Code status documentation at admission in COVID-19 patients: a descriptive cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic pressurised healthcare with increased shortage of care. This resulted in an increase of awareness for code status documentation (ie, whether limitations to specific life-sustaining treatments are in place), both in the medical field and in public media. However, it is unknown whether the increased awareness changed the prevalence and content of code status documentation for COVID-19 patients. We aim to describe differences in code status documentation between infectious patients before the pandemic and COVID-19 patients. SETTING: University Medical Centre of Utrecht, a tertiary care teaching academic hospital in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1715 patients were included, 129 in the COVID-19 cohort (a cohort of COVID-19 patients, admitted from March 2020 to June 2020) and 1586 in the pre-COVID-19 cohort (a cohort of patients with (suspected) infections admitted between September 2016 to September 2018). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We described frequency of code status documentation, frequency of discussion of this code status with patient and/or family, and content of code status. RESULTS: Frequencies of code status documentation (69.8% vs 72.7%, respectively) and discussion (75.6% vs 73.3%, respectively) were similar in both cohorts. More patients in the COVID-19 cohort than in the before COVID-19 cohort had any treatment limitation as opposed to full code (40% vs 25%). Within the treatment limitations, 'no intensive care admission' (81% vs 51%) and 'no intubation' (69% vs 40%) were more frequently documented in the COVID-19 cohort. A smaller difference was seen in 'other limitation' (17% vs 9%), while 'no resuscitation' (96% vs 92%) was comparable between both periods. CONCLUSION: We observed no difference in the frequency of code status documentation or discussion in COVID-19 patients opposed to a pre-COVID-19 cohort. However, treatment limitations were more prevalent in patients with COVID-19, especially 'no intubation' and 'no intensive care admission'.

Abdominal lymph node size in children at computed tomography.

BACKGROUND: Lymph node enlargement is commonly used to indicate abnormality. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the normal size and prevalence of abdominal lymph nodes in children at CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, we included a total of 152 children ages 1-17 years who underwent abdominal CT examination after high-energy trauma. We measured abdominal lymph nodes in five lymph node stations (inguinal, iliac, para-aortic, hepatic and mesenteric). For the largest lymph node in each level, we measured long- and short-axis diameters in both the axial and coronal planes. We then calculated distribution parameters, correlation coefficients between lymph node size and age, and reference intervals. RESULTS: The prevalence of detectable lymph nodes was high for the inguinal (100%), iliac (98%), para-aortic (97%) and mesenteric (99%) stations and lower for the hepatic station (32%). Lymph node size showed small to medium significant correlations (ranging from 0.21 to 0.50) with age. When applying the Lugano criteria and RECIST (Response Criteria in Solid Tumors), 29 children (19%) would have had one or more enlarged abdominal lymph nodes. CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide normative data of abdominal lymph node size in children. The current adult guidelines for enlarged lymph nodes seem adequate for most children with the exception of young adolescents, in which larger lymph nodes were relatively common, particularly in the inguinal region.