Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 46
Filter
Add more filters

Country/Region as subject
Publication year range
1.
Respir Res ; 25(1): 145, 2024 Mar 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38553722

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patient experiences with COVID-19 aftercare remain largely unknown. We evaluated COVID-19 aftercare from a patient perspective one year after hospitalization, assessing satisfaction and its associated factors, and unmet needs. METHODS: The Satisfaction with COVID-19 Aftercare Questionnaire (SCAQ) was developed as part of a multicenter prospective cohort study and administered one year after hospital discharge. The SCAQ assesses (1) patient satisfaction, comprising information provision, rehabilitation, follow-up by hospitals and general practitioners (GPs), the most important aftercare topics, and overall satisfaction, and (2) unmet needs. RESULTS: 487/561 (87%) COVID-19 patients completed the SCAQ, all had been discharged from the hospital between March 2020 and May 2021. Among responders, the median age of patients was 60 (IQR 54-67) years, 338 (69%) were male, and the median length of stay in the hospital was 13 (6-27) days. Patients were least satisfied with information on who could be contacted with questions when health problems arise (59% satisfied or very satisfied). Many patients (75%) received rehabilitation, most frequently community-based (70%). Across the different community-based therapies, ≥ 60% of patients were satisfied with shared-decision making and ≥ 70% with the received therapy; a majority (≥ 79%) indicated a preference for receiving the same therapy again if needed. Regarding follow-up by hospitals, 86% of patients received this follow-up, most frequently visiting a pulmonologist (96%), being generally satisfied with the received aftercare. Aftercare from GPs was received by 39% of patients, with 88% being satisfied with the GP's availability and 79% with referral to appropriate aftercare providers. Patients (> 50%) considered information-related items most important in aftercare. Overall, patients rated their satisfaction with aftercare 8/10 (7-9) points. Those who received medical rehabilitation (versus no rehabilitation, adjusted beta 0.61 [95%CI 0.11 to 1.11], p = 0.02) or aftercare by a hospital medical specialist (1.1 [0.46 to 1.64], p < 0.001) or GP (0.39 [0.053 to 0.72], p = 0.023) reported significantly higher satisfaction than those without such aftercare. Unmet needs were reported by 35% of patients, with lack of information (20%) and lack of additional aftercare and/or involvement of their GP (19%) being the most frequently reported. CONCLUSION: Despite the forced quick development of COVID-19 aftercare, patients were generally satisfied. Follow-up by healthcare professionals and information provision is important to meet patients' aftercare needs.


Subject(s)
Aftercare , COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Male , COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization , Patient Satisfaction , Prospective Studies , Middle Aged , Aged
2.
Clin Transplant ; 38(3): e15289, 2024 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38486062

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of post lung-transplant airway complications is challenging, and treatment with conventional airway stents is associated with adverse events. More recently, biodegradable airway stents (BDS) have been introduced and may be used to reduce these adverse events. In this study we explore the feasibility of treatment with BDS post lung transplant. METHODS: All patients treated with BDS in The Netherlands were included in this retrospective multicenter study. Feasibility, life span of the stent, occurrence of adverse events, and evolution of lung function were evaluated. RESULTS: Twelve patients (six malacia and six stenosis) received a total of 57 BDS, ranging from 1 to 10 BDS per patient. Six patients had been pretreated with conventional airway stents. Median stent life span was 112 days (range 66-202). No adverse events occurred during stent placement. In 5 out of 57 stent placements, a single additional bronchoscopy was necessary because of mucus accumulation (n = 4) or excessive granulation tissue (n = 1). All stent naïve patients became airway stent independent after treatment; all patients pretreated with conventional airway stents were still airway stent dependent at the end of follow up. CONCLUSION: Treatment with BDS is safe and feasible. Adverse events were mild and easily treatable. All patients with initial treatment with BDS were airway stent independent at the end of follow up with a median treatment of 4 BDS.


