Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Adults: Case Finding Through Systematic Review of Electronic Medical Records.

BACKGROUND: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A) is a severe condition temporally associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we applied the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) case definition to identify diagnosed and undiagnosed MIS-A cases among adults discharged during April 2020-January 2021 from 4 Atlanta, Georgia hospitals affiliated with a single medical center. Non-MIS-A coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification encounter code U07.1. We calculated the ratio of MIS-A to COVID-19 hospitalizations, compared demographic characteristics of the 2 cohorts, and described clinical characteristics of MIS-A patients. RESULTS: We identified 11 MIS-A cases, none of which were diagnosed by the treatment team, and 5755 COVID-19 hospitalizations (ratio 1:523). Compared with patients with COVID-19, patients with MIS-A were more likely to be younger than 50 years (72.7% vs 26.1%, P < .01) and to be non-Hispanic Black (81.8% vs 50.0%, P = .04). Ten patients with MIS-A (90.9%) had at least 1 underlying medical condition. Two MIS-A patients (18.2%) had a previous episode of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, occurring 37 and 55 days prior to admission. All MIS-A patients developed left ventricular systolic dysfunction. None had documented mucocutaneous involvement. All required intensive care, all received systemic corticosteroids, 8 (72.7%) required mechanical ventilation, 2 (18.2%) required mechanical cardiovascular circulatory support, and none received intravenous immunoglobulin. Two (18.2%) died or were discharged to hospice. CONCLUSIONS: MIS-A is a severe but likely underrecognized complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Improved recognition of MIS-A is needed to quantify its burden and identify populations at highest risk.

Trends in ICU Mortality From Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Tale of Three Surges.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between time period of hospitalization and hospital mortality among critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Observational cohort study from March 6, 2020, to January 31, 2021. SETTING: ICUs at four hospitals within an academic health center network in Atlanta, GA. PATIENTS: Adults greater than or equal to 18 years with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to an ICU during the study period (i.e., Surge 1: March to April, Lull 1: May to June, Surge 2: July to August, Lull 2: September to November, Surge 3: December to January). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1,686 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to an ICU during the study period, all-cause hospital mortality was 29.7%. Mortality differed significantly over time: 28.7% in Surge 1, 21.3% in Lull 1, 25.2% in Surge 2, 30.2% in Lull 2, 34.7% in Surge 3 (p = 0.007). Mortality was significantly associated with 1) preexisting risk factors (older age, race, ethnicity, lower body mass index, higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, admission from a nursing home); 2) clinical status at ICU admission (higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, higher d-dimer, higher C-reactive protein); and 3) ICU interventions (receipt of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, renal replacement therapy, inhaled vasodilators). After adjusting for baseline and clinical variables, there was a significantly increased risk of mortality associated with admission during Lull 2 (relative risk, 1.37 [95% CI = 1.03-1.81]) and Surge 3 (relative risk, 1.35 [95% CI = 1.04-1.77]) as compared to Surge 1. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increased experience and evidence-based treatments, the risk of death for patients admitted to the ICU with coronavirus disease 2019 was highest during the fall and winter of 2020. Reasons for this increased mortality are not clear.

