario; inclusion of sex, discharge locale, deprivation index and teaching hospital status in the model improved the c-statistic to 0.73. INTERPRETATION: Death or readmission after discharge from a COVID-19 hospitalization is common and had a similar frequency in Alberta and Ontario. Risk stratification and interinstitutional comparisons of outcomes after hospital admission for COVID-19 should include sex, discharge locale and socioeconomic measures, in addition to the LACE variables.

Prone positioning of patients with moderate hypoxaemia due to covid-19: multicentre pragmatic randomised trial (COVID-PRONE).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of prone positioning to reduce the risk of death or respiratory failure in non-critically ill patients admitted to hospital with covid-19. DESIGN: Multicentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial. SETTING: 15 hospitals in Canada and the United States from May 2020 until May 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients had a laboratory confirmed or a clinically highly suspected diagnosis of covid-19, needed supplemental oxygen (up to 50% fraction of inspired oxygen), and were able to independently lie prone with verbal instruction. Of the 570 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 257 were randomised and 248 were included in the analysis. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised 1:1 to prone positioning (that is, instructing a patient to lie on their stomach while they are in bed) or standard of care (that is, no instruction to adopt prone position). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, mechanical ventilation, or worsening respiratory failure defined as needing at least 60% fraction of inspired oxygen for at least 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included the change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early on the basis of futility for the pre-specified primary outcome. The median time from hospital admission until randomisation was 1 day, the median age of patients was 56 (interquartile range 45-65) years, 89 (36%) patients were female, and 222 (90%) were receiving oxygen via nasal prongs at the time of randomisation. The median time spent prone in the first 72 hours was 6 (1.5-12.8) hours in total for the prone arm compared with 0 (0-2) hours in the control arm. The risk of the primary outcome was similar between the prone group (18 (14%) events) and the standard care group (17 (14%) events) (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.92). The change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen after 72 hours was similar for patients randomised to prone positioning and standard of care. CONCLUSION: Among non-critically ill patients with hypoxaemia who were admitted to hospital with covid-19, a multifaceted intervention to increase prone positioning did not improve outcomes. However, wide confidence intervals preclude definitively ruling out benefit or harm. Adherence to prone positioning was poor, despite multiple efforts to increase it. Subsequent trials of prone positioning should aim to develop strategies to improve adherence to awake prone positioning. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04383613.

