Lack of racial and ethnic disparities in mortality in minority patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in a mid-Atlantic healthcare system.

INTRODUCTION: In the USA, minoritised communities (racial and ethnic) have suffered disproportionately from COVID-19 compared with non-Hispanic white communities. In a large cohort of patients hospitalised for COVID-19 in a healthcare system spanning five adult hospitals, we analysed outcomes of patients based on race and ethnicity. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of patients 18 years or older admitted to five hospitals in the mid-Atlantic area between 4 March 2020 and 27 May 2022 with confirmed COVID-19. Participants were divided into four groups based on their race/ethnicity: non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white, Latinx and other. Propensity score weighted generalised linear models were used to assess the association between race/ethnicity and the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of the 9651 participants in the cohort, more than half were aged 18-64 years old (56%) and 51% of the cohort were females. Non-Hispanic white patients had higher mortality (p<0.001) and longer hospital length-of-stay (p<0.001) than Latinx and non-Hispanic black patients. DISCUSSION: In this large multihospital cohort of patients admitted with COVID-19, non-Hispanic black and Hispanic patients did not have worse outcomes than white patients. Such findings likely reflect how the complex range of factors that resulted in a life-threatening and disproportionate impact of incidence on certain vulnerable populations by COVID-19 in the community was offset through admission at well-resourced hospitals and healthcare systems. However, there continues to remain a need for efforts to address the significant pre-existing race and ethnicity inequities highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic to be better prepared for future public health emergencies.

Hospitalized Women's Perspective on Willingness-to-Screen for Cancers in Relation to Life Expectancy.

OBJECTIVE:  Life expectancy is an important tool for physicians and patients to determine when medical services for disease prevention should be rendered. Since patients' preference is an important predictor for cancer screening compliance, incorporating life expectancy with cancer screening preferences becomes essential. The purpose of the study is to explore the mean life expectancy duration that hospitalized women expect in order to undergo cancer screening tests. METHODS:  A cross-sectional bedside survey including the contingent valuation method was used to assess the mean life expectancy among 475 cancer-free hospitalized women aged 50-75 years, which justified their willingness to undergo cancer screening tests. The probit and logistic regression models were used for the analysis in October 2021. RESULTS: A total of 74% of women were willing to undergo cancer screening if the mean life expectancy was 24.3 months (SE = 12.8, p = 0.058). After adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical covariates, hospitalized women were willing to undergo cancer screening if the mean life expectancy was 26.6 months (SE = 13.3, p = 0.045). Race (African American and others vs Caucasians, OR = 2.34, 95% CI: 1.43-3.81) and annual household income <$20,000 (OR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.02-2.86) were associated with the willingness to undergo cancer screening among hospitalized women. CONCLUSION:  The study's findings suggest that hospitalized women value the prospect of cancer screening tests, given the mean life expectancy of approximately 27 months. Therefore, offering screening tests to nonadherent hospitalized women with a mean life expectancy of 2» years, especially to those at high risk for developing cancer, with low income, or women of color, may improve adherence to cancer screening recommendations.

A comparison of quality outcome measures in patients having a hysterectomy for benign disease: robotic vs. non-robotic approaches.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To measure procedure-related hospital readmissions within 30 days after discharge for patients who have a hysterectomy for benign disease. Secondary outcome quality measures evaluated were cost, estimated blood loss, length of stay and sum of costs associated with readmissions. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: Academic community hospital. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent hysterectomy to treat benign disease from January 2008 to December 2012. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were grouped according to route of hysterectomy: robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (robotic), laparoscopic hysterectomy (laparoscopic), abdominal hysterectomy (open via laparotomy), and vaginal hysterectomy (vaginal). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by 2554 patients: 601 in the robotic group, 427 in the laparoscopic group, 1194 in the abdominal group, and 332 in the vaginal group. Readmission rates in the robotic cohort were significantly less (p<.05) than in non-robotic cohorts: Robotic (1%), laparoscopic (2.5%), open (3.5%), vaginal (2.4%). Estimated blood loss, length of stay, and sum of readmission costs were also significantly less in the robotic cohort (p<.05) compared with the other 3 cohorts. CONCLUSION: Patients who undergo robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy have a significantly lower chance of readmission <30 days after surgery compared with those who undergo laparoscopic, abdominal (open) hysterectomy, and vaginal approaches. Patients in the robotics cohort also experienced a shorter length of stay, less estimated blood loss, and a cost savings associated with readmissions when compared to non-robotic approaches. Prospective registries describing quality outcomes, total sum of costs including 30 days follow-up, as well as patient-related quality of life benefits are recommended to confirm these findings and determine which surgical route offers the highest patient and societal value.

Preoperative enoxaparin is safe to use in major gynecologic surgery for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of preoperative enoxaparin in patients undergoing major gynecologic oncology surgery. METHODS: We identified a retrospective cohort group of patients undergoing major gynecologic oncology surgery from June 2002 to June 2004. Exclusion criteria included laparoscopic surgery, inferior vena cava filter, history of venous thromboembolism, and current anticoagulation for prior venous thromboembolism. All patients received prophylaxis with sequential pneumatic compression devices and early ambulation. We identified patients who received (preoperative and postoperative) enoxaparin (20-40 mg) and compared them to patients who received no additional prophylaxis other than pneumatic compression alone. Patient outcomes including estimated blood loss, blood transfusions, operative time, and length of hospital stay were collected. Statistical analysis was performed using the χ Wilcoxon rank sum tests. This study was approved by the institutional review board. RESULTS: We identified 122 patients who met our study criteria; there were 63 patients who received preoperative enoxaparin and 59 patients who received no additional prophylaxis. Both groups were similar in age, body mass index, race, comorbidities, cancer diagnosis, and surgical procedure. There was no significant difference between the enoxaparin group and the sequential pneumatic compression devices-only group regarding transfusion rates (29% and 27%; P = 0.86), operating time (150 and 140 minutes; P = 0.16), blood loss greater than 500 cc (35% and 37%; P = 0.79), and length of stay (5 vs 6 days). CONCLUSION: The use of preoperative enoxaparin is not associated with increased blood loss, transfusion requirements, operative time, or hospital stay among patients having major gynecologic surgery.