Lung function and breathing patterns in hospitalised COVID-19 survivors: a review of post-COVID-19 Clinics.

INTRODUCTION: There is relatively little published on the effects of COVID-19 on respiratory physiology, particularly breathing patterns. We sought to determine if there were lasting detrimental effect following hospital discharge and if these related to the severity of COVID-19. METHODS: We reviewed lung function and breathing patterns in COVID-19 survivors > 3 months after discharge, comparing patients who had been admitted to the intensive therapy unit (ITU) (n = 47) to those who just received ward treatments (n = 45). Lung function included spirometry and gas transfer and breathing patterns were measured with structured light plethysmography. Continuous data were compared with an independent t-test or Mann Whitney-U test (depending on distribution) and nominal data were compared using a Fisher's exact test (for 2 categories in 2 groups) or a chi-squared test (for > 2 categories in 2 groups). A p-value of < 0.05 was taken to be statistically significant. RESULTS: We found evidence of pulmonary restriction (reduced vital capacity and/or alveolar volume) in 65.4% of all patients. 36.1% of all patients has a reduced transfer factor (TLCO) but the majority of these (78.1%) had a preserved/increased transfer coefficient (KCO), suggesting an extrapulmonary cause. There were no major differences between ITU and ward lung function, although KCO alone was higher in the ITU patients (p = 0.03). This could be explained partly by obesity, respiratory muscle fatigue, localised microvascular changes, or haemosiderosis from lung damage. Abnormal breathing patterns were observed in 18.8% of subjects, although no consistent pattern of breathing pattern abnormalities was evident. CONCLUSIONS: An "extrapulmonary restrictive" like pattern appears to be a common phenomenon in previously admitted COVID-19 survivors. Whilst the cause of this is not clear, the effects seem to be similar on patients whether or not they received mechanical ventilation or had ward based respiratory support/supplemental oxygen.

Comparative Propensity Matched Outcomes in Severe COVID-19 Respiratory Failure-Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation or Maximum Ventilation Alone.

OBJECTIVE: Does extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) improve outcomes in ECMO-eligible patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure compared to maximum ventilation alone (MVA)? SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: ECMO is beneficial in severe cases of respiratory failure when mechanical ventilation is inadequate. Outcomes for ECMO-eligible COVID-19 patients on MVA have not been reported. Consequently, a direct comparison between COVID-19 patients on ECMO and those on MVA has not been established. METHODS: A total of 3406 COVID-19 patients treated at two major medical centers in Chicago were studied. One hundred ninety-five required maximum ventilatory support, and met ECMO eligibility criteria. Eighty ECMO patients were propensity matched to an equal number of MVA patients using detailed demographic, physiological, and comorbidity data. Primary outcome was survival and disposition at discharge. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent of patients were decannulated from ECMO. Mechanical ventilation was discontinued in 75% ECMO and 16% MVA patients. Twenty-five percent of patients in the ECMO arm expired, 21% while on ECMO, compared with 74% in the MVA cohort. Mortality was significantly lower across all age and BMI groups in the ECMO arm. Sixty-eight percent ECMO and 26% MVA patients were discharged from the hospital. Fewer ECMO patients required long-term rehabilitation. Major complications such as septic shock, ventilator associated pneumonia, inotropic requirements, acute liver and kidney injuries are less frequent among ECMO patients. CONCLUSIONS: ECMO-eligible patients with severe COVID-19 respiratory failure demonstrate a 3-fold improvement in survival with ECMO. They are also in a better physical state at discharge and have lower overall complication rates. As such, strong consideration should be given for ECMO when mechanical ventilatory support alone becomes insufficient in treating COVID-19 respiratory failure.

Complications after discharge with COVID-19 infection and risk factors associated with development of post-COVID pulmonary fibrosis.

