Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38951369

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of research investigating disparities in utilization of inpatient therapeutics for COVID-19 by language preference. The primary aim of this study was to assess if the likelihood of treatment with novel COVID-19 therapies differed for patients using a language other than English (LOE) relative to English-speaking patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study of COVID-19 patients hospitalized between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2022, across 11 hospitals within a single not-for-profit health system. Multivariable relative risks were estimated for the impact of preferred language on the receipt of novel COVID-19 therapies: baricitinib, remdesivir, tocilizumab, and convalescent plasma. RESULTS: This study included 12,510 hospitalized adults with English as the most common preferred language (92.3%) followed by Spanish (3.1%), Somali (1.3%), Russian (0.9%), and Hmong (0.6%). Spanish speakers were more likely to receive any of the novel COVID-19 therapies compared to English speakers (RR 1.45; CI 1.32-1.59). Estimates for Hmong, Somali, Russian, and Other language groups were not statistically significant and closer to the null (aRR range, 0.89-1.12). CONCLUSION: Linguistic patterns in health outcomes expose inherent heterogeneity within racial and ethnic groups. Our study found that Spanish speakers were nearly 1.5 times more likely to receive any of the four novel inpatient COVID-19 therapeutics in comparison to English speakers. Future research is needed to explore the reasons for the heterogeneous findings including temporal influence, cultural factors, informed consent comprehension, and therapeutic hesitancy in all groups.

2.
Vasc Med ; 28(4): 331-339, 2023 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37259526

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a known complication of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in patients requiring hospitalization and intensive care. We examined the association between extended pharmacological VTE prophylaxis and outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with an index positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test at the time of, or during hospitalization. Patients who were prescribed extended pharmacological VTE prophylaxis were compared against patients who were not. Multivariable logistic regression was used to produce odds ratio (OR) estimates and Cox proportional hazard models for hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CI to examine the association between pharmacological VTE prophylaxis and outcomes of interest. Primary outcomes were 30- and 90-day VTE events. Secondary outcomes included 30- and 90-day mortality, 30-day superficial venous thrombosis (SVT), acute myocardial infarction (MI), acute ischemic stroke, critical limb ischemia, clinically significant bleeding, and inpatient readmissions. RESULTS: A total of 1936 patients were included in the study. Among them, 731 (38%) were discharged on extended pharmacological VTE prophylaxis. No significant difference was found in 30- and 90-day VTE events among groups. Patients discharged on extended VTE prophylaxis showed improved survival at 30 (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.21-0.59) and 90 days (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.23-0.55) and reduced inpatient readmission at 30 days (OR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.04-0.33) when compared to those without. CONCLUSION: Patients discharged on extended VTE prophylaxis after hospitalization due to COVID-19 had similar thrombotic events on follow-up. However, use of extended VTE prophylaxis was associated with improved 30- and 90-day survival and reduced risk of 30-day inpatient readmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ischemic Stroke , Venous Thromboembolism , Humans , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , Hospitalization , Patient Discharge , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Venous Thromboembolism/diagnosis , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy
3.
Clin Appl Thromb Hemost ; 29: 10760296231156414, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36890702

ABSTRACT

Direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are prescribed in the treatment of venous thromboembolism, including pulmonary embolism (PE). Evidence is limited regarding the outcomes and optimal timing of DOACs in patients with intermediate- or high-risk PE treated with thrombolysis. We conducted a retrospective analysis of outcomes among patients with intermediate- and high-risk PE who received thrombolysis, by choice of long-term anticoagulant agent. Outcomes of interest included hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit LOS, bleeding, stroke, readmission, and mortality. Descriptive statistics were used to examine characteristics and outcomes among patients, by anticoagulation group. Patients receiving a DOAC (n = 53) had shorter hospital LOS compared to those in warfarin (n = 39) and enoxaparin (n = 10) groups (mean LOS 3.6, 6.3 and 4.5 days, respectively; P < .0001). This single institution retrospective study suggests DOAC initiation <48 h from thrombolysis may result in shorter hospital LOS compared to DOAC initiation ≥48 h (P < .0001). Further larger studies with more robust research methodology are needed to address this important clinical question.


Subject(s)
Factor Xa Inhibitors , Pulmonary Embolism , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Factor Xa Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Rivaroxaban/therapeutic use , Pulmonary Embolism/drug therapy , Pulmonary Embolism/chemically induced , Anticoagulants , Administration, Oral , Thrombolytic Therapy
4.
World J Crit Care Med ; 11(4): 219-227, 2022 Jul 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36051939

ABSTRACT

Hyperglycemia is commonly associated with adverse outcomes especially in patients requiring intensive care unit stay. Data from the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic indicates that individuals with diabetes appear to be at similar risk for COVID-19 infection to those without diabetes but are more likely to experience increased morbidity and mortality. The proposed hypothesis for hyperglycemia in COVID-19 include insulin resistance, critical illness hyperglycemia (stress- induced hyperglycemia) secondary to high levels of hormones like cortisol and catecholamines that counteract insulin action, acute cytokine storm and pancreatic cell dysfunction. Diabetic patients are more likely to have severe hyperglycemic complications including diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state. Management of hyperglycemia in COVID-19 is often complicated by use of steroids, prolonged total parenteral or enteral nutrition, frequent acute hyperglycemic events, and restrictions with fluid management due to acute respiratory distress syndrome. While managing hyperglycemia special attention should be paid to mode of insulin delivery, frequency of glucose monitoring based on patient and caregiver safety thereby minimizing exposure and conserving personal protective equipment. In this article we describe the pathophysiology of hyperglycemia, challenges encountered in managing hyperglycemia, and review some potential solutions to address them.

5.
BMJ Open ; 12(2): e050879, 2022 02 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35197334

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine outcomes in hospitalised patients with sepsis and reported penicillin allergy (PcnA). DESIGN: Observational retrospective cohort study using data from electronic health records. SETTING: A large single health system with 11 hospitals of small, medium and large sizes including a 630-bed tertiary care teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (n=5238) ≥18 years of age, hospitalised with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018, received antibacterial agents, and had documented PcnA status. Patients <18 years of age at admission were excluded. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes evaluated were inpatient mortality and 30-day mortality posthospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay, 30-day readmissions, duration of antibiotic use, rate of Clostridium difficile infection and total cost of care. RESULTS: There was no difference in outcomes including inpatient or 30-day mortality, hospital length of stay, in-hospital antibiotic duration, C. difficile infection, total cost of care and 30-day readmission rate between patients labelled with a PcnA vs patients who did not report PcnA (non-PcnA). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective single health system study, there was no difference in key outcomes including inpatient or 30-day mortality in patients admitted with sepsis and reported PcnA compared with patients who reported no PcnA.


Subject(s)
Clostridioides difficile , Drug Hypersensitivity , Sepsis , Shock, Septic , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Length of Stay , Penicillins/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies , Sepsis/drug therapy , Shock, Septic/drug therapy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...