Awake prone positioning for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning has been broadly utilised for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, but the results from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the past year are contradictory. We aimed to systematically synthesise the outcomes associated with awake prone positioning, and evaluate these outcomes in relevant subpopulations. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, two independent groups of researchers searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs and observational studies (with a control group) of awake prone positioning in patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure published in English from Jan 1, 2020, to Nov 8, 2021. We excluded trials that included patients intubated before or at enrolment, paediatric patients (ie, younger than 18 years), or trials that did not include the supine position in the control group. The same two independent groups screened studies, extracted the summary data from published reports, and assessed the risk of bias. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to pool individual studies. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was the reported cumulative intubation risk across RCTs, and effect estimates were calculated as risk ratios (RR;95% CI). The analysis was primarily conducted on RCTs, and observational studies were used for sensitivity analyses. No serious adverse events associated with awake prone positioning were reported. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021271285. FINDINGS: A total of 1243 studies were identified, we assessed 138 full-text articles and received the aggregated results of three unpublished RCTs; therefore, after exclusions, 29 studies were included in the study. Ten were RCTs (1985 patients) and 19 were observational studies (2669 patients). In ten RCTs, awake prone positioning compared with the supine position significantly reduced the need for intubation in the overall population (RR 0·84 [95% CI 0·72-0·97]). A reduced need for intubation was shown among patients who received advanced respiratory support (ie, high-flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation) at enrolment (RR 0·83 [0·71-0·97]) and in intensive care unit (ICU) settings (RR 0·83 [0·71-0·97]) but not in patients receiving conventional oxygen therapy (RR 0·87 [0·45-1·69]) or in non-ICU settings (RR 0·88 [0·44-1·76]). No obvious risk of bias and publication bias was found among the included RCTs for the primary outcome. INTERPRETATION: In patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, awake prone positioning reduced the need for intubation, particularly among those requiring advanced respiratory support and those in ICU settings. Awake prone positioning should be used in patients who have acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and require advanced respiratory support or are treated in the ICU. FUNDING: OpenAI, Rice Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Outcomes for upper gastrointestinal bleeding during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Toronto area.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Changes to endoscopy service availability during the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The aim of this study was to describe the impact of the pandemic on UGIB outcomes in the Toronto area in Canada. METHODS: We described all adults admitted to general medicine wards or intensive care units at six hospitals in Toronto and Mississauga, Canada, with UGIB during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1 to June 30, 2020) and compared them with a historical cohort (March 1 to June 30, 2018 and 2019). We compared clinical outcomes (in-hospital mortality, length of stay, 30-day readmission, intensive care utilization, receipt of endoscopy, persistent bleeding, receipt of second endoscopy, and need for angiographic or surgical intervention) using multivariable regression models, controlling for demographics, comorbidities, and severity of clinical presentation. RESULTS: There were 82.5 and 215.5 admissions per month for UGIB during the COVID-19 and control periods, respectively. There were no baseline differences between groups for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, or severity of bleeding. Patients in the COVID-19 group did not have significantly different unadjusted (3.9% vs 4.2%, P = 0.983) or adjusted mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.25-1.48, P = 0.322). Patients in COVID-19 group were less likely to receive endoscopy for UGIB in the unadjusted (61.8% vs 71.0%, P = 0.003) and adjusted (adjusted OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.49-0.84, P < 0.01) models. There were no differences between groups for other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: While patients admitted for UGIB during the first wave of the pandemic were less likely to receive endoscopy, this had no impact on mortality or any secondary outcomes.

Outcomes in patients with and without disability admitted to hospital with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Disability-related considerations have largely been absent from the COVID-19 response, despite evidence that people with disabilities are at elevated risk for acquiring COVID-19. We evaluated clinical outcomes in patients who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with a disability compared with patients without a disability. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study that included adults with COVID-19 who were admitted to hospital and discharged between Jan. 1, 2020, and Nov. 30, 2020, at 7 hospitals in Ontario, Canada. We compared in-hospital death, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), hospital length of stay and unplanned 30-day readmission among patients with and without a physical disability, hearing or vision impairment, traumatic brain injury, or intellectual or developmental disability, overall and stratified by age (≤ 64 and ≥ 65 yr) using multivariable regression, controlling for sex, residence in a long-term care facility and comorbidity. RESULTS: Among 1279 admissions to hospital for COVID-19, 22.3% had a disability. We found that patients with a disability were more likely to die than those without a disability (28.1% v. 17.6%), had longer hospital stays (median 13.9 v. 7.8 d) and more readmissions (17.6% v. 7.9%), but had lower ICU admission rates (22.5% v. 28.3%). After adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences between those with and without disabilities for in-hospital death or admission to ICU. After adjustment, patients with a disability had longer hospital stays (rate ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-1.56) and greater risk of readmission (relative risk 1.77, 95% CI 1.14-2.75). In age-stratified analyses, we observed longer hospital stays among patients with a disability than in those without, in both younger and older subgroups; readmission risk was driven by younger patients with a disability. INTERPRETATION: Patients with a disability who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 had longer stays and elevated readmission risk than those without disabilities. Disability-related needs should be addressed to support these patients in hospital and after discharge.

