COVID-19 in obstetrics 2020: the experience at a New York City medical center.

The global spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus during the early months of 2020 was rapid and exposed vulnerabilities in health systems throughout the world. Obstetric SARS-CoV-2 disease was discovered to be largely asymptomatic carriage but included a small rate of severe disease with rapid decompensation in otherwise healthy women. Higher rates of hospitalization, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission and intubation, along with higher infection rates in minority and disadvantaged populations have been documented across regions. The operational gymnastics that occurred daily during the Covid-19 emergency needed to be translated to the obstetrics realm, both inpatient and ambulatory. Resources for adaptation to the public health crisis included workforce flexibility, frequent communication of operational and protocol changes for evaluation and management, and application of innovative ideas to meet the demand.

Effect of Low-Intensity vs Standard-Intensity Warfarin Prophylaxis on Venous Thromboembolism or Death Among Patients Undergoing Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The optimal international normalized ratio (INR) to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in warfarin-treated patients with recent arthroplasty is unknown. Objective: To determine the safety and efficacy of a target INR of 1.8 vs 2.5 for VTE prophylaxis after orthopedic surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: The randomized Genetic Informatics Trial (GIFT) of Warfarin to Prevent Deep Vein Thrombosis enrolled 1650 patients aged 65 years or older initiating warfarin for elective hip or knee arthroplasty at 6 US medical centers. Enrollment began in April 2011 and follow-up concluded in October 2016. Interventions: In a 2 × 2 factorial design, participants were randomized to a target INR of 1.8 (n = 823) or 2.5 (n = 827) and to either genotype-guided or clinically guided warfarin dosing. For the first 11 days of therapy, open-label warfarin dosing was guided by a web application. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the composite of VTE (within 60 days) or death (within 30 days). Participants underwent screening duplex ultrasound postoperatively. The hypothesis was that an INR target of 1.8 would be noninferior to an INR target of 2.5, using a noninferiority margin of 3% for the absolute risk of VTE. Secondary end points were bleeding and INR values of 4 or more. Results: Among 1650 patients who were randomized (mean age, 72.1 years; 1049 women [63.6%]; 1502 white [91.0%]), 1597 (96.8%) received at least 1 dose of warfarin and were included in the primary analysis. The rate of the primary composite outcome of VTE or death was 5.1% (41 of 804) in the low-intensity-warfarin group (INR target, 1.8) vs 3.8% (30 of 793) in the standard-treatment-warfarin group (INR target, 2.5), for a difference of 1.3% (1-sided 95% CI, -∞ to 3.05%, P = .06 for noninferiority). Major bleeding occurred in 0.4% of patients in the low-intensity group and 0.9% of patients in the standard-intensity group, for a difference of -0.5% (95% CI, -1.6% to 0.4%). The INR values of 4 or more occurred in 4.5% of patients in the low-intensity group and 12.2% of the standard-intensity group, for a difference of -7.8% (95% CI, -10.5% to -5.1%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among older patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty and receiving warfarin prophylaxis, an international normalized ratio goal of 1.8 compared with 2.5 did not meet the criterion for noninferiority for risk of the composite outcome of VTE or death. However, the trial may have been underpowered to meet this criterion and further research may be warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01006733.

Perioperative Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether bridging anticoagulation is necessary for patients with atrial fibrillation who need an interruption in warfarin treatment for an elective operation or other elective invasive procedure. We hypothesized that forgoing bridging anticoagulation would be noninferior to bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of perioperative arterial thromboembolism and would be superior to bridging with respect to major bleeding. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which, after perioperative interruption of warfarin therapy, patients were randomly assigned to receive bridging anticoagulation therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (100 IU of dalteparin per kilogram of body weight) or matching placebo administered subcutaneously twice daily, from 3 days before the procedure until 24 hours before the procedure and then for 5 to 10 days after the procedure. Warfarin treatment was stopped 5 days before the procedure and was resumed within 24 hours after the procedure. Follow-up of patients continued for 30 days after the procedure. The primary outcomes were arterial thromboembolism (stroke, systemic embolism, or transient ischemic attack) and major bleeding. RESULTS: In total, 1884 patients were enrolled, with 950 assigned to receive no bridging therapy and 934 assigned to receive bridging therapy. The incidence of arterial thromboembolism was 0.4% in the no-bridging group and 0.3% in the bridging group (risk difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to 0.8; P=0.01 for noninferiority). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.3% in the no-bridging group and 3.2% in the bridging group (relative risk, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.78; P=0.005 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation who had warfarin treatment interrupted for an elective operation or other elective invasive procedure, forgoing bridging anticoagulation was noninferior to perioperative bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of arterial thromboembolism and decreased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; BRIDGE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00786474.).

