ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Workup of Pleural Effusion or Pleural Disease.

Pleural effusions are categorized as transudative or exudative, with transudative effusions usually reflecting the sequala of a systemic etiology and exudative effusions usually resulting from a process localized to the pleura. Common causes of transudative pleural effusions include congestive heart failure, cirrhosis, and renal failure, whereas exudative effusions are typically due to infection, malignancy, or autoimmune disorders. This document summarizes appropriateness guidelines for imaging in four common clinical scenarios in patients with known or suspected pleural effusion or pleural disease. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Implementation of Inpatient Electronic Consultations During the COVID-19 Crisis and Its Sustainability Beyond the Pandemic: Quality Improvement Study.

BACKGROUND: Limiting in-person contact was a key strategy for controlling the spread of the highly infectious novel coronavirus (COVID-19). To protect patients and staff from the risk of infection while providing continued access to necessary health care services, we implemented a new electronic consultation (e-consult) service that allowed referring providers to receive subspecialty consultations for patients who are hospitalized and do not require in-person evaluation by the specialist. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the impact of implementing e-consults in the inpatient setting to reduce avoidable face-to-face referrals during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This quality improvement study evaluated all inpatient e-consults ordered from July 2020 to December 2022 at the University of California Irvine Medical Center. The impact of e-consults was assessed by evaluating use (eg, number of e-consults ordered), e-consult response times, and outcome of the e-consult requests (eg, resolved electronically or converted to the in-person evaluation of patient). RESULTS: There were 1543 inpatient e-consults ordered across 11 participating specialties. A total of 53.5% (n=826) of requests were addressed electronically, without the need for a formal in-person evaluation of the patient. The median time between ordering an e-consult and a specialist documenting recommendations in an e-consult note was 3.7 (IQR 1.3-8.2) hours across all specialties, contrasted with 7.3 (IQR 3.6-22.0) hours when converted to an in-person consult (P<.001). The monthly volume of e-consult requests increased, coinciding with surges of COVID-19 cases in California. After the peaks of the COVID-19 crisis subsided, the use of inpatient e-consults persisted at a rate well above the precrisis levels. CONCLUSIONS: An inpatient e-consult service was successfully implemented, resulting in fewer unnecessary face-to-face consultations and significant reductions in the response times for consults requested on patients who are hospitalized and do not require an in-person evaluation. Thus, e-consults provided timely, efficient delivery of inpatient consultation services for appropriate problems while minimizing the risk of direct transmission of the COVID-19 virus between health care providers and patients. The service also demonstrated its value as a tool for effective inpatient care coordination beyond the peaks of the pandemic leading to the sustainability of service and value.

Stethoscope barriers narrative review; It's time for a strategy unfriendly to multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs).

The current standard of stethoscope hygiene doesn't eliminate the transmission of harmful pathogens, including multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs). In the era of the increasing prevalence of MDRO infections, the use of new systems providing touch free barriers may improve patient safety versus traditional stethoscope cleaning practices with chemical agents. Our purpose was to provide a narrative literature review regarding barriers as an improvement over the current standard of care for stethoscope hygiene. Searching PubMed, articles were identified if they were in English and published after 1990, using the search term "stethoscope barrier", or if they were from a previously published stethoscope hygiene article using "author's name + stethoscope". Included articles evaluated or discussed stethoscope barriers. Of 28 manuscripts identified, 15 met the inclusion criteria. Barriers were considered superior to alternatives if they were single use, disposable, applied in a touch free fashion, were impervious to pathogens, provided an aseptic patient contact, and were acoustically invisible. Use of a practitioner's personal stethoscope with a disposable diaphragm barrier should be recommended as a new standard of care as this represents an improvement in patient safety and patient experience when compared to the disposable stethoscope or isopropyl alcohol stethoscope diaphragm cleaning.

Treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with lower likelihood of 30-day readmission: a retrospective observational study.

Aim: This observational study investigated the association between remdesivir treatment during hospitalization for COVID-19 and 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across different variants time periods. Patients & methods: Hospitalization records for adult patients discharged from a COVID-19 hospitalization between 1 May 2020 to 30 April 2022 were extracted from the US PINC AI Healthcare Database. Likelihood of 30-day readmission was compared among remdesivir-treated and nonremdesivir-treated patients using multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, corticosteroid treatment, Charlson comorbidity index and intensive care unit stay during the COVID-19 hospitalization. Analyses were stratified by maximum supplemental oxygen requirement and variant time period (pre-Delta, Delta and Omicron). Results: Of the 440,601 patients discharged alive after a COVID-19 hospitalization, 248,785 (56.5%) patients received remdesivir. Overall, remdesivir patients had a 30-day COVID-19-related readmission rate of 3.0% and all-cause readmission rate of 6.3% compared with 5.4% and 9.1%, respectively, for patients who did not receive remdesivir during their COVID-19 hospitalization. After adjusting for demographics and clinical characteristics, remdesivir treatment was associated with significantly lower odds of 30-day COVID-19-related readmission (odds ratio 0.60 [95% confidence interval: 0.58-0.62]), and all-cause readmission (0.73 [0.72-0.75]). Significantly lower odds of 30-day readmission in remdesivir-treated patients was observed across all variant time periods. Conclusion: Treating patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with a statistically significant reduction in 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across variant time periods. These findings indicate that the clinical benefit of remdesivir may extend beyond the COVID-19 hospitalization.

Effectiveness, Safety, and Costs of Thromboprophylaxis with Enoxaparin or Unfractionated Heparin Among Medical Inpatients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease or Heart Failure.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure (HF) are risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) help prevent hospital-associated VTE, but few studies have compared them in COPD or HF. Objectives: To compare effectiveness, safety, and costs of enoxaparin vs UFH thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients with COPD or HF. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included adults with COPD or HF from the Premier PINC AI Healthcare Database. Included patients received prophylactic-dose enoxaparin or UFH during a >6-day index hospitalization (the first visit/admission that met selection criteria during the study period) between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2016. Multivariable regression models assessed independent associations between exposures and outcomes. Hospital costs were adjusted to 2017 US dollars. Patients were followed 90 days postdischarge (readmission period). Results: In the COPD cohort, 114 174 (69%) patients received enoxaparin and 51 011 (31%) received UFH. Among patients with COPD, enoxaparin recipients had 21%, 37%, and 10% lower odds of VTE, major bleeding, and in-hospital mortality during index admission, and 17% and 50% lower odds of major bleeding and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) during the readmission period, compared with UFH recipients (all P <.006). In the HF cohort, 58 488 (58%) patients received enoxaparin and 42 726 (42%) received UFH. Enoxaparin recipients had 24% and 10% lower odds of major bleeding and in-hospital mortality during index admission, and 13%, 11%, and 51% lower odds of VTE, major bleeding, and HIT during readmission (all P <.04) compared with UFH recipients. Enoxaparin recipients also had significantly lower total hospital costs during index admission (mean reduction per patient: COPD, 1280;HF,2677) and readmission (COPD, 379;HF,1024). Among inpatients with COPD or HF, thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin vs UFH was associated with significantly lower odds of bleeding, mortality, and HIT, and with lower hospital costs. Conclusions: This study suggests that thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin is associated with better outcomes and lower costs among medical inpatients with COPD or HF based on real-world evidence. Our findings underscore the importance of assessing clinical outcomes and side effects when evaluating cost-effectiveness.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in COVID-19 Treatments in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Racial and ethnic disparities in patient outcomes following COVID-19 exist, in part, due to factors involving healthcare delivery. The aim of the study was to characterize disparities in the administration of evidence-based COVID-19 treatments among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: Using a large, US hospital database, initiation of COVID-19 treatments was compared among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between May 2020 and April 2022 according to patient race and ethnicity. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine the effect of race and ethnicity on the likelihood of receiving COVID-19 treatments, stratified by baseline supplemental oxygen requirement. RESULTS: The identified population comprised 317,918 White, 76,715 Black, 9297 Asian, and 50,821 patients of other or unknown race. There were 329,940 non-Hispanic, 74,199 Hispanic, and 50,622 patients of unknown ethnicity. White patients were more likely to receive COVID-19 treatments, and specifically corticosteroids, compared to Black, Asian, and other patients (COVID-19 treatment: 87% vs. 81% vs. 85% vs. 84%, corticosteroids: 85% vs. 79% vs. 82% vs. 82%). After covariate adjustment, White patients were significantly more likely to receive COVID-19 treatments than Black patients across all levels of supplemental oxygen requirement. No clear trend in COVID-19 treatments according to ethnicity (Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic) was observed. CONCLUSION: There were important racial disparities in inpatient COVID-19 treatment initiation, including the undertreatment of Black patients and overtreatment of White patients. Our new findings reveal the actual magnitude of this issue in routine clinical practice to clinicians, policymakers, and guideline developers. This is crucial to ensuring equitable and appropriate access to evidence-based therapies.

Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in a health care worker population during the early pandemic.

BACKGROUND: While others have reported severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2(SARS-CoV-2) seroprevalence studies in health care workers (HCWs), we leverage the use of a highly sensitive coronavirus antigen microarray to identify a group of seropositive health care workers who were missed by daily symptom screening that was instituted prior to any epidemiologically significant local outbreak. Given that most health care facilities rely on daily symptom screening as the primary method to identify SARS-CoV-2 among health care workers, here, we aim to determine how demographic, occupational, and clinical variables influence SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among health care workers. METHODS: We designed a cross-sectional survey of HCWs for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity conducted from May 15th to June 30th 2020 at a 418-bed academic hospital in Orange County, California. From an eligible population of 5,349 HCWs, study participants were recruited in two ways: an open cohort, and a targeted cohort. The open cohort was open to anyone, whereas the targeted cohort that recruited HCWs previously screened for COVID-19 or work in high-risk units. A total of 1,557 HCWs completed the survey and provided specimens, including 1,044 in the open cohort and 513 in the targeted cohort. Demographic, occupational, and clinical variables were surveyed electronically. SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was assessed using a coronavirus antigen microarray (CoVAM), which measures antibodies against eleven viral antigens to identify prior infection with 98% specificity and 93% sensitivity. RESULTS: Among tested HCWs (n = 1,557), SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was 10.8%, and risk factors included male gender (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.05-2.06), exposure to COVID-19 outside of work (2.29, 1.14-4.29), working in food or environmental services (4.85, 1.51-14.85), and working in COVID-19 units (ICU: 2.28, 1.29-3.96; ward: 1.59, 1.01-2.48). Amongst 1,103 HCWs not previously screened, seropositivity was 8.0%, and additional risk factors included younger age (1.57, 1.00-2.45) and working in administration (2.69, 1.10-7.10). CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity is significantly higher than reported case counts even among HCWs who are meticulously screened. Seropositive HCWs missed by screening were more likely to be younger, work outside direct patient care, or have exposure outside of work.

Implementation, Maintenance, and Outcomes of an Electronic Referral to a Tobacco Quitline Across Five Health Systems.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic referral (e-referral) to quitlines helps connect tobacco-using patients to free, evidence-based cessation counseling. Little has been published about the real-world implementation of e-referrals across U.S. health systems, their maintenance over time, and the outcomes of e-referred patients. AIMS AND METHODS: Beginning in 2014, the University of California (UC)-wide project called UC Quits scaled up quitline e-referrals and related modifications to clinical workflows from one to five UC health systems. Implementation strategies were used to increase site readiness. Maintenance was supported through ongoing monitoring and quality improvement programs. Data on e-referred patients (n = 20 709) and quitline callers (n = 197 377) were collected from April 2014 to March 2021. Analyses of referral trends and cessation outcomes were conducted in 2021-2022. RESULTS: Of 20 709 patients referred, the quitline contacted 47.1%, 20.6% completed intake, 15.2% requested counseling, and 10.9% received it. In the 1.5-year implementation phase, 1813 patients were referred. In the 5.5-year maintenance phase, volume was sustained, with 3436 referrals annually on average. Among referred patients completing intake (n = 4264), 46.2% were nonwhite, 58.8% had Medicaid, 58.7% had a chronic disease, and 48.8% had a behavioral health condition. In a sample randomly selected for follow-up, e-referred patients were as likely as general quitline callers to attempt quitting (68.5% vs. 71.4%; p = .23), quit for 30 days (28.3% vs. 26.9%; p = .52), and quit for 6 months (13.6% vs. 13.9%; p = .88). CONCLUSIONS: With a whole-systems approach, quitline e-referrals can be established and sustained across inpatient and outpatient settings with diverse patient populations. Cessation outcomes were similar to those of general quitline callers. IMPLICATIONS: This study supports the broad implementation of tobacco quitline e-referrals in health care. To the best of our knowledge, no other paper has described the implementation of e-referrals across multiple U.S. health systems or how they were sustained over time. Modifying electronic health records systems and clinical workflows to enable and encourage e-referrals, if implemented and maintained appropriately, can be expected to improve patient care, make it easier for clinicians to support patients in quitting, increase the proportion of patients using evidence-based treatment, provide data to assess progress on quality goals, and help meet reporting requirements for tobacco screening and prevention.

A Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator-Derived Predictive Model for Postoperative Respiratory Failure in a Heterogeneous Adult Elective Surgery Patient Population.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative respiratory failure (PRF) is associated with increased hospital charges and worse patient outcomes. Reliable prediction models can help to guide postoperative planning to optimize care, to guide resource allocation, and to foster shared decision-making with patients. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can a predictive model be developed to accurately identify patients at high risk of PRF? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this single-site proof-of-concept study, we used structured query language to extract, transform, and load electronic health record data from 23,999 consecutive adult patients admitted for elective surgery (2014-2021). Our primary outcome was PRF, defined as mechanical ventilation after surgery of > 48 h. Predictors of interest included demographics, comorbidities, and intraoperative factors. We used logistic regression to build a predictive model and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator procedure to select variables and to estimate model coefficients. We evaluated model performance using optimism-corrected area under the receiver operating curve and area under the precision-recall curve and calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and Brier scores. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-five patients (0.94%) demonstrated PRF. The 18-variable predictive model included: operations on the cardiovascular, nervous, digestive, urinary, or musculoskeletal system; surgical specialty orthopedic (nonspine); Medicare or Medicaid (as the primary payer); race unknown; American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥ III; BMI of 30 to 34.9 kg/m2; anesthesia duration (per hour); net fluid at end of the operation (per liter); median intraoperative FIO2, end title CO2, heart rate, and tidal volume; and intraoperative vasopressor medications. The optimism-corrected area under the receiver operating curve was 0.835 (95% CI,0.808-0.862) and the area under the precision-recall curve was 0.156 (95% CI, 0.105-0.203). INTERPRETATION: This single-center proof-of-concept study demonstrated that a structured query language extract, transform, and load process, based on readily available patient and intraoperative variables, can be used to develop a prediction model for PRF. This PRF prediction model is scalable for multicenter research. Clinical applications include decision support to guide postoperative level of care admission and treatment decisions.

Temporal Improvements in COVID-19 Outcomes for Hospitalized Adults: A Post Hoc Observational Study of Remdesivir Group Participants in the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 standard of care (SOC) evolved rapidly during 2020 and 2021, but its cumulative effect over time is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether recovery and mortality improved as SOC evolved, using data from ACTT (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial). DESIGN: ACTT is a series of phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated COVID-19 therapeutics from February 2020 through May 2021. ACTT-1 compared remdesivir plus SOC to placebo plus SOC, and in ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, remdesivir plus SOC was the control group. This post hoc analysis compared recovery and mortality between these comparable sequential cohorts of patients who received remdesivir plus SOC, adjusting for baseline characteristics with propensity score weighting. The analysis was repeated for participants in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4 who received remdesivir plus dexamethasone plus SOC. Trends in SOC that could explain outcome improvements were analyzed. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04280705 [ACTT-1], NCT04401579 [ACTT-2], NCT04492475 [ACTT-3], and NCT04640168 [ACTT-4]). SETTING: 94 hospitals in 10 countries (86% U.S. participants). PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: SOC. MEASUREMENTS: 28-day mortality and recovery. RESULTS: Although outcomes were better in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were close to 1 (HR for recovery, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.17]; HR for mortality, 0.90 [CI, 0.56 to 1.40]). Comparable patients were less likely to be intubated in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1 (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.53 to 0.97]), and hydroxychloroquine use decreased. Outcomes improved from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3 (HR for recovery, 1.43 [CI, 1.24 to 1.64]; HR for mortality, 0.45 [CI, 0.21 to 0.97]). Potential explanatory factors (SOC trends, case surges, and variant trends) were similar between ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, except for increased dexamethasone use (11% to 77%). Outcomes were similar in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4. Antibiotic use decreased gradually across all stages. LIMITATION: Unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSION: Changes in patient composition explained improved outcomes from ACTT-1 to ACTT-2 but not from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3, suggesting improved SOC. These results support excluding nonconcurrent controls from analysis of platform trials in rapidly changing therapeutic areas. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

It's about the patients: Practical antibiotic stewardship in outpatient settings in the United States.

Antibiotic-resistant pathogens cause over 35,000 preventable deaths in the United States every year, and multiple strategies could decrease morbidity and mortality. As antibiotic stewardship requirements are being deployed for the outpatient setting, community providers are facing systematic challenges in implementing stewardship programs. Given that the vast majority of antibiotics are prescribed in the outpatient setting, there are endless opportunities to make a smart and informed choice when prescribing and to move the needle on antibiotic stewardship. Antibiotic stewardship in the community, or "smart prescribing" as we suggest, should factor in antibiotic efficacy, safety, local resistance rates, and overall cost, in addition to patient-specific factors and disease presentation, to arrive at an appropriate therapy. Here, we discuss some of the challenges, such as patient/parent pressure to prescribe, lack of data or resources for implementation, and a disconnect between guidelines and real-world practice, among others. We have assembled an easy-to-use best practice guide for providers in the outpatient setting who lack the time or resources to develop a plan or consult lengthy guidelines. We provide specific suggestions for antibiotic prescribing that align real-world clinical practice with best practices for antibiotic stewardship for two of the most common bacterial infections seen in the outpatient setting: community-acquired pneumonia and skin and soft-tissue infection. In addition, we discuss many ways that community providers, payors, and regulatory bodies can make antibiotic stewardship easier to implement and more streamlined in the outpatient setting.

Missed diagnosis of cirrhosis in the inpatient setting.

Cirrhosis accounts for a large number of deaths in the United States and worldwide, leading to an increasing burden on the healthcare system. Cirrhosis is, however, a progressive disease with different potential complications related to liver dysfunction and portal hypertension. Often, patients may present with complications of cirrhosis without having been diagnosed previously. It is pertinent that clinicians recognize these signs to place patients on an appropriate course of management to help delay or avoid further disease progression while avoiding deleterious outcomes and unnecessary utilization. We will discuss the epidemiology of liver disease, cirrhosis, and its complications (hepatic encephalopathy, ascites, and varices). In this study, we will discuss the rationale and impact of missing these diagnoses on the healthcare system and patient.

Implementation and impact on length of stay of a post-discharge remote patient monitoring program for acutely hospitalized COVID-19 pneumonia patients.

Objective: In order to manage COVID-19 patient population and bed capacity issues, remote patient monitoring (RPM) is a strategy used to transition patients from inpatients to home. We describe our RPM implementation process for post-acute care COVID-19 pneumonia patients. We also evaluate the impact of RPM on patient outcomes, including hospital length of stay (LOS), post-discharge Emergency Department (ED) visits, and hospital readmission. Materials and Methods: We utilized a cloud-based RPM platform (Vivify Health) and a nurse-monitoring service (Global Medical Response) to enroll COVID-19 patients who required oxygen supplementation after hospital discharge. We evaluated patient participation, biometric alerts, and provider communication. We also assessed the program's impact by comparing RPM patient outcomes with a retrospective cohort of Control patients who similarly required oxygen supplementation after discharge but were not referred to the RPM program. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate the 2 groups' demographic characteristics, hospital LOS, and readmission rates. Results: The RPM program enrolled 75 patients with respondents of a post-participation survey reporting high satisfaction with the program. Compared to the Control group (n = 150), which had similar demographics and baseline characteristics, the RPM group was associated with shorter hospital LOS (median 4.8 vs 6.1 days; P=.03) without adversely impacting return to the ED or readmission. Conclusion: We implemented a RPM program for post-acute discharged COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen supplementation. Our RPM program resulted in a shorter hospital LOS without adversely impacting quality outcomes for readmission rates and improved healthcare utilization by reducing the average LOS.

Managing hospitalized patients with a COPD exacerbation: the role of hospitalists and the multidisciplinary team.

Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are associated with high rates of hospitalizations, costs, and morbidity. Therefore, hospitalists and the multidisciplinary team (hospital team) need to take a proactive approach to ensure patients are effectively managed from hospital admission to postdischarge. Comprehensive screening and diagnostic testing of patients at admission will enable an accurate diagnosis of COPD exacerbations, and severity, as well as other factors that may impact the length of hospital stay. Depending on the exacerbation severity and cause, pharmacotherapies may include short-acting bronchodilators, systemic corticosteroids, and antibiotics. Oxygen and/or ventilatory support may benefit patients with demonstrable hypoxemia. In preparation for discharge, the hospital team should ensure that patients receive the appropriate maintenance therapy, are counseled on their medications including inhalation devices, and proactively discuss smoking cessation and vaccinations. For follow-up, effective communication can be achieved by transferring discharge summaries to the primary care physician via an inpatient case manager. An inpatient case manager can support both the hospitalist and the patient in scheduling follow-up appointments, sending patient reminders, and confirming that a first outpatient visit has occurred. A PubMed search (prior to 26 January 2021) was conducted using terms such as: COPD, exacerbation, hospitalization. This narrative review focuses on the challenges the hospital team encounters in achieving optimal outcomes in the management of patients with COPD exacerbations. Additionally, we propose a novel simplified algorithm that may help the hospital team to be more proactive in the diagnosis and management of patients with COPD exacerbations.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chronic Cough.

Chronic cough is defined by a duration lasting at least 8 weeks. The most common causes of chronic cough include smoking-related lung disease, upper airway cough syndrome, asthma, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis. The etiology of chronic cough in some patients may be difficult to localize to an isolated source and is often multifactorial. The complex pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and variable manifestations of chronic cough underscore the challenges faced by clinicians in the evaluation and management of these patients. Imaging plays a role in the initial evaluation, although there is a lack of high-quality evidence guiding which modalities are useful and at what point in time the clinical evaluation should be performed. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Effectiveness and Safety of Dabigatran Compared to Vitamin K Antagonists in Non-Asian Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Real-life data about the use of dabigatran in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation are warranted. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness and safety of dabigatran, globally and stratified by dose (110/150 mg twice daily), vs vitamin K antagonists in non-Asian patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation from "real-world" studies. METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to Cochrane methodological standards. The results were reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement) statement. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess bias risk. MEDLINE and EMBASE, from inception up to May 2021, using appropriate controlled vocabulary and free search terms, were searched.  RESULTS: A total of 34 studies, corresponding to 37 articles involving 1,600,722 participants (1,154,283 exposed to vitamin K antagonists and 446,439 to dabigatran) were eligible for this review. Dabigatran 150 mg reduced the risk of ischemic stroke compared with vitamin K antagonists, with a 14% risk reduction (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.98). Globally, dabigatran reduced the risk of all-cause mortality compared with vitamin K antagonists (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69-0.84), with a greater effect observed with dabigatran 150 mg (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.58-0.73). There was a trend towards a lower risk of myocardial infarction with dabigatran 150 mg (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.04). Regarding the primary safety outcomes, dabigatran (either at a dose of 150 mg or 110 mg) reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with vitamin K antagonists (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.83), as well as the risk of intracranial bleeding (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.39-0.50) and fatal bleeding (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.95), but with a slight increase in gastrointestinal bleeding risk (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.26). CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran has a favorable impact on effectiveness and safety outcomes compared with vitamin K antagonists in real-world populations.

Continuous glucose monitoring in an end-stage renal disease patient with diabetes receiving hemodialysis.

Diabetes is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and contributes to heightened morbidity and mortality in dialysis patients. Given that ESRD patients are susceptible to hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia via multiple pathways, adequate glycemic monitoring and control is a cornerstone in diabetic kidney disease management. In ESRD, existing glycemic metrics such as glycated hemoglobin, self-monitored blood glucose, fructosamine, and glycated albumin have limitations in accuracy, convenience, and accessibility. In contrast, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides automated, less invasive glucose measurements and more comprehensive glycemic data versus conventional metrics. Here, we report a 48-year-old male with ESRD due to diabetes receiving thrice-weekly hemodialysis who experienced decreased patient-burden, greater glucose monitoring adherence, improved glycemic parameters, and reduction in hypoglycemia after transitioning to CGM. Through this case, we discuss how CGM is a practical, convenient patient-centered tool that may improve metabolic outcomes and quality of life in ESRD patients with diabetes.

Improved outcomes over time for adult COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19's pulmonary manifestations are broad, ranging from pneumonia with no supplemental oxygen requirements to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with acute respiratory failure (ARF). In response, new oxygenation strategies and therapeutics have been developed, but their large-scale effects on outcomes in severe COVID-19 patients remain unknown. Therefore, we aimed to examine the trends in mortality, mechanical ventilation, and cost over the first six months of the pandemic for adult COVID-19 patients in the US who developed ARDS or ARF. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The Vizient Clinical Data Base, a national database comprised of administrative, clinical, and financial data from academic medical centers, was queried for patients ≥ 18-years-old with COVID-19 and either ARDS or ARF admitted between 3/2020-8/2020. Demographics, mechanical ventilation, length of stay, total cost, mortality, and discharge status were collected. Mann-Kendall tests were used to assess for significant monotonic trends in total cost, mechanical ventilation, and mortality over time. Chi-square tests were used to compare mortality rates between March-May and June-August. 110,223 adult patients with COVID-19 ARDS or ARF were identified. Mean length of stay was 12.1±13.3 days and mean total cost was $35,991±32,496. Mechanical ventilation rates were 34.1% and in-hospital mortality was 22.5%. Mean cost trended downward over time (p = 0.02) from $55,275 (March) to $18,211 (August). Mechanical ventilation rates trended down (p<0.01) from 53.8% (March) to 20.3% (August). Overall mortality rates also decreased (p<0.01) from 28.4% (March) to 13.7% (August). Mortality rates in mechanically ventilated patients were similar over time (p = 0.45), but mortality in patients not requiring mechanical ventilation decreased from March-May compared to June-July (13.5% vs 4.6%, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the outcomes of a large cohort with COVID-19 ARDS or ARF and the subsequent decrease in cost, mechanical ventilation, and mortality over the first 6 months of the pandemic in the US.