Outcomes of COVID-19 With the Mayo Clinic Model of Care and Research.

OBJECTIVE: To report the Mayo Clinic experience with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related to patient outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2020, at any of the Mayo Clinic sites. We abstracted pertinent comorbid conditions such as age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index variables, and treatments received. Factors associated with hospitalization and mortality were assessed in univariate and multivariate models. RESULTS: A total of 7891 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection with research authorization on file received care across the Mayo Clinic sites during the study period. Of these, 7217 patients were adults 18 years or older who were analyzed further. A total of 897 (11.4%) patients required hospitalization, and 354 (4.9%) received care in the intensive care unit (ICU). All hospitalized patients were reviewed by a COVID-19 Treatment Review Panel, and 77.5% (695 of 897) of inpatients received a COVID-19-directed therapy. Overall mortality was 1.2% (94 of 7891), with 7.1% (64 of 897) mortality in hospitalized patients and 11.3% (40 of 354) in patients requiring ICU care. CONCLUSION: Mayo Clinic outcomes of patients with COVID-19 infection in the ICU, hospital, and community compare favorably with those reported nationally. This likely reflects the impact of interprofessional multidisciplinary team evaluation, effective leveraging of clinical trials and available treatments, deployment of remote monitoring tools, and maintenance of adequate operating capacity to not require surge adjustments. These best practices can help guide other health care systems with the continuing response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Management of Bloodstream Infections in Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients: To Suppress, or Not to Suppress?

BACKGROUND: Ascertaining involvement of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in a patient presenting with bloodstream infection (BSI) can be challenging, frequently leading to use of chronic antimicrobial suppressive (CAS) therapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy of CAS therapy to prevent relapse of BSI from LVAD and non-LVAD sources. METHODS: We retrospectively screened adults receiving LVAD support from 2010 through 2018, to identify cases of BSI. Bloodstream infection events were classified into LVAD-related, LVAD-associated, and non-LVAD BSIs. RESULTS: A total of 121 episodes of BSI were identified in 80 patients. Of these, 35 cases in the LVAD-related, 14 in the LVAD-associated, and 46 in the non-LVAD BSI groups completed the recommended initial course of therapy and were evaluated for CAS therapy. Chronic antimicrobial suppressive therapy was prescribed in most of the LVAD-related BSI cases (32 of 35, 91.4%) and 12 (37.5%) experienced relapse. Chronic antimicrobial suppressive therapy was not prescribed in a majority of non-LVAD BSI cases (33, 58.9%), and most (31, 93.9%) did not experience relapse. Chronic antimicrobial suppressive therapy was prescribed in 9 of 14 (64.2%) cases of LVAD-associated BSI and none experienced relapse. Of the 5 cases in this group that were managed without CAS, 2 had relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting with LVAD-related BSI are at high risk of relapse. Consequently, CAS therapy may be a reasonable approach in the management of these cases. In contrast, routine use of CAS therapy may be unnecessary for non-LVAD BSIs.

Management and Outcome of Left Ventricular Assist Device Infections in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative management of patients undergoing cardiac transplantation with an infected left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is unclear. METHODS: We retrospectively screened all adults with an LVAD who underwent cardiac transplantation at our institution from 2010 through 2018. We selected all cases of LVAD-specific and LVAD-related infections who were receiving antimicrobial therapy as initial treatment course or chronic suppression at the time of cardiac transplantation. Non-LVAD infections, superficial driveline-infection, or concurrent use of right ventricular assist device or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation device were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 54 cases met study criteria with 18 of 54 (33.6%) classified as LVAD- specific or related infections and 36 of 54 (66.6%) as noninfected. cases of lvad infection had a higher median charlson comorbidity Index score at the time of transplantation compared with noninfected cases (P = .005). Of the 18 cases of infection, 13 of 18 (72.2%) were classified as LVAD-specific and 5 of 18 (27.8%) were classified as LVAD-related. Nine of 13 (69.2%) cases had proven LVAD-specific infections. Antimicrobial therapy was extended posttransplant to treat preceding LVAD-specific infection in all 9 cases (9 of 13, 69.2%) with a median duration of 14 days (interquartile range, 14-28). After LVAD removal, antimicrobial treatment was not continued for preceding LVAD-related infections. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with an LVAD-specific infection were treated with 2 weeks of pathogen-directed therapy postheart transplant without any relapses. For those without LVAD-specific infection or uncomplicated LVAD-related bacteremia who had completed antimicrobial therapy pretransplant, antibiotics were discontinued after standard perioperative prophylaxis and no relapses were observed.