Effect of Genotype-Guided Warfarin Dosing on Clinical Events and Anticoagulation Control Among Patients Undergoing Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: The GIFT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Warfarin use accounts for more medication-related emergency department visits among older patients than any other drug. Whether genotype-guided warfarin dosing can prevent these adverse events is unknown. Objective: To determine whether genotype-guided dosing improves the safety of warfarin initiation. Design, Setting, and Patients: The randomized clinical Genetic Informatics Trial (GIFT) of Warfarin to Prevent Deep Vein Thrombosis included patients aged 65 years or older initiating warfarin for elective hip or knee arthroplasty and was conducted at 6 US medical centers. Enrollment began in April 2011 and follow-up concluded in October 2016. Interventions: Patients were genotyped for the following polymorphisms: VKORC1-1639G>A, CYP2C9*2, CYP2C9*3, and CYP4F2 V433M. In a 2 × 2 factorial design, patients were randomized to genotype-guided (n = 831) or clinically guided (n = 819) warfarin dosing on days 1 through 11 of therapy and to a target international normalized ratio (INR) of either 1.8 or 2.5. The recommended doses of warfarin were open label, but the patients and clinicians were blinded to study group assignment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the composite of major bleeding, INR of 4 or greater, venous thromboembolism, or death. Patients underwent a screening lower-extremity duplex ultrasound approximately 1 month after arthroplasty. Results: Among 1650 randomized patients (mean age, 72.1 years [SD, 5.4 years]; 63.6% women; 91.0% white), 1597 (96.8%) received at least 1 dose of warfarin therapy and completed the trial (n = 808 in genotype-guided group vs n = 789 in clinically guided group). A total of 87 patients (10.8%) in the genotype-guided group vs 116 patients (14.7%) in the clinically guided warfarin dosing group met at least 1 of the end points (absolute difference, 3.9% [95% CI, 0.7%-7.2%], P = .02; relative rate [RR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.95]). The numbers of individual events in the genotype-guided group vs the clinically guided group were 2 vs 8 for major bleeding (RR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.05-1.15), 56 vs 77 for INR of 4 or greater (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.99), 33 vs 38 for venous thromboembolism (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54-1.34), and there were no deaths. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing elective hip or knee arthroplasty and treated with perioperative warfarin, genotype-guided warfarin dosing, compared with clinically guided dosing, reduced the combined risk of major bleeding, INR of 4 or greater, venous thromboembolism, or death. Further research is needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of personalized warfarin dosing. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01006733.

Safety of desirudin in thrombosis prevention after total knee arthroplasty: the DESIR-ABLE study.

Desirudin, administered 30 minutes before total hip arthroplasty is superior to enoxaparin in preventing proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) with similar bleeding. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety of desirudin in patients undergoing elective total knee arthroplasty (TKA) when the first dose of desirudin was administered the evening after surgery. This is a case series of patients undergoing TKA who received desirudin 15 mg every 12 hours subcutaneously for an average of 5 days with the first dose administered postoperatively. The primary endpoint was major bleeding; secondary endpoints included wound outcomes (oozing and infection) and new symptomatic DVT or PE. Desirudin has a favorable safety profile when administered postoperatively in patients undergoing TKA with no reports of major bleeding, wound ooze, or infection. No patients experienced symptomatic DVT, but 2 patients had PE detected by computed tomography after experiencing atypical symptoms. The safety profile of desirudin is improved when administered postoperatively. Bleeding and wound outcomes seem to occur less frequently than historical desirudin and enoxaparin controls.

[Hospital medicine in Chile]. / Medicina hospitalaria a 15 años de su implementación: ¿Cuáles son los potenciales beneficios en nuestro medio?

