Mortality Rate of COVID-19 With Comorbid Pneumonia in a Rural Area.

BACKGROUND: A myriad of risk factors and comorbidities have been determined to influence COVID-19 mortality rates; among these is pneumonia. This study considers pneumonia as a risk factor for increased mortality in patients admitted with COVID-19 in a rural healthcare system. We predicted that the presence of pneumonia of any kind would increase mortality rates in patients admitted with COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted using data collected from hospitals in the Freeman Health System (FHS) located in Joplin and Neosho, Missouri. Data were collected between April 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. Using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes, the investigators identified five distinct patient populations: patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia due to COVID-19 (P1); patients with COVID-19 but without pneumonia due to COVID-19 (P2); patients with COVID-19 and any type of pneumonia (P3); patients with COVID-19 but without any type of pneumonia (P4); and patients without COVID-19 and with any type of pneumonia (P5). In order to understand how pneumonia influences COVID-19 outcomes, the investigators used Wald's method and a two-sample proportion summary hypothesis test to determine the confidence interval and to compare the mortality rates between these populations, respectively. RESULTS: The population of patients with COVID-19 and any type of pneumonia (P3) and the population of patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia due to COVID-19 (P1) showed the highest mortality rates. The population of patients with COVID-19 but without any type of pneumonia (P4) had the lowest mortality rate. The data revealed that having pneumonia combined with COVID-19 in any patient population led to a higher mortality rate than COVID-19 alone. CONCLUSION: Mortality rates were higher among COVID-19 patients with pneumonia compared to COVID-19 patients without pneumonia. Additionally, pneumonia, by itself, was found to have a higher mortality rate compared to COVID-19 alone.

Diabetes and COVID-19 Outcomes: An Analysis of Freeman Health System Patients.

BACKGROUND: As COVID-19 continues to affect millions of people around the world, it has become vital to understand how comorbidities such as diabetes affect the health outcomes of these patients. While earlier studies have focused on major metropolitan areas, rural settings have been comparatively understudied. The goal of this study is to understand the effect on mortality that these two diseases have in the inpatient setting of a rural population. METHODS: The electronic medical records of all adult patients admitted to Freeman Health System, Joplin, Missouri, United States, between April 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, were reviewed for the presence of COVID-19 infection and/or diabetes (type I and type II). Freeman Health is a major health system headquartered in Southwest Missouri. Diagnoses were obtained through the use of standard International Classification of Disease, 10th edition (ICD-10) codes. The initial data set consisted of 19,323 admissions. After excluding duplicate admissions and those who had already been infected with COVID-19, 1,729 patients with COVID-19, 172 patients with type I diabetes, and 3,992 patients with type II diabetes were included in the analysis of inpatient all-cause mortality. We hypothesized that patients with type I and type II diabetes would both show an increased risk of all-cause mortality. Mortality in the context of our study results refers to all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The all-cause mortality rate was 19.94% (137/687, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 16.95%-22.93%) in patients admitted with both diabetes (the combined type I and type II subsets) and COVID-19 (P1). The mortality rate was 16.03% (167/1042, with 95% CI of 13.80%-18.25%) in patients admitted with COVID-19 who did not have diabetes (P2). Patients admitted with a comorbid diagnosis of diabetes but without COVID-19 (P5) had a much lower mortality rate of 5.98% (249/4164, with a 95% CI of 5.26%-6.70%). The combination of both COVID-19 and diabetes together was associated with a higher mortality rate than either of the two separately. The mortality rate was additionally elevated in patients with both type II diabetes and COVID-19 (P4) (134/663, mortality rate of 20.21% with 95% CI of 17.15%-23.27%) versus those with COVID-19 without diabetes (P2) (167/1042, 16.03% with 95% CI of 13.80%-18.25%), an overall difference of 4.18% (95% CI of 0.40%-7.94%). The subset of patients with type I diabetes with COVID-19 (P3) and type I diabetes without COVID-19 (P6) were too small to accurately power individual analysis. The subset of patients with diabetes (type I and type II) and without COVID-19 (P5) had the lowest mortality rate of any subset adequately powered for analysis at 5.98% (249/41464, CI of 5.26%-6.70%).  Conclusions: The results of this study show that type II diabetes is a significant risk factor for mortality in admitted COVID-19 patients. P4 had the highest overall mortality of any subset studied. The study was underpowered to show if type I diabetes patients, with and without COVID-19, had an increased mortality when analyzed separately. COVID-19 significantly increased mortality in all subsets adequately powered for full analysis.

