Health Care Utilization and Death in Patients With Heart Failure During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objective: To compare the 1-year health care utilization and mortality in persons living with heart failure (HF) before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Patients and Methods: Residents of a 9-county area in southeastern Minnesota aged 18 years or older with a HF diagnosis on January 1, 2019; January 1, 2020; and January 1, 2021, were identified and followed up for 1-year for vital status, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations. Results: We identified 5631 patients with HF (mean age, 76 years; 53% men) on January 1, 2019, 5996 patients (mean age, 76 years; 52% men) on January 1, 2020, and 6162 patients (mean age, 75 years; 54% men) on January 1, 2021. After adjustment for comorbidities and risk factors, patients with HF in 2020 and patients with HF in 2021 experienced similar risks of mortality compared with those in 2019. After adjustment, patients with HF in 2020 and 2021 were less likely to experience all-cause hospitalizations (2020: rate ratio [RR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.95; 2021: RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97) compared with patients in 2019. Patients with HF in 2020 were also less likely to experience ED visits (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.92). Conclusion: In this large population-based study in southeastern Minnesota, we observed an approximately 10% decrease in hospitalizations among patients with HF in 2020 and 2021 and a 15% decrease in ED visits in 2020 compared with those in 2019. Despite the change in health care utilization, we found no difference in the 1-year mortality between patients with HF in 2020 and those in 2021 compared with those in 2019. It is unknown whether any longer-term consequences will be observed.

Health Care Utilization and Death in Heart Failure Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Objective To compare 1-year health care utilization and mortality between persons living with heart failure (HF) prior to vs. during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Patients and Methods Residents of a 9-county area in southeastern Minnesota ≥18 years with a HF diagnosis on January 1, 2019, January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2021, were identified and followed 1-year for vital status, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations. Results We identified 5631 patients with HF (mean age 76, 53% male) on January 1, 2019, 5996 (mean age 76, 52% male) on January 1, 2020, and 6162 (mean age 75, 54% male) on January 1, 2021. After adjustment for comorbidities and risk factors, HF patients in 2020 had a similar risk of mortality compared to patients in 2019, as did patients in 2021. After adjustment, HF patients in 2020 and 2021 were less likely to have all-cause hospitalizations (2020 HR, 0.88;95% CI, 0.81-0.95;2021 HR, 0.90;95% CI, 0.83-0.97) compared to patients in 2019. HF patients in 2020 were also less likely to have ED visits (HR, 0.85;95% CI, 0.80-0.92). Conclusion In a large population-based study in southeastern MN, we observed an approximately 10% decrease in hospitalizations among patients with HF in 2020 and 2021, and a 15% decrease in ED visits in 2020 compared to 2019. Despite the change in health care utilization, we found no difference in 1-year mortality between patients with HF in 2020 or 2021. It is unknown if any longer-term consequences will be observed.

An artificial intelligence approach for predicting death or organ failure after hospitalization for COVID-19: development of a novel risk prediction tool and comparisons with ISARIC-4C, CURB-65, qSOFA, and MEWS scoring systems.

BACKGROUND: We applied machine learning (ML) algorithms to generate a risk prediction tool [Collaboration for Risk Evaluation in COVID-19 (CORE-COVID-19)] for predicting the composite of 30-day endotracheal intubation, intravenous administration of vasopressors, or death after COVID-19 hospitalization and compared it with the existing risk scores. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 from March 2020 to February 2021. Patients, each with 92 variables, and one composite outcome underwent feature selection process to identify the most predictive variables. Selected variables were modeled to build four ML algorithms (artificial neural network, support vector machine, gradient boosting machine, and Logistic regression) and an ensemble model to generate a CORE-COVID-19 model to predict the composite outcome and compared with existing risk prediction scores. The net benefit for clinical use of each model was assessed by decision curve analysis. RESULTS: Of 1796 patients, 278 (15%) patients reached primary outcome. Six most predictive features were identified. Four ML algorithms achieved comparable discrimination (P > 0.827) with c-statistics ranged 0.849-0.856, calibration slopes 0.911-1.173, and Hosmer-Lemeshow P > 0.141 in validation dataset. These 6-variable fitted CORE-COVID-19 model revealed a c-statistic of 0.880, which was significantly (P < 0.04) higher than ISARIC-4C (0.751), CURB-65 (0.735), qSOFA (0.676), and MEWS (0.674) for outcome prediction. The net benefit of the CORE-COVID-19 model was greater than that of the existing risk scores. CONCLUSION: The CORE-COVID-19 model accurately assigned 88% of patients who potentially progressed to 30-day composite events and revealed improved performance over existing risk scores, indicating its potential utility in clinical practice.