INTRODUCTION: Survivors of COVID-19 infection may develop post-covid pulmonary fibrosis (PCF) and suffer from long term multi-system complications. The magnitude and risk factors associated with these are unknown. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the prevalence and risk factors associated with PCF and other complications in patients discharged after COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Patients had phone assessment 6 weeks post hospital discharge after COVID-19 infection using a set protocol. Those with significant respiratory symptoms were investigated with a CTPA, Pulmonary Function Tests and echocardiogram. Prevalence of myalgia, fatigue, psychological symptoms and PCF was obtained. Risk factors associated with these were investigated. RESULTS: A large number of patients had persistent fatigue (45.1%), breathlessness (36.5%), myalgia (20.5%) and psychological symptoms (19.5%). PCF was seen in 9.5% of the patients and was associated with persistent breathlessness at 6 weeks and inpatient ventilation [adjusted OR 5.02(1.76-14.27) and 4.45(1.27-15.58)] respectively. It was more common in men and in patients with peak CRP >171.5 mg/L, peak WBC count ≥12 × 10 9/L, severe inpatient COVID-19 CXR changes and CT changes. Ventilation was also a risk factor for persisting fatigue and myalgia, the latter was also more common in those with severe cytokine storm and severe COVID-19 inpatient CXR changes. CONCLUSIONS: All the patients discharged after COVID-19 should be assessed using a set protocol by a multidisciplinary team. Patients who had severe COVID-19 infection particularly those who were intubated and who have persistent breathlessness are at risk of developing PCF. They should have a CT Chest and have respiratory follow-up.

6-month mortality and readmissions of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A nationwide cohort study of 8,679 patients in Germany.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 frequently necessitates in-patient treatment and in-patient mortality is high. Less is known about the long-term outcomes in terms of mortality and readmissions following in-patient treatment. AIM: The aim of this paper is to provide a detailed account of hospitalized COVID-19 patients up to 180 days after their initial hospital admission. METHODS: An observational study with claims data from the German Local Health Care Funds of adult patients hospitalized in Germany between February 1 and April 30, 2020, with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 and a related principal diagnosis, for whom 6-month all-cause mortality and readmission rates for 180 days after admission or until death were available. A multivariable logistic regression model identified independent risk factors for 180-day all-cause mortality in this cohort. RESULTS: Of the 8,679 patients with a median age of 72 years, 2,161 (24.9%) died during the index hospitalization. The 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 23.9% (2,073/8,679), the 90-day rate was 27.9% (2,425/8,679), and the 180-day rate, 29.6% (2,566/8,679). The latter was 52.3% (1,472/2,817) for patients aged ≥80 years 23.6% (1,621/6,865) if not ventilated during index hospitalization, but 53.0% in case of those ventilated invasively (853/1,608). Risk factors for the 180-day all-cause mortality included coagulopathy, BMI ≥ 40, and age, while the female sex was a protective factor beyond a fewer prevalence of comorbidities. Of the 6,235 patients discharged alive, 1,668 were readmitted a total of 2,551 times within 180 days, resulting in an overall readmission rate of 26.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The 180-day follow-up data of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in a nationwide cohort representing almost one-third of the German population show significant long-term, all-cause mortality and readmission rates, especially among patients with coagulopathy, whereas women have a profoundly better and long-lasting clinical outcome compared to men.

Longitudinal Outcomes for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children.

BACKGROUND: In spring 2020, a novel hyperinflammatory process associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) was described. The long-term impact remains unknown. We report longitudinal outcomes from a New York interdisciplinary follow-up program. METHODS: All children <21 years of age, admitted to NewYork-Presbyterian with MIS-C in 2020, were included. Children were followed at 1 to 4 weeks, 1 to 4 months, and 4 to 9 months postdischarge. RESULTS: In total, 45 children were admitted with MIS-C. The median time to last follow-up was 5.8 months (interquartile range 1.3-6.7). Of those admitted, 76% required intensive care and 64% required vasopressors and/or inotropes. On admission, patients exhibited significant nonspecific inflammation, generalized lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia. Soluble interleukin (IL) IL-2R, IL-6, IL-10, IL-17, IL-18, and C-X-C Motif Chemokine Ligand 9 were elevated. A total of 80% (n = 36) had at least mild and 44% (n = 20) had moderate-severe echocardiographic abnormalities including coronary abnormalities (9% had a z score of 2-2.5; 7% had a z score > 2.5). Whereas most inflammatory markers normalized by 1 to 4 weeks, 32% (n = 11 of 34) exhibited persistent lymphocytosis, with increased double-negative T cells in 96% of assessed patients (n = 23 of 24). By 1 to 4 weeks, only 18% (n = 7 of 39) had mild echocardiographic findings; all had normal coronaries. At 1 to 4 months, the proportion of double-negative T cells remained elevated in 92% (median 9%). At 4 to 9 months, only 1 child had persistent mild dysfunction. One had mild mitral and/or tricuspid regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of children with MIS-C present critically ill, most inflammatory and cardiac manifestations in our cohort resolved rapidly.

