Impact of healthcare strain on access to mechanical ventilation and mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare saturation has been a prominent worry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Increase of hospital beds with mechanical ventilators has been central in Mexico's approach, but it is not known whether this actually improves access to care and the resulting quality of it. This study aimed to determine the impact of healthcare strain and other pre-specified variables on dying from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) without receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using open data from Mexico City between 8 May 2020 and 5 January 2021. We performed Cox proportional hazards models to identify the strength of the association between proposed variables and the outcomes. RESULTS: Of 33 797 hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, 19 820 (58.6%) did not require IMV and survived, 5414 (16.1%) required IMV and were intubated and 8563 (25.3%) required IMV but died without receiving it. A greater occupation of IMV-capable beds increased the hazard of death without receiving IMV (hazard ratio [HR] 1.56, comparing 90% with 50% occupation). Private healthcare was the most protective factor for death without IMV (HR 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Higher hospital bed saturation increased the hazard of dying without being intubated and worsened the outcomes among mechanically ventilated patients. Older age also increased the hazard of the outcomes, while private healthcare dramatically decreased them.

Pressure ulcers from prone positioning in COVID-19 patients: Developing clinical indicators in evidence-based practice: A retrospective study

Background: A notable pandemic arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic has developed globally in intensive care units, with patients developing pressure ulcers (PUs) after being ventilated mechanically in the prone position. Objectives: The aim was to identify risk factors independently predictive of the development of PUs in adult patient populations treated with prone positioning and to evaluate a possible epidemiological association between the prevalence of PUs and specific clinical characteristics so as to develop clinical indicators for the prevention of PUs. Finally, the aim was to examine our study participants against the incidence of PUs with respect to the length of their stay. Methods: This retrospective study enrolled patients hospitalized during the period of May 2020 through January 2021. Data was collected from 299 patients hospitalized and having required prone positioning ventilatory therapy in critical care areas (short-stay units, emergency units, and intensive care units), all of which had developed Pus of at least grade two according to the classification system proposed by the NPUAP/EPUAP. Results: Patients who had developed PUs had a longer hospitalization stay overall and were more prone to die during hospitalization. Patients who developed Pus were more frequently males, with higher initial levels of CPK and ferritin.Conclusions: The study reveals valuable information on the most important risk factors in the development of PUs due to prone positioning. We have described how the total number of days of hospitalization is significantly related to the development of PUs. Even a PU is not a life-threatening lesion, the implementation of improved positioning protocols may enhance results in critical patient care. We believe that this is a current, globally underestimated problem as the incidence of COVID-19 patients requiring prone positioning—and, therefore, at risk for PUs—is increasing daily. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Our Dermatology Online / Nasza Dermatologia Online is the property of Our Dermatology Online and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

COVID-19 pandemic and the consequential effect on patients with endometriosis.