Quantification of Occupational and Community Risk Factors for SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity Among Health Care Workers in a Large U.S. Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: Identifying occupational risk factors for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among health care workers (HCWs) can improve HCW and patient safety. OBJECTIVE: To quantify demographic, occupational, and community risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among HCWs in a large health care system. DESIGN: A logistic regression model was fitted to data from a cross-sectional survey conducted in April to June 2020, linking risk factors for occupational and community exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. SETTING: A large academic health care system in the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area. PARTICIPANTS: Employees and medical staff members elected to participate in SARS-CoV-2 serology testing offered to all HCWs as part of a quality initiative and completed a survey on exposure to COVID-19 and use of personal protective equipment. MEASUREMENTS: Demographic risk factors for COVID-19, residential ZIP code incidence of COVID-19, occupational exposure to HCWs or patients who tested positive on polymerase chain reaction test, and use of personal protective equipment as potential risk factors for infection. The outcome was SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. RESULTS: Adjusted SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was estimated to be 3.8% (95% CI, 3.4% to 4.3%) (positive, n = 582) among the 10 275 HCWs (35% of the Emory Healthcare workforce) who participated in the survey. Community contact with a person known or suspected to have COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.9 [CI, 1.4 to 2.6]; 77 positive persons [10.3%]) and community COVID-19 incidence (aOR, 1.5 [CI, 1.0 to 2.2]) increased the odds of infection. Black individuals were at high risk (aOR, 2.1 [CI, 1.7 to 2.6]; 238 positive persons [8.3%]). LIMITATIONS: Participation rates were modest and key workplace exposures, including job and infection prevention practices, changed rapidly in the early phases of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Demographic and community risk factors, including contact with a COVID-19-positive person and Black race, are more strongly associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among HCWs than is exposure in the workplace. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Emory COVID-19 Response Collaborative.

Sepsis Surveillance Using Adult Sepsis Events Simplified eSOFA Criteria Versus Sepsis-3 Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Criteria.

OBJECTIVES: Sepsis-3 defines organ dysfunction as an increase in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by greater than or equal to 2 points. However, some Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score components are not routinely recorded in all hospitals' electronic health record systems, limiting its utility for wide-scale sepsis surveillance. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released the Adult Sepsis Event surveillance definition that includes simplified organ dysfunction criteria optimized for electronic health records (eSOFA). We compared eSOFA versus Sequential Organ Failure Assessment with regard to sepsis prevalence, overlap, and outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: One hundred eleven U.S. hospitals in the Cerner HealthFacts dataset. PATIENTS: Adults hospitalized in 2013-2015. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified clinical indicators of presumed infection (blood cultures and antibiotics) concurrent with either: 1) an increase in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by 2 or more points (Sepsis-3) or 2) 1 or more eSOFA criteria: vasopressor initiation, mechanical ventilation initiation, lactate greater than or equal to 2.0 mmol/L, doubling in creatinine, doubling in bilirubin to greater than or equal to 2.0 mg/dL, or greater than or equal to 50% decrease in platelet count to less than 100 cells/µL (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event). We compared area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for discriminating in-hospital mortality, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Of 942,360 patients in the cohort, 57,242 (6.1%) had sepsis by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment versus 41,618 (4.4%) by eSOFA. Agreement between sepsis by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and eSOFA was good (Cronbach's alpha 0.81). Baseline characteristics and infectious diagnoses were similar, but mortality was higher with eSOFA (17.1%) versus Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (14.4%; p < 0.001) as was discrimination for mortality (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.774 vs 0.759; p < 0.001). Comparisons were consistent across subgroups of age, infectious diagnoses, and comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: The Adult Sepsis Event's eSOFA organ dysfunction criteria identify a smaller, more severely ill sepsis cohort compared with the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, but with good overlap and similar clinical characteristics. Adult Sepsis Events may facilitate wide-scale automated sepsis surveillance that tracks closely with the more complex Sepsis-3 criteria.

Serial Daily Organ Failure Assessment Beyond ICU Day 5 Does Not Independently Add Precision to ICU Risk-of-Death Prediction.

OBJECTIVES: To identify circumstances in which repeated measures of organ failure would improve mortality prediction in ICU patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study, with external validation in a deidentified ICU database. SETTING: Eleven ICUs in three university hospitals within an academic healthcare system in 2014. PATIENTS: Adults (18 yr old or older) who satisfied the following criteria: 1) two of four systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria plus an ordered blood culture, all within 24 hours of hospital admission; and 2) ICU admission for at least 2 calendar days, within 72 hours of emergency department presentation. INTERVENTION: NoneMEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:: Data were collected until death, ICU discharge, or the seventh ICU day, whichever came first. The highest Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score from the ICU admission day (ICU day 1) was included in a multivariable model controlling for other covariates. The worst Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores from the first 7 days after ICU admission were incrementally added and retained if they obtained statistical significance (p < 0.05). The cohort was divided into seven subcohorts to facilitate statistical comparison using the integrated discriminatory index. Of the 1,290 derivation cohort patients, 83 patients (6.4%) died in the ICU, compared with 949 of the 8,441 patients (11.2%) in the validation cohort. Incremental addition of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment data up to ICU day 5 improved the integrated discriminatory index in the validation cohort. Adding ICU day 6 or 7 Sequential Organ Failure Assessment data did not further improve model performance. CONCLUSIONS: Serial organ failure data improve prediction of ICU mortality, but a point exists after which further data no longer improve ICU mortality prediction of early sepsis.

The role of the hospital bed in hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile: A retrospective study with mediation analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether residing in a hospital bed that previously held an occupant with Clostridioides difficile increases the risk of hospital-onset C. difficile infection (HO-CDI). METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used a real-time location system to track the movement of hospital beds in 2 academic hospitals from April 2018 to August 2019. We abstracted patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and C. difficile polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results from the medical record. We defined patients as being exposed to a potentially "contaminated" bed or room if, within the preceding 7 days from their HO-CDI diagnosis, they resided in a bed or room respectively, that held an occupant with C. difficile in the previous 90 days. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine whether residing in a contaminated bed was associated with HO-CDI after controlling for time at risk and requiring intensive care. We assessed mediation and interaction from a contaminated hospital room. RESULTS: Of 25,032 hospital encounters with 18,860 unique patients, we identified 237 cases of HO-CDI. Exposure to a contaminated bed was associated with HO-CDI in unadjusted analyses (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-2.31) and adjusted analyses (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-2.0). Most of this effect was due to both mediation from and interaction with a contaminated hospital room. CONCLUSIONS: Residing in a hospital bed or room that previously had a patient with C. difficile increases the risk of HO-CDI. Increased attention to cleaning and disinfecting the healthcare environment may reduce hospital transmission of C. difficile.

Reductions in positive Clostridioides difficile events reportable to National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) with adoption of reflex enzyme immunoassay (EIA) testing in 13 Atlanta hospitals.

In total, 13 facilities changed C. difficile testing to reflexive testing by enzyme immunoassay (EIA) only after a positive nucleic acid-amplification test (NAAT); the standardized infection ratio (SIR) decreased by 46% (range, -12% to -71% per hospital). Changing testing practice greatly influenced a performance metric without changing C. difficile infection prevention practice.

Clinical Utilization of DiaSorin Molecular Polymerase Chain Reaction in Pneumocystis Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Pneumocystis jirovecii polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing is a sensitive diagnostic tool but does not distinguish infection from colonization. Cycle threshold (CT) may correlate with fungal burden and could be considered in clinical decision making. Clinical use of PCR and significance of CT values have not previously been examined with the DiaSorin Molecular platform. METHODS: Retrospective review of P jirovecii PCR, CT values and clinical data from 18 months in a multihospital academic health system. The diagnostic performance of PCR with respect to pathology and correlation of CT with severity were examined. RESULTS: Ninety-nine of 1006 (9.8%) assays from 786 patients in 919 encounters were positive. Among 91 (9.9%) encounters in which P jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) was treated, 41 (45%) were influenced by positive PCR. Negative PCR influenced discontinuation of therapy in 35 cases. Sensitivity and specificity of PCR were 93% (95% CI, 68%-100%) and 94% (95% CI, 91%-96%) with respect to pathology. CT values from deep respiratory specimens were significantly different among treated patients (P = .04) and those with positive pathology results (P < .0001) compared to patients not treated and those with negative pathology, respectively, and was highly predictive of positive pathology results (area under the curve = 0.92). No significant difference was observed in comparisons based on indicators of disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: Pneumocystis jirovecii PCR was a highly impactful tool in the diagnosis and management of PJP, and use of CT values may have value in the treatment decision process in select cases. Further investigation in a prospective manner is needed.

