Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Mayo Clinic Proceedings ; 2022.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-2042015

ABSTRACT

Objective To compare clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and 30-day all-cause readmission and mortality between patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods The study was conducted at 16 hospitals across 3 geographically dispersed US states. The study included 6769 adults (mean age, 74 years;56% men) with cumulative 8989 HF hospitalizations: 2341 hospitalizations in COVID-19 pandemic (Mar- Oct 2020) and 6648 in the pre-COVID-19 (Oct 2018 – Feb 2020) comparator group. We used Poisson regression, Kaplan-Meier estimates, multivariable logistic, and Cox regression analysis to determine whether pre-specified study outcomes vary by timeframes. Results The adjusted 30-day readmission rate decreased from 13.1% in pre-COVID-19 to 10.0% in the COVID-19 pandemic period (relative risk reduction 23%, number needed to avoid one additional readmission 33, hazard ratio [HR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66 – 0.89). Conversely, all-cause mortality increased from 9.7% in pre-COVID-19 to 11.3% in the COVID-19 pandemic period (relative risk increase 16%, number of admissions needed for one additional death 62.5: HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 – 1.39). Despite significant differences in rates of index hospitalization, readmission, and mortality across the study timeframes, the disease severity, heart failure subtypes, and treatment patterns remained unchanged. Conclusions The findings of this large tristate multicenter cohort study of HF hospitalizations suggest lower rates of index hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions, but higher incidence of 30-day mortality with broadly similar use of heart failure medication, surgical interventions, and devices during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with pre-COVID-19 timeframe.

2.
BMJ Open ; 12(6): e058613, 2022 06 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1909756

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Acute kidney injury (AKI) affects nearly 20% of all hospitalised patients and is associated with poor outcomes. Long-term complications can be partially attributed to gaps in kidney-focused care and education during transitions. Building capacity across the healthcare spectrum by engaging a broad network of multidisciplinary providers to facilitate optimal follow-up care represents an important mechanism to address this existing care gap. Key participants include nephrologists and primary care providers and in-depth study of each specialty's approach to post-AKI care is essential to optimise care processes and healthcare delivery for AKI survivors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This explanatory sequential mixed-methods study uses survey and interview methodology to assess nephrologist and primary care provider recommendations for post-AKI care, including KAMPS (kidney function assessment, awareness and education, medication review, blood pressure monitoring and sick day education) elements of follow-up, the role of multispecialty collaboration, and views on care process-specific and patient-specific factors influencing healthcare delivery. Nephrologists and primary care providers will be surveyed to assess recommendations and clinical decision-making in the context of post-AKI care. Descriptive statistics and the Pearson's χ2 or Fisher's exact test will be used to compare results between groups. This will be followed by semistructured interviews to gather rich, qualitative data that explains and/or connects results from the quantitative survey. Both deductive analysis and inductive analysis will occur to identify and compare themes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been reviewed and deemed exempt by the Institutional Review Board at Mayo Clinic (IRB 20-0 08 793). The study was deemed exempt due to the sole use of survey and interview methodology. Results will be disseminated in presentations and manuscript form through peer-reviewed publication.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury , Nephrology , Acute Kidney Injury/complications , Acute Kidney Injury/therapy , Aftercare , Humans , Nephrologists , Nephrology/methods , Survivors
3.
Journal of Translational Critical Care Medicine ; 3(1):1-7, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1824462