A Retrospective Analysis of Hyperlipidemia and COVID-19 Outcomes Investigated in a Rural Midwestern Population.

Background COVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, a coronavirus discovered in 2019. Its impact on the world continues to be studied due to the significant death toll of the disease. As the COVID-19 pandemic remains ongoing, examining the association of COVID-19 with comorbidities and resulting mortality is necessary. This study focuses on population health outcomes with COVID-19 infection and hyperlipidemia (total cholesterol greater than or equal to 200 mg/dL) as a comorbidity, including potential associations with age and sex. Methods As a retrospective analytical study, patients were divided into three populations based on COVID-19 and/or hyperlipidemia based on the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) codes reported in the electronic medical record system at Freeman Health System (FHS) in Southwest Missouri from April 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. Wald's methods and two sample proportion summary hypotheses with confidence intervals (CIs) were used for comparison. The populations were subdivided and analyzed for age and sex differences. Results Patients with both COVID-19 and hyperlipidemia had a higher mortality rate than patients with COVID-19 and without hyperlipidemia and patients with hyperlipidemia and without COVID-19; patients with COVID-19 and without hyperlipidemia had a higher mortality rate than patients with hyperlipidemia and without COVID-19. All comparisons across these populations were statistically significant (p-value < 0.05). While increased age was associated with increased mortality in all groups, sex was not predictive in this regard. Conclusion Our study provides insights into variables affecting COVID-19 outcomes in a rural Midwestern population by showing how the comorbidity hyperlipidemia contributes to increased mortality.

COVID-19 and Respiratory Failure: A Retrospective Observational Study From a Rural Midwest Hospital.

Background Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) produces the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19), primarily presenting with respiratory symptoms, including cough, shortness of breath, etc. Respiratory failure can present similarly to a COVID-19 infection, and COVID-19 infection can cause respiratory failure. Thus, it is important to study respiratory failure, COVID-19, and the interaction between the two in hopes of improving patient outcomes. In this study, we compared mortality rates in patients admitted with COVID-19, respiratory failure, or both. Mortality rates in our study populations were further scrutinized based on patient age. Materials and methods Respiratory failure and COVID-19 data were collected via the electronic medical records system at Freeman Health System, a 410-bed, rural hospital, in Neosho and Joplin, Missouri, from April 2020 through December 2021. The patient population included all patients admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of COVID-19 or respiratory failure, as defined by the International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10). Patients with or without COVID-19, with or without respiratory failure, and patients with respiratory failure with COVID-19 were included. Results There was a significant increase in mortality (17.28%) in patients with COVID-19 and respiratory failure (P1) compared to patients with COVID-19 who did not have respiratory failure (P2). No significance was found when comparing patients with COVID-19 and respiratory failure (P1) and patients with respiratory failure without COVID-19 (P3) (p value=0.4921). In contrast, when divided based on age, we found a significant increase in mortality in patients 65 and older with COVID-19 and respiratory failure compared to patients 65 and older with respiratory failure who did not have COVID-19 (P5). There were no significant mortality increases in other comparisons. Conclusion When comparing patient populations within the Freeman Health System, patients with COVID-19 and respiratory failure had similar mortality rates as those with respiratory failure without COVID-19, while patients with only COVID-19 had a markedly reduced mortality rate, relatively. The higher mortality rates in patients with only respiratory failure when compared to patients with both respiratory failure and COVID-19 indicate that the presence of respiratory failure likely plays a bigger role in the inflammatory response that reduces one's chance of survival in this setting. Furthermore, age was shown to be a significant risk factor as patients aged 65 and older showed a greater mortality rate when patients had both COVID-19 and respiratory failure compared to patients with both conditions below the age of 65. The decrease in immune response that results in older patients is likely the largest contributing factor along with the increased likelihood of patients in this population also having more comorbidities, further decreasing the chance of survival. Future studies can investigate alternate treatment plans for patients aged 65 and older who are at higher risk of mortality with COVID-19 and respiratory failure.