A Novel Collaborative Care Program to Augment Nursing Home Care During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic created an immediate need to enhance current efforts to reduce transfers of nursing home (NH) residents to acute care. Long-Term Care Plus (LTC+), a collaborative care program developed and implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, aimed to enhance care in the NH setting while also decreasing unnecessary acute care transfers. Using a hub-and-spoke model, LTC+ was implemented in 6 hospitals serving as central hubs to 54 geographically associated NHs with 9574 beds in Toronto, Canada. LTC+ provided NHs with the following: (1) virtual general internal medicine (GIM) consultations; (2) nursing navigator support; (3) rapid access to laboratory and diagnostic imaging services; and (4) educational resources. From April 2020 to June 2021, LTC+ provided 381 GIM consultations that addressed abnormal bloodwork (15%), cardiac problems (13%), and unexplained fever (11%) as the most common reasons for consultation. Sixty-five nurse navigator calls addressed requests for non-GIM specialist consultations (34%), wound care assessments (14%), and system navigation (12%). One hundred seventy-seven (46%, 95% CI 41%-52%) consults addressed care concerns sufficiently to avoid the need for acute care transfer. All 36 primary care physicians who consulted the LTC+ program reported strong satisfaction with the advice provided. Early results demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of an integrated care model that enhances care delivery for NH residents where they reside and has the potential to positively impact the long-term care sector by ensuring equitable and timely access to care for people living in NHs. It represents an important step toward health system integration that values the expertise within the long-term care sector.

Caractéristiques et issues des hospitalisations pour les cas de COVID-19 et d'influenza dans la région de Toronto.

CONTEXTE: Les caractéristiques des patients, les soins cliniques, l'utilisation des ressources et les issues cliniques des personnes atteintes de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalisées au Canada ne sont pas bien connus. MÉTHODES: Nous avons recueilli des données sur tous les adultes hospitalisés atteints de la COVID-19 ou de l'influenza ayant obtenu leur congé d'unités médicales ou d'unités de soins intensifs médicaux et chirurgicaux entre le 1er novembre 2019 et le 30 juin 2020 dans 7 centres hospitaliers de Toronto et de Mississauga (Ontario). Nous avons comparé les issues cliniques des patients à l'aide de modèles de régression multivariée, en tenant compte des facteurs sociodémographiques et de l'intensité des comorbidités. Nous avons validé le degré d'exactitude de 7 scores de risque mis au point à l'externe pour déterminer leur capacité à prédire le risque de décès chez les patients atteints de la COVID-19. RÉSULTATS: Parmi les hospitalisations retenues, 1027 patients étaient atteints de la COVID-19 (âge médian de 65 ans, 59,1 % d'hommes) et 783 étaient atteints de l'influenza (âge médian de 68 ans, 50,8 % d'hommes). Les patients âgés de moins de 50 ans comptaient pour 21,2 % de toutes les hospitalisations dues à la COVID-19 et 24,0 % des séjours aux soins intensifs. Comparativement aux patients atteints de l'influenza, les patients atteints de la COVID-19 présentaient un taux de mortalité perhospitalière (mortalité non ajustée 19,9 % c. 6,1 %; risque relatif [RR] ajusté 3,46 %, intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % 2,56­4,68) et un taux d'utilisation des ressources des unités de soins intensifs (taux non ajusté 26,4 % c. 18,0 %; RR ajusté 1,50, IC à 95 % 1,25­1,80) significativement plus élevés, ainsi qu'une durée d'hospitalisation (durée médiane non ajustée 8,7 jours c. 4,8 jours; rapport des taux d'incidence ajusté 1,45; IC à 95 % 1,25­1,69) significativement plus longue. Le taux de réhospitalisation dans les 30 jours n'était pas significativement différent (taux non ajusté 9,3 % c. 9,6 %; RR ajusté 0,98 %, IC à 95 % 0,70­1,39). Trois scores de risque utilisant un pointage pour prédire la mortalité perhospitalière ont montré une bonne discrimination (aire sous la courbe [ASC] de la fonction d'efficacité du récepteur [ROC] 0,72­0,81) et une bonne calibration. INTERPRÉTATION: Durant la première vague de la pandémie, l'hospitalisation des patients atteints de la COVID-19 était associée à des taux de mortalité et d'utilisation des ressources des unités de soins intensifs et à une durée d'hospitalisation significativement plus importants que les hospitalisations des patients atteints de l'influenza. De simples scores de risque peuvent prédire avec une bonne exactitude le risque de mortalité perhospitalière des patients atteints de la COVID-19.