Mortality in cancer patients with SARS-CoV-2 or seasonal influenza: an observational cohort study from a German-wide hospital network.

PURPOSE: At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 was often compared to seasonal influenza. We aimed to compare the outcome of hospitalized patients with cancer infected by SARS-CoV-2 or seasonal influenza including intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: We analyzed claims data of patients with a lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 or seasonal influenza infection admitted to one of 85 hospitals of a German-wide hospital network between January 2016 and August 2021. RESULTS: 29,284 patients with COVID-19 and 7442 patients with seasonal influenza were included. Of these, 360 patients with seasonal influenza and 1625 patients with COVID-19 had any kind of cancer. Cancer patients with COVID-19 were more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit than cancer patients with seasonal influenza (29.4% vs 24.7%; OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.00-1.73 p < .05). No statistical significance was observed in the mechanical ventilation rate for cancer patients with COVID-19 compared to those with seasonal influenza (17.2% vs 13.6% OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.96-1.86 p = .09). 34.9% of cancer patients with COVID-19 and 17.9% with seasonal influenza died (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.81-3.32 p < .01). Risk factors among cancer patients with COVID-19 or seasonal influenza for in-hospital mortality included the male gender, age, a higher Elixhauser comorbidity index and metastatic cancer. CONCLUSION: Among cancer patients, SARS-CoV-2 was associated with a higher risk for in-hospital mortality than seasonal influenza. These findings underline the need of protective measurements to prevent an infection with either COVID-19 or seasonal influenza, especially in this high-risk population.

[The Usefulness of ERAS Concepts for Colorectal Resections - an Economic Analysis under DRG Conditions]. / Sinnhaftigkeit von ERAS-Konzepten bei kolorektalen Resektionen ­ eine ökonomische Analyse unter DRG-Bedingungen.

BACKGROUND: ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) describes a multimodal, interdisciplinary and interprofessional treatment concept that optimizes the postoperative convalescence of the patient through the use of evidence-based measures. GOAL OF THE WORK: The aim of this article is to examine the economic feasibility of the concept in the German DRG system. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Since August 2019, patients have been treated in our clinic according to the later certified ERAS concept. The last 20 patients before ERAS implementation are compared below with 20 patients after ERAS implementation, who were identified using a matched pair analysis. In addition to the comparison of costs and revenues, the clinical outcome of the patients is also presented. RESULTS: The cases of the patients in the pre-ERAS cohort caused median costs of € 7432.83. BWR of 3.38 were billable. The resulting DRG revenue for the patients in this group amounted to € 11325.78. The proceeds generated in the end amounted to € 4575.14. The cases of patients in the ERAS cohort resulted in costs of € 5582.96. BWR of 2.84 could be billed. The DRG proceeds for the patients in this group therefore amounted to € 10014.18. The profit generated was thus € 4993.84. DISCUSSION: The cost reduction generated by ERAS was comparable to the "loss" caused by the BWR decrease. ERAS is therefore also possible to cover costs in the German DRG system.

Machine learning-derived prediction of in-hospital mortality in patients with severe acute respiratory infection: analysis of claims data from the German-wide Helios hospital network.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) are the most common infectious causes of death. Previous work regarding mortality prediction models for SARI using machine learning (ML) algorithms that can be useful for both individual risk stratification and quality of care assessment is scarce. We aimed to develop reliable models for mortality prediction in SARI patients utilizing ML algorithms and compare its performances with a classic regression analysis approach. METHODS: Administrative data (dataset randomly split 75%/25% for model training/testing) from years 2016-2019 of 86 German Helios hospitals was retrospectively analyzed. Inpatient SARI cases were defined by ICD-codes J09-J22. Three ML algorithms were evaluated and its performance compared to generalized linear models (GLM) by computing receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). RESULTS: The dataset contained 241,988 inpatient SARI cases (75 years or older: 49%; male 56.2%). In-hospital mortality was 11.6%. AUC and AUPRC in the testing dataset were 0.83 and 0.372 for GLM, 0.831 and 0.384 for random forest (RF), 0.834 and 0.382 for single layer neural network (NNET) and 0.834 and 0.389 for extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost). Statistical comparison of ROC AUCs revealed a better performance of NNET and XGBoost as compared to GLM. CONCLUSION: ML algorithms for predicting in-hospital mortality were trained and tested on a large real-world administrative dataset of SARI patients and showed good discriminatory performances. Broad application of our models in clinical routine practice can contribute to patients' risk assessment and quality management.

