Patient Experiences with and Preferences for Telemedicine Relative to In-Person Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction: Although telemedicine emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic as a critical mode of health care delivery, there may be differences in the perceived ease of patient-clinician communication and quality of care for telemedicine versus in-person visits, as well as variation in perceptions across patient subgroups. We examined patients' experiences with and preferences for telemedicine relative to in-person care, based on their most recent visit. Methods: We conducted a survey of 2,668 adults in a large academic health care system in November 2021. The survey captured patients' reasons for their most recent visit, perceptions on patient-clinician communication and quality of care, and attitudes toward telemedicine versus in-person care. Results: Among respondents, 552 (21%) had a telemedicine visit. Patients with telemedicine and in-person visits had similar agreement on ease of patient-clinician communication and perceived quality of the visit on average. However, for individuals 65 years of age or older, men, and those not needing urgent care, telemedicine was associated with worse perceptions of patient-clinician communication (65 years of age or older: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.85; men: aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.81; urgent care: aOR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.49-0.91) and lower perceived quality (65 years of age or older, aOR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30-0.86; men: 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32-0.83; urgent care: aOR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.93). Conclusion: Patient-perceived quality of care and patient-clinician communication were similar for telemedicine and in-person visits overall. However, among men, older adults, and those not seeking urgent care, patients using telemedicine had lower perceptions of patient-clinician communication and quality.

Risk of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection associated with pre-coronavirus disease obstructive sleep apnea diagnoses: an electronic health record-based analysis from the RECOVER initiative.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has been associated with more severe acute coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outcomes. We assessed OSA as a potential risk factor for Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC). METHODS: We assessed the impact of preexisting OSA on the risk for probable PASC in adults and children using electronic health record data from multiple research networks. Three research networks within the REsearching COVID to Enhance Recovery initiative (PCORnet Adult, PCORnet Pediatric, and the National COVID Cohort Collaborative [N3C]) employed a harmonized analytic approach to examine the risk of probable PASC in COVID-19-positive patients with and without a diagnosis of OSA prior to pandemic onset. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated as well as ORs adjusted for age group, sex, race/ethnicity, hospitalization status, obesity, and preexisting comorbidities. RESULTS: Across networks, the unadjusted OR for probable PASC associated with a preexisting OSA diagnosis in adults and children ranged from 1.41 to 3.93. Adjusted analyses found an attenuated association that remained significant among adults only. Multiple sensitivity analyses with expanded inclusion criteria and covariates yielded results consistent with the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with preexisting OSA were found to have significantly elevated odds of probable PASC. This finding was consistent across data sources, approaches for identifying COVID-19-positive patients, and definitions of PASC. Patients with OSA may be at elevated risk for PASC after SARS-CoV-2 infection and should be monitored for post-acute sequelae.

PROPOFOL-RELATED INFUSION SYNDROME IN MECHANICALLY VENTILATED ADULTS WITH CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019

The median propofol dose upon suspicion of possible PRIS was 20 mcg/kg/min (range, 20-50 mcg/kg/min) and providers decreased the dose in six (75%) patients at that time. B Introduction: b Propofol-related infusion syndrome (PRIS) is a rare and potentially devastating complication associated with prolonged high doses of propofol. Secondary outcomes included propofol dose and duration upon suspicion of PRIS, characterization of PRIS presentation, and mortality. [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Critical Care Medicine is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 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.)

The Safety of Continuous Infusion Propofol in Mechanically Ventilated Adults With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Propofol is commonly used to achieve ventilator synchrony in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet its safety in this patient population is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, in particular the incidence of hypertriglyceridemia, of continuous infusion propofol in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective study at 1 academic medical center and 1 affiliated teaching hospital in New York City. Adult, critically ill patients with COVID-19 who received continuous infusion propofol were included. Patients who received propofol for <12 hours, were transferred from an outside hospital while on mechanical ventilation, or did not have a triglyceride concentration obtained during the infusion were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 252 patients were included. Hypertriglyceridemia (serum triglyceride concentration ≥ 400 mg/dL) occurred in 38.9% of patients after a median cumulative dose of 4307 mg (interquartile range [IQR], 2448-9431 mg). The median time to triglyceride elevation was 3.8 days (IQR, 1.9-9.1 days). In the multivariable regression analysis, obese patients had a significantly greater odds of hypertriglyceridemia (odds ratio = 1.87; 95% CI = 1.10, 3.21). There was no occurrence of acute pancreatitis. The incidence of possible propofol-related infusion syndrome was 3.2%. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Hypertriglyceridemia occurred frequently in patients with COVID-19 who received propofol but did not lead to acute pancreatitis. Elevated triglyceride concentrations occurred more often and at lower cumulative doses than previously reported in patients without COVID-19. Application of these data may aid in optimal monitoring for serious adverse effects of propofol in patients with COVID-19.

Imaging Utilization and Outcomes in Vulnerable Populations during COVID-19 in New York City.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) affects vulnerable populations (VP) adversely. PURPOSE: To evaluate overall imaging utilization in vulnerable subgroups (elderly, racial/ethnic minorities, socioeconomic status [SES] disadvantage) and determine if a particular subgroup has worse outcomes from COVID-19. MATERIALS/METHODS: Of 4110 patients who underwent COVID-19 testing from March 3-April 4, 2020 at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital (NYP) health system, we included 1121 COVID-19 positive adults (mean age 59±18 years, 59% male) from two academic hospitals and evaluated imaging utilization rates and outcomes, including mortality. RESULTS: Of 897 (80%) VP, there were 465 (41%) elderly, 380 (34%) racial/ethnic minorities, and 479 (43%) SES disadvantage patients. Imaging was performed in 88% of patients and mostly portable/bedside studies, with 87% of patients receiving chest radiographs. There were 83% hospital admissions, 25% ICU admissions, 23% intubations, and 13% deaths. Elderly patients had greater imaging utilization, hospitalizations, ICU/intubation requirement, longer hospital stays, and >4-fold increase in mortality compared to non-elderlies (adjusted hazard ratio[aHR] 4.79, p<0.001). Self-reported minorities had fewer ICU admissions (p=0.03) and reduced hazard for mortality (aHR 0.53, p=0.004; complete case analysis: aHR 0.39, p<0.001 excluding "not reported"; sensitivity analysis: aHR 0.61, p=0.005 "not reported" classified as minorities) with similar imaging utilization, compared to non-minorities. SES disadvantage patients had similar imaging utilization and outcomes as compared to their counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: In a predominantly hospitalized New York City cohort, elderly patients are at highest mortality risk. Racial/ethnic minorities and SES disadvantage patients fare better or similarly to their counterparts, highlighting the critical role of access to inpatient medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic.