Effect of mortality from COVID-19 on inpatient outcomes

Impact of Dementia in Colorectal Cancer Patients: United States Population-Based Cohort Study

Background/Aims

Various socioeconomic and racial disparities are well-documented for colon cancer. However, the association of dementia, which is a growing cause of mortality in the elderly, remains unexplored. We aim to understand the association between these two conditions, in the elderly population group.

Methods

We utilized the 2020 National Inpatient Sample to investigate records admitted for colorectal cancer identified through ICD-10 CM codes. We divided records by the presence of dementia. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for predefined outcomes were determined using multivariable logistic and linear regression models, adjusting for comorbidities. The primary outcome assessed was inpatient mortality, while secondary outcomes include other inpatient complications.

Results

We identified 33,335 hospitalizations with ages more than 60. The mean age was 75.2 and males constituted 50.4%. In a survey multivariable logistic and linear regression model adjusting for patient and hospital factors, utilizing propensity score matching, the presence of dementia is associated with lower inpatient mortality (aOR 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.26, 0.92], p=0.03), lower hospitalization costs (beta coefficient -2,823, 95% CI [-5,266, -440], p=0.02), lower odds of acute respiratory failure (aOR 0.54, p=0.01), lower mechanical ventilation usage (aOR 0.26, p<0.01) but higher odds of mental status change (aOR 1.97, 95% CI [1.37, 2.84], p<0.01).

Conclusions

The presence of dementia is associated with a lower risk of inpatient mortality, and other clinical outcomes, in colorectal cancer cases admitted for hospitalization. Etiologies behind this relationship should be explored to understand this inverse relationship.

Early versus late tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

The role of early tracheostomy as an intervention for critically ill COVID-19 patients is unclear. Previous reports have described prolonged intensive care stays and difficulty weaning from mechanical ventilation in critically ill COVID-19 patients, particularly in those developing acute respiratory distress syndrome. Pre-pandemic evidence on the benefits of early tracheostomy is conflicting but suggests shorter hospital stays and lower mortality rates compared to late tracheostomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of early tracheostomy compared to late tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, which comprises CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv, as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 14 June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) evaluating early tracheostomy compared to late tracheostomy during SARS-CoV-2 infection in critically ill adults irrespective of gender, ethnicity, or setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for NRSIs. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for outcomes of our prioritized categories: mortality, clinical status, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. As the timing of tracheostomy was very heterogeneous among the included studies, we applied GRADE only to studies that defined early tracheostomy as 10 days or less, which was chosen according to clinical relevance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one RCT with 150 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and 24 NRSIs with 6372 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. All participants were admitted to the ICU, orally intubated and mechanically ventilated. The RCT was a multicenter, parallel, single-blinded study conducted in Sweden. Of the 24 NRSIs, which were mostly conducted in high- and middle-income countries, eight had a prospective design and 16 a retrospective design. We did not find any ongoing studies. RCT-based evidence We judged risk of bias for the RCT to be of low or some concerns regarding randomization and measurement of the outcome. Early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in overall mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.29; RD 67 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 178 fewer to 108 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). As an indicator of improvement of clinical status, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (MD 1.50 days fewer, 95%, CI 5.74 days fewer to 2.74 days more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). As an indicator of worsening clinical status, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in the incidence of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.13; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 164 fewer to 102 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence); little to no difference in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.23 to 5.20; RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 162 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported need for renal replacement therapy. Early tracheostomy may result in little benefit to no difference in ICU length of stay (MD 0.5 days fewer, 95% CI 5.34 days fewer to 4.34 days more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). NRSI-based evidence We considered risk of bias for NRSIs to be critical because of possible confounding, study participant enrollment into the studies, intervention classification and potentially systematic errors in the measurement of outcomes. We are uncertain whether early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) increases or decreases overall mortality (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.00; RD 143 more per 1000, 95% CI 174 less to 1218 more; I2 = 79%; 2 studies, 719 participants) or duration to liberation from mechanical ventilation (MD 1.98 days fewer, 95% CI 0.16 days fewer to 4.12 more; 1 study, 50 participants), because we graded the certainty of evidence as very low. Three NRSIs reported ICU length of stay for 519 patients with early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) as a median value, which we could not include in the meta-analyses. We are uncertain whether early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) increases or decreases the ICU length of stay, because we graded the certainty of evidence as very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-certainty evidence that early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in overall mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation compared with late tracheostomy. In terms of clinical improvement, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in duration to liberation from mechanical ventilation compared with late tracheostomy. We are not certain about the impact of early tracheostomy on clinical worsening in terms of the incidence of adverse events, need for renal replacement therapy, ventilator-associated pneumonia, or the length of stay in the ICU. Future RCTs should provide additional data on the benefits and harms of early tracheostomy for defined main outcomes of COVID-19 research, as well as of comparable diseases, especially for different population subgroups to reduce clinical heterogeneity, and report a longer observation period. Then it would be possible to draw conclusions regarding which patient groups might benefit from early intervention. Furthermore, validated scoring systems for more accurate predictions of the need for prolonged mechanical ventilation should be developed and used in new RCTs to ensure safer indication and patient safety. High-quality (prospectively registered) NRSIs should be conducted in the future to provide valuable answers to clinical questions. This could enable us to draw more reliable conclusions about the potential benefits and harms of early tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Reduction in preterm birth among COVID-19-vaccinated pregnant individuals in the United States