Effect of gender, age and vaccine on reactogenicity and incapacity to work after COVID-19 vaccination: a survey among health care workers.

BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to assess the impact the impact of gender and age on reactogenicity to three COVID-19 vaccine products: Biontech/Pfizer (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273) and AstraZeneca (ChAdOx). Additional analyses focused on the reduction in working capacity after vaccination and the influence of the time of day when vaccines were administered. METHODS: We conducted a survey on COVID-19 vaccinations and eventual reactions among 73,000 employees of 89 hospitals of the Helios Group. On May 19th, 2021 all employees received an email, inviting all employees who received at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 to participate using an attached link. Additionally, the invitation was posted in the group's intranet page. Participation was voluntary and non-traceable. The survey was closed on June 21st, 2021. RESULTS: 8375 participants reported on 16,727 vaccinations. Reactogenicity was reported after 74.6% of COVID-19 vaccinations. After 23.0% vaccinations the capacity to work was affected. ChAdOx induced impairing reactogenicity mainly after the prime vaccination (70.5%), while mRNA-1273 led to more pronounced reactions after the second dose (71.6%). Heterologous prime-booster vaccinations with ChAdOx followed by either mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 were associated with the highest risk for impairment (81.4%). Multivariable analyses identified the factors older age, male gender and vaccine BNT162b as independently associated with lower odds ratio for both, impairing reactogenicity and incapacity to work. In the comparison of vaccine schedules, the heterologous combination ChAdOx + BNT162b or mRNA-1273 was associated with the highest and the homologue prime-booster vaccination with BNT162b with the lowest odds ratios. The time of vaccination had no significant influence. CONCLUSIONS: Around 75% of the COVID-19 vaccinations led to reactogenicity and nearly 25% of them led to one or more days of work loss. Major risk factors were female gender, younger age and the administration of a vaccine other than BNT162b2. When vaccinating a large part of a workforce against COVID-19, especially in professions with a higher proportion of young and women such as health care, employers and employees must be prepared for a noticeable amount of absenteeism. Assuming vaccine effectiveness to be equivalent across the vaccine combinations, to minimize reactogenicity, employees at risk should receive a homologous prime-booster immunisation with BNT162b2. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was approved by the Ethic Committee of the Aerztekammer Berlin on May 27th, 2021 (Eth-37/21) and registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS 00025745). The study was supported by the Helios research grant HCRI-ID 2021-0272.

The usefulness of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery concepts for colorectal resections: an economic analysis under DRG conditions.

PURPOSE: ERAS® (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) describes a multimodal, interdisciplinary, and interprofessional treatment concept that optimizes the postoperative convalescence of the patient through the use of evidence-based measures. Goal of the work. The aim of this article is to examine the economic feasibility of the ERAS® concept in the German DRG (diagnosis-related groups) system. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Since August 2019, patients have been treated in our clinic according to the later certified ERAS® concept. The last 50 patients before ERAS® implementation are compared below with 50 patients after ERAS® implementation, who were identified using a matched pair analysis. In addition to the comparison of costs and revenues, the clinical outcome of the patients is also presented. RESULTS: The cases of the patients in the pre-ERAS® cohort caused median costs of € 7432.83. BWR (valuation ratio) of 3.38 were billable. The resulting DRG revenue for the patients in this group amounted to € 11,325.78. The proceeds generated in the end amounted to € 4575.14. The cases of patients in the ERAS® cohort resulted in costs of € 5582.96. BWR of 2.84 could be billed. The DRG proceeds for the patients in this group therefore amounted to € 10,014.18. The profit generated was thus € 4993.84. CONCLUSION: The cost reduction generated by ERAS® was more pronounced than the "loss" due to the decrease in BWR. ERAS® is therefore also possible in the German DRG system at absolutely cost-covering levels.

Emergency hospital admissions for psychiatric disorders in a German-wide hospital network during the COVID-19 outbreak.