ABSTRACT

Background: The effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs) on the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains controversial from clinic evidence. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to report the major characteristics and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with ACEIs and ARBs and compare the different effects of the two drugs for outcomes of COVID-19 patients. Methods: This is a retrospective, two-center case series of 198 consecutive COVID-19 patients with a history of hypertension. Results: Among 198 patients, 58 (29.3%) and 16 (8.1%) were on ARB and ACEI, respectively. Patients who were on ARB or ACEI/ARB had a significantly lower rate of severe illness and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) when compared with patients treated with ACEI alone or not receiving RAAS blocker (P < 0.05). The Kaplan–Meier survival curve showed that patients with ARB in their antihypertensive regimen had a trend toward a higher survival rate when compared with individuals without ARB (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.27;95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07–1.02;P = 0.054). The occurrence rates of severe illness, ARDS, and death were similar in the two groups regardless of receiving ACEI. The Cox regression analyses showed a better survival in the ARB group than the ACEI group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.03;95% CI, 0.00–0.58;P = 0.02). Conclusions: Our data may provide that some evidence of using ARB, but not ACEI, was associated with a reduced rate of severe illness and ARDS, indicating their potential protective impact in COVID-19. Further large sample sizes and multiethnic populations are warranted to confirm our findings.

4.
Journal of Intensive Medicine ; 2022.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-1665214

ABSTRACT

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an ongoing pandemic since December 2019. Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is essential for the management of COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to assess the impact of compliance with a respiratory decision support system on the outcomes of patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS who required IMV. Methods In this retrospective, single-center, case series, 46 patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS who required IMV at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, China, from January 8, 2020, to March 24, 2020, with the final follow-up date of April 20, 2020, were included. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, imaging, and management information were collected and analyzed. Compliance with the respiratory support decision system was documented, and its relationship with 28-day mortality was evaluated. Results The median age of the 46 patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS requiring IMV was 68.5 years, and 31 were men. The partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio at intensive care unit (ICU) admission was 104 mmHg. The median total length of IMV was 12.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 6.0–27.3) days, and the median respiratory support decision score was 11.0 (IQR, 7.8–16.0). To 28 days after ICU admission, 18 (39.1%) patients died. Survivors had a significantly higher respiratory support decision score than non-survivors (15.0 [10.3–17.0] vs. 8.5 (6.0–10.3), P = 0.001). Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to assess the discrimination of respiratory support decision score to 28-day mortality, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.796 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.657–0.934, P = 0.001) and the cut-off was 11.5 (sensitivity = 0.679, specificity = 0.889). Patients with a higher score (>11.5) were more likely to survive at 28 days after ICU admission (log-rank test, P < 0.001). Conclusions For severe COVID-19-associated ARDS with IMV, following the respiratory support decision and assessing completion would improve the progress of ventilation. With a decision score of >11.5, the mortality at 28 days after ICU admission showed an obvious decrease.

5.
Acta Neuropathol ; 140(1): 1-6, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-342904

ABSTRACT

We report the neuropathological findings of a patient who died from complications of COVID-19. The decedent was initially hospitalized for surgical management of underlying coronary artery disease. He developed post-operative complications and was evaluated with chest imaging studies. The chest computed tomography (CT) imaging results were indicative of COVID-19 and he was subsequently tested for SARS-CoV-2, which was positive. His condition worsened and he died after more than 2 weeks of hospitalization and aggressive treatment. The autopsy revealed a range of neuropathological lesions, with features resembling both vascular and demyelinating etiologies. Hemorrhagic white matter lesions were present throughout the cerebral hemispheres with surrounding axonal injury and macrophages. The subcortical white matter had scattered clusters of macrophages, a range of associated axonal injury, and a perivascular acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM)-like appearance. Additional white matter lesions included focal microscopic areas of necrosis with central loss of white matter and marked axonal injury. Rare neocortical organizing microscopic infarcts were also identified. Imaging and clinical reports have demonstrated central nervous system complications in patients' with COVID-19, but there is a gap in our understanding of the neuropathology. The lesions described in this case provide insight into the potential parainfectious processes affecting COVID-19 patients, which may direct clinical management and ongoing research into the disease. The clinical course of the patient also illustrates that during prolonged hospitalizations neurological complications of COVID may develop, which are particularly difficult to evaluate and appreciate in the critically ill.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Brain/pathology , Coronavirus Infections/pathology , Nervous System Diseases/pathology , Pneumonia, Viral/pathology , Aged , Autopsy , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Male , Neuropathology/methods , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods
6.
Mayo Clin Proc ; 95(6): 1094-1096, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-108850
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL