Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
BMJ ; 376: e068585, 2022 03 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1759319

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , COVID-19/complications , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/therapy , Middle Aged , Patient Positioning , Prone Position
2.
J Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 37(5): 878-882, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1691504

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/epidemiology , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/etiology , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/therapy , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies
3.
CMAJ ; 194(4): E112-E121, 2022 01 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1686133

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Disabled Persons/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Brain Injuries, Traumatic/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , Cohort Studies , Developmental Disabilities/epidemiology , Female , Hearing Loss/epidemiology , Hospital Mortality , Hospitals/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Ontario/epidemiology , Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Vision Disorders/epidemiology
4.
J Gen Intern Med ; 36(11): 3565-3567, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525602
6.
CMAJ ; 193(23): E859-E869, 2021 06 07.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1314450

ABSTRACT

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.

10.
CMAJ ; 193(12): E410-E418, 2021 03 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1160947

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patient characteristics, clinical care, resource use and outcomes associated with admission to hospital for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Canada are not well described. METHODS: We described all adults with COVID-19 or influenza discharged from inpatient medical services and medical-surgical intensive care units (ICUs) between Nov. 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020, at 7 hospitals in Toronto and Mississauga, Ontario. We compared patient outcomes using multivariable regression models, controlling for patient sociodemographic factors and comorbidity level. We validated the accuracy of 7 externally developed risk scores to predict mortality among patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: There were 1027 hospital admissions with COVID-19 (median age 65 yr, 59.1% male) and 783 with influenza (median age 68 yr, 50.8% male). Patients younger than 50 years accounted for 21.2% of all admissions for COVID-19 and 24.0% of ICU admissions. Compared with influenza, patients with COVID-19 had significantly greater in-hospital mortality (unadjusted 19.9% v. 6.1%, adjusted relative risk [RR] 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.56-4.68), ICU use (unadjusted 26.4% v. 18.0%, adjusted RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.25-1.80) and hospital length of stay (unadjusted median 8.7 d v. 4.8 d, adjusted rate ratio 1.45, 95% CI 1.25-1.69). Thirty-day readmission was not significantly different (unadjusted 9.3% v. 9.6%, adjusted RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.70-1.39). Three points-based risk scores for predicting in-hospital mortality showed good discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] ranging from 0.72 to 0.81) and calibration. INTERPRETATION: During the first wave of the pandemic, admission to hospital for COVID-19 was associated with significantly greater mortality, ICU use and hospital length of stay than influenza. Simple risk scores can predict in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 with good accuracy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Ontario , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Socioeconomic Factors , Survival Rate
11.
CMAJ Open ; 8(3): E514-E521, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-725389

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak increases the importance of strategies to enhance urgent medical care delivery in long-term care (LTC) facilities that could potentially reduce transfers to emergency departments. The study objective was to model resource requirements to deliver virtual urgent medical care in LTC facilities. METHODS: We used data from all general medicine inpatient admissions at 7 hospitals in the Greater Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada, over a 7.5-year period (Apr. 1, 2010, to Oct. 31, 2017) to estimate historical patterns of hospital resource use by LTC residents. We estimated an upper bound of potentially avoidable transfers by combining data on short admissions (≤ 72 h) with historical data on the proportion of transfers from LTC facilities for which patients were discharged from the emergency department without admission. Regression models were used to extrapolate future resource requirements, and queuing models were used to estimate physician staffing requirements to perform virtual assessments. RESULTS: There were 235 375 admissions to general medicine wards, and residents of LTC facilities (age 16 yr or older) accounted for 9.3% (n = 21 948) of these admissions. Among the admissions of residents of LTC facilities, short admissions constituted 24.1% (n = 5297), and for 99.8% (n = 5284) of these admissions, the patient received laboratory testing, for 86.9% (n = 4604) the patient received plain radiography, for 41.5% (n = 2197) the patient received computed tomography and for 81.2% (n = 4300) the patient received intravenous medications. If all patients who have short admissions and are transferred from the emergency department were diverted to outpatient care, the average weekly demand for outpatient imaging per hospital would be 2.6 ultrasounds, 11.9 computed tomographic scans and 23.9 radiographs per week. The average daily volume of urgent medical virtual assessments would range from 2.0 to 5.8 per hospital. A single centralized virtual assessment centre staffed by 2 or 3 physicians would provide services similar in efficiency (measured by waiting time for physician assessment) to 7 separate centres staffed by 1 physician each. INTERPRETATION: The provision of acute medical care to LTC residents at their facility would probably require rapid access to outpatient diagnostic imaging, within-facility access to laboratory services and intravenous medication and virtual consultations with physicians. The results of this study can inform efforts to deliver urgent medical care in LTC facilities in light of a potential surge in COVID-19 cases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Health Resources/supply & distribution , Physicians/supply & distribution , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Skilled Nursing Facilities/statistics & numerical data , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Ambulatory Care , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Disease Outbreaks/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/trends , Humans , Long-Term Care/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Ontario/epidemiology , Patient Transfer/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Skilled Nursing Facilities/organization & administration , Workforce/statistics & numerical data
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL