The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on functional and mental health outcomes after trauma.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to decreased access to care and social isolation, which have the potential for negative psychophysical effects. We examine the impact of the pandemic on physical and mental health outcomes after trauma. METHODS: Patients in a prospective study were included. The cohort injured during the pandemic was compared to a cohort injured before the pandemic. We performed regression analyses to evaluate the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and physical and mental health outcomes. RESULTS: 1,398 patients were included. In adjusted analysis, patients injured during the pandemic scored significantly worse on the SF-12 physical composite score (OR 2.21; [95% CI 0.69-3.72]; P = 0.004) and were more likely to screen positive for depression (OR 1.46; [1.02-2.09]; P = 0.03) and anxiety (OR 1.56; [1.08-2.26]; P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients injured during the COVID-19 pandemic had worse mental health outcomes but not physical health outcomes.

Social Vulnerability and COVID-19: Changes in Trauma Activations at a Safety-Net Hospital.

INTRODUCTION: Following the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were reports of decreased trauma hospitalizations, although violent crime persisted. COVID-19 has had the greatest impact on minoritized and vulnerable communities. Decreases in traumatic events may not extend to these communities, given pandemic-related socioeconomic and psychological burdens that increase the risk of exposure to trauma and violence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study (n = 1634) of all trauma activations presenting to our institution January 1, 2020 to May 31, 2020, and same time periods in 2018 and 2019. Census tracts and associated Social Vulnerability Index quartiles were determined from patient addresses. Changes in trauma activations pre and post Massachusetts' state-of-emergency declaration compared to a historical control were analyzed using a difference-in-differences methodology. RESULTS: Weekly all-cause trauma activations fell from 26.44 to 8.25 (rate ratio = 0.36 [0.26, 0.50]) postdeclaration, with significant difference-in-differences compared to a historical control (P < 0.0001). Nonviolent trauma activations significantly decreased from 21.11 to 5.17 after the declaration (rate ratio = 0.27 [0.37, 0.91]; P < 0.0001), whereas there was no significant decrease in violent injury (5.33 to 3.08 rate ratio = 0.69 [0.39, 1.22]; P = 0.20). Stratified by vulnerability, the most vulnerable quartile had an increased proportion of all-cause trauma postdeclaration and had no decrease in violent trauma activations following the declaration compared to the historical control (rate ratio = 0.84 [0.38-1.86]; P = 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: The state-of-emergency declaration was associated with significant decreases in overall trauma, to a greater extent in nonviolent injuries. Among those living in the most socially vulnerable communities, there was no decrease in violent trauma. These findings highlight the need for violence and injury prevention programs in vulnerable communities, particularly in times of crisis.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Long-term Recovery From Traumatic Injury.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the proportion and characteristics of traumatic injury survivors who perceive a negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their recovery and to define post-injury outcomes for this cohort. BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated physical, psychological, and social stressors that may create a uniquely difficult recovery and reintegration environment for injured patients. METHODS: Adult (≥18 years) survivors of moderate-to-severe injury completed a survey 6 to 14 months post-injury during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey queried individuals about the perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on injury recovery and assessed post-injury functional and mental health outcomes. Regression models were built to identify factors associated with a perceived negative impact of the pandemic on injury recovery, and to define the relationship between these perceptions and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: Of 597 eligible trauma survivors who were contacted, 403 (67.5%) completed the survey. Twenty-nine percent reported that the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted their recovery and 24% reported difficulty accessing needed healthcare. Younger age, lower perceived-socioeconomic status, extremity injury, and prior psychiatric illness were independently associated with negative perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on injury recovery. In adjusted analyses, patients who reported a negative impact of the pandemic on their recovery were more likely to have new functional limitations, daily pain, lower physical and mental component scores of the Short-Form-12 and to screen positive for PTSD and depression. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic is negatively impacting the recovery of trauma survivors. It is essential that we recognize the impact of the pandemic on injured patients while focusing on directed efforts to improve the long-term outcomes of this already at-risk population.

COVID-19 Pandemic and the Cholecystitis Experience at a Major Urban Safety-Net Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Acute cholecystitis is a common reason for emergency general surgery admission. The declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic may have resulted in treatment delays and corresponding increases in severity of disease. This study compared cholecystitis admissions and disease severity pre- and postdeclaration of pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of adult acute cholecystitis admissions (January 1,2020-May 31, 2020). Corresponding time periods in 2018 and 2019 comprised the historical control. Difference-in-differences analysis compared biweekly cholecystitis admissions pre- and postdeclaration in 2020 to the historical control. Odds of increased severity of disease presentation were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Cholecystitis admissions decreased 48.7% from 5.2 to 2.67 cases (RR 0.51 [0.28,0.96], P = 0.04) following pandemic declaration when comparing 2020 to historical control (P = 0.02). After stratifying by severity, only Tokyo I admissions declined significantly postdeclaration (RR 0.42 [0.18,0.97]), when compared to historical control (P = 0.02). There was no change in odds of presenting with severe disease after the pandemic declaration (aOR 1.00 [95% CI 0.30, 3.38] P < 0.99) despite significantly longer lengths of symptoms reported in mild cases. CONCLUSIONS: Postpandemic declaration we experienced a significant decrease in cholecystitis admissions without corresponding increases in disease severity. The pandemic impacted healthcare-seeking behaviors, with fewer mild presentations. Given that the pandemic did not increase odds of presenting with increased severity of disease, our data suggests that not all mild cases of cholecystitis progress to worsening disease and some may resolve without medical or surgical intervention.

