Safety of SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, and GLP-1 receptor agonists in US veterans with and without chronic kidney disease: a population-based study.

Background: We examined the real-world comparative safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) vs. other newer anti-glycemic medications (dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors [DPP4i], glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists [GLP1a]) in patients with and without chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods: Among US Veterans with diabetes receiving care from the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system over 2004-19, we identified incident users of SGLT2i vs. DPP4i vs. GLP1a monotherapy. In analyses stratified by CKD status, defined by estimated glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria, we examined associations of SGLT2i vs. DPP4i vs. GLP1a use with risk of infection-related (primary outcome) and genitourinary infection hospitalizations (secondary outcome) using multivariable Cox models. Findings: Among 92,269 patients who met eligibility criteria, 52% did not have CKD, whereas 48% had CKD. In the overall and non-CKD cohorts, compared to DPP4i use, SGLT2i use was associated with lower infection-related hospitalization risk (HRs [95% CIs] 0.74 [0.67-0.81] and 0.77 [0.67, 0.88], respectively), whereas GLP1a use demonstrated comparable risk. However, in the CKD cohort SGLT2i and GLP1a use were each associated with lower risk (HRs [95% CIs] 0.70 [0.61, 0.81] and 0.91 [0.84, 0.99], respectively). Propensity score-matched analyses showed similar findings in the non-CKD and CKD cohorts. In the overall, non-CKD, and CKD cohorts, SGLT2i use was associated with lower genitourinary infection hospitalization risk whereas GLP1a use showed comparable risk vs. DPP4i use. Interpretation: In a national cohort of Veterans with diabetes, compared with DPP4i use, SGLT2i use was associated with lower infection-related and genitourinary infection hospitalization risk. Funding: VA Health Services Research and Development, USA.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Workup of Pleural Effusion or Pleural Disease.

Pleural effusions are categorized as transudative or exudative, with transudative effusions usually reflecting the sequala of a systemic etiology and exudative effusions usually resulting from a process localized to the pleura. Common causes of transudative pleural effusions include congestive heart failure, cirrhosis, and renal failure, whereas exudative effusions are typically due to infection, malignancy, or autoimmune disorders. This document summarizes appropriateness guidelines for imaging in four common clinical scenarios in patients with known or suspected pleural effusion or pleural disease. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Implementation of Inpatient Electronic Consultations During the COVID-19 Crisis and Its Sustainability Beyond the Pandemic: Quality Improvement Study.

BACKGROUND: Limiting in-person contact was a key strategy for controlling the spread of the highly infectious novel coronavirus (COVID-19). To protect patients and staff from the risk of infection while providing continued access to necessary health care services, we implemented a new electronic consultation (e-consult) service that allowed referring providers to receive subspecialty consultations for patients who are hospitalized and do not require in-person evaluation by the specialist. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the impact of implementing e-consults in the inpatient setting to reduce avoidable face-to-face referrals during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This quality improvement study evaluated all inpatient e-consults ordered from July 2020 to December 2022 at the University of California Irvine Medical Center. The impact of e-consults was assessed by evaluating use (eg, number of e-consults ordered), e-consult response times, and outcome of the e-consult requests (eg, resolved electronically or converted to the in-person evaluation of patient). RESULTS: There were 1543 inpatient e-consults ordered across 11 participating specialties. A total of 53.5% (n=826) of requests were addressed electronically, without the need for a formal in-person evaluation of the patient. The median time between ordering an e-consult and a specialist documenting recommendations in an e-consult note was 3.7 (IQR 1.3-8.2) hours across all specialties, contrasted with 7.3 (IQR 3.6-22.0) hours when converted to an in-person consult (P<.001). The monthly volume of e-consult requests increased, coinciding with surges of COVID-19 cases in California. After the peaks of the COVID-19 crisis subsided, the use of inpatient e-consults persisted at a rate well above the precrisis levels. CONCLUSIONS: An inpatient e-consult service was successfully implemented, resulting in fewer unnecessary face-to-face consultations and significant reductions in the response times for consults requested on patients who are hospitalized and do not require an in-person evaluation. Thus, e-consults provided timely, efficient delivery of inpatient consultation services for appropriate problems while minimizing the risk of direct transmission of the COVID-19 virus between health care providers and patients. The service also demonstrated its value as a tool for effective inpatient care coordination beyond the peaks of the pandemic leading to the sustainability of service and value.

Stethoscope barriers narrative review; It's time for a strategy unfriendly to multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs).

The current standard of stethoscope hygiene doesn't eliminate the transmission of harmful pathogens, including multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs). In the era of the increasing prevalence of MDRO infections, the use of new systems providing touch free barriers may improve patient safety versus traditional stethoscope cleaning practices with chemical agents. Our purpose was to provide a narrative literature review regarding barriers as an improvement over the current standard of care for stethoscope hygiene. Searching PubMed, articles were identified if they were in English and published after 1990, using the search term "stethoscope barrier", or if they were from a previously published stethoscope hygiene article using "author's name + stethoscope". Included articles evaluated or discussed stethoscope barriers. Of 28 manuscripts identified, 15 met the inclusion criteria. Barriers were considered superior to alternatives if they were single use, disposable, applied in a touch free fashion, were impervious to pathogens, provided an aseptic patient contact, and were acoustically invisible. Use of a practitioner's personal stethoscope with a disposable diaphragm barrier should be recommended as a new standard of care as this represents an improvement in patient safety and patient experience when compared to the disposable stethoscope or isopropyl alcohol stethoscope diaphragm cleaning.

Efficacy of oral 20-hydroxyecdysone (BIO101), a MAS receptor activator, in adults with severe COVID-19 (COVA): a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 trial.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 binding to ACE2 is potentially associated with severe pneumonia due to COVID-19. The aim of the study was to test whether Mas-receptor activation by 20-hydroxyecdysone (BIO101) could restore the Renin-Angiotensin System equilibrium and limit the frequency of respiratory failure and mortality in adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19. Methods: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2/3 trial. Randomization: 1:1 oral BIO101 (350 mg BID) or placebo, up to 28 days or until an endpoint was reached. Primary endpoint: mortality or respiratory failure requiring high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation. Key secondary endpoint: hospital discharge following recovery (ClinicalTrials.gov Number, NCT04472728). Findings: Due to low recruitment the planned sample size of 310 was not reached and 238 patients were randomized between August 26, 2020 and March 8, 2022. In the modified ITT population (233 patients; 126 BIO101 and 107 placebo), respiratory failure or early death by day 28 was 11.4% lower in the BIO101 (13.5%) than in the placebo (24.3%) group, (p = 0.0426). At day 28, proportions of patients discharged following recovery were 80.1%, and 70.9% in the BIO101 and placebo group respectively, (adjusted difference 11.0%, 95% CI [-0.4%, 22.4%], p = 0.0586). Hazard Ratio for time to death over 90 days: 0.554 (95% CI [0.285, 1.077]), a 44.6% mortality reduction in the BIO101 group (not statistically significant). Treatment emergent adverse events of respiratory failure were more frequent in the placebo group. Interpretation: BIO101 significantly reduced the risk of death or respiratory failure supporting its use in adults hospitalized with severe respiratory symptoms due to COVID-19. Funding: Biophytis.

Improving Nurse-Physician Bedside Communication Using a Patient Experience Quality Improvement Pilot Project at an Academic Medical Center.

Introduction  Patient experience is a crucial aspect of healthcare delivery, and it encompasses various elements that contribute to a patient's perception of the care they receive. Patient satisfaction and patient experience are related but distinct concepts. Patient experience focuses on whether specific aspects of care occurred, while patient satisfaction gauges whether patient expectations were met. It goes beyond mere satisfaction and delves into the broader aspects of how patients interact with the healthcare system and the quality of those interactions, with health plans, doctors, nurses, and staff in various healthcare facilities. Other aspects highly valued by patients include elements such as timely access to care and information, good communication with the healthcare team, and friendly staff. Patient experience can influence both the healthcare and financial outcomes of healthcare facilities. It is well understood that positive patient experiences may lead to better care adherence, improved clinical outcomes, enhanced patient safety, and better care coordination. Payers, both public and private, have recognized the importance of patient experience. Improving patient experience benefits healthcare facilities financially by strengthening customer loyalty, building a positive reputation, increasing referrals, and reducing medical malpractice risk and staff turnover.  Methodology A multidisciplinary retrospective quality improvement initiative was initiated to effectively improve nurse-physician communication and organizational outcomes in several hospital units. Results Using an innovative staff-developed and driven acronym, IMOMW (I'm on my way), the study demonstrated significant positive outcomes such as increased Epic documentation (Epic Systems Corporation, Verona, Wisconsin, United States) of physician and nursing rounding by 13%, a 10.5% rise in recommend facility net promoter score (NPS) patient experience survey scores, 13.4% increase in physician and nurse team communication, 5.4% increase in nursing communication, and a 5.3% increase in physician communication. Moreover, pilot units outperformed the control group consisting of medical-surgical units located in newer portions of the hospital. Conclusion This quality improvement study demonstrates improved interdisciplinary nurse-physician communication, Epic documentation, and patient experience scores. Further investigation is necessary to better understand the specific factors and/or processes that influence the sustainability of interventions that improve nurse-physician communication and patient experience.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in COVID-19 Treatments in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Racial and ethnic disparities in patient outcomes following COVID-19 exist, in part, due to factors involving healthcare delivery. The aim of the study was to characterize disparities in the administration of evidence-based COVID-19 treatments among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: Using a large, US hospital database, initiation of COVID-19 treatments was compared among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between May 2020 and April 2022 according to patient race and ethnicity. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine the effect of race and ethnicity on the likelihood of receiving COVID-19 treatments, stratified by baseline supplemental oxygen requirement. RESULTS: The identified population comprised 317,918 White, 76,715 Black, 9297 Asian, and 50,821 patients of other or unknown race. There were 329,940 non-Hispanic, 74,199 Hispanic, and 50,622 patients of unknown ethnicity. White patients were more likely to receive COVID-19 treatments, and specifically corticosteroids, compared to Black, Asian, and other patients (COVID-19 treatment: 87% vs. 81% vs. 85% vs. 84%, corticosteroids: 85% vs. 79% vs. 82% vs. 82%). After covariate adjustment, White patients were significantly more likely to receive COVID-19 treatments than Black patients across all levels of supplemental oxygen requirement. No clear trend in COVID-19 treatments according to ethnicity (Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic) was observed. CONCLUSION: There were important racial disparities in inpatient COVID-19 treatment initiation, including the undertreatment of Black patients and overtreatment of White patients. Our new findings reveal the actual magnitude of this issue in routine clinical practice to clinicians, policymakers, and guideline developers. This is crucial to ensuring equitable and appropriate access to evidence-based therapies.

Treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with lower likelihood of 30-day readmission: a retrospective observational study.

Aim: This observational study investigated the association between remdesivir treatment during hospitalization for COVID-19 and 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across different variants time periods. Patients & methods: Hospitalization records for adult patients discharged from a COVID-19 hospitalization between 1 May 2020 to 30 April 2022 were extracted from the US PINC AI Healthcare Database. Likelihood of 30-day readmission was compared among remdesivir-treated and nonremdesivir-treated patients using multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, corticosteroid treatment, Charlson comorbidity index and intensive care unit stay during the COVID-19 hospitalization. Analyses were stratified by maximum supplemental oxygen requirement and variant time period (pre-Delta, Delta and Omicron). Results: Of the 440,601 patients discharged alive after a COVID-19 hospitalization, 248,785 (56.5%) patients received remdesivir. Overall, remdesivir patients had a 30-day COVID-19-related readmission rate of 3.0% and all-cause readmission rate of 6.3% compared with 5.4% and 9.1%, respectively, for patients who did not receive remdesivir during their COVID-19 hospitalization. After adjusting for demographics and clinical characteristics, remdesivir treatment was associated with significantly lower odds of 30-day COVID-19-related readmission (odds ratio 0.60 [95% confidence interval: 0.58-0.62]), and all-cause readmission (0.73 [0.72-0.75]). Significantly lower odds of 30-day readmission in remdesivir-treated patients was observed across all variant time periods. Conclusion: Treating patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with a statistically significant reduction in 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across variant time periods. These findings indicate that the clinical benefit of remdesivir may extend beyond the COVID-19 hospitalization.

Effectiveness, Safety, and Costs of Thromboprophylaxis with Enoxaparin or Unfractionated Heparin Among Medical Inpatients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease or Heart Failure.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure (HF) are risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) help prevent hospital-associated VTE, but few studies have compared them in COPD or HF. Objectives: To compare effectiveness, safety, and costs of enoxaparin vs UFH thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients with COPD or HF. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included adults with COPD or HF from the Premier PINC AI Healthcare Database. Included patients received prophylactic-dose enoxaparin or UFH during a >6-day index hospitalization (the first visit/admission that met selection criteria during the study period) between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2016. Multivariable regression models assessed independent associations between exposures and outcomes. Hospital costs were adjusted to 2017 US dollars. Patients were followed 90 days postdischarge (readmission period). Results: In the COPD cohort, 114 174 (69%) patients received enoxaparin and 51 011 (31%) received UFH. Among patients with COPD, enoxaparin recipients had 21%, 37%, and 10% lower odds of VTE, major bleeding, and in-hospital mortality during index admission, and 17% and 50% lower odds of major bleeding and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) during the readmission period, compared with UFH recipients (all P <.006). In the HF cohort, 58 488 (58%) patients received enoxaparin and 42 726 (42%) received UFH. Enoxaparin recipients had 24% and 10% lower odds of major bleeding and in-hospital mortality during index admission, and 13%, 11%, and 51% lower odds of VTE, major bleeding, and HIT during readmission (all P <.04) compared with UFH recipients. Enoxaparin recipients also had significantly lower total hospital costs during index admission (mean reduction per patient: COPD, 1280;HF,2677) and readmission (COPD, 379;HF,1024). Among inpatients with COPD or HF, thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin vs UFH was associated with significantly lower odds of bleeding, mortality, and HIT, and with lower hospital costs. Conclusions: This study suggests that thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin is associated with better outcomes and lower costs among medical inpatients with COPD or HF based on real-world evidence. Our findings underscore the importance of assessing clinical outcomes and side effects when evaluating cost-effectiveness.

Right atrial pressure torsades de pointes.

A 39-year-old man with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy presented for routine right heart catheterization.

Exploring Competency-Based Medical Education Through the Lens of the UME-GME Transition: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: Competency-based medical education (CBME) represents a shift to a paradigm with shared definitions, explicit outcomes, and assessments of competence. The groundwork has been laid to ensure all learners achieve the desired outcomes along the medical education continuum using the principles of CBME. However, this continuum spans the major transition from undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education (GME) that is also evolving. This study explores the experiences of medical educators working to use CBME assessments in the context of the UME-GME transition and their perspectives on the existing challenges. METHOD: This study used a constructivist-oriented qualitative methodology. In-depth, semistructured interviews of UME and GME leaders in CBME were performed between February 2019 and January 2020 via Zoom. When possible, each interviewee was interviewed by 2 team members, one with UME and one with GME experience, which allowed follow-up questions to be pursued that reflected the perspectives of both UME and GME educators more fully. A multistep iterative process of thematic analysis was used to analyze the transcripts and identify patterns across interviews. RESULTS: The 9 interviewees represented a broad swath of UME and GME leadership positions, though most had an internal medicine training background. Analysis identified 4 overarching themes: mistrust (a trust chasm exists between UME and GME); misaligned goals (the residency selection process is antithetical to CBME); inadequate communication (communication regarding competence is infrequent, often unidirectional, and lacks a shared language); and inflexible timeframes (current training timeframes do not account for individual learners' competency trajectories). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the mutual desire and commitment to move to CBME across the continuum, mistrust, misaligned goals, inadequate communication, and inflexible timeframes confound such efforts of individual schools and programs. If current efforts to improve the UME-GME transition address the themes identified, educators may be more successful implementing CBME along the continuum.