COVID-19 Lockdown Effects on Acute Stroke Care in Latin America.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 pandemic has forced important changes in health care worldwide. Stroke care networks have been affected, especially during peak periods. We assessed the impact of the pandemic and lockdowns in stroke admissions and care in Latin America. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multinational study (7 countries, 18 centers) of patients admitted during the pandemic outbreak (March-June 2020). Comparisons were made with the same period in 2019. Numbers of cases, stroke etiology and severity, acute care and hospitalization outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Most countries reported mild decreases in stroke admissions compared to the same period of 2019 (1187 vs. 1166, p = 0.03). Among stroke subtypes, there was a reduction in ischemic strokes (IS) admissions (78.3% vs. 73.9%, p = 0.01) compared with 2019, especially in IS with NIHSS 0-5 (50.1% vs. 44.9%, p = 0.03). A substantial increase in the proportion of stroke admissions beyond 48 h from symptoms onset was observed (13.8% vs. 20.5%, p < 0.001). Nevertheless, no differences in total reperfusion treatment rates were observed, with similar door-to-needle, door-to-CT, and door-to-groin times in both periods. Other stroke outcomes, as all-type mortality during hospitalization (4.9% vs. 9.7%, p < 0.001), length of stay (IQR 1-5 days vs. 0-9 days, p < 0.001), and likelihood to be discharged home (91.6% vs. 83.0%, p < 0.001), were compromised during COVID-19 lockdown period. CONCLUSIONS: In this Latin America survey, there was a mild decrease in admissions of IS during the COVID-19 lockdown period, with a significant delay in time to consultations and worse hospitalization outcomes.

Risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) from hospital admission and the impact of protection efforts on acute stroke treatment.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear how interventions designed to restrict community and in-hospital exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) virus influenced stroke care for patients seeking acute treatment. Therefore, we aimed to determine how these COVID-19 interventions impacted acute stroke treatment times and to assess the risk of contracting COVID-19 due to their stay in our medical center. METHODS: Retrospective, single center, two-phase study evaluating hospital and community trends from 12/2019 - 04/2020 compared to the previous year and pre/post (n = 156/93) intervention implementation. Phase I assessed stroke treatment times, delay to hospital arrival, and witnessed stroke volume. Phase II, a post-implementation telephone survey, assessed risk of developing symptoms or testing positive for COVID-19. RESULTS: Stroke volume declined by 29% (p < .05) from April to March compared to the previous year. However, no significant delays in seeking medical care (pre Mdn=112, post Mdn=95, p = .34) was observed. Witnessed stroke volume decreased 11% (p < .001) compared to the pre-implementation group, but no significant delay in IV alteplase (pre Mdn=22 mins; post Mdn=26 mins, p = .08) nor endovascular treatment (pre Mdn=60 mins; post Mdn=80 mins, p = .45) was observed. In Phase II, 63 patients participated, two tested (3%) COVID-19 positive during admission and four (6%) within two weeks of discharge. COVID-19 contraction risk during and after hospitalization remained similar to the general population (RR=1.75, 95%CI: 0.79-3.63). Overall results indicated a marked decrease in stroke volume, no significant delays to either seek or provide acute stroke care were evident, and COVID-19 contraction risk was low. CONCLUSIONS: Seeking acute stroke medical care outweighs the risk of COVID-19 exposure.

Estimating lengths-of-stay of hospitalised COVID-19 patients using a non-parametric model: a case study in Galicia (Spain).