STUDY QUESTION: What was the effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on healthcare and quality of life in those suffering from endometriosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: Our study reveals a clear correlation between the deterioration of the reported physical and mental state and impaired medical care for patients suffering from endometriosis during the COVID-19 pandemic. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The quality of life of patients suffering from endometriosis is compromised in a variety of aspects. In response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, self-isolation practices aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19 have severely complicated the availability of proper medical care worldwide. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: The study involved a cross-sectional international self-reported online survey. Responses were accepted between November 2020 and January 2021. The survey was prepared by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in a medical university setting. The survey contained 17 questions and was placed online. Cooperation with different endometriosis organizations around the world enabled distribution of the survey through their social media platforms. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: The study participants (n = 3024 replies) originated from 59 countries. The questionnaire was created after a literature review and is partially based on the validated quality of life questionnaires, adjusted to the study question. The survey was then translated to 15 other languages following World Health Organization recommendations as closely as possible. Chi-square tests for independence were carried out for the analysis of the two variables: suspension of health services, and the patients mental and physical well-being. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Out of 3024 participants from 59 countries who submitted the questionnaire between November 2020 and January 2021, 2964 (98.01%) provided information that enabled a full analysis. For the 1174 participants who had their medical appointments cancelled, 43.7% (n = 513) reported that their symptoms had been aggravated, and 49.3% (n = 579) reported that their mental state had worsened.In comparison, of the 1180 participants who kept their appointments, only 29.4% (n = 347) stated that their symptoms had been aggravated, and 27.5% (n = 325) stated their mental health had worsened. The results showed that there was a significant link between the reported deterioration of mental and physical wellbeing and impaired medical care (cancellation) (P ≪ 0.001). A total of 610 participants did not have medical appointments scheduled, and these participants followed a similar pattern as the participants who kept their appointments, with 29.0% (n = 177) reporting aggravation of symptoms and 28.2% (n = 172) reporting that their mental state had worsened. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Cultural differences among international participants are to be expected and this may have affected how participants from different countries interpreted and answered the questionnaire. Translating the questionnaire into 15 different languages, even though incorporating backwards translation, could possibly lead to different interpretations of given questions, simply based on different wording in the languages. The majority of respondents (around 90%) were from Europe and South America and therefore the findings may not be generalizable to other locations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Further research is needed to assess the true impact and long-term consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic for patients living with endometriosis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study received no funding and the authors declare they have no relevant conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Prospective predictive performance comparison between clinical gestalt and validated COVID-19 mortality scores.

Most COVID-19 mortality scores were developed at the beginning of the pandemic and clinicians now have more experience and evidence-based interventions. Therefore, we hypothesized that the predictive performance of COVID-19 mortality scores is now lower than originally reported. We aimed to prospectively evaluate the current predictive accuracy of six COVID-19 scores and compared it with the accuracy of clinical gestalt predictions. 200 patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in a tertiary hospital in Mexico City between September and December 2020. The area under the curve (AUC) of the LOW-HARM, qSOFA, MSL-COVID-19, NUTRI-CoV, and NEWS2 scores and the AUC of clinical gestalt predictions of death (as a percentage) were determined. In total, 166 patients (106 men and 60 women aged 56±9 years) with confirmed COVID-19 were included in the analysis. The AUC of all scores was significantly lower than originally reported: LOW-HARM 0.76 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84) vs 0.96 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.98), qSOFA 0.61 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.69) vs 0.74 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.81), MSL-COVID-19 0.64 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.73) vs 0.72 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.75), NUTRI-CoV 0.60 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.69) vs 0.79 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.82), NEWS2 0.65 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.75) vs 0.84 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.90), and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.73) vs 0.74 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.85). Clinical gestalt predictions were non-inferior to mortality scores, with an AUC of 0.68 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.77). Adjusting scores with locally derived likelihood ratios did not improve their performance; however, some scores outperformed clinical gestalt predictions when clinicians' confidence of prediction was <80%. Despite its subjective nature, clinical gestalt has relevant advantages in predicting COVID-19 clinical outcomes. The need and performance of most COVID-19 mortality scores need to be evaluated regularly.

The low-harm score for predicting mortality in patients diagnosed with COVID-19: A multicentric validation study.

Objective: We sought to determine the accuracy of the LOW-HARM score (Lymphopenia, Oxygen saturation, White blood cells, Hypertension, Age, Renal injury, and Myocardial injury) for predicting death from coronavirus disease 2019) COVID-19. Methods: We derived the score as a concatenated Fagan's nomogram for Bayes theorem using data from published cohorts of patients with COVID-19. We validated the score on 400 consecutive COVID-19 hospital admissions (200 deaths and 200 survivors) from 12 hospitals in Mexico. We determined the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of LOW-HARM for predicting hospital death. Results: LOW-HARM scores and their distributions were significantly lower in patients who were discharged compared to those who died during their hospitalization 5 (SD: 14) versus 70 (SD: 28). The overall area under the curve for the LOW-HARM score was 0.96, (95% confidence interval: 0.94-0.98). A cutoff > 65 points had a specificity of 97.5% and a positive predictive value of 96%. Conclusions: The LOW-HARM score measured at hospital admission is highly specific and clinically useful for predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19.