Effect of hospital assignment on mortality for AMI patients.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to treat acute myocardial infarction (AMI) if PCI can be performed within two hours. PCI is a centralized treatment, and therefore a common trade-off is whether to send AMI patients directly to a hospital that performs PCI, or postpone a potential PCI-treatment by first receiving acute treatment at a local hospital that can not perform PCI. In this paper, we estimate the effect of sending patients directly to a PCI-hospital on AMI mortality. METHODS: Using nation-wide individual-level data from 2010 to 2015, we studied mortality rates for AMI patients sent directly to a hospital that performs PCI (N=20 336) compared to AMI patients sent to a hospital not performing PCI (N=33 437). Since the underlying health of patients may affect both hospital assignment and mortality, estimates from traditional multivariate risk adjustment models are likely biased. We therefore apply an instrumental variable (IV) model using the historical municipal share sent directly to a PCI-hospital as an instrument for being sent directly to a PCI-hospital. RESULTS: Patients sent directly to a PCI-hospital are younger and have fewer comorbidities than patients who are first sent to a non-PCI-hospital. IV results suggest that those initially sent to PCI-hospitals have 4.8 percentage points decrease (95% CI (- 18.1)-8.5) in mortality after one month compared to those initially sent to non-PCI-hospitals. CONCLUSION: Our IV results suggest that there is a non-significant decrease in mortality for AMI patients sent directly to a PCI hospital. The estimates are too imprecise to conclude that health personnel should change their practice and send more patients directly to a PCI-hospital. Moreover, the results may be taken to suggest that health personnel navigate AMI patients to the best treatment option.

Preterm birth after the introduction of COVID-19 mitigation measures in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark: a registry-based difference-in-differences study.

BACKGROUND: Although some studies have reported a decrease in preterm birth following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the findings are inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the incidences of preterm birth before and after the introduction of COVID-19 mitigation measures in Scandinavian countries using robust population-based registry data. STUDY DESIGN: This was a registry-based difference-in-differences study using births from January 2014 through December 2020 in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. The changes in the preterm birth (<37 weeks) rates before and after the introduction of COVID-19 mitigation measures (set to March 12, 2020) were compared with the changes in preterm birth before and after March 12 from 2014 to 2019. The differences per 1000 births were calculated for 2-, 4-, 8-, 12-, and 16-week intervals before and after March 12. The secondary analyses included medically indicated preterm birth, spontaneous preterm birth, and very preterm (<32 weeks) birth. RESULTS: A total of 1,519,521 births were included in this study. During the study period, 5.6% of the births were preterm in Norway and Sweden, and 5.7% were preterm in Denmark. There was a seasonal variation in the incidence of preterm birth, with the highest incidence during winter. In all the 3 countries, there was a slight overall decline in preterm births from 2014 to 2020. There was no consistent evidence of a change in the preterm birth rates following the introduction of COVID-19 mitigation measures, with difference-in-differences estimates ranging from 3.7 per 1000 births (95% confidence interval, -3.8 to 11.1) for the first 2 weeks after March 12, 2020, to -1.8 per 1000 births (95% confidence interval, -4.6 to 1.1) in the 16 weeks after March 12, 2020. Similarly, there was no evidence of an impact on medically indicated preterm birth, spontaneous preterm birth, or very preterm birth. CONCLUSION: Using high-quality national data on births in 3 Scandinavian countries, each of which implemented different approaches to address the pandemic, there was no evidence of a decline in preterm births following the introduction of COVID-19 mitigation measures.

Factors associated with hospitalization, invasive mechanical ventilation treatment and death among all confirmed COVID-19 cases in Norway: Prospective cohort study.

Aims: For everyone with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 in Norway, we studied whether age, sex, comorbidity, continent of birth and nursing home residency were risk factors for hospitalization, invasive mechanical ventilation treatment and death. Methods: Data for everyone who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Norway by end of June 2020 (N = 8569) were linked at the individual level to hospitalization, receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation treatment and death measured to end of July 2020. Underlying comorbidity was proxied by hospital-based in- or outpatient treatment during the two months before the SARS-CoV-2 test. Multivariable generalized linear models were used to assess risk ratios (RRs). Results: Risk of hospitalization was particularly high for elderly (for those aged 90 and above: RR 9.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.1-12.7; comparison group aged below 50), Norwegian residents born in Asia, Africa or Latin-America (RR 2.1; 95% CI 1.9-2.4; comparison group born in Norway), patients with underlying comorbidity (RR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4-1.8) and men (RR 1.3; 95% CI 1.2-1.5). Men and residents born in Africa, Asia and Latin-America were also at higher risk of receiving ventilation treatment and dying, but the mortality risk was especially high for the elderly (for those aged 90 and above: RR 607.9; 95% CI 145.5-2540.1; comparison group aged below 50) and residents in nursing homes (RR 4.2; 95% CI 3.1-5.7). Conclusions: High age was the most important predictor of severe disease and death if infected with SARS-CoV-2, and nursing home residents were at particularly high risk of death.

Admissions to Norwegian Hospitals during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In mid-March 2020, the Norwegian government implemented measures to contain the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and hospitals prepared to handle an unpredictable inflow of patients with COVID-19. AIM: The study was performed to describe the changes in hospital admissions during the first phase of the pandemic. METHODS: The Norwegian Institute of Public Health established a national preparedness register with daily updates on COVID-19 cases and the use of health services. We used individual-level information on inpatients from the electronic journal systems for all hospitals in Norway to estimate daily hospital admissions. RESULTS: Before the onset of the pandemic in March, there was an average of 2400 inpatient admissions per day in Norway, which decreased to approximately 1500 in the first few days after lockdown measures were implemented. The relative magnitudes of the decreases were similar in men and women and across all age groups. The decreases were substantial for both elective (54%) and emergency (29%) inpatient care. The admission rate gradually increased and reached pre-pandemic levels in June. However, the reductions in admissions for pneumonia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease seemed to persist. CONCLUSIONS: The elective and emergency inpatient admission rates were substantially reduced a few days after the pandemic response measures were implemented. The ways in which the lack or postponement of care may have affected the health and well-being of patients is an important issue to be addressed in future research.