Estimating the lengths-of-stay (LoS) of hospitalised COVID-19 patients is key for predicting the hospital beds' demand and planning mitigation strategies, as overwhelming the healthcare systems has critical consequences for disease mortality. However, accurately mapping the time-to-event of hospital outcomes, such as the LoS in the intensive care unit (ICU), requires understanding patient trajectories while adjusting for covariates and observation bias, such as incomplete data. Standard methods, such as the Kaplan-Meier estimator, require prior assumptions that are untenable given current knowledge. Using real-time surveillance data from the first weeks of the COVID-19 epidemic in Galicia (Spain), we aimed to model the time-to-event and event probabilities of patients' hospitalised, without parametric priors and adjusting for individual covariates. We applied a non-parametric mixture cure model and compared its performance in estimating hospital ward (HW)/ICU LoS to the performances of commonly used methods to estimate survival. We showed that the proposed model outperformed standard approaches, providing more accurate ICU and HW LoS estimates. Finally, we applied our model estimates to simulate COVID-19 hospital demand using a Monte Carlo algorithm. We provided evidence that adjusting for sex, generally overlooked in prediction models, together with age is key for accurately forecasting HW and ICU occupancy, as well as discharge or death outcomes.

Outpatient Management of Patients With COVID-19: Multicenter Prospective Validation of the Hospitalization or Outpatient Management of Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection Rule to Discharge Patients Safely.

BACKGROUND: The Hospitalization or Outpatient Management of Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection (HOME-CoV) rule is a checklist of eligibility criteria for home treatment of patients with COVID-19, defined using a Delphi method. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is the HOME-CoV rule reliable for identifying a subgroup of COVID-19 patients with a low risk of adverse outcomes who can be treated at home safely? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We aimed to validate the HOME-CoV rule in a prospective, multicenter study before and after trial of patients with probable or confirmed COVID-19 who sought treatment at the ED of 34 hospitals. The main outcome was an adverse evolution, that is, invasive ventilation or death, occurring within the 7 days after patient admission. The performance of the rule was assessed by the false-negative rate. The impact of the rule implementation was assessed by the absolute differences in the rate of patients who required invasive ventilation or who died and in the rate of patients treated at home, between an observational and an interventional period after implementation of the HOME-CoV rule, with propensity score adjustment. RESULTS: Among 3,000 prospectively enrolled patients, 1,239 (41.3%) demonstrated a negative HOME-CoV rule finding. The false-negative rate of the HOME-CoV rule was 4 in 1,239 (0.32%; 95% CI, 0.13%-0.84%), and its area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 80.9 (95% CI, 76.5-85.2). On the adjusted populations, 25 of 1,274 patients (1.95%) experienced an adverse evolution during the observational period vs 12 of 1,274 patients (0.95%) during the interventional period: -1.00 (95% CI, -1.86 to -0.15). During the observational period, 858 patients (67.35%) were treated at home vs 871 patients (68.37%) during the interventional period: -1.02 (95% CI, -4.46 to 2.26). INTERPRETATION: A large proportion of patients treated in the ED with probable or confirmed COVID-19 have a negative HOME-CoV rule finding and can be treated safely at home with a very low risk of complications. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04338841; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Decline in Rehab Transfers Among Rehab-Eligible Stroke Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize differences in disposition arrangement among rehab-eligible stroke patients at a Comprehensive Stroke Center before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a prospective registry for demographics, hospital course, and discharge dispositions of rehab-eligible acute stroke survivors admitted 6 months prior to (10/2019-03/2020) and during (04/2020-09/2020) the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary outcome was discharge to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) as opposed to other facilities using descriptive statistics, and IRF versus home using unadjusted and adjusted backward stepwise logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 507 rehab-eligible stroke survivors, there was no difference in age, premorbid disability, or stroke severity between study periods (p>0.05). There was a 9% absolute decrease in discharges to an IRF during the pandemic (32.1% vs. 41.1%, p=0.04), which translated to 38% lower odds of being discharged to IRF versus home in unadjusted regression (OR 0.62, 95%CI 0.42-0.92, p=0.016). The lower odds of discharge to IRF persisted in the multivariable model (aOR 0.16, 95%CI 0.09-0.31, p<0.001) despite a significant increase in discharge disability (median discharge mRS 4 [IQR 2-4] vs. 2 [IQR 1-3], p<0.001) during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Admission for stroke during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significantly lower probability of being discharged to an IRF. This effect persisted despite adjustment for predictors of IRF disposition, including functional disability at discharge. Potential reasons for this disparity are explored.