Where did the patients go? Changes in acute appendicitis presentation and severity of illness during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic restricted movement of individuals and altered provision of health care, abruptly transforming health care-use behaviors. It serves as a natural experiment to explore changes in presentations for surgical diseases including acute appendicitis. The objective was to determine if the pandemic was associated with changes in incidence of acute appendicitis compared to a historical control and to determine if there were associated changes in disease severity. METHODS: The study is a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of adults (N = 956) presenting with appendicitis in nonpandemic versus pandemic time periods (December 1, 2019-March 10, 2020 versus March 11, 2020-May 16, 2020). Corresponding time periods in 2018 and 2019 composed the historical control. Primary outcome was mean biweekly counts of all appendicitis presentations, then stratified by complicated (n = 209) and uncomplicated (n = 747) disease. Trends in presentations were compared using difference-in-differences methodology. Changes in odds of presenting with complicated disease were assessed via clustered multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: There was a 29% decrease in mean biweekly appendicitis presentations from 5.4 to 3.8 (rate ratio = 0.71 [0.51, 0.98]) after the pandemic declaration, with a significant difference in differences compared with historical control (P = .003). Stratified by severity, the decrease was significant for uncomplicated appendicitis (rate ratio = 0.65 [95% confidence interval 0.47-0.91]) when compared with historical control (P = .03) but not for complicated appendicitis (rate ratio = 0.89 [95% confidence interval 0.52-1.52]); (P = .49). The odds of presenting with complicated disease did not change (adjusted odds ratio 1.36 [95% confidence interval 0.83-2.25]). CONCLUSION: The pandemic was associated with decreased incidence of uncomplicated appendicitis without an accompanying increase in complicated disease. Changes in individual health care-use behaviors may underlie these differences, suggesting that some cases of uncomplicated appendicitis may resolve without progression to complicated disease.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Antibiotics with Appendectomy for Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic therapy has been proposed as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, nonblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy (10-day course) with appendectomy in patients with appendicitis at 25 U.S. centers. The primary outcome was 30-day health status, as assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better health status; noninferiority margin, 0.05 points). Secondary outcomes included appendectomy in the antibiotics group and complications through 90 days; analyses were prespecified in subgroups defined according to the presence or absence of an appendicolith. RESULTS: In total, 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) underwent randomization; 776 were assigned to receive antibiotics (47% of whom were not hospitalized for the index treatment) and 776 to undergo appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure). Antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of 30-day EQ-5D scores (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001 to 0.03). In the antibiotics group, 29% had undergone appendectomy by 90 days, including 41% of those with an appendicolith and 25% of those without an appendicolith. Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.98); the higher rate in the antibiotics group could be attributed to those with an appendicolith (20.2 vs. 3.6 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.11 to 15.38) and not to those without an appendicolith (3.7 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.43). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.50). CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of results of a standard health-status measure. In the antibiotics group, nearly 3 in 10 participants had undergone appendectomy by 90 days. Participants with an appendicolith were at a higher risk for appendectomy and for complications than those without an appendicolith. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; CODA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02800785.).

Intersectional Disparities Among Hispanic Groups in COVID-19 Outcomes.

Previous geographically limited studies have shown differential impact of COVID-19 on Hispanic individuals. Data were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We performed multivariate Poisson regression assessing risk of hospitalization and death in Hispanic White (HW), Hispanic Black (HB), and Hispanic Multiracial/Other (HM) groups compared to non-Hispanic Whites (NHW). The relative risk of hospitalization was 1.35, 1.58, and 1.50 (p < 0.001) for HW, HB, and HM individuals respectively when compared to NHW. Relative risk of death was 1.36, 1.72, 1.68 (p < 0.001) times higher in HW, HB, and HM compared to NHW. HW, HB, and HM individuals also had significantly increased risk of requiring mechanical ventilation and ICU admission when compared to NHW. Hispanic individuals are more likely to be hospitalized and die from COVID-19 infection than White, which underscores the need for more precise data and policies aimed at unique Hispanic groups to decrease disparities.