Subject(s)
Lung Transplantation , Humans , Bronchoscopy , Constriction, Pathologic/etiology , Lung Transplantation/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Stents/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome
3.
Clin Infect Dis ; 76(3): e172-e178, 2023 02 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35869843

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Illness after infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant is less severe compared with previous variants. Data on the disease burden in immunocompromised patients are lacking. We investigated the clinical characteristics and outcomes of immunocompromised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by Omicron. METHODS: Organ transplant recipients, patients on anti-CD20 therapy, and allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients infected with the Omicron variant were included. Characteristics of consenting patients were collected and patients were contacted regularly until symptom resolution. To identify possible risk factors for hospitalization, a univariate logistic analysis was performed. RESULTS: 114 consecutive immunocompromised patients were enrolled. Eighty-nine percent had previously received 3 mRNA vaccinations. While only 1 patient died, 23 (20%) were hospitalized for a median of 11 days. A low SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody response (<300 BAU [binding antibody units]/mL) at diagnosis, being older, being a lung transplant recipient, having more comorbidities, and having a higher frailty score were associated with hospital admission (all P < .01). At the end of follow-up, 25% had still not fully recovered. Of the 23 hospitalized patients, 70% had a negative and 92% had a low IgG (<300 BAU/mL) antibody response at admission. Sotrovimab was administered to 17 of these patients, and 1 died. CONCLUSIONS: While the mortality in immunocompromised patients infected with Omicron was low, hospital admission was frequent and the duration of symptoms often prolonged. In addition to vaccination, other interventions are needed to limit the morbidity from COVID-19 in immunocompromised patients.


Subject(s)
Blood Group Antigens , COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Prospective Studies , Antibodies, Viral , Immunocompromised Host , Immunoglobulin G
4.
Respirology ; 27(7): 501-509, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35441433

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To develop targeted and efficient follow-up programmes for patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), structured and detailed insights in recovery trajectory are required. We aimed to gain detailed insights in long-term recovery after COVID-19 infection, using an online home monitoring programme including home spirometry. Moreover, we evaluated patient experiences with the home monitoring programme. METHODS: In this prospective multicentre study, we included adults hospitalized due to COVID-19 with radiological abnormalities. For 6 months after discharge, patients collected weekly home spirometry and pulse oximetry measurements, and reported visual analogue scales on cough, dyspnoea and fatigue. Patients completed the fatigue assessment scale (FAS), global rating of change (GRC), EuroQol-5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L) and online tool for the assessment of burden of COVID-19 (ABCoV tool). Mixed models were used to analyse the results. RESULTS: A total of 133 patients were included in this study (70.1% male, mean age 60 years [SD 10.54]). Patients had a mean baseline forced vital capacity of 3.25 L (95% CI: 2.99-3.44 L), which increased linearly in 6 months with 19.1% (Δ0.62 L, p < 0.005). Patients reported substantial fatigue with no improvement over time. Nevertheless, health status improved significantly. After 6 months, patients scored their general well-being almost similar as before COVID-19. Overall, patients considered home spirometry useful and not burdensome. CONCLUSION: Six months after hospital admission for COVID-19, patients' lung function and quality of life were still improving, although fatigue persisted. Home monitoring enables detailed follow-up for patients with COVID-19 at low burden for patients and for the healthcare system.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Quality of Life , Adult , Fatigue/etiology , Female , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies
5.
J Med Internet Res ; 24(1): e32368, 2022 01 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34978530

