Low absolute risk of thrombotic and cardiovascular events in outpatient pregnant women with COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Pregnancy may contribute to an excess risk of thrombotic or cardiovascular events. COVID-19 increases the risk of these events, although the risk is relatively limited among outpatients. We sought to determine whether outpatient pregnant women with COVID-19 are at a high risk for cardiovascular or thrombotic events.

MATERIALS & METHODS

We analyzed pregnant outpatients with COVID-19 from the multicenter CORONA-VTE-Network registry. The main study outcomes were a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombotic events, and a composite of adjudicated cardiovascular events. Events were assessed 90 days after the COVID-19 diagnosis and reported for non-pregnant women ≤45 years, and for men ≤45 years, as points of reference.

RESULTS

Among 6585 outpatients, 169 were pregnant at diagnosis. By 90-day follow-up, two pregnant women during the third trimester had lower extremity venous thrombosis, one deep and one superficial vein thrombosis. The cumulative incidence of thrombotic events was 1.20 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.0 to 2.84 %). Respective rates were 0.47 % (95 % CI: 0.14 % to 0.79 %) among non-pregnant women, and 0.49 % (95 % CI: 0.06 % to 0.91 %) among men ≤45 years. No non-thrombotic cardiovascular events occurred in pregnant women. The rates of cardiovascular events were 0.53 % (95 % CI: 0.18 to 0.87) among non-pregnant women, and 0.68 % (95 % CI: 0.18 to 1.18) in men aged ≤45 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Thrombotic and cardiovascular events are rare among outpatients with COVID-19. Although a higher event rate among outpatient pregnant women cannot be excluded, the absolute event rates are low and do not warrant population-wide cardiovascular interventions to optimize outcomes.

Home Hospital Outcomes for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Factors Associated With Escalation of Care

BACKGROUND

Overall outcomes and the escalation rate for home hospital admissions for heart failure (HF) are not known. We report overall outcomes, predict escalation, and describe care provided after escalation among patients admitted to home hospital for HF.

METHODS

Our retrospective analysis included all patients admitted for HF to 2 home hospital programs in Massachusetts between February 2020 and October 2022. Escalation of care was defined as transfer to an inpatient hospital setting (emergency department, inpatient medical unit) for at least 1 overnight stay. Unexpected mortality was defined as mortality excluding those who desired to pass away at home on admission or transitioned to hospice. We performed the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression to predict escalation.

RESULTS

We included 437 hospitalizations; patients had a median age of 80 (interquartile range, 69-89) years, 58.1% were women, and 64.8% were White. Of the cohort, 29.2% had reduced ejection fraction, 50.9% had chronic kidney disease, and 60.6% had atrial fibrillation. Median admission Get With The Guidelines HF score was 39 (interquartile range, 35-45; 1%-5% predicted inpatient mortality). Escalation occurred in 10.3% of hospitalizations. Thirty-day readmission occurred in 15.1%, 90-day readmission occurred in 33.8%, and 6-month mortality occurred in 11.5%. There was no unexpected mortality during home hospitalization. Patients who experienced escalation had significantly longer median length of stays (19 versus 7.5 days, P<0.001). The most common reason for escalation was progressive renal dysfunction (36.2%). A low mean arterial pressure at the time of admission to home hospital was the most significant predictor of escalation in the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression.

CONCLUSIONS

About 1 in 10 home hospital patients with HF required escalation; none had unexpected mortality. Patients requiring escalation had longer length of stays. A low mean arterial pressure at the time of admission to home hospital was the most important predictor of escalation of care in the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression model.

Association between implanted cardioverter-defibrillators and mortality for patients with left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 35

BACKGROUND

Consensus guidelines support the use of implanted cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with either non-ischaemic or ischaemic cardiomyopathy with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%. However, evidence from trials for efficacy specifically for patients with LVEF near 35% is weak. Past trials are underpowered for this population and future trials are unlikely to be performed.

METHODS

Patients with lowest LVEF between 30% and 35% without an ICD prior to the lowest-LVEF echo (defined as 'time zero') were identified by querying echocardiography data from 28 November 2001 to 9 July 2020 at the Massachusetts General Hospital linked to ICD treatment status. To assess the association between ICD and mortality, propensity score matching followed by Cox proportional hazards models considering treatment status as a time-dependent covariate was used. A secondary analysis was performed for LVEF 36%-40%.

RESULTS

Initially, 526 440 echocardiograms representing 266 601 unique patients were identified. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 6109 patients remained for the analytical cohort. In bivariate unadjusted comparisons, patients who received ICDs were substantially more often male (79.8% vs 65.4%, p<0.0001), more often white (87.5% vs 83.7%, p<0.046) and more often had a history of ventricular tachycardia (74.5% vs 19.1%, p<0.0001) and myocardial infarction (56.1% vs 38.2%, p<0.0001). In the propensity matched sample, after accounting for time-dependence, there was no association between ICD and mortality (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, p=0.482).