Hip fracture characteristics and outcomes during COVID-19: a large retrospective national database review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted healthcare in various vulnerable patient subpopulations. However, data are lacking on the impact of COVID-19 on hip fractures, seen mainly in older patients. Using national claims data, we aimed to describe the epidemiology during the first COVID-19 wave in the USA. METHODS: We compared patients admitted for hip fractures during March and April of 2020 with those admitted in 2019 in terms of patient and healthcare characteristics, COVID-19 diagnosis, and outcomes. An additional comparison was made between COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. Outcomes included length of hospital stay (LOS), admission to an ICU, ICU LOS, use of mechanical ventilation, 30-day readmission, discharge disposition, and a composite variable of postoperative complications. RESULTS: Overall, 16 068 hip fractures were observed in 2019 compared with 7498 in 2020. Patients with hip fractures in 2020 (compared with 2019) experienced earlier hospital discharge and were less likely to be admitted to ICU, but more likely to be admitted to home. Amongst 83 patients with hip fractures with concomitant COVID-19 diagnosis, we specifically observed more non-surgical treatments, almost doubled LOS, a more than 10-fold increased mortality rate, and higher complication rates compared with COVID-19-negative patients. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted not only volume of hip fractures, but also patterns in care and outcomes. These results may inform policymakers in future outbreaks and how this may affect vulnerable patient populations, such as those experiencing a hip fracture.

Cognitive impairments four months after COVID-19 hospital discharge: Pattern, severity and association with illness variables.

The ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected more than 100 million people and clinics are being established for diagnosing and treating lingering symptoms, so called long-COVID. A key concern are neurological and long-term cognitive complications. At the same time, the prevalence and nature of the cognitive sequalae of COVID-19 are unclear. The present study aimed to investigate the frequency, pattern and severity of cognitive impairments 3-4 months after COVID-19 hospital discharge, their relation to subjective cognitive complaints, quality of life and illness variables. We recruited patients at their follow-up visit at the respiratory outpatient clinic, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg, approximately four months after hospitalisation with COVID-19. Patients underwent pulmonary, functional and cognitive assessments. Twenty-nine patients were included. The percentage of patients with clinically significant cognitive impairment ranged from 59% to 65% depending on the applied cut-off for clinical relevance of cognitive impairment, with verbal learning and executive functions being most affected. Objective cognitive impairment scaled with subjective cognitive complaints, lower work function and poorer quality of life. Cognitive impairments were associated with d-dimer levels during acute illness and residual pulmonary dysfunction. In conclusion, these findings provide new evidence for frequent cognitive sequelae of COVID-19 and indicate an association with the severity of the lung affection and potentially restricted cerebral oxygen delivery. Further, the associations with quality of life and functioning call for systematic cognitive screening of patients after recovery from severe COVID-19 illness and implementation of targeted treatments for patients with persistent cognitive impairments.

Adapting inpatient addiction medicine consult services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: We describe addiction consult services (ACS) adaptations implemented during the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic across four different North American sites: St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia; Oregon Health & Sciences University in Portland, Oregon; Boston Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts; and Yale New Haven Hospital in New Haven, Connecticut. EXPERIENCES: ACS made system, treatment, harm reduction, and discharge planning adaptations. System changes included patient visits shifting to primarily telephone-based consultations and ACS leading regional COVID-19 emergency response efforts such as substance use treatment care coordination for people experiencing homelessness in COVID-19 isolation units and regional substance use treatment initiatives. Treatment adaptations included providing longer buprenorphine bridge prescriptions at discharge with telemedicine follow-up appointments and completing benzodiazepine tapers or benzodiazepine alternatives for people with alcohol use disorder who could safely detoxify in outpatient settings. We believe that regulatory changes to buprenorphine, and in Vancouver other medications for opioid use disorder, helped increase engagement for hospitalized patients, as many of the barriers preventing them from accessing care on an ongoing basis were reduced. COVID-19 specific harm reductions recommendations were adopted and disseminated to inpatients. Discharge planning changes included peer mentors and social workers increasing hospital in-reach and discharge outreach for high-risk patients, in some cases providing prepaid cell phones for patients without phones. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE: We believe that ACS were essential to hospitals' readiness to support patients that have been systematically marginilized during the pandemic. We suggest that hospitals invest in telehealth infrastructure within the hospital, and consider cellphone donations for people without cellphones, to help maintain access to care for vulnerable patients. In addition, we recommend hospital systems evaluate the impact of such interventions. As the economic strain on the healthcare system from COVID-19 threatens the very existence of ACS, overdose deaths continue rising across North America, highlighting the essential nature of these services. We believe it is imperative that health care systems continue investing in hospital-based ACS during public health crises.

Preliminary Assessment of a Telehealth Approach to Evaluating, Treating, and Discharging Low-Acuity Patients With Suspected COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine is uniquely positioned to address challenges posed to emergency departments (EDs) by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. By reducing in-person contact, it should decrease provider risk of infection and preserve personal protective equipment (PPE). OBJECTIVES: To describe and assess the early results of a novel telehealth workflow in which remote providers collaborate with in-person nursing to evaluate and discharge well-appearing, low-risk ED patients with suspected COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was completed 3 weeks after implementation. Metrics include the number of patients evaluated, number of patients discharged without in-person contact, telehealth wait time and duration, collection of testing, ED length of stay (ED-LOS), 72-h return, number of in-person health care provider contacts, and associated PPE use. RESULTS: Among 302 patients evaluated by telehealth, 153 patients were evaluated and discharged by a telehealth provider with reductions in ED-LOS, PPE use, and close contact with health care personnel. These patients had a 62.5% shorter ED-LOS compared with other Emergency Severity Index level 4 patients seen over the same time period. Telehealth use for these 153 patients saved 413 sets of PPE. We observed a 3.9% 72-h revisit rate. One patient discharged after telehealth evaluation was hospitalized on a return visit 9 days later. CONCLUSION: Telehealth can be safely and efficiently used to evaluate, treat, test, and discharge ED patients suspected to have COVID-19. This workflow reduces infection risks to health care providers, PPE use, and ED-LOS. Additionally, it allows quarantined but otherwise well clinicians to continue working.

Safety of same-day discharge after uncomplicated, minimalist transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the COVID-19 era.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the safety, efficacy and feasibility of same-day discharge after uncomplicated, minimalist TAVR. BACKGROUND: At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we created a same-day discharge (SDD) pathway after conscious sedation, transfemoral (minimalist) TAVR to help minimize risk of viral transmission and conserve hospital resources. Studies support that next-day discharge (NDD) for carefully selected patients following minimalist TAVR is safe and feasible. There is a paucity of data regarding the safety of SDD after TAVR. METHODS: In-hospital and 30 day outcomes of consecutive patients meeting pre-specified criteria for SDD after minimalist TAVR at our institution between March and July of 2020 were reviewed. Outcomes were compared to a NDD cohort from July 2018 through July 2020 that would have met SDD criteria. Primary endpoints were mortality, delayed pacemaker placement, stroke and cardiovascular readmission at 30 days. RESULTS: Twenty nine patients were discharged via the SDD pathway after TAVR. 128 prior NDD patients were identified who met all criteria for SDD. The STS scores were similar between the two groups (SDD 2.6% ±1.5 vs. NDD 2.3% ± 1.2). There were no deaths at 30 days in either group. There was no significant difference in delayed pacemaker placement (SDD 0% vs. NDD 0.8%, p > .99) or cardiovascular readmission (SDD 0% vs. NDD 5.5%, p = .35) at 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Same day discharge following uncomplicated, minimalist TAVR in selected patients appears to be safe, achieving similar 30 day outcomes as a cohort of next day discharge patients.

Implementation and evaluation of a COVID-19 rapid follow-up service for patients discharged from the emergency department.

