Evolutionary Analysis of Four Recombinant Viruses of the Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus From a Pig Farm in China.

The porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) is one of the most important pathogens causing substantial economic losses to the Chinese swine industry. In this study, we analyzed the complete genome sequences of four PRRSV isolates (PRRSV2/CN/SS0/2020, PRRSV2/CN/SS1/2021, PRRSV2/CN/L3/2021, and PRRSV2/CN/L4/2020) isolated from a single pig farm from 2020 to 2021. The genomes of the four isolates were 14,962-15,023 nt long, excluding the poly (A) tails. Comparative analysis of the genome sequences showed that the four isolates shared 93.2-98.1% homology and they had no close PRRSV relatives registered in the GenBank (<92%). Furthermore, PRRSV2/CN/SS0/2020 and PRRSV2/CN/SS1/2021 had characteristic 150-aa deletions (aa481+aa537-566 +aa628-747) that were identical to the live attenuated virus vaccine strain TJM-F92 (derived from the HP-PRRSV TJ). Further analysis of the full-length sequences suggests that the four isolates were natural recombinant strains between lineages 1 (NADC30-like), 3 (QYYZ-like), and 8.7 (JXA1-like). Animal experiments revealed discrepancies in virulence between PRRSV2/CN/SS0/2020 and PRRSV2/CN/L3/2021. The strain with high homology to HP-PRRSV demonstrates higher pathogenicity for pigs than the other isolate with low homology to HP-PRRSV. Taken together, our findings suggest that PRRSVs have undergone genome evolution by recombination among field strains/MLV-like strains of different lineages.

Differences in Characteristics, Hospital Care, and Outcomes between Acute Critically Ill Emergency Department Patients Receiving Palliative Care and Usual Care.

BACKGROUND: The early integration of palliative care in the emergency department (ED-PC) provides several benefits, including improved quality of life with optimal comfort measures, and symptom control. Whether palliative care could affect the intensive care unit admissions, hospital care and resource utilization requires further investigation. AIM: To determine the differences in inpatient characteristics, hospital care, survival, and resource utilization between patients receiving palliative care (ED-PC) and usual care (UC). DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled consecutive, acute, critically ill patients admitted to the emergency intensive care unit at Taipei Veterans General Hospital from 1 February 2018 to 31 January 2020. RESULTS: A total of 1273 patients were evaluated for unmet palliative care needs; 685 patients received ED-PC and 588 received UC. The palliative care patients were more severely frail (AOR 2.217 (1.295-3.797), p = 0.004), had functional deterioration with three ADLs (AOR 1.348 (1.040-1.748), p = 0.024), biopsychosocial discomfort (AOR 1.696 (1.315-2.187), p < 0.001), higher Taiwan Triage and Acuity Scale 1 (p = 0.024), higher in-hospital mortality (AOR 1.983 (1.540-2.555), p < 0.001), were four times more likely to sign an DNR (AOR 4.536 (2.522-8.158), p < 0.001), and were twice as likely to sign an DNR at admission (AOR 2.1331.619-2.811), p < 0.001). Palliative care patients received less epinephrine (AOR 0.424 (0.265-0.678), p < 0.001), more frequent withdrawal of an endotracheal tube (AOR 8.780 (1.122-68.720), p = 0.038), and more narcotics (AOR1.675 (1.132-2.477), p = 0.010). Palliative care patients exhibited lower 7-day, 30-day, and 90-day survival rates (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the hospital length of stay (LOS) (21.2 ± 26.6 vs. 21.7 ± 20.6, p = 0.709) nor total hospital expenses (293,169 ± 350,043 vs. 294,161 ± 315,275, p = 0.958). CONCLUSION: Acute critically ill patients receiving palliative care were more frail, more critical, and had higher in-hospital mortality. Palliative care patients received less epinephrine, more endotracheal extubation, and more narcotics. There was no difference in the hospital LOS or hospital costs between the palliative and usual care groups. The synthesis of ED-PC is new but achievable with potential benefits to align care with patient goals.