COVID-19 and Kidney Disease (KD): A Retrospective Investigation in a Rural Southwestern Missouri Region Patient Population.

BACKGROUND: Studies have linked pre-existing kidney disease (KD) to higher rates of mortality due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. In the rural Midwest, where KD is prevalent, the impact of COVID-19 has been significant in a population that includes many patients on Medicare or Medicaid. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed assessing patients with acute kidney injury (AKI), chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end stage renal disease (ESRD), with and without COVID-19. International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision codes were submitted by physicians into Freeman Health System's Electronic Medical Records and gathered from April 2020 to January 2021. The data were analyzed and compared to determine whether the mortality rate in patients with varying stages of KD and COVID-19 was higher than the mortality rate in patients with KD alone, excluding variables such as sex and age. RESULTS: The 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 and any degree of KD, encompassing both AKI and CKD, was between 30.21% and 37.63%. This metric was significantly higher than the 95% CI of COVID-19 infection (6.70%-9.96%, p<0.0001) or KD alone (10.89%-13.01%, p<0.0001). Within those with COVID-19 and KD, the highest rate of mortality was in patients with AKI (38.13% and 49.02%). There was not sufficient statistical support in our sample to assert that COVID-19 increased mortality in ESRD patients. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, patients with KD and COVID-19 are at higher risk for mortality when compared to patients with KD alone. Further studies are warranted into individual comorbidities affecting KD patient outcomes with COVID-19.

A Retrospective Investigation: Outcome Comparisons Between Septic Patients With and Without Secondary Diagnosis of Hypothyroidism From a Rural Midwest Hospital.

Background Sepsis morbidity and mortality rates have remained high despite recent developments in clinical guidelines aimed to curtail this disease process. Understanding how sepsis interacts with comorbidities and pre-existing disease states is necessary for improving sepsis treatment. Accounting for specific pre-existing conditions in the treatment of sepsis patients may not only improve patient outcomes but also reduce healthcare costs by preventing possible complications. We sought to evaluate whether the presence of hypothyroidism affects outcomes in septic patients. Methods In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed the patient dataset from a not-for-profit rural hospital from January 2019 through June 2020. We chose the initial patient sample based on International Classification of Disease (ICD10) codes for sepsis. We then used the ICD10 code for hypothyroidism within that sample to identify the septic patients with hypothyroidism. We did two-sample proportion summary hypothesis tests to identify differences in mortality and 30-day readmission rates. Results In our dataset, we had 1,122 patients with sepsis, of whom 225 had hypothyroidism. There was no difference in sepsis outcomes between patients who had hypothyroidism compared to patients who did not have hypothyroidism. Additionally, we did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that the patient's sex affects sepsis outcomes in hypothyroid patients.  Conclusion  Within this Midwest population, the sepsis outcomes were not impacted by having hypothyroidism as a secondary diagnosis. Additionally, there was no sufficient evidence to suggest an impact on sepsis outcomes based on sex, either male or female, when considering concomitant hypothyroidism.

Compliance with SEP-1 guidelines is associated with improved outcomes for septic shock but not for severe sepsis.

Background: In 2018, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) issued a protocol for the treatment of sepsis. This bundle protocol, titled SEP-1 is a multicomponent 3 h and 6 h resuscitation treatment for patients with the diagnosis of either severe sepsis or septic shock. The SEP-1 bundle includes antibiotic administration, fluid bolus, blood cultures, lactate measurement, vasopressors for fluid-refractory hypotension, and a reevaluation of volume status. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with either severe sepsis or septic shock comparing mortality outcomes based on compliance with the updated SEP-1 bundle at a rural community hospital. Methods: Mortality outcome and readmission data were extracted from an electronic medical records database from January 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes were used to identify patients with either severe sepsis or septic shock. Once identified, patients were separated into four populations: patients with severe sepsis who met SEP-1, patients with severe sepsis who failed SEP-1, patients with septic shock who met SEP-1, and patients with septic shock who failed SEP-1. A patient who met bundle criteria (SEP-1 criteria) received each component of the bundle in the time allotted. Using chi-squared test of homogeneity, mortality outcomes for population proportions were investigated. Two sample proportion summary hypothesis test and 95% confidence intervals (CI) determined significance in mortality outcomes. Results: Out of our 1122 patient population, 437 patients qualified to be measured by CMS criteria. Of the 437 patients, 195 met the treatment bundle and 242 failed the treatment bundle. Upon comparing the two groups, we found the probable difference in mortality rate between the met(14.87%) and failed bundle(27.69%) groups to be significant(95% CI: 5.28-20.34, P=0.0013). However, the driving force of this result lies in the subgroup of patients with severe sepsis with septic shock, which show a higher mortality rate compared to the subgroup with just severe sepsis. The difference was within the range of 3.31% to 29.71%. Conclusion: This study shows that with septic shock obtained a benefit, decreased mortality, when the SEP-1 bundle was met. However, meeting the SEP-1 bundle had no benefit for patients who had the diagnosis of severe sepsis alone. The significant difference in mortality, found between the met and failed bundle groups, is primarily due to the number of patients with septic shock, and whether or not those patients with septic shock met or failed the bundle.

Reduction of myocardial reperfusion injury by aprotinin after regional ischemia and cardioplegic arrest.

BACKGROUND: Surgical coronary revascularization with cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegia has been associated with reperfusion injury. The serine protease inhibitor aprotinin has been suggested to reduce reperfusion injury, yet a clinically relevant study examining regional ischemia under conditions of cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegia has not been performed. METHODS: Pigs were subjected to 30 minutes of regional myocardial ischemia by distal left anterior descending coronary artery occlusion, followed by 60 minutes of cardiopulmonary bypass with 45 minutes of cardioplegic arrest and 90 minutes of post-cardiopulmonary bypass reperfusion. The treatment group (n = 6) was administered aprotinin systemically (40,000 kallikrein-inhibiting units [KIU]/kg intravenous loading dose, 40,000 KIU/kg pump prime, and 10,000 KIU x kg(-1) x h(-1) intravenous continuous infusion). Control animals (n = 6) received crystalloid solution. Global and regional myocardial functions were analyzed by the left ventricular+dP/dt and the percentage segment shortening, respectively. Left ventricular infarct size was measured by tetrazolium staining. Tissue myeloperoxidase activity was measured. Myocardial sections were immunohistochemically stained for nitrotyrosine. Coronary microvessel function was studied by videomicroscopy. RESULTS: Myocardial infarct size was decreased with aprotinin treatment (27.0% +/- 3.5% vs 45.3% +/- 3.0%, aprotinin vs control; P <.05). Myocardium from the ischemic territory showed diminished nitrotyrosine staining in aprotinin-treated animals versus controls, and this was significant by grade (1.3 +/- 0.2 vs 3.2 +/- 0.2, aprotinin vs control; P <.01). In the aprotinin group, coronary microvessel relaxation improved most in response to the endothelium-dependent agonist adenosine diphosphate (44.7% +/- 3.2% vs 19.7% +/- 1.7%, aprotinin vs control; P <.01). No significant improvements in myocardial function were observed with aprotinin treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Aprotinin reduces reperfusion injury after regional ischemia and cardioplegic arrest. Protease inhibition may represent a molecular strategy to prevent postoperative myocardial injury after surgical revascularization with cardiopulmonary bypass.