Utilization of a multidisciplinary hospital-based approach to reduce readmission rates.

Background: Hospital readmissions remain a significant and pressing issue in our healthcare system. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act helped establish the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, which incentivized reducing readmission rates by instituting penalties. Hospital readmission, specifically unplanned, refers to a patient returning to the hospital shortly after discharge due to the same or a related medical condition, signaling potential issues in initial care, discharge processes, or post-hospitalization management. For this study, we defined readmission as a return to the hospital within 30 days. In 2018, Staten Island University Hospital started a multidisciplinary and coordinated initiative to reduce patient readmissions. The approach involved the departments of emergency medicine, medicine, cardiology, case management, nursing, pharmacy, and transitional care management. This study aimed to determine if this approach reduced 30-day readmissions. Methods: This case-control retrospective study reviewed electronic health records between January 2018 and November 2019. Readmission rates within 30 days of index discharge were compared between patients who received transitional care management before and after establishing a multidisciplinary communication of transitional care. Readmission rates were unadjusted and adjusted for patient demographics and predisposed risk for readmission and compared across demographics and select clinical characteristics. Results: A total of 772 patients were included in the analyses; 323 were in the control group (41.8%), and 449 were in the intervention group (58.2%). After the hospital adopted the workflow for multidisciplinary communication of transitional care, there was 45.2% less adjusted incidence of readmission, or approximately seven fewer overall readmissions per 100 patients (16.4% readmission vs 9.0% readmission; incident rate ratio, 0.55; 95% CI: 0.34-0.88). Conclusions: Multidisciplinary communication approaches led by emergency medicine can help reduce readmissions significantly. Adopting a structured communication workflow can enhance co-managing patients with a high risk of readmission between the emergency department and hospital medicine teams.

Efficacy and Safety of Therapeutic-Dose Heparin vs Standard Prophylactic or Intermediate-Dose Heparins for Thromboprophylaxis in High-risk Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: The HEP-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are at risk for venous and arterial thromboembolism and death. Optimal thromboprophylaxis dosing in high-risk patients is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the effects of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose heparins for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The HEP-COVID multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 with D-dimer levels more than 4 times the upper limit of normal or sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of 4 or greater from May 8, 2020, through May 14, 2021, at 12 academic centers in the US. Interventions: Patients were randomized to institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or unfractionated heparin vs therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg subcutaneous, twice daily if creatinine clearance was 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or greater (0.5 mg/kg twice daily if creatinine clearance was 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2) throughout hospitalization. Patients were stratified at the time of randomization based on intensive care unit (ICU) or non-ICU status. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism (ATE), or death from any cause, and the principal safety outcome was major bleeding at 30 ± 2 days. Data were collected and adjudicated locally by blinded investigators via imaging, laboratory, and health record data. Results: Of 257 patients randomized, 253 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 66.7 [14.0] years; men, 136 [53.8%]; women, 117 [46.2%]); 249 patients (98.4%) met inclusion criteria based on D-dimer elevation and 83 patients (32.8%) were stratified as ICU-level care. There were 124 patients (49%) in the standard-dose vs 129 patients (51%) in the therapeutic-dose group. The primary efficacy outcome was met in 52 of 124 patients (41.9%) (28.2% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 25.0% death) with standard-dose heparins vs 37 of 129 patients (28.7%) (11.7% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 19.4% death) with therapeutic-dose LMWH (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; P = .03), including a reduction in thromboembolism (29.0% vs 10.9%; RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.66; P < .001). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.6% with standard-dose vs 4.7% with therapeutic-dose heparins (RR, 2.88; 95% CI, 0.59-14.02; P = .17). The primary efficacy outcome was reduced in non-ICU patients (36.1% vs 16.7%; RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.81; P = .004) but not ICU patients (55.3% vs 51.1%; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.62-1.39; P = .71). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, therapeutic-dose LMWH reduced major thromboembolism and death compared with institutional standard heparin thromboprophylaxis among inpatients with COVID-19 with very elevated D-dimer levels. The treatment effect was not seen in ICU patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04401293.

Treatment-Dose LMWH versus Prophylactic/Intermediate Dose Heparins in High-Risk COVID-19 Inpatients: Rationale and Design of the HEP-COVID Trial.

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with significant risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism (ATE), and mortality particularly among hospitalized patients with critical illness and elevated D-dimer (Dd) levels. Conflicting data have yet to elucidate optimal thromboprophylaxis dosing. HEP-COVID (NCT04401293) is a phase 3, multicenter, pragmatic, prospective, randomized, pseudo-blinded, active control trial to evaluate efficacy and safety of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) versus prophylactic-/intermediate-dose LMWH or unfractionated heparin (UFH) for prevention of a primary efficacy composite outcome of VTE, ATE, and all-cause mortality 30 ± 2 days post-enrollment. Eligible patients have COVID-19 diagnosis by nasal swab or serologic testing, requirement for supplemental oxygen per investigator judgment, and Dd >4 × upper limit of normal (ULN) or sepsis-induced coagulopathy score ≥4. Subjects are randomized to enoxaparin 1 mg/kg subcutaneous (SQ)/two times a day (BID) (creatinine clearance [CrCl] ≥ 30 mL/min) or 0.5 mg/kg (CrCl 15-30 mL/min) versus local institutional prophylactic regimens including (1) UFH up to 22,500 IU (international unit) daily (divided BID or three times a day), (2) enoxaparin 30 and 40 mg SQ QD (once daily) or BID, or (3) dalteparin 2,500 IU or 5,000 IU QD. The principal safety outcome is major bleeding. Events are adjudicated locally. Based on expected 40% relative risk reduction with treatment-dose compared with prophylactic-dose prophylaxis, 308 subjects will be enrolled (assuming 20% drop-out) to achieve 80% power. Distinguishing design features include an enriched population for the composite endpoint anchored on Dd >4 × ULN, stratification by intensive care unit (ICU) versus non-ICU, and the ability to capture asymptomatic proximal deep venous thrombosis via screening ultrasonography prior to discharge.

Superior mesenteric artery syndrome in a patient with cerebral palsy.

Superior mesenteric artery syndrome involves compression of the third part of the duodenum due to narrowing of the area between the aorta and the superior mesenteric artery (SMA). We will describe the case of a 34-year-old with cerebral palsy who presented with abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and weight loss and was diagnosed with SMA syndrome via CT-imaging. With failure of conservative measures, our patient underwent a duodenojejunostomy after which improvement in her weight as well as relief of her abdominal symptoms was noted. Given the rarity of this syndrome, physicians need to keep a high index of suspicion in order to prevent the damaging consequences.