Clinical Outcomes among Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Who Received Baricitinib or Tocilizumab in Addition to Standard of Care.

COVID-19 infection is caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SAR-CoV-2). This novel virus has transformed into different resistant variants (e.g., omicron; delta; alpha; epsilon) since its first emergence in 2019. The National Institutes of Health and Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines currently recommend adding either baricitinib or tocilizumab to the standard of care for severe COVID-19 treatment. An outcome comparison between baricitinib and tocilizumab is needed to determine which agent is more appropriate and safer in clinical practice when deciding treatment. We aimed to compare mortality and clinical outcomes between tocilizumab and baricitinib in the management of severe COVID-19 infection. A total of 5638 adult patients from 16 acute care hospitals in a large healthcare system in Texas were included in this multicentered retrospective cohort study. The median age of the patients was 56 years and 46.67% of them were female. Severe COVID-19 patients were treated with standard of care and either tocilizumab or baricitinib. The primary outcome of hospital admission mortality rates was found to be higher with tocilizumab (odd ratio (OR) of 1.56; p = 0.001; 95% CI 1.19 to 2.008) compared to that with baricitinib (OR 0.65; p = 0.001; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.84). For one of the secondary outcomes, patients who received tocilizumab were 3.75 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU than those receiving baricitinib (p = 0.001; 95% CI 2.89 to 4.85). Among the 1199 COVID-19 patients who were admitted to the ICU, the ICU length of stay was shorter among patients receiving baricitinib with a mean difference of 4.42 days and a median difference of 2.54 days, compared to those receiving tocilizumab (p < 0.0001; 95% CI -5.97 to -2.62) as another secondary outcome. Our large retrospective observational study showed that baricitinib reduced mortality; the likelihood of ICU admission; and the ICU length of stay compared to tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 infection.

Factors Associated With Same Day Discharge Post-Spinal Cord Stimulator Placement.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulator (SCS) surgeries, whether performed using the open or percutaneous approach, are becoming increasingly common for a range of neuropathic pain conditions, including post-laminectomy syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. However, there is limited knowledge regarding the factors linked to same-day discharge patterns following SCS. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with same-day discharge after SCS placement. The primary outcome was same-day discharge. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, cohort study using a nationwide database. METHODS: Inclusion criteria included patients who underwent percutaneous or open SCS from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2021. Exclusion criteria included patients with missing data (n = 178) and those with SCS implants for unlisted indications (n = 1,817). A multivariable analysis was conducted on the outcome data and co-variates associated with same-day discharge after SCS. RESULTS: After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 18,058 patients remained in the final data set, including 7,339 patients who underwent percutaneous SCS and 10,719 patients who underwent open SCS procedures. After analysis, factors associated with increased rates of same-day discharge after SCS included men (odds ratio [OR] 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09 -1.24;  P < 0.001), patients on Medicaid (OR 1.64; 95% CI, 0.1.34 - 2.01; P < 0.001), and hospitals in the US Midwest (OR 1.66; 95% CI, 1.45 - 1.90; P < 0.001) and hospitals in the US West (OR 1.32; 95% CI, 1.20 - 1.46; P < 0.001). Factors associated with decreased rates of same-day discharge after SCS included the open approach (OR 0.21; 95% CI, 0.19 - 0.23; P < 0.001), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54 - 0.69; P < 0.001) and increased age (OR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98 - 0.99; P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: Since our study is retrospective, the data are subject to various biases, including variable confounding, human error in data entry, and generalizability of the results. CONCLUSION: These results can be used to help determine hospital bed needs post-SCS surgery. Future research should focus on identifying the specific reasons certain demographic and geographic factors might influence same-day discharge rates. Our study provides important insights into the factors associated with same-day discharge rates post open and percutaneous SCS implant and highlights the need for patient-centered, evidence-based approaches to health care delivery.

Long-Term Outcomes After Spinal Cord Stimulator Placement in Patients with Pre-procedural Active Opioid Use Versus Patients Who Were Opioid-Naïve.