BACKGROUND

Most studies investigating preterm birth and COVID-19 vaccination have suggested no difference in preterm birth rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant individuals; however, 1 recent study suggested a protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination on preterm birth rates in Australia.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether a similar association and protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination on preterm birth would be found in our multistate, US cohort.

STUDY DESIGN

A cohort study was conducted using the Vizient Clinical Database, which included data from 192 hospitals in 38 states. Pregnant individuals who delivered between January 2021 and April 2022 were included. Propensity score matching was used to match a "treated" group of pregnant individuals with any COVID-19 vaccination (incomplete or complete vaccination) to a group that had not received any COVID-19 vaccination (the "untreated" group). A complete vaccination series of ≥2 doses of the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines or at least 1 dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was considered. An incomplete series was receipt of 1 dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. We examined the association between COVID-19 vaccination status and preterm birth at <28, <34, and <37 weeks of gestation. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to adjust for potential confounders, with adjusted odds ratios as the measure of treatment effect.

RESULTS

Matching with replacement was performed for 5749 treated participants. After propensity score matching, there was no difference in maternal demographics of age, race, insurance status, parity, or comorbid conditions. Vaccinated individuals were 26% less likely to deliver at <37 weeks of gestation (adjusted odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.75; P<.001), 37% less likely to deliver at <34 weeks of gestation (adjusted odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.64; P<.001), and 43% less likely to deliver at <28 weeks of gestation (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.60; P<0.001) than unvaccinated individuals.

CONCLUSION

Vaccination against COVID-19 may be protective against preterm birth.

The relationship between COVID-19 vaccination status in pregnancy and birthweight

BACKGROUND

Despite findings that maternal COVID-19 infection in pregnancy is associated with low birthweight (weight of ≤2500 g), previous studies demonstrate no difference in low birthweight risk between COVID-19 vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant persons. Few studies, however, have examined the association between unvaccinated, incomplete vaccination, and complete vaccination on low birthweight, and they have been limited by small sample sizes and lack of adjustment for covariates.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to address key limitations of prior work and evaluate this association between unvaccinated, incomplete, and complete COVID-19 vaccination status in pregnancy and low birthweight. We predicted a protective association of vaccination on low birthweight that varies by number of doses received.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a population-based retrospective study using the Vizient clinical database, which included data from 192 hospitals in the United States. Our sample included pregnant persons who delivered between January 2021 and April 2022 at hospitals that reported maternal vaccination data and birthweight at delivery. Pregnant persons were categorized into 3 groups as follows: unvaccinated; incompletely vaccinated (1 dose of Pfizer or Moderna); or completely vaccinated (1 dose of Johnson & Johnson or ≥2 doses of Moderna or Pfizer). Demographics and outcomes were analyzed using standard statistical tests. We performed multivariable logistic regression to account for potential confounders between vaccination status and low birthweight in the original cohort. Propensity score matching was used to reduce bias related to the likelihood of vaccination, and the multivariable logistic regression model was then applied to the propensity score-matched cohort. Stratification analysis was performed for gestational age and race and ethnicity.

RESULTS

Of the 377,995 participants, 31,155 (8.2%) had low birthweight, and these participants were more likely to be unvaccinated than those without low birthweight (98.8% vs 98.5%, P<.001). Incompletely vaccinated pregnant persons were 13% less likely to have low birthweight neonates compared to unvaccinated persons (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.04), and completely vaccinated persons were 21% less likely to have low birthweight neonates (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.89). After controlling for maternal age, race or ethnicity, hypertension, pregestational diabetes, lupus, tobacco use, multifetal gestation, obesity, use of assisted reproductive technology, and maternal or neonatal COVID-19 infections in the original cohort, these associations remained significant for only complete vaccination (adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.91) and not incomplete vaccination (adjusted odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.04). In the propensity score-matched cohort, pregnant persons who were completely vaccinated against COVID-19 were 22% less likely to have low birthweight neonates compared to unvaccinated and incompletely vaccinated individuals (adjusted odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.79).

CONCLUSION

Pregnant persons who were completely vaccinated against COVID-19 were less likely to have low birthweight neonates compared to unvaccinated and incompletely vaccinated individuals. This novel association was observed among a large population after adjusting for confounders of low birthweight and factors influencing the likelihood of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.

Effect of COVID-19 pandemic on inpatient service utilization and patient outcomes in Uganda

COVID-19 has had devastating effects on health systems but reports from sub-Saharan Africa are few. We compared inpatient admissions, diagnostic tests performed, clinical characteristics and inpatient mortality before and during the COVID-19 pandemic at an urban tertiary facility in Uganda. We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients admitted at Kiruddu National Referral Hospital in Uganda between January-July 2019 (before the pandemic) and January-July 2020 (during the pandemic). Of 3749 inpatients, 2014 (53.7%) were female, and 1582 (42.2%) had HIV. There was a 6.1% decline in admissions from 1932 in 2019 to 1817 in 2020. There were significantly fewer diagnostic tests performed in 2020 for malaria, tuberculosis, and diabetes. Overall, 649 (17.3%) patients died. Patients admitted during the COVID-19 pandemic (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.5, p = 0.018), patients aged ≥ 60 years (aOR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.1, p = 0.001), HIV co-infected (aOR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2-1.9, p < 0.001), and those admitted as referrals (aOR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2-1.9, p < 0.001) had higher odds of dying. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted inpatient service utilization and was associated with inpatient mortality. Policy makers need to build resilience in health systems in Africa to cope with future pandemics.

Handgrip strength is associated with adverse outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19-associated pneumonia

Handgrip strength (HGS), a simple tool for the evaluation of muscular strength, is independently associated with negative prognosis in many diseases. It is unknown whether HGS is prognostically relevant in COVID-19. We evaluated the ability of HGS to predict clinical outcomes in people with COVID-19-related pneumonia. 118 patients (66% men, 63 ± 12 years), consecutively hospitalized to the "Santa Maria" Terni University Hospital for COVID-19-related pneumonia and respiratory failure, underwent HGS measurement (Jamar hand-dynamometer) at ward admission. HGS was normalized to weight2/3 (nHGS) The main end-point was the first occurrence of death and/or endotracheal intubation at 14 days. Twenty-two patients reached the main end-point. In the Kaplan-Meyer analysis, the Log rank test showed significant differences between subjects with lower than mean HGS normalized to weight2/3 (nHGS) (< 1.32 kg/Kg2/3) vs subjects with higher than mean nHGS. (p = 0.03). In a Cox-proportional hazard model, nHGS inversely predicted the main end-point (hazard ratio, HR = 1.99 each 0.5 kg/Kg2/3 decrease, p = 0.03), independently from age, sex, body mass index, ratio of partial pressure arterial oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2 ratio), hypertension, diabetes, estimated glomerular filtration rate and history of previous cardiovascular cardiovascular disease. These two latter also showed independent association with the main end-point (HR 1.30, p = 0.03 and 3.89, p < 0.01, respectively). In conclusion, nHGS measured at hospital admission, independently and inversely predicts the risk of poor outcomes in people with COVID-19-related pneumonia. The evaluation of HGS may be useful in early stratifying the risk of adverse prognosis in COVID-19.