Emergency Department Referral for Hospice and Palliative Care Differs among Patients with Different End-of-Life Trajectories: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Emergency units have been gradually recognized as important settings for palliative care initiation, but require precise palliative care assessments. Patients with different illness trajectories are found to differ in palliative care referrals outside emergency unit settings. Understanding how illness trajectories associate with patient traits in the emergency department may aid assessment of palliative care needs. This study aims to investigate the timing and acceptance of palliative referral in the emergency department among patients with different end-of-life trajectories. Participants were classified into three end-of-life trajectories (terminal, frailty, organ failure). Timing of referral was determined by the interval between the date of referral and the date of death, and acceptance of palliative care was recorded among participants eligible for palliative care. Terminal patients had the highest acceptance of palliative care (61.4%), followed by those with organ failure (53.4%) and patients with frailty (50.1%) (p = 0.003). Terminal patients were more susceptible to late and very late referrals (47.4% and 27.1%, respectively) than those with frailty (34.0%, 21.2%) and with organ failure (30.1%, 18.8%) (p < 0.001, p = 0.022). In summary, patients with different end-of-life trajectories display different palliative care referral and acceptance patterns. Acknowledgement of these characteristics may improve palliative care practice in the emergency department.

Differences in end-of-life care and outcomes in palliative consultation-eligible patients with and without do-not-resuscitate orders: A propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of palliative care, not synonymous with end-of-life (EOL) care, is to align care plans with patient goals, regardless of whether these goals include the pursuit of invasive, life-sustaining procedures, or not. This study determines the differences in EOL care, resource utilization, and outcome in palliative care consultation-eligible emergency department patients with and without do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study. We consecutively enrolled all the acutely and critically ill emergency department patients eligible for palliative care consultation at the Taipei Veterans General Hospital, a 3000-bed tertiary hospital, from February 1 to July 31, 2018. The outcome measures included in-hospital mortality and EOL care of patients with and without DNR. RESULTS: A total of 396 patients were included: 159 with and 237 without DNR. Propensity score matching revealed that patients with DNR had significantly shorter duration of hospital stay (404.4 ± 344.4 hours vs 505.2 ± 498.1 hours; p = 0.037), higher in-hospital mortality (54.1% vs 34.6%; p < 0.001), and lower total hospital expenditure (191 239 ± 177 962 NTD vs 249 194 ± 305 629 NTD; p = 0.04). Among patients with DNR, there were fewer deaths in the intensive care unit (30.2% vs 37.0%), more deaths in the hospice ward (16.3% vs 7.4%), more critical discharge to home (9.3% vs 7.4%), more endotracheal removals (3.1% vs 0%; p = 0.024), and more narcotics use (32.7% vs 22.1%; p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: The palliative care consultation-eligible emergency department patients with DNR compared with those without DNR experienced worse outcomes, greater pain control, more endotracheal extubations, shorter duration of hospital stay, more critical discharge to home, more hospice referrals, and 23.3% reduction in total expenditure. There were fewer deaths in the ICU among them as well.

Differences in Characteristics, Hospital Care and Outcomes between Acute Critically Ill Emergency Department Patients with Early and Late Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders.

Background: A do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order is associated with an increased risk of death among emergency department (ED) patients. Little is known about patient characteristics, hospital care, and outcomes associated with the timing of the DNR order. Aim: Determine patient characteristics, hospital care, survival, and resource utilization between patients with early DNR (EDNR: signed within 24 h of ED presentation) and late DNR orders. Design: Retrospective observational study. Setting/Participants: We enrolled consecutive, acute, critically ill patients admitted to the emergency intensive care unit (EICU) at Taipei Veterans General Hospital from 1 February 2018, to 31 January 2020. Results: Of the 1064 patients admitted to the EICU, 619 (58.2%) had EDNR and 445 (41.8%) LDNR. EDNR predictors were age >85 years (adjusted odd ratios (AOR) 1.700, 1.027-2.814), living in long-term care facilities (AOR 1.880, 1.066-3.319), having advanced cardiovascular diseases (AOR 2.128, 1.039-4.358), "medical staff would not be surprised if the patient died within 12 months" (AOR 1.725, 1.193-2.496), and patients' family requesting palliative care (AOR 2.420, 1.187-4.935). EDNR patients underwent lesser endotracheal tube (ET) intubation (15.6% vs. 39.9%, p < 0.001) and had reduced epinephrine injection (19.9% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.009), ventilator support (16.7% vs. 37.9%, p < 0.001), and narcotic use (51.1% vs. 62.6%, p = 0.012). EDNR patients had significantly lower 7-day (p < 0.001), 30-day (p < 0.001), and 90-day (p = 0.023) survival. Conclusions: EDNR patients underwent decreased ET intubation and had reduced epinephrine injection, ventilator support, and narcotic use during EOL as well as decreased length of hospital stay, hospital expenditure, and survival compared to LDNR patients.