Comparison of the Effects of Blood Pressure Parameters on Rebleeding and Outcomes in Unsecured Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP) has been linked to preprocedural rebleeding risk and poor outcome in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). This study seeks to compare the effects of SBP and mean arterial pressure (MAP) on rebleeding and functional outcomes in aSAH patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of a prospectively collected cohort of consecutive patients with aSAH admitted to an academic center in 2016-2023. Binary regression analysis was used to determine the association between BP parameters and outcomes including rebleeding and poor outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale 4-6 at 3 months postdischarge. RESULTS: The cohort included 324 patients (mean age 57 years [standard deviation 13.4], 61% female). Symptomatic rebleeding occurred in 34 patients (11%). Higher BP measurements were recorded in patients with rebleeding and poor outcome, however, only MAP met statistical significance for rebleeding (odds ratio {OR} 1.02 for 1 mmHg increase in MAP, 95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.001-1.03, P = 0.043; OR 1 per 1 mmHg increase in SBP, 95% CI 0.99-1.01; P = 0.06)) and for poor outcome (OR 1.01 for 1 mmHg increase in MAP, 95% CI: 1.002-1.025, P = 0.025; OR 1 for 1 mmHg increase in SBP, 95% CI: 0.99-1.02, P = 0.23) independent of other predictors. CONCLUSIONS: MAP may appear to be slightly better correlated with rebleeding and poor outcomes in unsecured aSAH compared to SBP. Larger prospective studies are needed to identify and mitigate risk factors for rebleeding and poor outcome in aSAH patients.

Emergency Absentee Voting for Hospitalized Patients and Voting During COVID-19: A 50-State Study.

INTRODUCTION: Voters facing illness or disability are disproportionately under-represented in terms of voter turnout. Earlier research has indicated that enfranchisement of these populations may reinforce the implementation of policies improving health outcomes and equity. Due to the confluence of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the 2020 election, we aimed to assess emergency absentee voting processes, which allow voters hospitalized after regular absentee deadlines to still obtain an absentee ballot, and election changes due to COVID-19 in all 50 states. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study collecting 34 variables pertaining to emergency voting processes and COVID-19-related election changes, including deadlines, methods of submission for applications and ballots, and specialized services for patients. Data were obtained from, in order of priority, state boards of elections websites, poll worker manuals, application forms, and state legislation. We verified all data through direct correspondence with state boards of elections. RESULTS: Emergency absentee voting processes are in place in 39 states, with the remaining states having universal vote-by-mail (n = 5) or extended regular absentee voting deadlines (n = 6). The emergency absentee period most commonly began within 24 hours following the normal absentee application deadline, which was often seven days before an election (n = 11). Unique aspects of emergency voting processes included patients designating an "authorized agent" to deliver their applications and ballots (n = 38), electronic ballot delivery (n = 5), and in-person teams that deliver ballots directly to patients (n = 18). Documented barriers in these processes nationwide include unavailable online information (n = 11), restrictions mandating agents to be family members (n = 7), physician affidavits or signatures (n = 9), and notary or witness signature requirements (n = 15). For the November 2020 presidential election, 12 states expanded absentee eligibility to allow COVID-19 as a reason to request an absentee ballot, and 18 states mailed absentee ballot applications or absentee ballots to all registered voters. CONCLUSION: While 39 states operate emergency absentee voting processes for hospitalized voters, there are considerable areas for improvement and heterogeneity in guidelines for these protocols. For future election cycles, information on emergency voting and broader election reforms due to COVID-19 may be useful for emergency providers and patients alike to improve the democratic participation of voters experiencing illness.

Emergency Mail-in Voting in Rhode Island: Protecting Civic Participation During COVID-19 and Beyond.

The COVID-19 pandemic challenges safe and equitable voting in the United States' 2020 elections, and in response, several states including Rhode Island (RI) have made significant changes to election policy. In addition to increasing accessibility of mail-in voting by mailing applications to all registered voters, RI has suspended their notary/witness requirement for both the primary and general election. However, RI's "emergency" voting process still plays a crucial role in allowing voters who missed the mail-in ballot application deadline, such as those unexpectedly hospitalized in the days leading up to the election, to still cast their ballot. COVID-19 has also forced RI to modify its emergency voting procedures, most notably allowing healthcare workers to serve on bipartisan ballot delivery teams. This commentary highlights these salient updates to voting procedures and serves as a primer as to how interested health care workers may navigate this process alongside patients and lead in the arena of patient voting rights.