COVID-19 pandemic in Southern Brazil: Hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, lethality rates, and length of stay between March 2020 and April 2022

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic spread rapidly with more than 515 million cases and 6.2 million deaths. Epidemiological factors are important for understanding the state of the pandemic. This study aims to evaluate the hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and lethality from March 2020 to April 2022. Data were collected from a hospital in Porto Alegre city, southern Brazil. The Mann–Whitney, analysis of variance, and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to compare quantitative variables. Categorical variables were compared by Pearson's χ² test. p values <0.05 for all tests were considered significant. Were observed 3784 hospitalizations. Males were 51.4% and the age was 60.4± 20.3. Intensive care unit (ICU) patients were 31.2%, the median length of stay (LOS) was 9.0 and lethality was 13.3%. ICU lethality was 34.5% versus 4.6% in other inpatients (p < 0.01). The LOS of ICU patients was 22.0 versus 7.0 in other inpatients (p < 0.01). The first peak (July–Novemebr 2020) showed ICU occupancy of 79.1%. The second peak (December 2020–June 2021) with 91.6% occupancy. The third peak January–March 2022 with 81.0% occupancy (p < 0.01). Lethality rates were 10.3% in 2020, 14.9% in 2021 and 15.4% in 2022 (p < 0.01). In conclusion, the ICU occupancy rate was higher in 2021 and the lethality rates of ICU patients were high during pandemic years (10.3% in 2020, 14.9% in 2021, and 15.2% in 2022). The lethality of these patients ranged from 25.0% in March to 21.8% in December 2020, from 20.9% in January 22.2% in Decemebr 2021, and 35.7% in January 2022 to 21.4% in April 2022. These data demonstrate that COVID‐19 is a critical illness, even in a private hospital setting.

The Impact of Different Ventilatory Strategies on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia

Introduction: The aim was to investigate the impact of different ventilator strategies (non-invasive ventilation (NIV); invasive MV with tracheal tube (TT) and with tracheostomy (TS) on outcomes (mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay) in patients with COVID-19. We also assessed the impact of timing of percutaneous tracheostomy and other risk factors on mortality. Methods: The retrospective cohort included 868 patients with severe COVID-19. Demographics, MV parameters and duration, and ICU mortality were collected. Results: MV was provided in 530 (61.1%) patients, divided into three groups: NIV (n = 139), TT (n = 313), and TS (n = 78). Prevalence of tracheostomy was 14.7%, and ICU mortality was 90.4%, 60.2%, and 30.2% in TT, TS, and NIV groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Tracheostomy increased the chances of survival and being discharged from ICU (OR 6.3, p < 0.001) despite prolonging ICU stay compared to the TT group (22.2 days vs. 10.7 days, p < 0.001) without differences in survival rates between early and late tracheostomy. Patients who only received invasive MV had higher odds of survival compared to those receiving NIV in ICU prior to invasive MV (OR 2.7, p = 0.001). The odds of death increased with age (OR 1.032, p < 0.001), obesity (1.58, p = 0.041), chronic renal disease (1.57, p = 0.019), sepsis (2.8, p < 0.001), acute kidney injury (1.7, p = 0.049), multiple organ dysfunction (3.2, p < 0.001), and ARDS (3.3, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Percutaneous tracheostomy compared to MV via TT significantly increased survival and the rate of discharge from ICU, without differences between early or late tracheostomy.