Evolution of serious and life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia as the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic progressed: an observational study of mortality to 60 days after admission to a 15-hospital US health system.

OBJECTIVE: In order to predict at hospital admission the prognosis of patients with serious and life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia, we sought to understand the clinical characteristics of hospitalised patients at admission as the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic progressed, document their changing response to the virus and its variants over time, and identify factors most importantly associated with mortality after hospital admission. DESIGN: Observational study using a prospective hospital systemwide COVID-19 database. SETTING: 15-hospital US health system. PARTICIPANTS: 26 872 patients admitted with COVID-19 to our Northeast Ohio and Florida hospitals from 1 March 2020 to 1 June 2022. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 60-day mortality (highest risk period) after hospital admission analysed by random survival forests machine learning using demographics, medical history, and COVID-19 vaccination status, and viral variant, symptoms, and routine laboratory test results obtained at hospital admission. RESULTS: Hospital mortality fell from 11% in March 2020 to 3.7% in March 2022, a 66% decrease (p<0.0001); 60-day mortality fell from 17% in May 2020 to 4.7% in May 2022, a 72% decrease (p<0.0001). Advanced age was the strongest predictor of 60-day mortality, followed by admission laboratory test results. Risk-adjusted 60-day mortality had all patients been admitted in March 2020 was 15% (CI 3.0% to 28%), and had they all been admitted in May 2022, 12% (CI 2.2% to 23%), a 20% decrease (p<0.0001). Dissociation between observed and predicted decrease in mortality was related to temporal change in admission patient profile, particularly in laboratory test results, but not vaccination status or viral variant. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital mortality from COVID-19 decreased substantially as the pandemic evolved but persisted after hospital discharge, eclipsing hospital mortality by 50% or more. However, after accounting for the many, even subtle, changes across the pandemic in patients' demographics, medical history and particularly admission laboratory results, a patient admitted early in the pandemic and predicted to be at high risk would remain at high risk of mortality if admitted tomorrow.

Thoracoabdominal Esophagectomy: Then and Now.

BACKGROUND: Open approaches for esophagectomy are often still useful; of these, left thoracoabdominal esophagectomy (TAE) is poorly understood and often criticized. Hence, we examined TAE's worldwide utilization, survival, and present-day use and outcomes at our institution compared with contemporary national averages. METHODS: The Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration database includes 8854 patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer between 2005 and 2014, a period when TAE was our center's most common approach. Two propensity score-matched models were constructed: worldwide TAE vs worldwide non-TAE (751 matched pairs); and our high-volume center TAE vs worldwide non-TAE (273 matched pairs). All-cause mortality was compared between matched groups. Institutional TAE data from 2017 to 2021 were assessed for present-day use and outcomes. RESULTS: Worldwide, propensity score-matched patients undergoing TAE had a median of 20 lymph nodes resected vs 17 after non-TAE (P < .0001). Five-year survival was 34% for worldwide TAE vs 42% for worldwide non-TAE groups (P = .04). Three-year matched survival was 52% for high-volume TAE compared with 54% for worldwide non-TAE groups (P = .1). From 2017 to 2021 at our institution, 90 (26%) of 346 esophagectomies were performed by TAE. Pneumonia developed in 5 patients (5.6%), with 88 patients (98%) alive at 30 days, comparable to contemporary averages of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: When it is performed as the primary approach in high volumes, TAE can have comparable outcomes to non-TAE with low morbidity. At present, we find that TAE is most useful in patients with truncal obesity, prior abdominal operations, and locally advanced cardia tumors with potential for variable extent of resection.

Clinical T2 N0 M0 Esophageal Cancer: Identifying Predictive Factors of Upstaging.

BACKGROUND: Inaccuracy of clinical staging renders management of clinical T2 N0 M0 (cT2 N0 M0) esophageal cancer difficult. When an underlying advanced-stage disease is understaged to cT2 N0 M0, patients miss the opportunity to gain the potential benefits of neoadjuvant therapy. This study aimed to identify preoperative factors that predict underlying advanced-stage esophageal cancer. METHODS: From 2000 to 2020, 1579 patients with esophageal cancer underwent esophagectomy. Sixty patients who underwent upfront surgery for cT2 N0 M0 esophageal cancer were included in this study. The median age was 62.5 years, and 78% (n = 47) of these patients were male. Radiologic, clinical, and endoscopic factors were evaluated as preoperative markers. The Fisher exact and the Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used for categoric and continuous variables, respectively. Random forest classification was used to identify preoperative factors for predicting upstaging and downstaging. RESULTS: Of the 60 patients, 8 (13%) were found to have pathologic T2 N0 M0 esophageal cancer. Sixteen (27%) patients had cancer that was pathologically downstaged, and 36 (60%) had upstaged disease. Seven (19%) patients had upstaged cancer on the basis of the pathologic T stage, 14 (39%) had upstaging on the basis of the pathologic N stage, and 15 (42%) had upstaging on the basis of both T and N stages. Dysphagia (P = .003) and tumor maximum standardized uptake value (P = .048) were predictors of upstaging, with a combined predictive value of up to 75%. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of dysphagia and of high maximum standardized uptake value (≥5) of the tumor is predictive of more advanced underlying disease for patients with cT2 N0 M0 esophageal cancer, and these patients should be considered for neoadjuvant therapy.

Combined pectoralis and serratus anterior plane blocks with or without liposomal bupivacaine for minimally invasive thoracic surgery: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive thoracic surgery is associated with substantial pain that can impair pulmonary function. Fascial plane blocks may offer a favorable alternative to opioids, but conventional local anesthetics provide a limited duration of analgesia. We therefore tested the primary hypothesis that a mixture of liposomal bupivacaine and plain bupivacaine improves the overall benefit of analgesia score (OBAS) during the first three postoperative days compared to bupivacaine alone. Secondarily, we tested the hypotheses that liposomal bupivacaine improves respiratory mechanics, and decreases opioid consumption. METHODS: Adults scheduled for robotically or video-assisted thoracic surgery with combined ultrasound-guided pectoralis II and serratus anterior plane block were randomized to bupivacaine or bupivacaine combined with liposomal bupivacaine. OBAS was measured on postoperative days 1-3 and was analyzed with a linear mixed regression model. Postoperative respiratory mechanics were estimated using a linear mixed model. Total opioid consumption was estimated with a simple linear regression model. RESULTS: We analyzed 189 patients, of whom 95 were randomized to the treatment group and 94 to the control group. There was no significant treatment effect on total OBAS during the initial three postoperative days, with an estimated geometric mean ratio of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.76, 1.14; p = 0.485). There was no observed treatment effect on respiratory mechanics, total opioid consumption, or pain scores. Average pain scores were low in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Liposomal bupivacaine did not improve OBAS during the initial postoperative three days following minimally invasive thoracic procedures. Furthermore, there was no improvement in respiratory mechanics, no reduction in opioid consumption, and no decrease in pain scores. Thus, the data presented here does not support the use of liposomal bupivacaine over standard bupivacaine to enhance analgesia after minimally invasive thoracic surgery. SUMMARY STATEMENT: For minimally invasive thoracic procedures, addition of liposomal bupivacaine to plain bupivacaine for thoracic fascial plane blocks does not improve OBAS, reduce opioid requirements, improve postoperative respiratory mechanics, or decrease pain scores.