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although psychological sequelae after intensive care unit (ICU) treatment are considered quite intrusive, robustly effective interventions to treat or prevent these long-term sequelae are lacking. Recently, it was demonstrated that ICU-specific virtual reality (ICU-VR) is a feasible and acceptable intervention with potential mental health benefits. However, its effect on mental health and ICU aftercare in COVID-19 ICU survivors is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the effects of ICU-VR on mental health and on patients' perceived quality of, satisfaction with, and rating of ICU aftercare among COVID-19 ICU survivors. METHODS: This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized to either the ICU-VR (intervention) or the control group. All patients were invited to an COVID-19 post-ICU follow-up clinic 3 months after hospital discharge, during which patients in the intervention group received ICU-VR. One month and 3 months later (4 and 6 months after hospital discharge), mental health, quality of life, perceived quality, satisfaction with, and rating of ICU aftercare were scored using questionnaires. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients (median age 58 years; 63 males, 70%) were included. The prevalence and severity of psychological distress were limited throughout follow-up, and no differences in psychological distress or quality of life were observed between the groups. ICU-VR improved satisfaction with (mean score 8.7, SD 1.6 vs 7.6, SD 1.6 [ICU-VR vs control]; t64=-2.82, P=.006) and overall rating of ICU aftercare (mean overall rating of aftercare 8.9, SD 0.9 vs 7.8, SD 1.7 [ICU-VR vs control]; t64=-3.25; P=.002) compared to controls. ICU-VR added to the quality of ICU aftercare according to 81% of the patients, and all patients would recommend ICU-VR to other ICU survivors. CONCLUSIONS: ICU-VR is a feasible and acceptable innovative method to improve satisfaction with and rating of ICU aftercare and adds to its perceived quality. We observed a low prevalence of psychological distress after ICU treatment for COVID-19, and ICU-VR did not improve psychological recovery or quality of life. Future research is needed to confirm our results in other critical illness survivors to potentially facilitate ICU-VR's widespread availability and application during follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NL8835; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8835. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s13063-021-05271-z.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Virtual Reality , Critical Illness , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Quality of Life , SARS-CoV-2
6.
JAMA ; 328(16): 1604-1615, 2022 10 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36215063

ABSTRACT

Importance: Some individuals experience persistent symptoms after initial symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (often referred to as Long COVID). Objective: To estimate the proportion of males and females with COVID-19, younger or older than 20 years of age, who had Long COVID symptoms in 2020 and 2021 and their Long COVID symptom duration. Design, Setting, and Participants: Bayesian meta-regression and pooling of 54 studies and 2 medical record databases with data for 1.2 million individuals (from 22 countries) who had symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the 54 studies, 44 were published and 10 were collaborating cohorts (conducted in Austria, the Faroe Islands, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the US). The participant data were derived from the 44 published studies (10 501 hospitalized individuals and 42 891 nonhospitalized individuals), the 10 collaborating cohort studies (10 526 and 1906), and the 2 US electronic medical record databases (250 928 and 846 046). Data collection spanned March 2020 to January 2022. Exposures: Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of individuals with at least 1 of the 3 self-reported Long COVID symptom clusters (persistent fatigue with bodily pain or mood swings; cognitive problems; or ongoing respiratory problems) 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020 and 2021, estimated separately for hospitalized and nonhospitalized individuals aged 20 years or older by sex and for both sexes of nonhospitalized individuals younger than 20 years of age. Results: A total of 1.2 million individuals who had symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection were included (mean age, 4-66 years; males, 26%-88%). In the modeled estimates, 6.2% (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 2.4%-13.3%) of individuals who had symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection experienced at least 1 of the 3 Long COVID symptom clusters in 2020 and 2021, including 3.2% (95% UI, 0.6%-10.0%) for persistent fatigue with bodily pain or mood swings, 3.7% (95% UI, 0.9%-9.6%) for ongoing respiratory problems, and 2.2% (95% UI, 0.3%-7.6%) for cognitive problems after adjusting for health status before COVID-19, comprising an estimated 51.0% (95% UI, 16.9%-92.4%), 60.4% (95% UI, 18.9%-89.1%), and 35.4% (95% UI, 9.4%-75.1%), respectively, of Long COVID cases. The Long COVID symptom clusters were more common in women aged 20 years or older (10.6% [95% UI, 4.3%-22.2%]) 3 months after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection than in men aged 20 years or older (5.4% [95% UI, 2.2%-11.7%]). Both sexes younger than 20 years of age were estimated to be affected in 2.8% (95% UI, 0.9%-7.0%) of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. The estimated mean Long COVID symptom cluster duration was 9.0 months (95% UI, 7.0-12.0 months) among hospitalized individuals and 4.0 months (95% UI, 3.6-4.6 months) among nonhospitalized individuals. Among individuals with Long COVID symptoms 3 months after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, an estimated 15.1% (95% UI, 10.3%-21.1%) continued to experience symptoms at 12 months. Conclusions and Relevance: This study presents modeled estimates of the proportion of individuals with at least 1 of 3 self-reported Long COVID symptom clusters (persistent fatigue with bodily pain or mood swings; cognitive problems; or ongoing respiratory problems) 3 months after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cognition Disorders , Fatigue , Respiratory Insufficiency , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Young Adult , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Fatigue/epidemiology , Fatigue/etiology , Pain/epidemiology , Pain/etiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Syndrome , Cognition Disorders/epidemiology , Cognition Disorders/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Internationality , Global Health/statistics & numerical data , Mood Disorders/epidemiology , Mood Disorders/etiology , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
7.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 21(1): 847, 2021 Aug 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34419032

