Association of virtual end-of-life care with healthcare outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based study.

The use of virtual care for people at the end-of-life significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, but its association with acute healthcare use and location of death is unknown. The objective of this study was to measure the association between the use of virtual end-of-life care with acute healthcare use and an out-of-hospital death before vs. after the introduction of specialized fee codes that enabled broader delivery of virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was a population-based cohort study of 323,995 adults in their last 90 days of life between January 25, 2018 and December 31, 2021 using health administrative data in Ontario, Canada. Primary outcomes were acute healthcare use (emergency department, hospitalization) and location of death (in or out-of-hospital). Prior to March 14, 2020, 13,974 (8%) people received at least 1 virtual end-of-life care visit, which was associated with a 16% higher rate of emergency department use (adjusted Rate Ratio [aRR] 1.16, 95%CI 1.12 to 1.20), a 17% higher rate of hospitalization (aRR 1.17, 95%CI 1.15 to 1.20), and a 34% higher risk of an out-of-hospital death (aRR 1.34, 95%CI 1.31 to 1.37) compared to people who did not receive virtual end-of-life care. After March 14, 2020, 104,165 (71%) people received at least 1 virtual end-of-life care visit, which was associated with a 58% higher rate of an emergency department visit (aRR 1.58, 95%CI 1.54 to 1.62), a 45% higher rate of hospitalization (aRR 1.45, 95%CI 1.42 to 1.47), and a 65% higher risk of an out-of-hospital death (aRR 1.65, 95%CI 1.61 to 1.69) compared to people who did not receive virtual end-of-life care. The use of virtual end-of-life care was associated with higher acute healthcare use in the last 90 days of life and a higher likelihood of dying out-of-hospital, and these rates increased during the pandemic.

Prevalence and Clinical Significance of Electrocardiographic Complete Right Bundle Branch Block in Young Individuals.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is limited information on the clinical significance of complete right bundle branch block (CRBBB) in young individuals. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and significance of CRBBB in a large cohort of young individuals aged 14-35 years old. METHODS: From 2008 to 2018, 104,369 consecutive individuals underwent a cardiovascular assessment with a health questionnaire, electrocardiogram, clinical consultation, and selective echocardiography. Follow-up was obtained via direct telephone consultations. Mean follow-up was 7.3 ± 2.7 years. RESULTS: CRBBB was identified in 154 (0.1%) individuals and was more prevalent in males compared with females (0.20% vs. 0.06%; p<0.05) and in athletes compared with non-athletes (0.25% vs. 0.14%; p<0.05). CRBBB-related cardiac conditions were identified in 7 (5%) individuals (4 with atrial septal defect, 1 with Brugada syndrome, 1 with progressive cardiac conduction disease and 1 with atrial fibrillation). Pathology was more frequently identified in individuals with non-isolated CRBBB compared with individuals with isolated CRBBB (14% vs 1%; p < 0.05) and in individuals with a QRS duration of ≥130 milliseconds (ms) compared with individuals with a QRS of <130ms (10% vs 1%; p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of CRBBB in young individuals was 0.1% and was more prevalent in males and athletes. CRBBB-related conditions were identified in 5% of individuals and were more common in individuals with non-isolated CRBBB and more pronounced intraventricular conduction delay (QRS duration of ≥130ms). Secondary evaluation should be considered for young individuals with CRBBB with symptoms, concerning family history, additional electrocardiographic anomalies or significant QRS prolongation (≥130ms).

There is limited information on the clinical significance of complete right bundle branch block (CRBBB) in young people (aged 14 to 35 years old). CRBBB is a rare finding in young individuals and is more common in male and athletic individuals. CRBBB related-conditions are found in 5% of young individuals with this electrocardiogram finding and are more common in those with additional heart symptoms, family history of premature heart disease, other abnormal electrocardiographic (ECG) findings and more pronounced forms of CRBBB (≥ 130 milliseconds). Further investigation, including at least an ultrasound of the heart (echocardiogram), is recommended for all young individuals with CRBBB with concerning symptoms, family history of heart disease, additional ECG anomalies or more pronounced CRBBB (≥130milliseconds).

Virtual Visits With Own Family Physician vs Outside Family Physician and Emergency Department Use.

Importance: Virtual visits became more common after the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is unclear in what context they are best used. Objective: To investigate whether there was a difference in subsequent emergency department use between patients who had a virtual visit with their own family physician vs those who had virtual visits with an outside physician. Design, Setting, and Participants: This propensity score-matched cohort study was conducted among all Ontario residents attached to a family physician as of April 1, 2021, who had a virtual family physician visit in the subsequent year (to March 31, 2022). Exposure: The type of virtual family physician visit, with own or outside physician, was determined. In a secondary analysis, own physician visits were compared with visits with a physician working in direct-to-consumer telemedicine. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was an emergency department visit within 7 days after the virtual visit. Results: Among 5 229 240 Ontario residents with a family physician and virtual visit, 4 173 869 patients (79.8%) had a virtual encounter with their own physician (mean [SD] age, 49.3 [21.5] years; 2 420 712 females [58.0%]) and 1 055 371 patients (20.2%) had an encounter with an outside physician (mean [SD] age, 41.8 [20.9] years; 605 614 females [57.4%]). In the matched cohort of 1 885 966 patients, those who saw an outside physician were 66% more likely to visit an emergency department within 7 days than those who had a virtual visit with their own physician (30 748 of 942 983 patients [3.3%] vs 18 519 of 942 983 patients [2.0%]; risk difference, 1.3% [95% CI, 1.2%-1.3%]; relative risk, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.63-1.69]). The increase in the risk of emergency department visits was greater when comparing 30 216 patients with definite direct-to-consumer telemedicine visits with 30 216 patients with own physician visits (risk difference, 4.1% [95% CI, 3.8%-4.5%]; relative risk, 2.99 [95% CI, 2.74-3.27]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patients whose virtual visit was with an outside physician were more likely to visit an emergency department in the next 7 days than those whose virtual visit was with their own family physician. These findings suggest that primary care virtual visits may be best used within an existing clinical relationship.