Nosocomial COVID-19 infection: examining the risk of mortality. The COPE-Nosocomial Study (COVID in Older PEople).

BACKGROUND: Hospital admissions for non-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pathology have decreased significantly. It is believed that this may be due to public anxiety about acquiring COVID-19 infection in hospital and the subsequent risk of mortality. AIM: To identify patients who acquire COVID-19 in hospital (nosocomial COVID-19 infection (NC)) and their risk of mortality compared to those with community-acquired COVID-19 (CAC) infection. METHODS: The COPE-Nosocomial Study was an observational cohort study. The primary outcome was the time to all-cause mortality (estimated with an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR)), and secondary outcomes were day 7 mortality and the time-to-discharge. A mixed-effects multivariable Cox's proportional hazards model was used, adjusted for demographics and comorbidities. FINDINGS: The study included 1564 patients from 10 hospital sites throughout the UK, and one in Italy, and collected outcomes on patients admitted up to April 28th, 2020. In all, 12.5% of COVID-19 infections were acquired in hospital; 425 (27.2%) patients with COVID died. The median survival time in NC patients was 14 days compared with 10 days in CAC patients. In the primary analysis, NC infection was associated with lower mortality rate (aHR: 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-0.98). Secondary outcomes found no difference in day 7 mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.47-1.31), but NC patients required longer time in hospital during convalescence (aHR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.37-0.66). CONCLUSION: The minority of COVID-19 cases were the result of NC transmission. No COVID-19 infection comes without risk, but patients with NC had a lower risk of mortality compared to CAC infection; however, caution should be taken when interpreting this finding.

Compliance with enhanced recovery protocols in elderly patients undergoing colorectal resection.

Introduction Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is associated with reduced length of stay (LOS) and improved outcomes in colorectal surgery. It is unclear whether ERAS can be safely implemented in elderly patients undergoing complex colorectal resections. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of ERAS in patients of all ages undergoing colorectal surgery. Methods A prospective database of a consecutive series of patients undergoing colorectal resections with ERAS between August 2012 and December 2014 was evaluated. Patients were divided into four age groups. Outcomes studied were compliance with ERAS elements, LOS, morbidity and mortality. Results Of the 294 patients in the study cohort, 79 were <60 years, 81 were 60-69 years, 86 were 70-79 years and 48 were ≥80 years of age. There was no significant difference between age groups in compliance with ERAS elements. Age was not predictive of delayed discharge (LOS >6 days) or morbidity. Factors that were predictive of delayed discharge on multivariate analysis were open surgery (odds ratio [OR]: 2.23, p=0.003), conversion to open surgery (OR: 3.23, p=0.017), stoma formation (OR: 2.10, p=0.019) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR: 4.12, p=0.038). Factors predictive of morbidity on multivariate analysis comprised conversion to open surgery (OR: 7.72, p=0.004), high creatinine (OR: 1.03 per unit increase in creatinine, p=0.008) and stoma education (OR: 0.31, p=0.030). Conclusions ERAS can be successfully implemented in older patients. There was equal compliance with the ERAS programme across the four age groups and no significant effect of age on LOS or morbidity.