After 15 years of development of Hospital Medicine in Chile, there are several benefits of this discipline. Among others, a reduction in the length of hospital stay, readmissions, costs, and improved medical teaching of students, residents and fellows have been observed. However, in South América there are only isolated groups dedicated to Hospital Medicine in Chile, Argentina and Brazil, with a rather slow growth. The unjustified fear of competition from sub specialists, and the fee for service system of payment in our environment may be important factors to understand this phenomenon. The aging of the population makes imperative to improve the safety of our patients and to optimize processes and resources within the hospital, to avoid squandering healthcare resources. The following is a detailed and evidence-based article, on how hospital medicine might benefit both the public and prívate healthcare systems in Chile.

Thromboprophylaxis in major knee and hip replacement surgery: a review.

Patients undergoing total knee and total hip replacement (THR/TKR) surgery are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), and routine thromboprophylaxis is recommended after these procedures. However, current thromboprophylaxis may require daily injections, careful anticoagulation monitoring, and dietary restrictions, which can lead to poor patient compliance and suboptimal outcomes. Therefore, there is an unmet need for simpler medication options. Newer oral anticoagulants have improved efficacy over standard treatments, with convenient dosing regimens, more predictable pharmacologic profiles that reduce the need for anticoagulation monitoring, and fewer drug or food interactions. These drugs have the potential to simplify anticoagulation after THR or TKR surgery, which may lead to improved adherence, thus lowering the incidence of VTE and associated complications after surgery.

An academic center's delivery of care after the Haitian earthquake.

The Miller School of Medicine of the University of Miami and Project Medishare, an affiliated not-for-profit organization, provided a large-scale relief effort in Haiti after the earthquake of 12 January 2010. Their experience demonstrates that academic medical centers in proximity to natural disasters can help deliver effective medical care through a coordinated process involving mobilization of their own resources, establishment of focused management teams at home and on the ground with formal organizational oversight, and partnership with governmental and nongovernmental relief agencies. Proximity to the disaster area allows for prompt arrival of medical personnel and equipment. The recruitment and organized deployment of large numbers of local and national volunteers are indispensable parts of this effort. Multidisciplinary teams on short rotations can form the core of the medical response.

Outcomes of patients with stable heart failure undergoing elective noncardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate modern surgical outcomes in patients with stable heart failure undergoing elective major noncardiac surgery and to compare the experience of patients with heart failure who have reduced vs preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively studied 557 consecutive patients with heart failure (192 EF less than or equal to 40% and 365 EF greater than 40%) and 10,583 controls who underwent systematic evaluation by hospitalists in a preoperative clinic before having major elective noncardiac surgery between January 1, 2003, and March 31, 2006. We examined outcomes in the entire cohort and in propensity-matched case-control groups. RESULTS: Unadjusted 1-month postoperative mortality in patients with both types of heart failure vs controls was 1.3% vs 0.4% (P equals .009), but this difference was not significant in propensity-matched groups (P equals .09). Unadjusted differences in mean hospital length of stay among heart failure patients vs controls (5.7 vs 4.3 days; P less than .001) and 1-month readmission (17.8% vs 8.5%; P less than .001) were also markedly attenuated in propensity-matched groups. Crude 1-year hazard ratios for mortality were 1.71 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.0) for both types of heart failure, 2.1 (95% CI, 1.7-2.6) in patients with heart failure who had EF less than or equal to 40%, and 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2-1.8) in those who had EF greater than 40% (P less than .01 for all 3 comparisons); however, the differences were not significant in propensity-matched groups (P equals .43). CONCLUSION: Patients with clinically stable heart failure did not have high perioperative mortality rates in association with elective major noncardiac surgery, but they were more likely than patients without heart failure to have longer hospital stays, were more likely to require hospital readmission, and had a substantial long-term mortality rate.

The perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition).