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated rapid adaptation of healthcare providers to new clinical and logistical challenges. Following identification of high levels of emergency department (ED) reattendance among patients with suspected COVID-19 at our centre, we piloted a rapid remote follow-up service for this patient group. We present our service framework and evaluation of our pilot cohort of 192 patients. We followed up patients by telephone within 36 hours of their ED attendance. Pulse oximetry was used for remote monitoring of a subset of patients. Patients required between one and six consecutive telephone assessments, dependent on illness severity, and 23 patients were recalled for in-person assessment. Approximately half of patients with confirmed or probable COVID-19 required onward referral for respiratory follow-up. This framework reduced unplanned ED reattendances in comparison with a retrospective comparator cohort (4.7% from 22.6%). We reproduced these findings in a validation cohort with a high prevalence of acute COVID-19, managed through the clinic in September-October 2020, where we identified an unplanned ED reattendance rate of 5.2%. We propose that rapid remote follow-up is a mechanism by which ambulatory patients can be clinically supported during the acute phase of illness, with benefits both to patient care and to health service resilience.

Outcomes for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in the United States During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

Importance: Recent reports from communities severely affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic found lower rates of sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Whether the pandemic has affected OHCA outcomes more broadly is unknown. Objective: To assess the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and OHCA outcomes, including in areas with low and moderate COVID-19 disease burden. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study used a large US registry of OHCAs to compare outcomes during the pandemic period of March 16 through April 30, 2020, with those from March 16 through April 30, 2019. Cases were geocoded to US counties, and the COVID-19 mortality rate in each county was categorized as very low (0-25 per million residents), low (26-100 per million residents), moderate (101-250 per million residents), high (251-500 per million residents), or very high (>500 per million residents). As additional controls, the study compared OHCA outcomes during the prepandemic period (January through February) and peripandemic period (March 1 through 15). Exposure: The COVID-19 pandemic. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sustained ROSC (≥20 minutes), survival to discharge, and OHCA incidence. Results: A total of 19 303 OHCAs occurred from March 16 through April 30 in both years, with 9863 cases in 2020 (mean [SD] age, 62.6 [19.3] years; 6040 men [61.3%]) and 9440 in 2019 (mean [SD] age, 62.2 [19.2] years; 5922 men [62.7%]). During the pandemic, rates of sustained ROSC were lower than in 2019 (23.0% vs 29.8%; adjusted rate ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.78-0.87]; P < .001). Sustained ROSC rates were lower by between 21% (286 of 1429 [20.0%] in 2020 vs 305 of 1130 [27.0%] in 2019; adjusted RR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.65-0.97]) and 33% (149 of 863 [17.3%] in 2020 vs 192 of 667 [28.8%] in 2019; adjusted RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.56-0.80]) in communities with high or very high COVID-19 mortality, respectively; however, rates of sustained ROSC were also lower by 11% (583 of 2317 [25.2%] in 2020 vs 740 of 2549 [29.0%] in 2019; adjusted RR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.81-0.98]) to 15% (889 of 3495 [25.4%] in 2020 vs 1109 of 3532 [31.4%] in 2019; adjusted RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.78-0.93]) in communities with very low and low COVID-19 mortality. Among emergency medical services agencies with complete data on hospital survival (7085 total patients), survival to discharge was lower during the pandemic compared with 2019 (6.6% vs 9.8%; adjusted RR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.69-1.00]; P = .048), primarily in communities with moderate to very high COVID-19 mortality (interaction P = .049). Incidence of OHCA was higher than in 2019, but the increase was largely observed in communities with high COVID-19 mortality (adjusted mean difference, 38.6 [95% CI, 37.1-40.1] per million residents) and very high COVID-19 mortality (adjusted mean difference, 28.7 [95% CI, 26.7-30.6] per million residents). In contrast, there was no difference in rates of sustained ROSC or survival to discharge during the prepandemic and peripandemic periods in 2020 vs 2019. Conclusions and Relevance: Early during the pandemic, rates of sustained ROSC for OHCA were lower throughout the US, even in communities with low COVID-19 mortality rates. Overall survival was lower, primarily in communities with moderate or high COVID-19 mortality.