The Influence of Social Determinants on Receiving Outpatient Treatment with Monoclonal Antibodies, Disease Risk, and Effectiveness for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Limited research has studied the influence of social determinants of health (SDoH) on the receipt, disease risk, and subsequent effectiveness of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (nMAbs) for outpatient treatment of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of SDoH variables on receiving nMAb treatments and the risk of a poor COVID-19 outcome, as well as nMAb treatment effectiveness across SDoH subgroups. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study utilizing electronic health record data from four health systems. SDoH variables analyzed included race, ethnicity, insurance, marital status, Area Deprivation Index, and population density. PARTICIPANTS: COVID-19 patients who met at least one emergency use authorization criterion for nMAb treatment. MAIN MEASURE: We used binary logistic regression to examine the influence of SDoH variables on receiving nMAb treatments and risk of a poor outcome from COVID-19 and marginal structural models to study treatment effectiveness. RESULTS: The study population included 25,241 (15.1%) nMAb-treated and 141,942 (84.9%) non-treated patients. Black or African American patients were less likely to receive treatment than white non-Hispanic patients (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.82-0.91). Patients who were on Medicaid, divorced or widowed, living in rural areas, or living in areas with the highest Area Deprivation Index (most vulnerable) had lower odds of receiving nMAb treatment, but a higher risk of a poor outcome. For example, compared to patients on private insurance, Medicaid patients had 0.89 (95% CI = 0.84-0.93) times the odds of receiving nMAb treatment, but 1.18 (95% CI = 1.13-1.24) times the odds of a poor COVID-19 outcome. Age, comorbidities, and COVID-19 vaccination status had a stronger influence on risk of a poor outcome than SDoH variables. nMAb treatment benefited all SDoH subgroups with lower rates of 14-day hospitalization and 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: Disparities existed in receiving nMAbs within SDoH subgroups despite the benefit of treatment across subgroups.

Patient Experiences with Clostridioides difficile Infection and Its Treatment: A Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a globally recognized cause of morbidity and mortality with devastating effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The objective of this study was to conduct the first systematic literature review (SLR) to assess the humanistic burden of CDI on patient experiences, including HRQoL and related constructs, and attitudes towards treatment alternatives. METHODS: An SLR was conducted to identify peer-reviewed articles that assessed CDI, including recurrent CDI (rCDI), and patient-reported outcomes or HRQoL. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Collaboration abstracting services were used to conduct literature searches from 2010 to 2021 in the English language. This SLR was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria. RESULTS: Of 511 identified articles, 21 met study inclusion criteria. The SLR showed CDI has a devastating impact on patients' overall HRQoL that continues well beyond infection clearance. The impact of CDI on physical, emotional, social, and professional well-being rivaled abdominal symptoms of uncontrollable diarrhea, being worse for patients with rCDI. Patients with CDI feel isolated, depressed, lonely, and continue to be frightened of recurrences as well as being contagious to others. Most believe that they will never be free of CDI. CONCLUSION: CDI and rCDI are debilitating conditions affecting physical, psychological, social, and professional functioning of patients' HRQoL, even long after the event has occurred. The results of this SLR suggest that CDI is a devastating condition in need of better prevention strategies, improved psychological support, and treatments that address the microbiome disruption to break the cycle of recurrence. Additional safe and effective therapies are needed to address this unmet medical need.

Clostridioides difficile infection is a gut bacterial infection that can happen after a person has taken antibiotics to treat another infection. C. difficile infection can lead to other medical problems and death. This review of the literature aimed to understand how C. difficile infection (first, previous, and repeat occurrences), the severe diarrhea it causes, and available treatments (both old and new) for C. difficile infection can impact a person's quality of life, daily self-care activities, and attitudes toward treatment. Results from this review of 21 studies showed that C. difficile infection has a negative impact on the quality of life of patients, affecting their physical, mental, and social health. C. difficile infection also disrupted the professional lives of patients and their ability to perform work activities. This negative effect continued over time, long after the infection had cleared because patients feared it would come back again. Treating C. difficile infection improved quality of life. Findings suggest that C. difficile infection is a devastating condition that needs better prevention strategies, improved psychological support, and treatments that stop the cycle of repeated gut infections by restoring good gut flora.

Effectiveness, safety, and costs of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin in inpatients with obesity.

Background: Obesity is a frequent and significant risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among hospitalized adults. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis can help prevent VTE, but real-world effectiveness, safety, and costs among inpatients with obesity are unknown. Objective: This study aims to compare clinical and economic outcomes among adult medical inpatients with obesity who received thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin (UFH). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the PINC AI™ Healthcare Database, which covers more than 850 hospitals in the United States. Patients included were ≥18 years old, had a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis of obesity [International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 diagnosis codes 278.01, 278.02, and 278.03; ICD-10 diagnosis codes E66.0x, E66.1, E66.2, E66.8, and E66.9], received ≥1 thromboprophylactic dose of enoxaparin (≤40 mg/day) or UFH (≤15,000 IU/day) during the index hospitalization, stayed ≥6 days in the hospital, and were discharged between 01 January 2010, and 30 September 2016. We excluded surgical patients, patients with pre-existing VTE, and those who received higher (treatment-level) doses or multiple types of anticoagulants. Multivariable regression models were constructed to compare enoxaparin with UFH based on the incidence of VTE, pulmonary embolism (PE)---------related mortality, overall in-hospital mortality, major bleeding, treatment costs, and total hospitalization costs during the index hospitalization and the 90 days after index discharge (readmission period). Results: Among 67,193 inpatients who met the selection criteria, 44,367 (66%) and 22,826 (34%) received enoxaparin and UFH, respectively, during their index hospitalization. Demographic, visit-related, clinical, and hospital characteristics differed significantly between groups. Enoxaparin during index hospitalization was associated with 29%, 73%, 30%, and 39% decreases in the adjusted odds of VTE, PE-related mortality, in-hospital mortality, and major bleeding, respectively, compared with UFH (all p < 0.002). Compared with UFH, enoxaparin was associated with significantly lower total hospitalization costs during the index hospitalization and readmission periods. Conclusions: Among adult inpatients with obesity, primary thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin compared with UFH was associated with significantly lower risks of in-hospital VTE, major bleeding, PE-related mortality, overall in-hospital mortality, and hospitalization costs.

Rationale and design of CONTINUITY: a Phase 4 randomized controlled trial of continued post-discharge sodium zirconium cyclosilicate treatment versus standard of care for hyperkalemia in chronic kidney disease.

Background: Individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) hospitalized with hyperkalemia are at risk of hyperkalemia recurrence and re-hospitalization. We present the rationale and design of CONTINUITY, a study to examine the efficacy of continuing sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC)-an oral, highly selective potassium (K+) binder-compared with standard of care (SoC) on maintaining normokalemia and reducing re-hospitalization and resource utilization among participants with CKD hospitalized with hyperkalemia. Methods: This Phase 4, randomized, open-label, multicenter study will enroll adults with Stage 3b-5 CKD and/or estimated glomerular filtration rate <45 mL/min/1.73 m2, within 3 months of eligibility screening, hospitalized with a serum potassium (sK+) level of >5.0-≤6.5 mmol/L, without ongoing K+ binder treatment. The study will include an in-hospital phase, where participants receive SZC for 2-21 days, and an outpatient (post-discharge) phase. At discharge, participants with sK+ 3.5-5.0 mmol/L will be randomized (1:1) to SZC or SoC and monitored for 180 days. The primary endpoint is the occurrence of normokalemia at 180 days. Secondary outcomes include incidence and number of hospital admissions or emergency department visits both with hyperkalemia as a contributing factor, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor down-titration. The safety and tolerability of SZC will be evaluated.Ethics approval has been received from all relevant ethics committees. Enrollment started March 2022 and the estimated study end date is December 2023. Conclusions: This study will assess the potential of SZC versus SoC in managing people with CKD and hyperkalemia post-discharge. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05347693; EudraCT: 2021-003527-14, registered on 19 October 2021.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Management and Outcomes of Acute Cholecystitis at US Academic Centers.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had wide-ranging effects on management of medical conditions. Many hospitals encountered staffing shortages, limited operating room availability, and shortage of hospital beds. There was increased psychological stress and fear of contracting COVID-19 infection, leading to delay in medical care for various disease processes. The objective of this study was to examine changes in management and outcomes attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic in patients presenting with acute calculus cholecystitis at US academic centers. STUDY DESIGN: Using the Vizient database, patients with the diagnosis of acute calculus cholecystitis who underwent intervention during the 15 months before the pandemic (prepandemic, October 2018 to December 2019) were compared with 15 months during the pandemic (pandemic, March 2020 to May 2021). Outcomes measures included demographics, characteristics, type of intervention, length of stay, in-hospital mortality, and direct cost. RESULTS: There were 146,459 patients with acute calculus cholecystitis identified (prepandemic: 74,605 vs pandemic: 71,854). Patients in the pandemic group were more likely to undergo medical management (29.4% vs 31.8%; p < 0.001) or percutaneous cholecystostomy tube placement (21.5% vs 18%; p < 0.001) and less likely to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy (69.8% vs 73.0%; p < 0.001). Patients in the pandemic group who underwent procedural intervention had longer length of stay (6.5 days vs 5.9 days; p < 0.001), higher in-hospital death (3.1% vs 2.3%; p < 0.001), and higher cost ($14,609 vs $12,570; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of patients with acute calculus cholecystitis, there were distinct changes in the management and outcomes of patients due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes in the type of intervention and outcomes are likely related to delayed presentation with increases in the severity and complexity of the disease.

Analysis of Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19 Compared to Non-COVID Etiologies.

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed the characteristics and outcomes of veno-venous (V-V) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 versus non-COVID causes at US academic centers. BACKGROUND DATA: V-V ECMO support has been utilized for COVID-19 patients with ARDS since the beginning of the pandemic. Mortality for ECMO in COVID-19 has been reported to be high but similar to reported mortality for ECMO support for non-COVID causes of respiratory failure. METHODS: Using ICD-10 codes, data of patients who underwent V-V ECMO for COVID-19 ARDS were compared with patients who underwent V-V ECMO for non-COVID causes between April 2020 and December 2022. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome measures included length of stay and direct cost. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was performed to analyze differences in mortality between COVID and non-COVID groups, adjusting for other important risk factors (age, sex, and race/ethnicity). RESULTS: We identified and compared 6382 patients who underwent V-V ECMO for non-COVID causes to 6040 patients who underwent V-V ECMO for COVID-19. There was a significantly higher proportion of patients aged ≥ 65 years who underwent V-V ECMO in the non-COVID group compared with the COVID group (19.8% vs. 3.7%, respectively, P <0.001). Compared with patients who underwent V-V ECMO for non-COVID causes, patients who underwent V-V ECMO for COVID had increased in-hospital mortality (47.6% vs. 34.5%, P <0.001), length of stay (46.5±41.1 days vs. 40.6±46.1, P <0.001), and direct hospitalization cost ($207,022±$208,842 vs. $198,508±205,510, P =0.02). Compared with the non-COVID group, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for in-hospital mortality in the COVID group was 2.03 (95% CI: 1.87-2.20, P <0.001). In-hospital mortality for V-V ECMO in COVID-19 improved during the study time period (50.3% in 2020, 48.6% in 2021, and 37.3% in 2022). However, there was a precipitous drop in the ECMO case volume for COVID starting in quarter 2 of 2022. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide analysis, COVID-19 patients with ARDS requiring V-V ECMO support had increased mortality compared with patients who underwent V-V ECMO for non-COVID etiologies.