PURPOSE: Psychiatric emergency hospital admissions for distinct psychiatric disorders and length of inpatient stay in the hospital during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak have not been thoroughly assessed. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed analyzing claims data from a large German Hospital network during the COVID-19 outbreak (study period: March 13-May 21, 2020) as compared to periods directly before the outbreak (same year control: January 1-March 12, 2020) and one year earlier (previous year control: March 13-May 21, 2019). RESULTS: A total of 13,151 emergency hospital admissions for psychiatric diagnoses were included in the analysis. For all psychiatric diagnoses combined, emergency admissions significantly decreased during the study period with mean (interquartile range) incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of 0.68 (0.65, 0.71) and 0.70 (0.67, 0.73) as compared to the same and previous year controls, respectively (both p < 0.00001). IRR ranged from 0.56 for mood affective disorders (F30-F39) to 0.75 for mental disorders due to psychoactive substance use (F10-F19; all p < 0.00001). Mean (standard deviation) length of hospital stay for all psychiatric diagnoses was significantly shorter during the study period [9.8 (11.6) days] as compared to same [14.7 (18.7) days] and previous [16.4 (23.9) days] year controls (both p < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: Both emergency hospital admissions and length of hospital stay significantly decreased for psychiatric disorders during the COVID-19 outbreak. It needs to be assessed in further studies whether healthcare systems will face increased demand for the provision of mental health care in the nearer future.

Hospitalisations for emergency-sensitive conditions in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from the German-wide Helios hospital network.

BACKGROUND: While there are numerous reports that describe emergency care during the early COVID-19 pandemic, there is scarcity of data for later stages. This study analyses hospitalisation rates for 37 emergency-sensitive conditions in the largest German-wide hospital network during different pandemic phases. METHODS: Using claims data of 80 hospitals, consecutive cases between 1 January and 17 November 2020 were analysed and compared with a corresponding period in 2019. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) comparing the two periods were calculated using Poisson regression to model the number of hospitalisations per day. RESULTS: There was a reduction in hospitalisations between 12 March and 13 June 2020 (coinciding with the first pandemic wave) with 32 807 hospitalisations (349.0/day) as opposed to 39 379 (419.0/day) in 2019 (IRR 0.83, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.85, p<0.01). During the following period (14 June-17 November 2020, including the start of second wave), hospitalisations were reduced from 63 799 (406.4/day) in 2019 to 59 910 (381.6/day) in 2020, but this reduction was not as pronounced (IRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.95, p<0.01). During the first wave hospitalisations for acute myocardial infarction, aortic aneurysm/dissection, pneumonitis, paralytic ileus/intestinal obstruction and pulmonary embolism declined but subsequently increased compared with the corresponding periods in 2019. In contrast, hospitalisations for sepsis, pneumonia, obstructive pulmonary disease and intracranial injuries were reduced during the entire observation period. CONCLUSIONS: There was an overall reduction of absolute hospitalisations for emergency-sensitive conditions in Germany during the first 10 months of the COVID-19 pandemic with heterogeneous effects on different disease categories. The increase in hospitalisations for acute myocardial infarction, aortic aneurysm/dissection and pulmonary embolism requires attention and further studies.

[Has the COVID19 Pandemic Changed the Emergency Situation in German Clinics? A Nationwide Analysis of Routine Data from 73 Acute Hospitals]. / Hat die COVID-19-Pandemie das Notfallgeschehen in deutschen Kliniken verändert? Eine bundesweite Analyse von Routinedaten aus 73 Akutkrankenhäusern.

COVID-19 has led to profound changes in the world as we have known it. Due to the sharp increase in intensive care, COVID patients, elective admissions and interventions have been postponed. But emergencies such as myocardial infarction have also decreased. The present study deals with the effects of the COVID pandemic on visceral surgical emergencies on the basis of 5 indicator operations. Routine data from 73 acute hospitals of the Helios Group were evaluated for this purpose. The interventions that were carried out between March 13, 2020 and March 12, 2021 were included. The data was compared with the period from March 13, 2019 to March 12, 2020. The number of interventions in serious emergencies (ileus, mesenteric ischemia and ulcer perforation) has remained constant. However, the length of stay in hospital in the pandemic year 2020 was significantly shorter than in the reference year 2019. The number of cholecystectomies and appendectomies in the pandemic year was significantly lower than in the reference year 2019. The outcome parameters intensive care, invasive ventilation and hospital mortality were comparable for the two periods for these interventions.

Efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of IC43 recombinant Pseudomonas aeruginosa vaccine in mechanically ventilated intensive care patients-a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections are a serious threat in intensive care units (ICUs). The aim of this confirmatory, randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2/3 study was to assess the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of IC43 recombinant Pseudomonas aeruginosa vaccine in non-surgical ICU patients. METHODS: Eight hundred patients aged 18 to 80 years admitted to the ICU with expected need for mechanical ventilation for ≥ 48 h were randomized 1:1 to either IC43 100 µg or saline placebo, given in two vaccinations 7 days apart. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality in patients 28 days after the first vaccination. Immunogenicity and safety were also evaluated. FINDINGS: All-cause mortality rates at day 28 were 29.2% vs 27.7% in the IC43 and placebo groups, respectively (P = .67). Overall survival (Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, P = .46) and proportion of patients with ≥ one confirmed P. aeruginosa invasive infection or respiratory tract infection also did not differ significantly between both groups. The geometric mean fold increase in OprF/I titers was 1.5 after the first vaccination, 20 at day 28, after the second vaccination, and 2.9 at day 180. Significantly more patients in the placebo group (96.5%) had ≥ one adverse event (AE) versus the IC43 100 µg group (93.1%) (P = .04). The most frequently reported severe AEs in the IC43 and placebo groups were respiratory failure (6.9% vs 5.7%, respectively), septic shock (4.1% vs 6.5%), cardiac arrest (4.3% vs 5.7%), multiorgan failure (4.6% vs 5.5%), and sepsis (4.6% vs 4.2%). No related serious AEs were reported in the IC43 group. INTERPRETATION: The IC43 100 µg vaccine was well tolerated in this large population of medically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. The vaccine achieved high immunogenicity but provided no clinical benefit over placebo in terms of overall mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01563263). Registration was sent to ClinicalTrials.gov on March 14, 2012, but posted by ClinicalTrials.gov on March 26, 2012. The first subject was included in the trial on March 22, 2012.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Development of Shock Among Patients With Severe Sepsis: The HYPRESS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy is suggested by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign in refractory septic shock only. The efficacy of hydrocortisone in patients with severe sepsis without shock remains controversial. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone therapy in patients with severe sepsis prevents the development of septic shock. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted from January 13, 2009, to August 27, 2013, with a follow-up of 180 days until February 23, 2014. The trial was performed in 34 intermediate or intensive care units of university and community hospitals in Germany, and it included 380 adult patients with severe sepsis who were not in septic shock. Interventions: Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 either to receive a continuous infusion of 200 mg of hydrocortisone for 5 days followed by dose tapering until day 11 (n = 190) or to receive placebo (n = 190). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was development of septic shock within 14 days. Secondary outcomes were time until septic shock, mortality in the intensive care unit or hospital, survival up to 180 days, and assessment of secondary infections, weaning failure, muscle weakness, and hyperglycemia (blood glucose level >150 mg/dL [to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0555]). Results: The intention-to-treat population consisted of 353 patients (64.9% male; mean [SD] age, 65.0 [14.4] years). Septic shock occurred in 36 of 170 patients (21.2%) in the hydrocortisone group and 39 of 170 patients (22.9%) in the placebo group (difference, -1.8%; 95% CI, -10.7% to 7.2%; P = .70). No significant differences were observed between the hydrocortisone and placebo groups for time until septic shock; mortality in the intensive care unit or in the hospital; or mortality at 28 days (15 of 171 patients [8.8%] vs 14 of 170 patients [8.2%], respectively; difference, 0.5%; 95% CI, -5.6% to 6.7%; P = .86), 90 days (34 of 171 patients [19.9%] vs 28 of 168 patients [16.7%]; difference, 3.2%; 95% CI, -5.1% to 11.4%; P = .44), and 180 days (45 of 168 patients [26.8%] vs 37 of 167 patients [22.2%], respectively; difference, 4.6%; 95% CI, -4.6% to 13.7%; P = .32). In the hydrocortisone vs placebo groups, 21.5% vs 16.9% had secondary infections, 8.6% vs 8.5% had weaning failure, 30.7% vs 23.8% had muscle weakness, and 90.9% vs 81.5% had hyperglycemia. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with severe sepsis not in septic shock, use of hydrocortisone compared with placebo did not reduce the risk of septic shock within 14 days. These findings do not support the use of hydrocortisone in these patients. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00670254.

Multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III study of pyridoxalated hemoglobin polyoxyethylene in distributive shock (PHOENIX).

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of the hemoglobin-based nitric oxide scavenger, pyridoxalated hemoglobin polyoxyethylene, against placebo in patients with vasopressor-dependent distributive shock. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, open-label study. SETTING: Sixty-one participating ICUs in six European countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and United Kingdom). PATIENTS: All patients admitted with distributive shock, defined as the presence of at least two systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, persisting norepinephrine dependence and evidence of organ dysfunction/hypoperfusion despite adequate fluid resuscitation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive 0.25 mL/kg/hr pyridoxalated hemoglobin polyoxyethylene (20 mg Hb/kg/hr) or an equal volume of placebo, infused for up to 150 hours, in addition to conventional vasopressor therapy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study was stopped after interim analysis showed higher mortality in the pyridoxalated hemoglobin polyoxyethylene group and an increased prevalence of adverse events. At this time, 377 patients had been randomized to pyridoxalated hemoglobin polyoxyethylene (n = 183) or placebo (n = 194). Age, gender, type of patient (medical/surgical), and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were similar between groups. Twenty-eight-day mortality rate was 44.3% in the pyridoxalated hemoglobin polyoxyethylene group versus 37.6% in the placebo group (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.85-1.95; p = 0.227). In patients with higher organ dysfunction scores (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment > 13), mortality rates were significantly higher in the pyridoxalated hemoglobin polyoxyethylene group when compared with those in placebo-treated patients (60.9% vs 39.2%; p = 0.014). Survivors who received pyridoxalated hemoglobin polyoxyethylene had a longer vasopressor-free time (21.3 vs 19.7 d; p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized, controlled phase III trial in patients with vasopressor-dependent distributive shock, administration of a pyridoxalated hemoglobin solution decreased the need for vasopressors but was associated with a trend to increased mortality.

Effect of empirical treatment with moxifloxacin and meropenem vs meropenem on sepsis-related organ dysfunction in patients with severe sepsis: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Early appropriate antimicrobial therapy leads to lower mortality rates associated with severe sepsis. The role of empirical combination therapy comprising at least 2 antibiotics of different mechanisms remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of moxifloxacin and meropenem with the effect of meropenem alone on sepsis-related organ dysfunction. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial of 600 patients who fulfilled criteria for severe sepsis or septic shock (n = 298 for monotherapy and n = 302 for combination therapy). The trial was performed at 44 intensive care units in Germany from October 16, 2007, to March 23, 2010. The number of evaluable patients was 273 in the monotherapy group and 278 in the combination therapy group. INTERVENTIONS: Intravenous meropenem (1 g every 8 hours) and moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 hours) or meropenem alone. The intervention was recommended for 7 days and up to a maximum of 14 days after randomization or until discharge from the intensive care unit or death, whichever occurred first. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Degree of organ failure (mean of daily total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] scores over 14 days; score range: 0-24 points with higher scores indicating worse organ failure); secondary outcome: 28-day and 90-day all-cause mortality. Survivors were followed up for 90 days. RESULTS: Among 551 evaluable patients, there was no statistically significant difference in mean SOFA score between the meropenem and moxifloxacin group (8.3 points; 95% CI, 7.8-8.8 points) and the meropenem alone group (7.9 points; 95% CI, 7.5-8.4 points) (P = .36). The rates for 28-day and 90-day mortality also were not statistically significantly different. By day 28, there were 66 deaths (23.9%; 95% CI, 19.0%-29.4%) in the combination therapy group compared with 59 deaths (21.9%; 95% CI, 17.1%-27.4%) in the monotherapy group (P = .58). By day 90, there were 96 deaths (35.3%; 95% CI, 29.6%-41.3%) in the combination therapy group compared with 84 deaths (32.1%; 95% CI, 26.5%-38.1%) in the monotherapy group (P = .43). CONCLUSION: Among adult patients with severe sepsis, treatment with combined meropenem and moxifloxacin compared with meropenem alone did not result in less organ failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00534287.

Cholecystectomies in the COVID-19 Pandemic During and After the First Lockdown in Germany: an Analysis of 8561 Patients.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to global changes in healthcare systems. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects on surgical care of patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of routine data from the largest hospital group in Germany (68 acute hospitals). Included were inpatients who underwent cholecystectomy between March 19, 2020 (beginning of the first lockdown in Germany) and September 22, 2020. These patients were compared with those treated in the same interval in 2019. RESULTS: In the 2020 study period, 4035 patients met the inclusion criteria (2019: 4526 patients). During the first lockdown, there was a significant reduction in the number of cholecystectomies performed (51.1% decrease). More patients with a higher risk profile underwent urgent operations, which were accompanied by a significant increase in conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. The patients were treated as inpatients for a longer duration than 2019, and the mortality rate increased significantly to 1.3% (2019: 0.1%). The complication rate also showed a significant increase. After the end of the first lockdown, daily admission rates normalized very quickly. However, it was not possible to fully address the backlog of operations. CONCLUSION: There is still a "patient stagnation" 6 months after the first German lockdown. Extrapolated to the national level, this corresponds to almost 21,000 fewer cholecystectomies performed in Germany in 2020. It remains to be seen whether surgical rates will return to pre-pandemic levels and whether complications will arise in the future due to the lack of operations.

Changes in nationwide in-hospital stroke care during the first four waves of COVID-19 in Germany.

Introduction: In the early stages of the global COVID-19 pandemic hospital admissions for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) decreased substantially. As health systems have become more experienced in dealing with the pandemic, and as the proportion of the population vaccinated rises, it is of interest to determine whether the prevalence of AIS hospitalization and outcomes from hospitalization have returned to normal. Patients and methods: In this observational, retrospective cohort study, we compared the prevalence and outcomes of AIS during the first four waves of the pandemic to corresponding pre-pandemic periods in 2019 using administrative data collected from a nationwide network of 76 hospitals that manages 7% of all in-hospital cases in Germany. Results: We included 25,821 AIS cases in the study period (2020/2021) and used 26,295 AIS cases as controls (2019). Compared to pre-pandemic numbers, mean daily AIS admissions decreased only during wave 1 (from 39.6 to 34.1; p < 0.01) and wave 2 (from 39.9 to 38.3; p = 0.03) and returned to normal levels during waves 3 and 4. AIS case fatality increased in wave 1 only (from 6.0% to 7.6%; p = 0.03). We observed a consistent decrease in the prevalences of arterial hypertension, diabetes, and obesity among AIS cases throughout the pandemic and no changes in rates of systemic thrombolysis, mechanical thrombectomy, or decompressive craniectomy. The rate of transfer to stroke units increased only during waves 2 (by 4.6%; p < 0.01) and 3 (by 3.0%; p < 0.01). The proportion of patients with coinciding SARS-CoV-2 and AIS was low, peaking at 3.4% in wave 2 and subsequently decreasing to 0.4% in wave 4. Conclusion: In Germany, the COVID-19 pandemic seems to have had a larger effect on nationwide in-hospital AIS care during the early pandemic stages, in which AIS case numbers decreased and case fatality rose. This may reflect a nationwide "learning curve" within health care systems in providing AIS care in times of a pandemic.

[Psychiatric Emergency Admissions and Inpatient Length of Stay Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany]. / Psychiatrische Notfallaufnahmen und stationäre Aufenthaltsdauer vor und während der COVID-19-Pandemie in Deutschland.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of the COVID-19 year on the number of daily psychiatric emergency admissions and length of stay was compared with previous years. METHODS: In a retrospective study, the four quarters of 2020 of several psychiatric hospitals in Germany were statistically compared with the respective quarters of 2018 and 2019. RESULTS: A total of 73,412 cases was analyzed. In the 2nd quarter of 2020, the number of daily admissions was significantly lower as compared to the control period (59.1 vs. 70.7; incidence rate ratio [95 % confidence interval] 0.81 [0.69; 0.96]; p = 0.012). Length of stay was numerically but not significantly different as compared to the control periods. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic had a strong impact on inpatient psychiatric care. In the future, multimodal care structures must ensure the care of severely mentally ill people in crisis situations.