Incidence of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection in Older Adults Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Little is known about the burden and outcomes of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-positive acute respiratory infection (ARI) in community-dwelling older adults. Objective: To assess the incidence of RSV-positive ARI before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to assess outcomes for RSV-positive ARI in older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a community-based cohort study of adults residing in southeast Minnesota that followed up with 2325 adults aged 50 years or older for 2 RSV seasons (2019-2021) to assess the incidence of RSV-positive ARI. The study assessed outcomes at 2 to 4 weeks, 6 to 7 months, and 12 to 13 months after RSV-positive ARI. Exposure: RSV-positive and -negative ARI. Main Outcomes and Measures: RSV status was the main study outcome. Incidence and attack rates of RSV-positive ARI were calculated during each RSV season, including before (October 2019 to April 2020) and during (October 2020 to April 2021) COVID-19 pandemic, and further calculated during non-RSV season (May to September 2021) for assessing impact of COVID-19. The self-reported quality of life (QOL) by Short-Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36) and physical functional measures (eg, 6-minute walk and spirometry) at each time point was assessed. Results: In this study of 2325 participants, the median (range) age of study participants was 67 (50-98) years, 1380 (59%) were female, and 2240 (96%) were non-Hispanic White individuals. The prepandemic incidence rate of RSV-positive ARI was 48.6 (95% CI, 36.9-62.9) per 1000 person-years with a 2.50% (95% CI, 1.90%-3.21%) attack rate. No RSV-positive ARI case was identified during the COVID-19 pandemic RSV season. Incidence of 10.2 (95% CI, 4.1-21.1) per 1000 person-years and attack rate of 0.42%; (95% CI, 0.17%-0.86%) were observed during the summer of 2021. Based on prepandemic RSV season results, participants with RSV-positive ARI (vs matched RSV-negative ARI) reported significantly lower QOL adjusted mean difference (limitations due to physical health, -16.7 [95% CI, -31.8 to -1.8]; fatigue, -8.4 [95% CI, -14.3 to -2.4]; and difficulty in social functioning, -11.9 [95% CI, -19.8 to -4.0] within 2 to 4 weeks after RSV-positive ARI [ie, short-term outcome]). Compared with participants with RSV-negative ARI, those with RSV-positive ARI also had lower QOL (fatigue: -4.0 [95% CI, -8.5 to -1.3]; difficulty in social functioning, -5.8 [95% CI, -10.3 to -1.3]; and limitation due to emotional problem, -7.0 [95% CI, -12.7 to -1.3] at 6 to 7 months after RSV-positive ARI [intermediate-term outcome]; fatigue, -4.4 [95% CI, -7.3 to -1.5]; difficulty in social functioning, -5.2 [95% CI, -8.7 to -1.7] and limitation due to emotional problem, -5.7 [95% CI, -10.7 to -0.6] at 12-13 months after RSV-positive ARI [ie, long-term outcomes]) independent of age, sex, race and/or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and high-risk comorbidities. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the burden of RSV-positive ARI in older adults during the pre-COVID-19 period was substantial. After a reduction of RSV-positive ARI incidence from October 2020 to April 2021, RSV-positive ARI re-emerged during the summer of 2021. RSV-positive ARI was associated with significant long-term lower QOL beyond the short-term lower QOL in older adults.

