Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Am J Med ; 135(7): 897-905, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1739511

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Statins have been commonly used for primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention. We hypothesized that statins may improve in-hospital outcomes for hospitalized patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to its known anti-inflammatory effects. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study at the largest municipal health care system in the United States, including adult patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 1 and December 1, 2020. The primary endpoint was in-hospital death. Propensity score matching was conducted to balance possible confounding variables between patients receiving statins during hospitalization (statin group) and those not receiving statins (non-statin group). Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the association of statin use and other variables with in-hospital outcomes. RESULTS: There were 8897 patients eligible for study enrollment, with 3359 patients in the statin group and 5538 patients in the non-statin group. After propensity score matching, both the statin and non-statin groups included 2817 patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the statin group had a significantly lower risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.80; P < .001) and mechanical ventilation (OR 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.90; P < .001) compared with the non-statin group. CONCLUSION: Statin use was associated with lower likelihood of in-hospital mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors , Adult , Hospital Mortality , Hospitals, Public , Humans , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , New York City/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , United States
2.
Crit Care Med ; 49(6): 901-911, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1266195

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and to describe the characteristics and outcomes for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU, compared with non-ICU patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. Finally, we evaluated outcomes stratified by age. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and preprint websites was conducted between January 1, 2020, and December 10, 2020. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification: CRD42020203369. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting on consecutive in-hospital cardiac arrest with a resuscitation attempt among patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or through an independent third reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies reporting on 847 in-hospital cardiac arrest were included. In-hospital cardiac arrest incidence varied between 1.5% and 5.8% among hospitalized patients and 8.0-11.4% among patients in ICU. In-hospital cardiac arrest occurred more commonly in older male patients. Most initial rhythms were nonshockable (83.9%, [asystole = 36.4% and pulseless electrical activity = 47.6%]). Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 33.3%, with a 91.7% in-hospital mortality. In-hospital cardiac arrest events in ICU had higher incidence of return of spontaneous circulation (36.6% vs 18.7%; p < 0.001) and relatively lower mortality (88.7% vs 98.1%; p < 0.001) compared with in-hospital cardiac arrest in non-ICU locations. Patients greater than or equal to 60 years old had significantly higher in-hospital mortality than those less than 60 years (93.1% vs 87.9%; p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately, one in 20 patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 received resuscitation for an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Hospital survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU was higher than non-ICU locations and seems comparable with prepandemic survival for nonshockable rhythms. Although the data provide guidance surrounding prognosis after in-hospital cardiac arrest, it should be interpreted cautiously given the paucity of information surrounding treatment limitations and resource constraints during the pandemic. Further research is into actual causative mechanisms is needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Heart Arrest/mortality , Heart Arrest/therapy , Hospital Mortality , Treatment Outcome , Cause of Death , Humans , Incidence
3.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes ; 13(11): e007303, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-796493

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection are at risk for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). It is unknown whether certain characteristics of cardiac arrest care and outcomes of IHCAs during the COVID-19 pandemic differed compared with a pre-COVID-19 period. METHODS: All patients who experienced an IHCA at our hospital from March 1, 2020 through May 15, 2020, during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, and those who had an IHCA from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 were identified. All patient data were extracted from our hospital's Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry, a prospective hospital-based archive of IHCA data. Baseline characteristics of patients, interventions, and overall outcomes of IHCAs during the COVID-19 pandemic were compared with IHCAs in 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: There were 125 IHCAs during a 2.5-month period at our hospital during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic compared with 117 IHCAs in all of 2019. IHCAs during the COVID-19 pandemic occurred more often on general medicine wards than in intensive care units (46% versus 33%; 19% versus 60% in 2019; P<0.001), were overall shorter in duration (median time of 11 minutes [8.5-26.5] versus 15 minutes [7.0-20.0], P=0.001), led to fewer endotracheal intubations (52% versus 85%, P<0.001), and had overall worse survival rates (3% versus 13%; P=0.007) compared with IHCAs before the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who experienced an IHCA during the COVID-19 pandemic had overall worse survival compared with those who had an IHCA before the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings highlight important differences between these 2 time periods. Further study is needed on cardiac arrest care in patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Cardiology Service, Hospital , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Heart Arrest/therapy , Hospitalization , Hospitals, Public , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Aged , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Female , Heart Arrest/diagnosis , Heart Arrest/mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , New York City , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Retrospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL