Risk of 30-Day All-Cause Readmission in Interstitial Lung Disease Patients after COVID-19: National-Level Data.

Rationale: Hospital readmission within 30 days poses challenges for healthcare providers, policymakers, and patients because of its impact on care quality, costs, and outcomes. Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) are particularly affected by readmission, which is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and reduced quality of life. Because small sample sizes have hindered previous studies, this study seeks to address this gap in knowledge by examining a large-scale dataset. Objective: To determine the rate and probability of 30-day all-cause readmission and secondary outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) or ILD admitted to the hospital. Methods: This study is a nested cohort study that used the PearlDiver patient records database. Adult patients (age ⩾18 yr) who were admitted to hospitals in 28 states in the United States with COVID-19 or ILD diagnoses were included. We defined and analyzed two separate cohorts in this study. The first cohort consisted of patients with COVID-19 and was later divided into two groups with or without a history of ILD. The second cohort consisted of patients with ILD and was later divided into groups with COVID-19 or with a non-COVID-19 pneumonia diagnosis at admission. We also studied two other subcohorts of patients with and without idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis within the second cohort. Propensity score matching was employed to match confounders between groups. The Kaplan-Meier log rank test was applied to compare the probabilities of outcomes. Results: We assessed the data of 2,286,775 patients with COVID-19 and 118,892 patients with ILD. We found that patients with COVID-19 with preexisting ILD had an odds ratio of 1.6 for 30-day all-cause readmission. Similarly, an odds ratio of 2.42 in readmission rates was observed among hospitalized individuals with ILD who contracted COVID-19 compared with those who were hospitalized for non-COVID-19 pneumonia. Our study also found a significantly higher probability of intensive care admission among patients in both cohorts. Conclusions: Patients with ILD face heightened rates of hospital readmissions, particularly when ILD is combined with COVID-19, resulting in adverse outcomes such as decreased quality of life and increased healthcare expenses. It is imperative to prioritize preventive measures against COVID-19 and establish effective postdischarge care strategies for patients with ILD.

Impact of concomitant gastroesophageal reflux disease symptomology on prognosis and pulmonary function of chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis.

Background and Objectives: Comorbid risk factors in chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (CHP) are poorly characterised. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is linked to interstitial lung diseases like idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), but its association and treatment in CHP is less understood. This study aims to understand the role and prevalence of GERD in CHP, plus the effect of GERD treatment on lung function and mortality. Methods: A tertiary referral centre panel was retrospectively reviewed for 214 patients diagnosed with CHP based on clinical history, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid analysis, imaging and histopathology. GERD diagnostic criteria included symptomology, acid suppressive therapy use and diagnostic testing. CHP patients with GERD (n = 89) and without GERD (n = 125) were compared via descriptive statistical analysis. Pulmonary function, GERD diagnosis plus treatment and other comorbidities were evaluated against CHP outcomes. Results: Respective differences between diagnosis and study termination dates in the GERD population versus without GERD for functional vital capacity (FVC) were - 1 L vs - 2.5 L, diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) were - 2 mL/min/mmHg versus - 1 mL/min/mmHg, per cent alive at the time of study 88% versus 81%, median date of survival 574.5 versus 850 and supplemental oxygen requirement 41% versus 37%. GERD prevalence was higher in CHP patients relative to the general population. No statistical significance was found between survival curves, oxygen requirement, smoking history, FVC, or DLCO. Conclusions: GERD could be a harmful comorbidity in CHP though may not necessarily affect survival or functional outcomes. This aligns with previous IPF studies, though remains controversial. Further research is needed regarding this association and treatment benefit.

The Role of Radiology in Multidisciplinary Discussion of Patients With Interstitial Lung Diseases.

Radiologists fulfill a vital role in the multidisciplinary care provided to patients with interstitial lung diseases and other diffuse parenchymal lung disorders. The diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases hinges on the consensus of clinical, radiology, and pathology medical subspecialists, but additional expertise from rheumatology, immunology, or hematology can be invaluable. The thin-section computed tomography (CT) features of lung involvement informs the diagnostic approach. Radiologists should be familiar with radiologic methods (including inspiratory/expiratory and prone imaging) and be well versed in the recognition of the CT features of fibrosis, assessment of the overall pattern of lung involvement, and classification according to the latest guidelines. We present a case-based review that highlights examples wherein CT features and subspecialist radiologist interpretation informed the multidisciplinary team consensus diagnosis and care pathways.

A retrospective analysis of normal saline and lactated ringers as resuscitation fluid in sepsis.

Background: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign suggested preferential resuscitation with balanced crystalloids, such as Lactated Ringer's (LR), although the level of recommendation was weak, and the quality of evidence was low. Past studies reported an association of unbalanced solutions, such as normal saline (NS), with increased AKI risks, metabolic acidosis, and prolonged ICU stay, although some of the findings are conflicting. We have compared the outcomes with the preferential use of normal saline vs. ringer's lactate in a cohort of sepsis patients. Method: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients visiting the ED of 19 different Mayo Clinic sites between August 2018 to November 2020 with sepsis and receiving at least 30 mL/kg fluid in the first 6 h. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on the type of resuscitation fluid (LR vs. NS) and propensity-matching was done based on clinical characteristics as well as fluid amount (with 5 ml/kg). Single variable logistic regression (categorical outcomes) and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare the primary and secondary outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: Out of 2022 patients meeting our inclusion criteria; 1,428 (70.6%) received NS, and 594 (29.4%) received LR as the predominant fluid (>30 mL/kg). Patients receiving predominantly NS were more likely to be male and older in age. The LR cohort had a higher BMI, lactate level and incidence of septic shock. Propensity-matched analysis did not show a difference in 30-day and in-hospital mortality rate, mechanical ventilation, oxygen therapy, or CRRT requirement. We did observe longer hospital LOS in the LR group (median 5 vs. 4 days, p = 0.047 and higher requirement for ICU post-admission (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.96; p = 0.026) in the NS group. However, these did not remain statistically significant after adjustment for multiple testing. Conclusion: In our matched cohort, we did not show any statistically significant difference in mortality rates, hospital LOS, ICU admission after diagnosis, mechanical ventilation, oxygen therapy and RRT between sepsis patients receiving lactated ringers and normal saline as predominant resuscitation fluid. Further large-scale prospective studies are needed to solidify the current guidelines on the use of balanced crystalloids.

Surviving Sepsis Guideline-Directed Fluid Resuscitation: An Assessment of Practice Patterns and Impact on Patient Outcomes.

IMPORTANCE: Aggressive fluid resuscitation remains a cornerstone of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines, but there is growing controversy regarding the recommended 30 mL/kg IV fluid dosage. It is contended that, in selected patients, this volume confers an increased risk of volume overload without either concomitant benefit or strong evidence in support of the recommended IV fluid dosage. OBJECTIVES: Assessment of practice patterns and their impact on patient outcomes following the surviving sepsis guidelines for fluid resuscitation. DESIGN: Large, multisite retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The retrospective study included all adult patients who presented to the emergency department at one of 19 different Mayo Clinic sites throughout the Midwest, Southeast, and Southwest from August 2018 to November 2020 with suspected sepsis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Eight-thousand four-hundred fourteen patients suspected to have sepsis were assessed regarding fluid resuscitation and outcomes among patients receiving 30 mL/kg IV fluid dosing compared with patients who did not. Patient demographics and clinical information were collected via electronic health records. Patients were divided into two cohorts: those who received 0-29.9 mL/kg of IV fluid and those who received 30.0+ mL/kg of IV fluid. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of fluid dose on in-hospital death, 30-day mortality, ICU admission after diagnosis, dialysis initiation after diagnosis, ventilator use, vasopressor use, as well as ICU and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: We observed lower in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality risk in the 30+ mL/kg dosing group. Increased fluid dosage did, however, carry a much greater chance of ICU admission. Most patients (72% after propensity score weighting) in our population received less than 30 mL/kg fluid (based on ideal body weight). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: IV fluid dosing for sepsis resuscitation greater than 30 mL/kg was associated with decreased risk of in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and reduced risk of requiring mechanical ventilation. Our data does ultimately seem to support the SSC recommendation.

COVID-19 and the effects on pulmonary function following infection: A retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been identified in over 110 million people with no studies comparing pre-infection pulmonary function to post-infection. This study's aim was to compare pre-infection and post-infection pulmonary function tests (PFT) in COVID-19 infected patients to better delineate between preexisting abnormalities and effects of the virus. METHODS: This was a retrospective multi-center cohort study. Patients were identified based on having COVID-19 and a pre- and post-infection PFT within one year of infection during the time period of March 1, 2020 to November 10, 2020. FINDINGS: There was a total of 80 patients, with an even split in gender; the majority were white (n = 70, 87·5%) and never smokers (n = 42, 52·5%). The majority had mild to moderate COVID-19 disease (n = 60, 75·1%) with 25 (31·2%) requiring hospitalization. There was no difference between the pre- and post-PFT data, specifically with the forced vital capacity (FVC) (p = 0·52), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)(p = 0·96), FEV1/FVC(p = 0·66), total lung capacity (TLC) (p = 0·21), and diffusion capacity (DLCO)(p = 0·88). There was no difference in the PFT when analyzed by hospitalization and disease severity. After adjusting for potential confounders, interstitial lung disease (ILD) was independently associated with a decreased FEV1 (-2·6 [95% CI, -6·7 to - 1·6] vs. -10·3 [95% CI, -17·7 to -2·9]; p = 0·03) and an increasing age (p = 0·01) and cystic fibrosis (-1·1 [95% CI, -4·5 to- 2·4] vs. -36·5 [95% CI, -52·1 to -21·0]; p < 0·01) were associated with decreasing FVC when comparing pre and post infection PFT. Only increasing age was independently associated with a reduction in TLC (p = 0·01) and DLCO (p = 0·02) before and after infection. INTERPRETATION: This study showed that there is no difference in pulmonary function as measured by PFT before and after COVID-19 infection in non-critically ill classified patients. There could be a relationship with certain underlying lung diseases (interstitial lung disease and cystic fibrosis) and decreased lung function following infection. This information should aid clinicians in their interpretation of pulmonary function tests obtained following COVID-19 infection. FUNDING: No funding was obtained for this study.