BACKGROUND: Outcome optimization after the placement of a spinal cord stimulator (SCS) is critical. The objective of this study was to determine if an association existed between pre-procedural opioid use (compared to patients who were opioid-naïve) and postoperative long-term outcomes following SCS placement. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of preprocedural opioid use on long-term outcomes after SCS therapy. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study utilizing a nationwide database. SETTING: Retrospective. METHODS: With the use of data from HCA Healthcare's national database, a retrospective cohort study was performed to analyze differences in outcomes between opioid-naïve patients and preoperative opioid users who underwent SCS placements. The primary outcome of interest was device explantation at 6 months and 12 months. Secondary outcome measurements included reoperations and readmissions at 6 months and 12 months, as well as operative complications. Multivariable logistic regression models were performed to analyze the association of preoperative opioid use with those outcomes. The odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and P values were reported for the independent variables. RESULTS: The final study population consisted of 13,893 patients who underwent SCS placements. In univariate analyses, patients who used opioids preoperatively had higher 6-month (3.6% vs. 2.6%) and one-year removal rates (3.6% vs. 2.8%) (all P < 0.009). On multivariable logistic regression, those using opioids preoperatively had higher odds of removal at 6 months (OR = 1.290, 95% CI 1.05-1.58, P = 0.01) and at one year (OR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.01-1.50, P = 0.04). There was no difference between patients requiring preoperative opioids and patients who were opioid-naive as far as the odds of 6- or 12-month readmissions were concerned. Compared to the opioid-naive group, patients requiring preoperative opioids had increased odds of reoperation at 6 months (OR = 1.2, 95% CI 1.02-1.40, P = 0.03). There were no differences in the odds of complications between both cohorts. LIMITATIONS: Opioid use in this study was defined as using opioids preoperatively in the 30 days leading up to surgery. CONCLUSION: Patients requiring preoperative opioids before SCS placements had increased odds of SCS explantation at 6 months and 12 months, as well as increased odds of reoperation at 6 months.

HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and the attenuation of risk for disseminated intravascular coagulation in patients with sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC) is a syndrome of dysregulated coagulation. Patients with sepsis are at increased risk for DIC. HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors (Statins) are primarily used as lipid-lowering agents; however, studies have suggested statins may possess anti-inflammatory, antithrombotic, anticoagulant, and endothelial stabilizing properties. These mechanisms may oppose those that underlie the pathogenesis of septic DIC. METHODS: To evaluate whether statins may be protective against the development of DIC, we conducted a multi-center, retrospective case-control study where 86,638 critically ill patients admitted to the ICU with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock were identified during a 3-year period. Patients who developed DIC during their hospitalization were identified and stratified by whether they received a statin or not during their hospitalization. Odds ratios for development of DIC was calculated by composite of any statin, as well as low, moderate, and high intensity statins. RESULTS: 2236 patients would develop DIC compared to 84,402 who did not. The use of any statin was associated with a reduced likelihood for developing DIC (odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61-0.78). This was observed with use of both moderate (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.77) and high (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.84) but not low intensity statins (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.53-1.32). CONCLUSIONS: The use of moderate and high intensity statins was associated with a significantly reduced odds of developing DIC in critically ill patients with sepsis. This present study may be the first to suggest that statin medications may independently reduce the frequency of DIC in critically ill patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. More research is needed to investigate the potential for this class of medication to be protective against DIC.

Diabetes mellitus impact on left ventricular assist device outcomes in heart failure patients: National Inpatient Sample study.

Aim: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a recognized risk factor for heart failure (HF), increasing the likelihood of requiring left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy. Objective: This retrospective cohort study aims to assess the impact of DM on LVAD patients, focusing on in-hospital mortality as the primary outcome. Methods: Utilizing the National Inpatient Sample administrative database, data from 11,506 adult HF patients who underwent LVAD implantation were analyzed. Results: Of the patients, 44.28% had diabetes. Adjusting for various factors, diabetic patients exhibited shorter hospital stays, lower admission costs and similar in-hospital mortality rates compared with non-diabetic patients. Conclusion: These findings enhance our understanding of the risks and benefits of LVAD therapy in patients with refractory HF and DM.

In-hospital outcomes of PCI in patients who have ESRD vs non-ESRD patients, a retrospective study involving a National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). ESRD is known to affect a large portion of the American population. Previous data for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the setting of ESRD for Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) and non-ACS etiologies have shown to have an increase in in-hospital mortality, and prolonged hospitalization among other complications. METHODS: The national inpatient sample (NIS) was used to identify patients who underwent PCI between the years 2016-2019. Patients were then grouped into those with ESRD on renal replacement therapy (RRT). Logistic regression models were employed to assess the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality, while linear regression models were utilized to evaluate secondary outcomes, including hospitalization cost and length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 21,366 unweighted observations were initially included, consisting of 50 % ESRD patients and 50 % randomly selected patients without ESRD who underwent PCI. These observations were weighted to represent a national estimate of 106,830 patients. The mean age of the study population was 65 years, and 63 % of the patients were male. The ESRD group had a greater representation of minority groups compared to the control group. The in-hospital mortality rate was significantly higher in the ESRD group compared to the control group, with an odds ratio of 1.803 (95 % CI: 1.502 to 2.164; p-value of 0.0002). Additionally, the ESRD group had significantly higher healthcare costs and longer length of stay, with a mean difference of $47,618 (95 % CI: $42,701 to $52,534, p-value <0.0001) and 2.933 days (95 % CI, 2.729 to 3.138 days, p-value <0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSION: In-hospital mortality, cost, and length of stay for patients undergoing PCI were found to be significantly greater in the ESRD group.