Development of a data-driven COVID-19 prognostication tool to inform triage and step-down care for hospitalised patients in Hong Kong: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This is the first study on prognostication in an entire cohort of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients in the city of Hong Kong. Prognostic tool is essential in the contingency response for the next wave of outbreak. This study aims to develop prognostic models to predict COVID-19 patients' clinical outcome on day 1 and day 5 of hospital admission. METHODS: We did a retrospective analysis of a complete cohort of 1037 COVID-19 laboratory-confirmed patients in Hong Kong as of 30 April 2020, who were admitted to 16 public hospitals with their data sourced from an integrated electronic health records system. It covered demographic information, chronic disease(s) history, presenting symptoms as well as the worst clinical condition status, biomarkers' readings and Ct value of PCR tests on Day-1 and Day-5 of admission. The study subjects were randomly split into training and testing datasets in a 8:2 ratio. Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model was used to classify the training data into three disease severity groups on Day-1 and Day-5. RESULTS: The 1037 patients had a mean age of 37.8 (SD ± 17.8), 53.8% of them were male. They were grouped under three disease outcome: 4.8% critical/serious, 46.8% stable and 48.4% satisfactory. Under the full models, 30 indicators on Day-1 and Day-5 were used to predict the patients' disease outcome and achieved an accuracy rate of 92.3% and 99.5%. With a trade-off between practical application and predictive accuracy, the full models were reduced into simpler models with seven common specific predictors, including the worst clinical condition status (4-level), age group, and five biomarkers, namely, CRP, LDH, platelet, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and albumin/globulin ratio. Day-1 model's accuracy rate, macro-/micro-averaged sensitivity and specificity were 91.3%, 84.9%/91.3% and 96.0%/95.7% respectively, as compared to 94.2%, 95.9%/94.2% and 97.8%/97.1% under Day-5 model. CONCLUSIONS: Both Day-1 and Day-5 models can accurately predict the disease severity. Relevant clinical management could be planned according to the predicted patients' outcome. The model is transformed into a simple online calculator to provide convenient clinical reference tools at the point of care, with an aim to inform clinical decision on triage and step-down care.

An audit of postoperative intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine: evolution over the last decade.

The development and refinement of an acute pain service based on the increased availability of clinical evidence would be expected to improve the quality of postoperative pain control. This report reviews the application of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) using intravenous morphine in a single institution between 2002 and 2005. More than 5000 patients were evaluated and the results were compared with a similar study performed 10 years ago. Prescription of PCA had increased by more than threefold. Morphine consumption from post-operative day 1 to day 3 (19.1 vs. 26.1, 8.6 vs. 18.1 and 4.5 vs. 19.0 microg/kg/h, respectively), demand-to-delivery ratio (1.35-1.76 vs. 2.4-2.8) and the incidence of respiratory depression (0.06% vs. 2%) were significantly reduced (p<0.001), but there was no improvement in pain relief. A substantial proportion of patients still experienced postoperative nausea (47%) and vomiting (18.5%) despite a reduction in morphine consumption. Most patients ranked PCA as good and only 0.3% were dissatisfied. We conclude that, in our institution over the last decade, PCA has become more popular for postoperative pain management but with no attendant improvement in pain relief or reduction in side effects. Using PCA alone may result in poorer quality postoperative analgesia. Our findings add to the growing body of evidence that postoperative pain management has not substantially improved despite increased adoption of acute pain services.

A double-blind, crossover assessment of the sedative and analgesic effects of intranasal dexmedetomidine.

BACKGROUND: The alpha2-receptor agonist, dexmedetomidine, provides sedation with facilitated arousal and analgesia with no respiratory depression. These properties render it potentially useful for anesthesia premedication, although parenteral administration is not practical in this setting. We designed this study to evaluate the sedative, anxiolytic, analgesic, and hemodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine administered intranasally in healthy volunteers. METHODS: Koch's design for crossover trials (three-treatment and two-period design) was adopted. The study was double-blind and there were three treatment groups: A (placebo), B (intranasal dexmedetomidine 1 microg/kg) and C (intranasal dexmedetomidine 1.5 microg/kg). Each of the 18 subjects participated in two study periods. The study drug was administered intranasally after baseline observations of modified Observer Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale, visual analog scale of sedation, bispectral index, visual analog scale of anxiety, pain pressure threshold measured by an electronic algometer, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation. These were repeated during the course of the study. RESULTS: Intranasal dexmedetomidine was well tolerated. Both 1 and 1.5 microg/kg doses equally produced significant sedation and decreases in bispectral index, SBP, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate when compared with placebo (P < 0.05). The onset of sedation occurred at 45 min with a peak effect at 90-150 min. The maximum reduction in SBP was 6%, 23%, and 21% for Groups A, B, and C respectively. There was no effect on pain pressure threshold, oxygen saturation or respiratory rate. Anxiolysis could not be evaluated as no subjects were anxious at baseline. CONCLUSION: The intranasal route is effective, well tolerated, and convenient for the administration of dexmedetomidine. Future studies are required to evaluate the possible role of the noninvasive route of administration of dexmedetomidine in various clinical settings, including its role as premedication prior to induction of anesthesia.

Intraoperative remifentanil infusion does not increase postoperative opioid consumption compared with 70% nitrous oxide.

BACKGROUND: Remifentanil is commonly used to replace nitrous oxide in general anesthesia to avoid the side effects of the latter. However, there are reports that intraoperative remifentanil infusion can lead to acute opioid tolerance. In this study, the authors tried to determine the dose of remifentanil comparable in efficacy to 70% nitrous oxide and to evaluate its effect on postoperative pain and morphine consumption after colorectal surgery using isoflurane anesthesia. METHODS: Sixty adult patients undergoing open colorectal surgery were randomly assigned to receive either remifentanil or 70% nitrous oxide along with isoflurane anesthesia. After morphine analgesia titration in the postanesthesia care unit, patient-controlled analgesia was commenced. Morphine consumption and pain were scored at rest and during cough or movement for 24 h. RESULTS: The mean remifentanil infusion rate was 0.17 mug . kg . min. The median visual analog pain score on arrival in the postanesthesia care unit was 1 (0-10) in the nitrous oxide group and 3 (0-9) in the remifentanil group (P < 0.05). Otherwise, there was no difference in pain scores at 5, 10, and 15 min and no difference in the total morphine consumption during the stay in the postanesthesia care unit. The two groups had similar total morphine consumption in the first 24 h and pain scores at rest and during movement. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was 10% in both groups. There was no difference in the sedation scores. CONCLUSION: The substitution of 70% nitrous oxide with remifentanil at a mean infusion rate of 0.17 mug . kg . minute for colorectal surgery did not affect postoperative opioid consumption.