This article discusses the perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy and is part of the American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). The primary objectives of this article are the following: (1) to address the perioperative management of patients who are receiving vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or antiplatelet drugs, such as aspirin and clopidogrel, and require an elective surgical or other invasive procedures; and (2) to address the perioperative use of bridging anticoagulation, typically with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH). A secondary objective is to address the perioperative management of such patients who require urgent surgery. The recommendations in this article incorporate the grading system that is discussed in this supplement (Guyatt G et al, CHEST 2008; 133:123S-131S). Briefly, Grade 1 recommendations are considered strong and indicate that the benefits do (or do not) outweigh risks, burden, and costs, whereas Grade 2 recommendations are referred to as suggestions and imply that individual patient values may lead to different management choices. The key recommendations in this article include the following: in patients with a mechanical heart valve or atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism (VTE) at high risk for thromboembolism, we recommend bridging anticoagulation with therapeutic-dose subcutaneous (SC) LMWH or IV UFH over no bridging during temporary interruption of VKA therapy (Grade 1C); in patients with a mechanical heart valve or atrial fibrillation or VTE at moderate risk for thromboembolism, we suggest bridging anticoagulation with therapeutic-dose SC LMWH, therapeutic-dose IV UFH, or low-dose SC LMWH over no bridging during temporary interruption of VKA therapy (Grade 2C); in patients with a mechanical heart valve or atrial fibrillation or VTE at low risk for thromboembolism, we suggest low-dose SC LMWH or no bridging over bridging with therapeutic-dose SC LMWH or IV UFH (Grade 2C). In patients with a bare metal coronary stent who require surgery within 6 weeks of stent placement, we recommend continuing aspirin and clopidogrel in the perioperative period (Grade 1C); in patients with a drug-eluting coronary stent who require surgery within 12 months of stent placement, we recommend continuing aspirin and clopidogrel in the perioperative period (Grade 1C). In patients who are undergoing minor dental procedures and are receiving VKAs, we recommend continuing VKAs around the time of the procedure and co-administering an oral prohemostatic agent (Grade 1B); in patients who are undergoing minor dermatologic procedures and are receiving VKAs, we recommend continuing VKAs around the time of the procedure (Grade 1C); in patients who are undergoing cataract removal and are receiving VKAs, we recommend continuing VKAs around the time of the procedure (Grade 1C).

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in the geriatric patient.

Elderly patients immobilized because of an acute medical illness or surgery have a very high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Aggressive pharmacologic prophylaxis is necessary and should be initiated either at admission for a medical condition or shortly after surgery. Aggressive prophylaxis may result in fewer patients developing VTE in the hospital and ultimately lead to fewer patients requiring full-dose anticoagulation for VTE. Mechanical prophylaxis can be used as an adjunct to an anticoagulant-based regimen but should only be used as primary prophylaxis when there is a contraindication, such as active bleeding. It is recommended that the clinician carefully evaluate the elderly patient's creatinine clearance and weight before prescribing anticoagulants, particularly when using fixed dosing regimens.

An overview of venous thromboembolism: impact, risks, and issues in prophylaxis.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of cardiovascular death, and its close association with increased age portends an increasing clinical and economic impact for VTE as the US population ages. Studies show that rates of VTE prophylaxis remain inadequate both in the hospital and at the time of discharge. Health care accreditation and quality organizations are taking interest in VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis as a measure for hospital performance ratings and even reimbursement. To set the stage for the rest of this supplement, this article reviews the rationale for VTE prophylaxis, surveys current prophylaxis rates and strategies to increase those rates, and provides an overview of risk factors for VTE and therapeutic options for VTE prophylaxis.

Perioperative beta-blockers in noncardiac surgery: evolution of the evidence.

After studies in the 1990s suggested that beta-blockers offer substantial benefits when given before surgery, several national organizations endorsed the perioperative use of these drugs as a best practice in certain patients, However, subsequent research has cast doubt on whether it is appropriate to use these drugs as widely as suggested by those early studies.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in the hospitalized medical patient.

Hospitalized acutely ill medical patients are at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), and clinical trials clearly demonstrate that pharmacologic prophylaxis of VTE for up to 14 days significantly reduces the incidence of VTE in this population. Guidelines recommend use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (5,000 U three times daily) for VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with risk factors for VTE; in patients with contraindications to anticoagulants, mechanical prophylaxis is recommended. All hospitalized medical patients should be assessed for their risk of VTE at admission and daily thereafter, and those with reduced mobility and one or more other VTE risk factors are candidates for aggressive VTE prophylaxis. Based on results from the recently reported EXCLAIM trial, extended postdischarge prophylaxis with LMWH for 28 days should be considered for hospitalized medical patients with reduced mobility who are older than age 75 or have a cancer diagnosis or a history of VTE.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in the orthopedic surgery patient.

Patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery--hip or knee arthroplasty, or hip fracture repair--are in the highest risk category for venous thromboembolism (VTE) solely on the basis of the orthopedic procedure itself. Despite this, nearly half of patients undergoing these procedures do not receive appropriate prophylaxis against VTE, often due to a disproportionate fear of bleeding complications in this population. Guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) provide evidence-based recommendations for many aspects of VTE risk reduction in the setting of orthopedic surgery, as detailed in this review. The ACCP recommends the use of either low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), fondaparinux, or adjusted-dose warfarin as preferred VTE prophylaxis in patients undergoing either hip or knee arthroplasty. Fondaparinux is the preferred recommendation for patients undergoing hip fracture repair, followed by LMWH, unfractionated heparin, and adjusted-dose warfarin as alternative options. Extended-duration prophylaxis (for 4 to 5 weeks) is now recommended for patients undergoing hip arthroplasty or hip fracture repair. Patients undergoing knee arthroscopy do not require routine pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in the cancer surgery patient.

Cancer patients, especially those undergoing surgery for cancer, are at extremely high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), even with appropriate thromboprophylaxis. Anticoagulant prophylaxis in cancer surgery patients has reduced the incidence of VTE events by approximately one-half in placebo-controlled trials, and extended prophylaxis (for up to 1 month) has also significantly reduced out-of-hospital VTE events in clinical trials in this population. Clinical trials show no difference between low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin in VTE prophylaxis efficacy or bleeding risk in this population, although the incidence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is lower with LMWH. The risk-benefit profile of low-dose anticoagulant prophylaxis appears to be favorable even in many cancer patients undergoing neurosurgery, for whom pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis has been controversial because of bleeding risks.

Indirect Comparison of Novel Oral Anticoagulants in Women with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: For nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been found noninferior to warfarin for stroke/systemic embolization prevention, and major bleeding events. Recent meta-analysis of NOACs versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation (AF) showed that women on warfarin have greater risk of stroke/embolism than men, and when both are treated with NOACs, differences disappear. METHODS: NOACs differ in pharmacologic properties, thus they may differ from one another in their effects on women with AF. Using dose-adjusted warfarin as the common comparator, an indirect comparison of rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran 110 and 150 mg, and edoxaban 30 and 60 mg for efficacy (stroke/embolism prevention) and safety (major bleeding events) in women with AF was performed. Data from ROCKET-AF, RE-LY, ENGAGE AF TIMI, and ARISTOTLE were analyzed and compared according to the Bucher method. RESULTS: No significant difference was found for any NOAC compared with alternatives in safety or efficacy for women with AF. Examination of odds ratio comparisons alone showed possible favorable efficacy in dabigatran 150 mg, and unfavorable efficacy with favorable safety in edoxaban 30 mg. CONCLUSION: NOACs may slightly differ in their effect in women; the potential differences are very small and likely clinically negligible. Thus, NOACs can be used interchangeably in women according to patient and physician preferences to increase adherence.

Hospital Medicine and Perioperative Care: A Framework for High-Quality, High-Value Collaborative Care.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalists have long been involved in optimizing perioperative care for medically complex patients. In 2015, the Society of Hospital Medicine organized the Perioperative Care Work Group to summarize this experience and to develop a framework for providing optimal perioperative care. METHODS: The work group, which consisted of perioperative care experts from institutions throughout the United States, reviewed current hospitalist-based perioperative care programs, compiled key issues in each perioperative phase, and developed a framework to highlight essential elements to be considered. The framework was reviewed and approved by the board of the Society of Hospital Medicine. RESULTS: The Perioperative Care Matrix for Inpatient Surgeries was developed. This matrix characterizes perioperative phases, coordination, and metrics of success. Additionally, concerns and potential risks were tabulated. Key questions regarding program effectiveness were drafted, and examples of models of care were provided. CONCLUSIONS: The Perioperative Care Matrix for Inpatient Surgeries provides an essential collaborative framework hospitalists can use to develop and continually improve perioperative care programs. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12:277-282.