Nitrous Oxide Use for Pain in Labor, Conversion to Neuraxial Anesthesia and Birth Outcome.

INTRODUCTION: A variety of labor pain management options is essential to patients and their care providers. Inhaled, patient controlled nitrous oxide (N2O) is a valuable addition to these options. The purpose of this study was to examine laboring patient, newborn, and provider characteristics associated with N2O use for pain relief in labor and to examine the association between N2O, conversion to neuraxial analgesia, and cesarean birth. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study of the first year of N2O use in one large academic medical center. Patients at least 37 weeks' gestation who were admitted for labor with intended vaginal birth from August 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019, were included (N = 2605). Laboring patient and newborn factors and their relationship to N2O use were calculated as unadjusted and adjusted relative risks (RRs). Poisson regression was used to model the association between N2O use and subsequent use of neuraxial analgesia and type of birth for both nulliparous and multiparous patients. RESULTS: Overall, 20.2% of patients used N2O during labor. Multiparous patients were 24% less likely to use N2O than nulliparous patients (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.84). Use of N2O did not differ significantly between patients cared for by midwives compared with patients cared for by physicians (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-1.00). In multivariable modeling, N2O use in multiparous patients was associated with a 17% decrease in use of neuraxial analgesia (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73-0.94). There was no association between N2O use and use of neuraxial analgesia in nulliparous patients (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93-1.06). N2O use was not associated with cesarean birth in either group. DISCUSSION: N2O is an important pain management option for laboring patients and those who care for them. Study results may assist midwives, physicians, and nurses in counseling patients about analgesia options.

Racial Disparities in Surgical Treatment of Uterine Fibroids During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objective: Analyze the association between race and surgery performed for uterine fibroids during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: Retrospective exploratory cross-sectional study of patients with fibroids who underwent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. We compared the type of surgery performed (minimally invasive hysterectomy [MIH], uterine-sparing procedure [USP], or total abdominal hysterectomy [TAH]) by White versus non-White patients. Absolute percentage differences were estimated with multinomial logistic regression adjusting for age, body mass index (BMI), parity, comorbidities, and maximum fibroid diameter. Results: Of 350 subjects, the racial composition was 1.7% Asian, 23.4% Black, and 74.9% White. Non-White patients had greater fibroid burden by mean maximum fibroid diameter, mean uterine weight, and mean fibroid weight. Although MIH occurred more frequently among White patients (7.5% points higher [95% confidence interval (CI) = -3.1 to 18.2]), USP and TAH were more commonly conducted for non-White patients (3.4% points higher [95% CI = -10.4 to 3.6] and 4.2% points higher [95% CI = -13.2 to 4.8], respectively). The overall complication rate was 18.6%, which was 6% points lower (95% CI = -15.8 to 3.7) among White patients. Conclusion: During the COVID-19 pandemic at a single-site institution, non-White patients were more likely to undergo a uterine-sparing procedure for surgical treatment of uterine fibroids, abdominal procedures, including both hysterectomy and myomectomy, and experience surgery-related complications.

Measuring accuracy of International Classification of Diseases codes in identification of patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis.

Introduction: Non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis is a disease which is increasing in incidence and prevalence worldwide. The incidence of the disease is frequently estimated using databases that rely on International Classification of Diseases, ninth and tenth revisions, clinical modification (ICD-9-CM/ICD-10-CM) discharge diagnoses. Code accuracy has proved to be a major issue for other diagnoses using ICD codes. This study aims to investigate the accuracy of the ICD codes for the diagnosis of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Methods: This is a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study which compares the radiologist's diagnosis of bronchiectasis with the ICD code reflection of that diagnosis at discharge. Results: Sensitivities were 34% (same for both ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM windows) and specificities ranged from 69% for the ICD-9-CM window to 81% for ICD-10-CM window. Conclusion: We observed that ICD codes are an insufficient method to identify patients with a radiologist diagnosis of bronchiectasis.

Breaking Barriers: A Single-Center Real-World Experience With Recruitment and Administration of COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibodies and Opportunities for Improvement.

We conducted a retrospective exploratory study evaluating factors associated with selection to receive and infusion with coronavirus disease 2019 monoclonal antibodies. While priority was given to high-risk patients, patients with increased Social Vulnerability Index scores were less likely to present for infusion, raising concern that social factors created barriers to treatment.

Association of random and observed urine drug screening with long-term retention in opioid treatment programs.

BACKGROUND: In the US, opioid treatment providers (OTPs) have wide latitude to perform urine drug screening (UDS) and discharge clients for positive results. OTP clients have identified randomized and directly observed UDS as potentially stigmatizing, but little research has examined the association between UDS modality and retention in OTPs. METHODS: This cross-sectional study uses the 2016-2017 NDATSS wave among OTPs that administered methadone. The exposure was a 4-level variable based on whether OTPs had a high percentage (≥ 90% of clients) who experienced randomized, observed, both, or neither modality of UDS. The outcome was the proportion of clients retained in treatment 1 year or longer (long-term retention). Analyses were conducted using fractional logit regression with survey weighting and presented as percentages and 95% confidence intervals. We also present how policies for involuntary clinic discharge modify these effects. RESULTS: 150 OTPs were eligible with a median of 310 clients. 40 (27%) OTPs did not highly utilize either randomized or observed UDS, 22 (15%) only highly utilized observed UDS, 42 (28%) only highly utilized randomized UDS and 46 (31%) utilized both practices on ≥ 90% of clients. Adjusted estimates for long-term retention ranged from 57.7% in OTPs that conducted both randomized and observed UDS on ≥ 90% of clients and 70.4% in OTPs that did not highly utilize these practices. Involuntary discharge may moderate this relationship. CONCLUSION: Findings showed an association between high utilization of randomized and observed UDS and decreased long-term retention, suggesting that UDS modality may impact long-term OTP retention.

Influence of Patient and Clinician Gender on Emergency Department HEART Scores: A Secondary Analysis of a Prospective Observational Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Clinical decision aids can decrease health care disparities. However, many clinical decision aids contain subjective variables that may introduce clinician bias. The HEART score is a clinical decision aid that estimates emergency department (ED) patients' cardiac risk. We sought to explore patient and clinician gender's influence on HEART scores. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of a prospective observational trial, we examined a convenience sample of adult ED patients at one institution presenting with acute coronary syndrome symptoms. We compared ED clinician-generated HEART scores with researcher-generated HEART scores blinded to patient gender. The primary outcome was agreement between clinician and researcher HEART scores by patient gender overall and stratified by clinician gender. Analyses used difference-in-difference (DiD) for continuous score and prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) for binary (low versus moderate/high risk) score comparison. RESULTS: All 336 clinician-patient pairs from the original study were included. In total, 47% (158/336) of patients were women, and 52% (174/336) were treated by a woman clinician. The DiD between clinician and researcher HEART scores among men versus women patients was 0.24 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.48). Compared with researchers, men clinicians assigned a higher score to men versus women patients (DiD 0.51 [95% CI 0.16 to 0.87]), whereas women clinicians did not (DiD 0.00 [95% CI -0.33 to 0.33]). Agreement was the highest among women clinicians (PABAK 0.72; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.81) and lowest among men clinicians assessing men patients (PABAK 0.47; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.66). CONCLUSION: Patient and clinician gender may influence HEART scores. Researchers should strive to understand these influences in developing and implementing this and other clinical decision aids.