CONCLUSIONS

ICD therapy was not associated with reduced mortality near the conventional LVEF threshold of 35%. Although this treatment design cannot definitively demonstrate lack of efficacy, our results are concordant with available prior trial data. A definitive, well-powered trial is needed to answer the important clinical question of primary prevention ICD efficacy between LVEF 30% and 35%.

Major cardiovascular events after COVID-19, event rates post-vaccination, antiviral or anti-inflammatory therapy, and temporal trends: Rationale and methodology of the CORONA-VTE-Network study

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with excess risk of cardiovascular and thrombotic events in the early post-infection period and during convalescence. Despite the progress in our understanding of cardiovascular complications, uncertainty persists with respect to more recent event rates, temporal trends, association between vaccination status and outcomes, and findings within vulnerable subgroups such as older adults (aged 65 years or older), or those undergoing hemodialysis. Sex-informed findings, including results among pregnant and breastfeeding women, as well as adjusted comparisons between male and female adults are similarly understudied.

METHODS

Adult patients, aged ≥18 years, with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 who received inpatient or outpatient care at the participating centers of the registry are eligible for inclusion. A total of 10,000 patients have been included in this multicenter study, with Brigham and Women's Hospital (Boston, MA) serving as the coordinating center. Other sites include Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Anne Arundel Medical Center, University of Virginia Medical Center, University of Colorado Health System, and Thomas Jefferson University Health System. Data elements will be ascertained manually for accuracy. The two main outcomes are 1) a composite of venous or arterial thrombotic events, and 2) a composite of major cardiovascular events, defined as venous or arterial thrombosis, myocarditis or heart failure with inpatient treatment, new atrial fibrillation/flutter, or cardiovascular death. Clinical outcomes are adjudicated by independent physicians. Vaccination status and time of inclusion in the study will be ascertained for subgroup-specific analyses. Outcomes are pre-specified to be reported separately for hospitalized patients versus those who were initially receiving outpatient care. Outcomes will be reported at 30-day and 90-day follow-up. Data cleaning at the sites and the data coordinating center and outcomes adjudication process are in-progress.

CONCLUSIONS

The CORONA-VTE-Network study will share contemporary information related to rates of cardiovascular and thrombotic events in patients with COVID-19 overall, as well as within key subgroups, including by time of inclusion, vaccination status, patients undergoing hemodialysis, the elderly, and sex-informed analyses such as comparison of women and men, or among pregnant and breastfeeding women.

Machine learning based diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction among South Asian patients

Funding Acknowledgements

Type of funding sources: None.

Background

Diagnosis of Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) remains challenging even for an astute clinician with the current diagnostic tests, algorithms and scoring systems.  The use of Machine Learning (ML) in cardiovascular research has expanded exponentially in recent years.

Purpose

In this study we studied the predictive accuracy of a machine-learning model for the diagnosis of HFpEF in South Asian patients.

Methods

A single centre retrospective data of 1068 admitted patients with a clinical diagnosis of HF were obtained.  From this data outliers were removed based on box-and-whisker plot study.  This data was then segregated into three: without HF, HF with reduced ejection fraction and HFpEF.  Finally, we arrived at 530 patients’ data with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) values of &gt;45%. This data set was randomly divided into two parts: 80% as Training dataset and 20% as Test dataset.  Two ML techniques such as Logistic Regression and Neural Networks were chosen to build the prediction models. Orange Data Mining Software version 3.28 was used to build these models. The overall performance of the ML methods has been reported using Precision, Recall and F1 scores of precision and recall; measure that combines precision and recall.

Results

The table summarizes precision, recall and F1 score of both models. The predicted results from the ML models are compared with HFA PEFF score.

Conclusion

ML based diagnosis using two different models showed acceptable predictive accuracy for HFpEF. Limitations of using LVEF as a predictor for the diagnosis of HF by ML and discussion on how the combination of an expert clinician opinion with ML further improves the diagnostic ability will be made. Abstract Figure.

Hospital at home: paying for what it's worth

On November 25, 2020, CMS announced the creation of an Acute Hospital Care at Home program to reimburse qualifying hospital-at-home models. As we increasingly adopt the Acute Hospital Care at Home program and similar home-based services, it is crucial to better define the value of these programs and their appropriate reimbursement rates. We provide a framework centered around cost, quality, and equity to help accomplish this task. Quality reporting should use both inpatient-specific and home health care-specific metrics, equity-focused process metrics and risk-adjusted outcome metrics, and validated disease-specific tools. Costs should be measured comprehensively and uniformly through the use of time-driven activity-based costing and consider caregiver opportunity costs. It is also worthwhile to consider personal, societal, technical, and allocative value when determining the value and subsequent reimbursement rates of hospital-at-home programs. With careful patient selection, the hospital-at-home model has the potential to significantly benefit a subset of patients. To create sustainable reimbursement mechanisms for hospital-at-home programs, we first need a better definition of the value provided by this model of care.

A Crisis-Responsive Framework for Medical Device Development Applied to the COVID-19 Pandemic

The disruption of conventional manufacturing, supply, and distribution channels during the COVID-19 pandemic caused widespread shortages in personal protective equipment (PPE) and other medical supplies. These shortages catalyzed local efforts to use nontraditional, rapid manufacturing to meet urgent healthcare needs. Here we present a crisis-responsive design framework designed to assist with product development under pandemic conditions. The framework emphasizes stakeholder engagement, comprehensive but efficient needs assessment, rapid manufacturing, and modified product testing to enable accelerated development of healthcare products. We contrast this framework with traditional medical device manufacturing that proceeds at a more deliberate pace, discuss strengths and weakness of pandemic-responsive fabrication, and consider relevant regulatory policies. We highlight the use of the crisis-responsive framework in a case study of face shield design and production for a large US academic hospital. Finally, we make recommendations aimed at improving future resilience to pandemics and healthcare emergencies. These include continued development of open source designs suitable for rapid manufacturing, education of maker communities and hospital administrators about rapidly-manufactured medical devices, and changes in regulatory policy that help strike a balance between quality and innovation.

Association of ABO blood group type with cardiovascular events in COVID-19

Cardiovascular complications have been reported in patients with COVID-19. We sought to examine the association of ABO blood group type with cardiovascular complications in COVID-19. We examined 409 individuals enrolled in the COVID-19 Registry to Assess Frequency, Management, and Outcomes of Arterial and Venous Thromboembolic Complications (CORONA-VTE) who had ABO blood group data available. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the association of ABO blood group types with three primary outcomes: major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), major arterial and venous thrombosis and all-cause mortality. 201, 121, 61 and 26 individuals had blood group O, A, B and AB, respectively. In multivariable analysis, blood group A was associated with a 2.5-fold higher odds of MACE than blood group O (OR 2.47[1.18–5.18]). There was an effect suggesting a 2-fold higher odds of major thrombotic events in blood group A vs. O that did not reach statistical significance (OR 2.15 [0.89–5.20]). No association between blood group type and all-cause mortality was found. Compared with the other blood group types, blood group A was associated with an increased odds of MACE(OR_A/non−A 2.18[1.11–4.29]), while blood group O was associated with lower odds of MACE(OR_O/non−O 0.50[0.26–0.97]). In conclusion, blood group A was associated with an increased odds of MACE, whereas blood group O was associated with a reduction in the odds of MACE in patients with COVID-19. These findings may inform risk stratification of COVID-19 patients for cardiovascular complications. Additional studies are needed to validate our findings.

Fluid Management in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Diabetes Mellitus: A propensity score matched analysis of the fluid and catheter treatment trial

Diabetes mellitus results in an attenuated inflammatory response, reduces pulmonary microvascular permeability, and may decrease the risk of developing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Studies have shown that patients with ARDS are better managed by a conservative as compared to liberal fluid management strategy. However, it is not known if the same fluid management principles hold true for patients with comorbid diabetes mellitus and ARDS.As diabetes mellitus results in reduced pulmonary microvascular permeability and an attenuated inflammatory response, we hypothesize that in the setting of ARDS, diabetic patients will be able to tolerate a positive fluid balance better than patients without diabetes.The Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (FACTT) randomized patients with ARDS to conservative versus liberal fluid management strategies. In a secondary analysis of this trial, we calculated the interaction of diabetic status and differing fluid strategies on outcomes. Propensity score subclassification matching was used to control for the differing baseline characteristics between patients with and without diabetes.Nine hundred fifty-six patients were analyzed. In a propensity score matched analysis, the difference in the effect of a conservative as compared to liberal fluid management strategy on ventilator free days was 2.23 days (95% CI: -0.97 to 5.43 days) in diabetic patients, and 2.37 days (95% CI: -0.21 to 4.95 days) in non-diabetic patients. The difference in the effect of a conservative as compared to liberal fluid management on 60 day mortality was 2% (95% CI: -11.8% to 15.8%) in diabetic patients, and -7.9% (95% CI: -21.7% to 5.9%) in non-diabetic patients.When comparing a conservative fluid management strategy to a liberal fluid management strategy, diabetic patients with ARDS did not have a statistically significant difference in outcomes than non-diabetic patients.

SnapShot: COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a novel respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. Viral entry is mediated through viral spike protein and host ACE2 enzyme interaction. Most cases are mild; severe disease often involves cytokine storm and organ failure. Therapeutics including antivirals, immunomodulators, and vaccines are in development. To view this SnapShot, open or download the PDF.

Medical Students' Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience and Recommendations from Five Countries

The COVID-19 pandemic has provided medical students around the globe with unique challenges and opportunities. With formal medical school education and training interrupted, medical students sought innovative ways to contribute to their health-care systems and communities. Their responses could be organized into three categories: clinical (remote clinical care and triage, helping in COVID testing or treatment centers, and contact tracing), nonclinical (PPE acquisition, COVID-related policy and research, and supporting vulnerable groups in the community), and educational (creating materials to educate peers, the community, or community health workers). We present examples of responses developed by students from five countries: Brazil, Nepal, the Philippines, Rwanda, and the United States. We discuss the challenges, outcomes, and recommendations for each case. One critical opportunity for growth is strengthening international collaborations. We hope that these examples provide a framework for medical students to plan coordinated and effective responses to the next pandemic, and further medical student engagement in international collaboration.

Emergency Surgery Score Accurately Predicts the Risk of Post-Operative Infection in Emergency General Surgery

BACKGROUND

The Emergency Surgery Score (ESS) was validated recently as an accurate and user-friendly post-operative mortality risk calculator specific for Emergency General Surgery (EGS). ESS is calculated by adding one to three integer points for each of 22 pre-operative variables (demographics, co-morbidities, and pre-operative laboratory values); increasing scores accurately and gradually predict higher mortality rates. We sought to evaluate whether ESS can predict the occurrence of post-operative infectious complications in EGS patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database from 2007-2015, all EGS patients were identified by using the "emergent" ACS-NSQIP variable and a concomitant surgery Current Procedural Terminology code for "digestive system." Patients with any missing ESS variables or those who died within 72 hours from the surgical procedure were excluded. A composite variable, post-operative infection, was created and defined as the post-operative occurrence of one or more of the following: superficial, deep incisional or organ/space surgical site infection, surgical site disruption, pneumonia, sepsis, septic shock, or urinary tract infection. ESS was calculated for all included patients, and the correlation between ESS and post-operative infection was examined using c-statistics.

RESULTS

Of a total of 4,456,809 patients, 90,412 patients were included. The mean age of the population was 56 years, 51% were female, and 70% were white; 22% developed one or more post-operative infections, most commonly sepsis/septic shock (12.2%), surgical site infection (9%), and pneumonia (5.7%). The ESS gradually and consistently predicted infectious complications; post-operative infections developed in 7%, 24%, and 49% of patients with an ESS of 1, 5, and 10, respectively. The c-statistics for overall post-operative infection, post-operative sepsis/septic shock, and pneumonia were 0.73, 0.75, and 0.80, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The ESS accurately predicts the occurrence of post-operative infectious complications in EGS patients and could be used for pre-operative clinical decision-making as well as quality benchmarking of infection rates in EGS.

Assessment of nivolumab benefit-risk profile of a 240-mg flat dose relative to a 3-mg/kg dosing regimen in patients with advanced tumors

Background

Nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W) has shown benefit versus the standard of care in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, flat dosing is expected to shorten preparation time and improve ease of administration. With knowledge of nivolumab safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics across a wide dose range in body weight (BW) dosing, assessment of the benefit–risk profile of a 240-mg flat dose relative to the approved 3-mg/kg dose was approached by quantitative clinical pharmacology.

Patients and methods

A flat dose of 240 mg was selected based on its equivalence to the 3-mg/kg dose at the median BW of ∼80 kg in patients in the nivolumab program. The benefit–risk profile of nivolumab 240 mg was evaluated by comparing exposures at 3 mg/kg Q2W and 240 mg Q2W across BW and tumor types; clinical safety at 3 mg/kg Q2W by BW and exposure quartiles in melanoma, NSCLC, and RCC; and safety and efficacy at 240 mg Q2W relative to 3 mg/kg Q2W in melanoma, NSCLC, and RCC.

Results

The median nivolumab exposure and its distribution at 240 mg Q2W were similar to 3 mg/kg Q2W in the simulated population. Safety analyses did not demonstrate a clinically meaningful relationship between BW or nivolumab exposure quartiles and frequency or severity of adverse events. The predicted safety and efficacy were similar across nivolumab exposure ranges achieved with 3 mg/kg Q2W or 240 mg Q2W flat dose.

Conclusion

Based on population pharmacokinetic modeling, established flat exposure–response relationships for efficacy and safety, and clinical safety, the benefit–risk profile of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W was comparable to 3 mg/kg Q2W. The quantitative clinical pharmacology approach provided evidence for regulatory decision-making on dose modification, obviating the need for an independent clinical study.