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: First studies indicate that up to 6 months after hospital discharge, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes severe physical, cognitive, and psychological impairments, which may affect participation and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). After hospitalization for COVID-19, a number of patients are referred to medical rehabilitation centers or skilled nursing facilities for further treatment, while others go home with or without aftercare. The aftercare paths include 1] community-based rehabilitation; 2] in- and outpatient medical rehabilitation; 3] inpatient rehabilitation in skilled nursing facilities; and 4] sheltered care (inpatient). These aftercare paths and the trajectories of recovery after COVID-19 urgently need long-term in-depth evaluation to optimize and personalize treatment. CO-FLOW aims, by following the outcomes and aftercare paths of all COVID-19 patients after hospital discharge, to systematically study over a 2-year period: 1] trajectories of physical, cognitive, and psychological recovery; 2] patient flows, healthcare utilization, patient satisfaction with aftercare, and barriers/facilitators regarding aftercare as experienced by healthcare professionals; 3] effects of physical, cognitive, and psychological outcomes on participation and HRQoL; and 4] predictors for long-term recovery, health care utilization, and patient satisfaction with aftercare. METHODS: CO-FLOW is a multicenter prospective cohort study in the mid-west of the Netherlands with a 2-year follow-up period. Measurements comprise non-invasive clinical tests and patient reported outcome measures from a combined rehabilitation, pulmonary, and intensive care perspective. Measurements are performed at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after hospital discharge and, if applicable, at rehabilitation discharge. CO-FLOW aims to include at least 500 patients who survived hospitalization for COVID-19, aged ≥18 years. DISCUSSION: CO-FLOW will provide in-depth knowledge on the long-term sequelae of COVID-19 and the quality of current aftercare paths for patients who survived hospitalization. This knowledge is a prerequisite to facilitate the right care in the right place for COVID-19 and comparable future infectious diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), https://www.trialregister.nl . Registered: 12-06-2020, CO-FLOW trialregister no. NL8710.


Subject(s)
Aftercare , COVID-19 , Adolescent , Adult , Hospitals , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Patient Discharge , Patient Satisfaction , Prospective Studies , Quality of Life , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
8.
Transpl Int ; 33(9): 1099-1105, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32460390

ABSTRACT

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients may be at risk for severe COVID-19. Data on the clinical course of COVID-19 in immunosuppressed patients are limited, and the effective treatment strategy for these patients is unknown. We describe our institutional experience with COVID-19 in SOT. Demographic, clinical, and treatment data were extracted from the electronic patient files. A total of 23 SOT transplant recipients suffering from COVID-19 were identified (n = 3 heart; n = 15 kidney; n = 1 kidney-after-heart; n = 3 lung, and n = 1 liver transplant recipient). The presenting symptoms were similar to nonimmunocompromised patients. Eighty-three percent (19/23) of the patients required hospitalization, but only two of these were transferred to the intensive care unit. Five patients died from COVID-19; all had high Clinical Frailty Scores. In four of these patients, mechanical ventilation was deemed futile. In 57% of patients, the immunosuppressive therapy was not changed and only three patients were treated with chloroquine. Most patients recovered without experimental antiviral therapy. Modification of the immunosuppressive regimen alone could be a therapeutic option for SOT recipients suffering from moderate to severe COVID-19. Pre-existent frailty is associated with death from COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Immunosuppression Therapy/adverse effects , Organ Transplantation/adverse effects , Transplant Recipients , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL