Cost Analysis From a Randomized Comparison of Immediate Versus Delayed Angiography After Cardiac Arrest.

Background In patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation, immediate coronary angiography did not improve clinical outcomes when compared with delayed angiography in the COACT (Coronary Angiography After Cardiac Arrest) trial. Whether 1 of the 2 strategies has benefits in terms of health care resource use and costs is currently unknown. We assess the health care resource use and costs in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods and Results A total of 538 patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of either immediate or delayed coronary angiography. Detailed health care resource use and cost-prices were collected from the initial hospital episode. A generalized linear model and a gamma distribution were performed. Generic quality of life was measured with the RAND-36 and collected at 12-month follow-up. Overall total mean costs were similar between both groups (EUR 33 575±19 612 versus EUR 33 880±21 044; P=0.86). Generalized linear model: (ß, 0.991; 95% CI, 0.894-1.099; P=0.86). Mean procedural costs (coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass graft) were higher in the immediate angiography group (EUR 4384±3447 versus EUR 3028±4220; P<0.001). Costs concerning intensive care unit and ward stay did not show any significant difference. The RAND-36 questionnaire did not differ between both groups. Conclusions The mean total costs between patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest randomly assigned to an immediate angiography or a delayed invasive strategy were similar during the initial hospital stay. With respect to the higher invasive procedure costs in the immediate group, a strategy awaiting neurological recovery followed by coronary angiography and planned revascularization may be considered. Registration URL: https://trialregister.nl; Unique identifier: NL4857.

Comprehensive Health Assessment 3 Months After Recovery From Acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: Long-term health sequelae of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be multiple but have thus far not been systematically studied. METHODS: All patients discharged after COVID-19 from the Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, were consecutively invited to a multidisciplinary outpatient facility. Also, nonadmitted patients with mild disease but with symptoms persisting >6 weeks could be referred by general practitioners. Patients underwent a standardized assessment including measurements of lung function, chest computed tomography (CT)/X-ray, 6-minute walking test, body composition, and questionnaires on mental, cognitive, health status, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: 124 patients (59 ±â€…14 years, 60% male) were included: 27 with mild, 51 with moderate, 26 with severe, and 20 with critical disease. Lung diffusion capacity was below the lower limit of normal in 42% of discharged patients. 99% of discharged patients had reduced ground-glass opacification on repeat CT imaging, and normal chest X-rays were found in 93% of patients with mild disease. Residual pulmonary parenchymal abnormalities were present in 91% of discharged patients and correlated with reduced lung diffusion capacity. Twenty-two percent had low exercise capacity, 19% low fat-free mass index, and problems in mental and/or cognitive function were found in 36% of patients. Health status was generally poor, particularly in the domains functional impairment (64%), fatigue (69%), and QoL (72%). CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive health assessment revealed severe problems in several health domains in a substantial number of ex-COVID-19 patients. Longer follow-up studies are warranted to elucidate natural trajectories and to find predictors of complicated long-term trajectories of recovery.

Implementation of a delirium assessment tool in the ICU can influence haloperidol use.

INTRODUCTION: In critically ill patients, delirium is a serious and frequent disorder that is associated with a prolonged intensive care and hospital stay and an increased morbidity and mortality. Without the use of a delirium screening instrument, delirium is often missed by ICU nurses and physicians. The effects of implementation of a screening method on haloperidol use is not known. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of the confusion assessment method-ICU (CAM-ICU) and the effect of its use on frequency and duration of haloperidol use. METHODS: We used a tailored implementation strategy focused on potential barriers. We measured CAM-ICU compliance, interrater reliability, and delirium knowledge, and compared the haloperidol use, as a proxy for delirium incidence, before and after the implementation of the CAM-ICU. RESULTS: Compliance and delirium knowledge increased from 77% to 92% and from 6.2 to 7.4, respectively (both, P < 0.0001). The interrater reliability increased from 0.78 to 0.89. More patients were treated with haloperidol (9.9% to 14.8%, P < 0.001), however with a lower dose (18 to 6 mg, P = 0.01) and for a shorter time period (5 [IQR:2-9] to 3 [IQR:1-5] days, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: With a tailored implementation strategy, a delirium assessment tool was successfully introduced in the ICU with the main goals achieved within four months. Early detection of delirium in critically ill patients increases the number of patients that receive treatment with haloperidol, however with a lower dose and for a shorter time period.