One-Year Readmission Following Undifferentiated Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure.

Patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) often require hospitalization and respiratory support. Early identification of patients at risk of readmission would be helpful. We evaluated 1-y readmission and mortality rates of patients admitted for undifferentiated AHRF and identified the impact of initial severity on clinically important outcomes. We retrospectively analyzed patients who presented with AHRF to the emergency department of St Michael's Hospital in 2017. We collected data about patients' characteristics, hospital admission, readmission and mortality one year after the index admission. We analyzed predictors of readmission and mortality and conducted a survival analysis comparing patients who did and did not receive ventilatory support. A cohort of 212 patients with AHRF who survived their hospital admission were analyzed. At one year, 150 patients (70.8%) were readmitted and 19 (9%) had died. Main diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (60%), congestive heart failure (36%), asthma (22%) and obesity (19%), and these categories of patients had similar 1 y readmission rates. One third had more than one coexisting chronic illness. Although comorbidities were more frequent in readmitted patients, only a history of previous hospital admissions remained associated with 1 y readmission and mortality in multivariate analysis. Need for ventilatory support at admission was not associated with higher 1 y probability of readmission or death. Undifferentiated AHRF is the presentation of multiple chronic illnesses. Patients who survive one episode of AHRF and with previous history of admission have the highest risk of readmission and death regardless of whether they receive ventilatory support during index admission.

Effectiveness of therapeutic heparin versus prophylactic heparin on death, mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission in moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital: RAPID randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of therapeutic heparin compared with prophylactic heparin among moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital wards. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, adaptive, open label clinical trial. SETTING: 28 hospitals in Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and US. PARTICIPANTS: 465 adults admitted to hospital wards with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels were recruited between 29 May 2020 and 12 April 2021 and were randomly assigned to therapeutic dose heparin (n=228) or prophylactic dose heparin (n=237). INTERVENTIONS: Therapeutic dose or prophylactic dose heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin), to be continued until hospital discharge, day 28, or death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or admission to an intensive care unit, assessed up to 28 days. The secondary outcomes included all cause death, the composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation, and venous thromboembolism. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Outcomes were blindly adjudicated. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 60 years; 264 (56.8%) were men and the mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m2. At 28 days, the primary composite outcome had occurred in 37/228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 52/237 (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.10; P=0.12). Deaths occurred in four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.22, 0.07 to 0.65; P=0.006). The composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 patients (10.1%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 38 (16.0%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.59, 0.34 to 1.02; P=0.06). Venous thromboembolism occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and six (2.5%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.34, 0.07 to 1.71; P=0.19). Major bleeding occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and four (1.7%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.52, 0.09 to 2.85; P=0.69). CONCLUSIONS: In moderately ill patients with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels admitted to hospital wards, therapeutic heparin was not significantly associated with a reduction in the primary outcome but the odds of death at 28 days was decreased. The risk of major bleeding appeared low in this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362085.

Heparin for Moderately Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Heparin, in addition to its anticoagulant properties, has anti-inflammatory and potential anti-viral effects, and may improve endothelial function in patients with Covid-19. Early initiation of therapeutic heparin could decrease the thrombo-inflammatory process, and reduce the risk of critical illness or death. METHODS: We randomly assigned moderately ill hospitalized ward patients admitted for Covid-19 with elevated D-dimer level to therapeutic or prophylactic heparin. The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation or ICU admission. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: At 28 days, the primary composite outcome occurred in 37 of 228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin, and 52 of 237 patients (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 1.10; p=0.12). Four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin died compared with 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.22; 95%-CI, 0.07 to 0.65). The composite of all-cause mortality or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 (10.1%) in the therapeutic heparin group and 38 (16.0%) in the prophylactic heparin group (odds ratio, 0.59; 95%-CI, 0.34 to 1.02). Major bleeding occurred in 2 patients (0.9%) with therapeutic heparin and 4 patients (1.7%) with prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.52; 95%-CI, 0.09 to 2.85). CONCLUSIONS: In moderately ill ward patients with Covid-19 and elevated D-dimer level, therapeutic heparin did not significantly reduce the primary outcome but decreased the odds of death at 28 days. Trial registration numbers: NCT04362085 ; NCT04444700.

Treatment in the dental practice of the patient receiving anticoagulation therapy.

BACKGROUND: The use of anticoagulants is ubiquitous in outpatient medical practice, with anticoagulants now among the most common classes of medications prescribed in the United States. Despite its safety, anticoagulation around minimally invasive dental procedures remains a source of discomfort for dental practitioners and a common reason for referral to specialist anticoagulation clinics. The introduction of new anticoagulant options, as well as the changing practice pattern in anticoagulant prescription, somewhat contributes to this situation. Reviewing the commonly used anticoagulants in outpatient medical practice, as well as their implications in dental practice, is integral to providing safe oral health care. CONCLUSIONS: Direct oral anticoagulants are now the preferred agents for most patients receiving anticoagulation therapy. With patients receiving any type of therapeutic anticoagulation, clinicians usually can perform dental procedures such as restorations, limited dental extractions, endodontic procedures, soft-tissue biopsies, and scalings safely without anticoagulation therapy interruption. Although local hemostatic maneuvers are often sufficient during dental procedures, antifibrinolytic medications, as well as local sponges and glues, can be used to ensure adequate hemostasis. Different classes of anticoagulants interact with commonly prescribed medications in unique ways and may require differing management and monitoring. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians can perform most dental procedures safely despite patients' receiving therapeutic anticoagulation. Recognizing common classes of anticoagulants, incorporating strategies to minimize bleeding, and understanding how commonly prescribed medications in dentistry interact with anticoagulants are essential to practicing safe, comprehensive care.

The management of left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) is frequently observed in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and its presence is associated with a poor prognosis. Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition and beta-adrenergic blockade are the cornerstones of medical management for LVSD. Current guidelines advocate that CKD patients with advanced LVSD should receive these therapies. The extent to which these recommendations are followed is unclear. The goal of this study was to evaluate practice patterns for LVSD management across the spectrum of patients with advanced CKD, and to determine the rate of utilization of recommended therapies for LVSD. METHODS: This cross-sectional study encompassed all long-term dialysis patients (n=299) and patients with advanced pre-dialysis CKD who were followed in a multidisciplinary clinic (n=176) at a tertiary care center in Toronto, Canada. Echocardiographic and pharmacotherapy data were sought for each patient. In patients with moderate-severe LVSD (ejection fraction <40%), we evaluated the extent to which optimal pharmacotherapy, defined as the receipt of a beta-adrenergic receptor blocker and a RAS inhibitor (an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker), was applied. We then sought to identify factors to explain the usage of these therapies. RESULTS: Of the 475 eligible patients, 387 had echocardiographic data available for analysis. Among these individuals, 34 (8.8%) had moderate-severe LVSD, of whom 23 (67.7%) were receiving optimal therapy. Non-receipt of optimal therapy could not be explained by hypotension, hyperkalemia, known drug sensitivities, or pill burden. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of patients with advanced CKD and significant LVSD were not receiving optimal pharmacotherapy, in the absence of known contraindication or intolerance. Identifying and overcoming barriers to care will be crucial in order to enhance the management of this high-risk population.