Current use of D-dimer for the exclusion of venous thrombosis in hospitalized patients.

D-dimer assay's utility for excluding venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized patients is debatable. We aimed to assess the current use of D-dimer as a diagnostic tool for excluding VTE in hospitalized patients and examine a mandatory age-adjusted D-dimer (AADD) threshold for diagnostic imaging. Retrospective cohort study between 2014 to 2019 that included patients from medical and surgical wards with a positive AADD result drawn during their hospitalization. The outcomes were determining a D-dimer threshold requiring further evaluation and assessing the prognostic value of D-dimer in predicting clinically relevant VTE in hospitalized patients. The cohort included 354 patients, 56% of them underwent definitive diagnostic imaging, and 7.6% were diagnosed with VTE after a positive AADD within 90 days of follow-up. Mortality rates were higher in patients diagnosed with VTE (33.3% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.03). Patients with pneumonia and other infectious etiologies were less likely to be further evaluated by definitive imaging (p = 0.001). Patients with a respiratory complaint (p = 0.02), chest pain (p < 0.001), or leg swelling (p = 0.01) were more likely to undergo diagnostic imaging. Patients with D-dimer levels > X2 the AADD were at increased risk of VTE [OR 3.87 (1.45-10.27)]. At 90 days of follow-up, no excess mortality was observed for patients without diagnostic evaluation following elevated AADD. D-dimer may be used in hospitalized patients to exclude VTE using the traditional AADD thresholds, with a high negative predictive value. D-dimer levels > X2 the AADD usually mandates further diagnostic imaging, while lower levels, probably do not require additional workup, with a sensitivity of almost 80% and no excess mortality.

Representation of women in editorial boards of infectious disease and microbiology journals-cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess whether there is an association between the proportion of female editors-in-chief and members of editorial boards in infectious disease (ID) and microbiology journals. METHODS: Our cross-sectional observational study included ID or microbiology journals according to the 2019 Clarivate Journal Citation Reports. Journals' Q ranking, open-access status, and number and gender of editors-in-chief and editorial board members were collected from the journals' official websites. We conducted a binary gender assignment for each editor using names, pictures, and other online descriptors. Journals with over 100 editorial board members and those with over 25% of board members for whom we could not determine gender were excluded. Editorial teams with >50% women were considered women dominant. Univariate and multivariable analyses for female editor dominance were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 167 journals were included, with total 6057 editorial members, 1655 (27.3%) of whom were women. Of 214 editors-in-chief, 48 (22%) were women, and only 25% (40 of 162) of journals had female editor-in-chief dominance. Factors associated with female dominance in the editor-in-chief role in univariate analysis were higher quartile rank, higher impact factor, and open access. Open-access journals remined significant in multivariable analysis (odds ratio (OR) 2.521; 95% CI, 1.140-5.576, p = 0.022). Larger editorial boards were less likely to have female dominance. Female editor-in-chief dominance was significantly associated with women-dominant editorial boards. DISCUSSION: ID and microbiology journals have significantly few women as editors-in-chief and editorial board members. Understanding the reasons for this inequality is required as an important step to confront and resolve it.

Interventions to reduce infections caused by multidrug resistant Enterobacteriaceae (MDR-E): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate different interventions to reduce multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (MDR-E) infection/colonization. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating interventions for prevention of MDR-E infection/colonization among hospitalized adult patients. The co-primary outcomes were mortality and MDR-E infections. PubMed, Cochrane library, and LILACS databases were searched up till December 2019, as well as grey literature sources. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Infection/colonization/acquisition outcomes were reported per patient-days as pooled incidence ratios (IRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Interrupted time series (ITS) analysis studies were reported separately. RESULTS: Sixty-three studies were included, 16 RCTs, 33 observational studies, and 14 ITS. For the intervention of antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP), 23 studies were included. No differences in mortality or MDR-E infections were observed with ASP, however, MDR-E colonization was significantly reduced (IR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.82). Seventeen studies examined decolonization without significant difference in outcomes. Other interventions were scarcely represented. Among 14 ITS publications, most evaluating ASP, 11 showed benefit of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: ASP is an effective measure in preventing MDR-E colonization. Decolonization did not show significant benefit in reducing infection or colonization. Studies are needed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of ASP and assess bundles of interventions.

Risk-factors for re-admission and outcome of patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19.

Burden of COVID-19 on Hospitals across the globe is enormous and has clinical and economic implications. In this retrospective study including consecutive adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 who were admitted between 3/2020 and 30/9/20, we aimed to identify post-discharge outcomes and risk factors for re-admission among COVID-19 hospitalized patients. Mortality and re-admissions were documented for a median post discharge follow up of 59 days (interquartile range 28,161). Univariate and multivariate analyses of risk factors for re-admission were performed. Overall, 618 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included. Of the 544 patient who were discharged, 10 patients (1.83%) died following discharge and 50 patients (9.2%) were re-admitted. Median time to re-admission was 7 days (interquartile range 3, 24). Oxygen saturation or treatment prior to discharge were not associated with re-admissions. Risk factors for re-admission in multivariate analysis included solid organ transplantation (hazard ratio [HR] 3.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.73-7.5, p = 0.0028) and higher Charlson comorbidity index (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.23-1.46, p < 0.0001). Mean age of post discharge mortality cases was 85.0 (SD 9.98), 80% of them had cognitive decline or needed help in ADL at baseline. In conclusion, re-admission rates of hospitalized COVID-19 are fairly moderate. Predictors of re-admission are non-modifiable, including baseline comorbidities, rather than COVID-19 severity or treatment.