Healthcare utilization and adverse outcomes stratified by sex, age and long-term care residency using the Alberta COVID-19 Analytics and Research Database (ACARD): a population-based descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the epidemiology of Coronavirus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19) in a local context is valuable for both future pandemic preparedness and potential increases in COVID-19 case volume, particularly due to variant strains. METHODS: Our work allowed us to complete a population-based study on patients who tested positive for COVID-19 in Alberta from March 1, 2020 to December 15, 2021. We completed a multi-centre, retrospective population-based descriptive study using secondary data sources in Alberta, Canada. We identified all adult patients (≥ 18 years of age) tested and subsequently positive for COVID-19 (including only the first incident case of COVID-19) on a laboratory test. We determined positive COVID-19 tests, gender, age, comorbidities, residency in a long-term care (LTC) facility, time to hospitalization, length of stay (LOS) in hospital, and mortality. Patients were followed for 60 days from a COVID-19 positive test. RESULTS: Between March 1, 2020 and December 15, 2021, 255,037 adults were identified with COVID-19 in Alberta. Most confirmed cases occurred among those less than 60 years of age (84.3%); however, most deaths (89.3%) occurred among those older than 60 years. Overall hospitalization rate among those who tested positive was 5.9%. Being a resident of LTC was associated with substantial mortality of 24.6% within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test. The most common comorbidity among those with COVID-19 was depression. Across all patients 17.3% of males and 18.6% of females had an unplanned ambulatory visit subsequent to their positive COVID-19 test. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 is associated with extensive healthcare utilization. Residents of LTC were substantially impacted during the COVID-19 pandemic with high associated mortality. Further work should be done to better understand the economic burden associated with related healthcare utilization following a COVID-19 infection to inform healthcare system resource allocation, planning, and forecasting.

Implementation and prospective evaluation of the Country Heart Attack Prevention model of care to improve attendance and completion of cardiac rehabilitation for patients with cardiovascular diseases living in rural Australia: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite extensive evidence of its benefits and recommendation by guidelines, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) remains highly underused with only 20%-50% of eligible patients participating. We aim to implement and evaluate the Country Heart Attack Prevention (CHAP) model of care to improve CR attendance and completion for rural and remote participants. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: CHAP will apply the model for large-scale knowledge translation to develop and implement a model of care to CR in rural Australia. Partnering with patients, clinicians and health service managers, we will codevelop new approaches and refine/expand existing ones to address known barriers to CR attendance. CHAP will codesign a web-based CR programme with patients expanding their choices to CR attendance. To increase referral rates, CHAP will promote endorsement of CR among clinicians and develop an electronic system that automatises referrals of in-hospital eligible patients to CR. A business model that includes reimbursement of CR delivered in primary care by Medicare will enable sustainable access to CR. To promote CR quality improvement, professional development interventions and an accreditation programme of CR services and programmes will be developed. To evaluate 12-month CR attendance/completion (primary outcome), clinical and cost-effectiveness (secondary outcomes) between patients exposed (n=1223) and not exposed (n=3669) to CHAP, we will apply a multidesign approach that encompasses a prospective cohort study, a pre-post study and a comprehensive economic evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Southern Adelaide Clinical Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/20/SAC/78) and by the Department for Health and Wellbeing Human Research Ethics Committee (2021/HRE00270), which approved a waiver of informed consent. Findings and dissemination to patients and clinicians will be through a public website, online educational sessions and scientific publications. Deidentified data will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000222842.

Perspectives of patients, family members, health professionals and the public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has seen a global surge in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and stress. AIMS: This study aimed to describe the perspectives of patients with COVID-19, their family, health professionals, and the general public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health. METHODS: A secondary thematic analysis was conducted using data from the COVID-19 COS project. We extracted data on the perceived causes and impact of COVID-19 on mental health from an international survey and seven online consensus workshops. RESULTS: We identified four themes (with subthemes in parenthesis): anxiety amidst uncertainty (always on high alert, ebb and flow of recovery); anguish of a threatened future (intense frustration of a changed normality, facing loss of livelihood, trauma of ventilation, a troubling prognosis, confronting death); bearing responsibility for transmission (fear of spreading COVID-19 in public; overwhelming guilt of infecting a loved one); and suffering in isolation (severe solitude of quarantine, sick and alone, separation exacerbating grief). CONCLUSION: We found that the unpredictability of COVID-19, the fear of long-term health consequences, burden of guilt, and suffering in isolation profoundly impacted mental health. Clinical and public health interventions are needed to manage the psychological consequences arising from this pandemic.

Accuracy of Highly Limited Echocardiographic Screening Images for Determining a Structurally Normal Heart: The Quick-Six Study.

INTRODUCTION: Experienced echocardiographers can quickly glean diagnostic information from limited echocardiographic views. The use of limited cardiac ultrasound, particularly as a screening tool, is increasing. During the COVID-19 pandemic, limited cardiac ultrasound has the major advantage of reducing exposure time between sonographer and patient. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of a "screening" echocardiogram with highly limited views is uncertain. AIM/METHOD: We examined the accuracy of limited echocardiography in 203 consecutive, de novo studies. We used six images: parasternal long axis, with colour Doppler over the mitral valve, and aortic valve, and apical four-chamber with colour Doppler over the mitral valve, and tricuspid valve. We compared the interpretation of 12 subjects with the final echocardiogram report, (gold standard). The subjects comprised four experienced echocardiography-specialised cardiologists, four experienced cardiologists with non-imaging subspecialty interests, and four senior cardiac sonographers. Studies were graded as: (1) normal or (2) needs full study (due to inadequate images or abnormality detected). Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and accuracy are reported. RESULTS: Forty-one per cent (41%) of studies were normal by the gold standard report. Overall, a screening echocardiogram had a sensitivity of 71.2%, specificity of 57.1% to detect an abnormal echocardiogram, negative predictive value 58.4%, positive predictive value of 70.2%, and accuracy of 65.4%. When inadequate images were excluded, overall accuracy was nearly identical at 64.6%. The overall accuracy between the three groups of interpreters was similar: 66.5% (95% CI 63.1-69.7) for echocardiography-specialised cardiologists, 65.3% (95% CI 61.9-68.5) for non-echocardiography specialised cardiologists, and 64.4% (95% CI 61.0-67.7) for sonographers. These groups are all highly experienced practitioners. There was no difference in sensitivity or specificity comparing echocardiography-specialised cardiologists with cardiologists of other subspecialty experience. Comparing cardiologists to sonographers, cardiologists had lower sensitivity (echocardiography specialists 67.6%, 95% CI 63.2-71.8, non-echocardiography specialists 62.0%, 95% CI 57.4-66.4) compared to sonographers (84.0% [95% CI 80.4-87.2, p<0.05]), but cardiologists had higher specificities (64.9% [95% CI 59.5-70.0] for the echocardiography specialists, and 69.9% [95% CI 64.7-74.8] for non echocardiography specialists), compared to 36.6% (95% CI 31.4-42.0, p<0.05) for the sonographer group. When looking at only the studies considered to be interpretable, cardiologists had higher positive predictive value (echocardiography specialists 73.7%, 95% CI 69.0-78.1, non echocardiography specialists 74.1%, 95% CI 68.8-79.9), as compared to sonographers (64.3%, 95% CI 59.8-68.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Limited cardiac ultrasound as a screening tool for a normal heart had a sensitivity of only 71%, when performed and interpreted by experienced personnel, raising questions regarding the safety of this practice. Caution is especially recommended in extrapolating its use to non-specialised settings.

Core Outcome Measures for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Respiratory Failure, Multiorgan Failure, Shortness of Breath, and Recovery.

OBJECTIVES: Respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, recovery, and mortality have been identified as critically important core outcomes by more than 9300 patients, health professionals, and the public from 111 countries in the global coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set initiative. The aim of this project was to establish the core outcome measures for these domains for trials in coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Three online consensus workshops were convened to establish outcome measures for the four core domains of respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery. SETTING: International. PATIENTS: About 130 participants (patients, public, and health professionals) from 17 countries attended the three workshops. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respiratory failure, assessed by the need for respiratory support based on the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale, was considered pragmatic, objective, and with broad applicability to various clinical scenarios. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was recommended for multiple organ failure, because it was routinely used in trials and clinical care, well validated, and feasible. The Modified Medical Research Council measure for shortness of breath, with minor adaptations (recall period of 24 hr to capture daily fluctuations and inclusion of activities to ensure relevance and to capture the extreme severity of shortness of breath in people with coronavirus disease 2019), was regarded as fit for purpose for this indication. The recovery measure was developed de novo and defined as the absence of symptoms, resumption of usual daily activities, and return to the previous state of health prior to the illness, using a 5-point Likert scale, and was endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set recommended core outcome measures have content validity and are considered the most feasible and acceptable among existing measures. Implementation of the core outcome measures in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 will ensure consistency and relevance of the evidence to inform decision-making and care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Core Outcomes Set for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The outcomes reported in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 are extremely heterogeneous and of uncertain patient relevance, limiting their applicability for clinical decision-making. The aim of this workshop was to establish a core outcomes set for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Four international online multistakeholder consensus workshops were convened to discuss proposed core outcomes for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019, informed by a survey involving 9,289 respondents from 111 countries. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. The workshop recommendations were used to finalize the core outcomes set. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: Six themes were identified. "Responding to the critical and acute health crisis" reflected the immediate focus on saving lives and preventing life-threatening complications that underpinned the high prioritization of mortality, respiratory failure, and multiple organ failure. "Capturing different settings of care" highlighted the need to minimize the burden on hospitals and to acknowledge outcomes in community settings. "Encompassing the full trajectory and severity of disease" was addressing longer term impacts and the full spectrum of illness (e.g. shortness of breath and recovery). "Distinguishing overlap, correlation and collinearity" meant recognizing that symptoms such as shortness of breath had distinct value and minimizing overlap (e.g. lung function and pneumonia were on the continuum toward respiratory failure). "Recognizing adverse events" refers to the potential harms of new and evolving interventions. "Being cognizant of family and psychosocial wellbeing" reflected the pervasive impacts of coronavirus disease 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery are critically important outcomes to be consistently reported in coronavirus disease 2019 trials.

International Survey to Establish Prioritized Outcomes for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: There are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials. DESIGN: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median ≥ 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals.

Cardiovascular disease and COVID-19: Australian and New Zealand consensus statement.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) pandemic is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) increases the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19, and COVID-19 itself causes serious cardiac sequelae. Strategies to minimise the risk of viral transmission to health care workers and uninfected cardiac patients while prioritising high quality cardiac care are urgently needed. We conducted a rapid literature appraisal and review of key documents identified by the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand Board and Council members, the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons, and key cardiology, surgical and public health opinion leaders. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: Common acute cardiac manifestations of COVID-19 include left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, arrhythmias and acute coronary syndromes. The presence of underlying CVD confers a five- to tenfold higher case fatality rate with COVID-19 disease. Special precautions are needed to avoid viral transmission to this population at risk. Adaptive health care delivery models and resource allocation are required throughout the health care system to address this need. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT: Cardiovascular health services and cardiovascular health care providers need to recognise the increased risk of COVID-19 among CVD patients, upskill in the management of COVID-19 cardiac manifestations, and reorganise and innovate in service delivery models to meet demands. This consensus statement, endorsed by the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons, the National Heart Foundation of Australia and the High Blood Pressure Research Council of Australia summarises important issues and proposes practical approaches to cardiovascular health care delivery to patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection.

CSANZ Position Statement on the Evaluation of Patients Presenting With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndromes During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

A pandemic of Coronavirus-19 disease was declared by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020. The pandemic is expected to place unprecedented demand on health service delivery. This position statement has been developed by the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand to assist clinicians to continue to deliver rapid and safe evaluation of patients presenting with suspected acute cardiac syndrome at this time. The position statement complements, and should be read in conjunction with, the National Heart Foundation of Australia & Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand: Australian Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes 2016: Section 2 'Assessment of Possible Cardiac Chest Pain'.