Sustained decrease in urine culture utilization after implementing a reflex urine culture intervention: A multicenter quasi-experimental study.

Accurately diagnosing urinary tract infections (UTIs) in hospitalized patients remains challenging, requiring correlation of frequently nonspecific symptoms and laboratory findings. Urine cultures (UCs) are often ordered indiscriminately, especially in patients with urinary catheters, despite the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines recommending against routine screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB).1,2 Positive UCs can be difficult for providers to ignore, leading to unnecessary antibiotic treatment of ASB.2,3 Using diagnostic stewardship to limit UCs to situations with a positive urinalysis (UA) can reduce inappropriate UCs since the absence of pyuria suggests the absence of infection.4-6 We assessed the impact of the implementation of a UA with reflex to UC algorithm ("reflex intervention") on UC ordering practices, diagnostic efficiency, and UTIs using a quasi-experimental design.

Quantification of occupational and community risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among healthcare workers in a large U.S. healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying occupational risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers can inform efforts to improve healthcare worker and patient safety and reduce transmission. This study aimed to quantify demographic, occupational, and community risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among healthcare workers in a large metropolitan healthcare system. METHODS: We analyzed data from a cross-sectional survey conducted from April through June of 2020 linking risk factors for occupational and community exposure to COVID-19 with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. A multivariable logistic regression model was fit to quantify risk factors for infection. Participants were employees and medical staff members who elected to participate in SARS-CoV-2 serology testing offered to all healthcare workers as part of a quality initiative, and who completed a survey on exposure to COVID-19 and use of personal protective equipment. Exposures of interest included known demographic risk factors for COVID-19, residential zip code incidence of COVID-19, occupational exposure to PCR test-positive healthcare workers or patients, and use of personal protective equipment. The primary outcome of interest was SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was estimated to be 5.7% (95% CI: 5.2%-6.1%) among 10,275 healthcare workers. Community contact with a person known or suspected to have COVID-19 (aOR=1.9, 95% CI:1.4-2.5) and zip code level COVID-19 incidence (aOR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.0-2.0) increased the odds of infection. Black individuals were at high risk (aOR=2.0, 95% CI:1.6-2.4). Overall, occupational risk factors accounted for 27% (95% CI: 25%-30%) of the risk among healthcare workers and included contact with a PCR test-positive healthcare worker (aOR=1.2, 95% CI:1.0-1.6). CONCLUSIONS: Community risk factors, including contact with a COVID-19 positive individual and residential COVID-19 incidence, are more strongly associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among healthcare workers than exposure in the workplace.

Filtering authentic sepsis arising in the ICU using administrative codes coupled to a SIRS screening protocol.

PURPOSE: Using administrative codes and minimal physiologic and laboratory data, we sought a high-specificity identification strategy for patients whose sepsis initially appeared during their ICU stay. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied all patients discharged from an academic hospital between September 1, 2013 and October 31, 2014. Administrative codes and minimal physiologic and laboratory criteria were used to identify patients at high risk of developing the onset of sepsis in the ICU. Two clinicians then independently reviewed the patient record to verify that the screened-in patients appeared to become septic during their ICU admission. RESULTS: Clinical chart review verified sepsis in 437/466 ICU stays (93.8%). Of these 437 encounters, only 151 (34.6%) were admitted to the ICU with neither SIRS nor evidence of infection and therefore appeared to become septic during their ICU stay. CONCLUSIONS: Selected administrative codes coupled to SIRS criteria and applied to patients admitted to ICU can yield up to 94% authentic sepsis patients. However, only 1/3 of patients thus identified appeared to become septic during their ICU stay. Studies that depend on high-intensity monitoring for description of the time course of sepsis require clinician review and verification that sepsis initially appeared during the monitoring period.