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.

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.

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.