Telehealth Use and Hospital Readmission Rates in Long-term Care Facilities in Southeastern Minnesota During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objective: To determine whether the length of a telehealth visit predicted the risk of hospital readmission at 30 days in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) in southeastern Minnesota during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in SNFs located in southeastern Minnesota from March 1, 2020 through July 15, 2020. The primary outcomes included hospitalization within 30 days of a video visit, and the secondary outcome was the number of provider video visits during the stay at an SNF. The primary predictor was the duration of video visits, and we collected the data regarding other known predictors of hospitalization. We used the χ2 test for categorical variables and multivariate conditional logistic regression. Results: We included 722 patients (mean age, 82.8 years [SD, 10.8 years]). Of those, 76 SNF residents (10.5%) were rehospitalized within 30 days. The average length of a video visit was 34.0 minutes (SD, 22.7 minutes) in admitted residents compared with 30.0 minutes (SD, 15.9 minutes) in nonadmitted residents. After full adjustment, there was no difference in the video visit duration between admitted and nonadmitted residents (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.03). The number of subsequent provider video visits was 2.26 (SD, 1.9) in admitted residents vs 1.58 (SD, 1.6), which was significant after adjustment (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02-1.34). Conclusion: There was no difference in the length of video visits for hospitalized SNF residents vs those who were not hospitalized within 30 days of a video visit. There were more visits in residents with hospital readmission. This may reflect the acuity of care for patients requiring a hospital stay. More research is needed to determine the ideal use of telehealth during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in the postacute and long-term care environment.

Minnesota COVID-19 Lockdowns: The Effect on Acute Myocardial Infarctions and Revascularizations in the Community.

OBJECTIVE: To study associations between the Minnesota coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mitigation strategies on incidence rates of acute myocardial infarction (MI) or revascularization among residents of Southeast Minnesota. METHODS: Using the Rochester Epidemiology Project, all adult residents of a nine-county region of Southeast Minnesota who had an incident MI or revascularization between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, were identified. Events were defined as primary in-patient diagnosis of MI or undergoing revascularization. We estimated age- and sex-standardized incidence rates and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) stratified by key factors, comparing 2020 to 2015-2019. We also calculated IRRs by periods corresponding to Minnesota's COVID-19 mitigation timeline: "Pre-lockdown" (January 1-March 11, 2020), "First lockdown" (March 12-May 31, 2020), "Between lockdowns" (June 1-November 20, 2020), and "Second lockdown" (November 21-December 31, 2020). RESULTS: The incidence rate in 2020 was 32% lower than in 2015-2019 (24 vs 36 events/100,000 person-months; IRR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.62-0.74). Incidence rates were lower in 2020 versus 2015-2019 during the first lockdown (IRR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.66), in between lockdowns (IRR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.79), and during the second lockdown (IRR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.72). April had the lowest IRR (IRR 0.48; 95% CI, 0.34-0.68), followed by August (IRR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.40-0.76) and December (IRR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.41-0.77). Similar declines were observed across sex and all age groups, and in both urban and rural residents. CONCLUSION: Mitigation measures for COVID-19 were associated with a reduction in hospitalizations for acute MI and revascularization in Southeast Minnesota. The reduction was most pronounced during the lockdown periods but persisted between lockdowns.

Adherence to Public Health Measures Mitigates the Risk of COVID-19 Infection in Older Adults: A Community-Based Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence and characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases during the reopening period in older adults, given that little is known about the prevalence of COVID-19 after the stay-at-home order was lifted in the United States, nor the actual effects of adherence to recommended public health measures (RPHM) on the risk of COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study nested in a parent prospective cohort study, which followed a population-based sample of 2325 adults 50 years and older residing in southeast Minnesota to assess the incidence of viral infections. Participants were instructed to self-collect both nasal and oropharyngeal swabs, which were tested by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction-based severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) assay between May 8, 2020, and June, 30, 2020. We assessed the prevalence of COVID-19 cases and characteristics of study subjects. RESULTS: A total of 1505 eligible subjects participated in the study whose mean age was 68 years, with 885 (59%) women, 32 (2%) racial/ethnic minorities, and 906 (60%) with high-risk conditions for influenza. The prevalence of other Coronaviridae (human coronavirus [HCoV]-229E, HCoV-NL63, and HCoV-OC43) during the 2019 to 2020 flu season was 109 (7%), and none tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Almost all participants reported adhering to the RPHM (1,488 [99%] for social distancing, 1,438 [96%] for wearing mask in a public space, 1,476 [98%] for hand hygiene, and 1,441 (96%) for staying home mostly). Eighty-six percent of participants resided in a single-family home. CONCLUSION: We did not identify SARS-COV-2 infection in our study cohort. The combination of participants' behavior in following the RPHM and their living environment may considerably mitigate the risk of COVID-19.