A Comparative Analysis of In-Hospital Mortality per Disease Groups in Germany Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic From 2016 to 2020.

Importance: Throughout the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, it has been critical to understand not only the viral disease itself but also its implications for the overall health care system. Reports about excess mortality in this regard have mostly focused on overall death counts during specific pandemic phases. Objective: To investigate hospitalization rates and compare in-hospital mortality rates with absolute mortality incidences across a broad spectrum of diseases, comparing 2020 data with those of prepandemic years. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective, cross-sectional, multicentric analysis of administrative data from 5 821 757 inpatients admitted from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020, to 87 German Helios primary to tertiary care hospitals. Exposures: Exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Main Outcomes and Measures: Administrative data were analyzed from January 1, 2016, to March 31, 2021, as a consecutive sample for all inpatients. Disease groups were defined according to International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10; German modification) encoded main discharge diagnoses. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for hospital admissions and hospital mortality counts, as well as relative mortality risks (RMRs) comparing 2016-2019 with 2020 (exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic), were calculated with Poisson regression with log-link function. Results: Data were examined for 5 821 757 inpatients (mean [SD] age, 56.4 [25.3] years; 51.5% women), including 125 807 in-hospital deaths. Incidence rate ratios for hospital admissions were associated with a significant reduction for all investigated disease groups (IRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.86; P < .001). After adjusting for age, sex, the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score, and SARS-CoV-2 infections, RMRs were associated with an increase in infectious diseases (RMR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.21-1.34; P < .001), musculoskeletal diseases (RMR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.04-1.36; P = .009), and respiratory diseases (RMR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.14; P < .001) but not for the total cohort (RMR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.02; P = .66). Regarding in-hospital mortality, IRR was associated with an increase within the ICD-10 chapter of respiratory diseases (IRR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.46; P < .001) in comparing 2020 with 2016-2019, in contrast to being associated with a reduction in IRRs for the overall cohort and several other subgroups. After exclusion of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections, IRRs were associated with a reduction in absolute in-hospital mortality for the overall cohort (IRR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.84; P < .001) and the subgroup of respiratory diseases (IRR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study of inpatients from a multicentric German database suggests that absolute in-hospital mortality for 2020 across disease groups was not higher compared with previous years. Higher IRRs of in-hospital deaths observed in patients with respiratory diseases were likely associated with individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Expected and observed in-hospital mortality in heart failure patients before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: Introduction of the machine learning-based standardized mortality ratio at Helios hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Reduced hospital admission rates for heart failure (HF) and evidence of increased in-hospital mortality were reported during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to apply a machine learning (ML)-based mortality prediction model to examine whether the latter is attributable to differing case mixes and exceeds expected mortality rates. METHODS AND RESULTS: Inpatient cases with a primary discharge diagnosis of HF non-electively admitted to 86 German Helios hospitals between 01/01/2016 and 08/31/2020 were identified. Patients with proven or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded. ML-based models were developed, tuned, and tested using cases of 2016-2018 (n = 64,440; randomly split 75%/25%). Extreme gradient boosting showed the best model performance indicated by a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.882 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.872-0.893). The model was applied on data sets of 2019 and 2020 (n = 28,556 cases) and the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) was computed as the observed to expected death ratio. Observed mortality rates were 5.84% (2019) and 6.21% (2020), HSMRs based on an individual case-based mortality probability were 100.0 (95% CI: 93.3-107.2; p = 1.000) for 2019 and 99.3 (95% CI: 92.5-106.4; p = .850) for 2020. Within subgroups of age or hospital volume, there were no significant differences between observed and expected deaths. When stratified for pandemic phases, no excess death during the COVID-19 pandemic was observed. CONCLUSION: Applying an ML algorithm to calculate expected inpatient mortality based on administrative data, there was no excess death above expected event rates in HF patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.