COVID-19 Disease Characterization and Outcomes Comparison in Pediatrics.

Background: It has been reported that children experience less severe COVID-19 symptoms than adults; however, the literature that supports this idea is evolving. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively characterize hospitalized COVID-19-positive pediatric patients with a focus on the assessment of risk factors for poorer outcomes, mortality, and evaluation of interventions utilized and associated clinical outcomes. Methods: We conducted a multi-center retrospective chart review of patients 18 years old or younger who were COVID-19 positive and admitted to any US HCA Healthcare Pediatric service line between January 1, 2020, and November 30, 2020. We identified 6081 children across 4 states and included them in our data analysis. Negative Binomial Regression was used to measure the associations between characteristics abstracted from medical records and length of hospital stay. Results: Of the total cohort, 2.7% had at least one comorbidity. The majority of patients were discharged shortly after admission with 93.6% of patients spending less than 48 hours as an inpatient. The mortality rate during the study period was 0.1%. Factors found to be significantly associated with an increased length of stay were time in the intensive care unit (ICU), surgeries, developmental disorders, diabetes, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), suicidal ideation, and type of admission. Conclusion: The results of this cohort show there was a low disease burden at baseline and during hospitalization in pediatric patients positive for COVID-19. However, as the pandemic continues, future studies that further describe COVID-19 in children will be crucial to fully understand the disease course.

Evaluating the Efficacy of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy in Digital Frostbite.

Frostbite is a limb threatening, cold-induced tissue injury most commonly affecting the extremities. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is a proposed adjunctive treatment for this condition, which acts by increasing cellular oxygen availability in damaged tissues. Currently, there is a lack of data regarding the effectiveness of HBOT. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to further the research as one of the largest retrospective comparative cohort studies to date. We evaluated the efficacy of HBOT in the treatment of digital frostbite compared to a non-HBOT-treated group, with a focus on amputation outcomes between each group. A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed from January 2016 to August 2021 observing patients seen for frostbite. Amputation characteristics and encounter outcomes of patients treated with HBOT were compared to those in patients treated without HBOT. A one-to-one matching of HBOT-treated and non-HBOT-treated patients was also performed, followed by chi-square and Fisher's exact test statistical analysis. The results of the study found a low overall amputation rate of 5.2% across both cohorts. Comparison between groups identified no statistical difference between HBOT and non-HBOT groups regarding amputation characteristics through matched cohort analysis. However, an increased length of hospital stay in patients treated with HBOT (22.2 days) compared to the non-HBOT group (6.39 days) was identified. Based on this study, recommendations for future HBOT studies should evaluate the efficacy of HBOT for more severe cases of frostbite, with additional consideration for cost analysis studies.

Probiotic-Associated Central Venous Catheter Bloodstream Infections Lead to Increased Mortality in the ICU.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the occurrence rate and impact on patient outcomes of probiotic-associated central venous catheter bloodstream infections in the ICU. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: The cohort was gathered using HCA Healthcare's data warehouse. PATIENTS: Adult patients with central venous catheters in the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Blood culture data were used to determine whether an infection had occurred with an organism contained in an administered probiotic. Eighty-six probiotic-associated central venous catheter bloodstream infections were identified among the 23,015 patient cohort who received probiotics (0.37%). The number needed to harm was 270. Zero infections were found in the cohort that did not receive probiotics. Patients who contracted a probiotic infection had increased mortality (odds ratio, 2.23; 1.30-3.71; p < 0.01). Powder formulations had an increased rate of infection compared with nonpowder formulations (0.76% vs 0.33%; odds ratio, 2.03; 1.05-3.95; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Probiotic administration is associated with a substantial rate of probiotic-associated bloodstream infection in ICU patients with central venous catheters in place. Probiotic-associated bloodstream infections result in significantly increased mortality. Powder formulations cause bloodstream infections more frequently than nonpowder formulations. In ICU patients with central venous catheters, the risks of probiotic-associated central venous catheter bloodstream infection and death outweigh any potential benefits of probiotic administration.

Investigational medications in 9,638 hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19: lessons from the "fail-and-learn" strategy during the first two waves of the pandemic in 2020.

BACKGROUND: The early surge of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic introduced a significant clinical challenge due to the high case-fatality rate in absence of evidence-based recommendations. The empirical treatment modalities were relegated to historical expertise from the traditional management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in conjunction with off-label pharmaceutical agents endorsed under the "emergency use authorization" (EUA) paradigm by regulatory agencies. This study was designed to evaluate the insights from the "fail-and-learn" strategy in 2020 before the availability of COVID-19 vaccines and access to reliable insights from high-quality randomized controlled trials. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter, propensity-matched, case-control study was performed on a data registry comprising 186 hospitals from a national health care system in the United States, designed to investigate the efficacy of empirical treatment modalities during the early surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Reflective of the time-windows of the initial two surges of the pandemic in 2020, patients were stratified into "Early 2020" (March 1-June 30) versus "Late 2020" (July 1-December 31) study cohorts. Logistic regression was applied to determine the efficacy of prevalent medications (remdesivir, azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, tocilizumab) and supplemental oxygen delivery modalities (invasive vs. non-invasive ventilation) on patient outcomes. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Group comparisons were adjusted for covariates related to age, gender, ethnicity, body weight, comorbidities, and treatment modalities pertinent to organ failure replacement. RESULTS: From a total of 87,788 patients in the multicenter data registry screened in this study, 9,638 patients were included who received 19,763 COVID-19 medications during the first two waves of the 2020 pandemic. The results showed a minimal, yet statistically significant, association with hydroxychloroquine in "Early 2020" and remdesivir in "Late 2020" with reduced odds of mortality (odds ratios 0.72 and 0.76, respectively; P = 0.01). Azithromycin was the only medication associated with decreased odds of mortality during both study time-windows (odds ratios 0.79 and 0.68, respectively; P < 0.01). In contrast, the necessity for oxygen supply showed significantly increased odds of mortality beyond the effect of all investigated medications. Of all the covariates associated with increased mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation had the highest odds ratios of 8.34 in the first surge and 9.46 in in the second surge of the pandemic (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This retrospective multicenter observational cohort study on 9,638 hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 during revealed that the necessity for invasive ventilation had the highest odds of mortality, beyond the variable effects observed by administration of the prevalent EUA-approved investigational drugs during the first two surges of the early 2020 pandemic in the United States.

Negative Troponin I as a Predictor of Survival in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Background: Despite a large amount of evidence evaluating elevated troponin I levels and adverse clinical outcomes, little is known about the role of a normal (negative) troponin I during the first 24 h of admission for risk stratification in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aims to evaluate the utility and negative predictive value of a serum troponin I level to predict in-hospital mortality. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all adult patients (>18 years of age) with COVID-19 admitted to an HCA Healthcare facility between March 2020 and March 2021 who had a troponin I level drawn at admission. Patients were initially stratified into two groups based on their cardiac troponin I value in the first 24 h of admission (elevated vs negative). Results: A total of 65,580 patients were included in the final analysis. A negative troponin I value was associated with lesser odds of death during admission (OR = 0.32, 95 % CI 0.31-0.34, p < 0.01) and cardiac complications (OR = 0.38, 95 % CI 0.37-0.40, p < 0.01). The negative predictive value of a negative troponin value for all-cause in-hospital mortality was 85.7 %. Conclusions: Our study found a significant association between a negative troponin I value in the first 24 h of admission and decreased odds of death during admission in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection, in addition to decreased odds of cardiac complications but no significant difference in hospital length of stay. Therefore, the authors suggest that the absence of troponin I elevation may serve as an indicator of a more benign hospital course.

Socioeconomic and Comorbid Factors Affecting Mortality and Length of Stay in COVID-19 Patients.

Background The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic exposed and exacerbated health disparities between socioeconomic groups. Our purpose was to determine if age, sex, race, insurance, and comorbidities predicted patients' length of stay (LOS) in the hospital and in-hospital mortality in patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the early pandemic. Methods Utilizing retrospective, secondarily sourced electronic health record (EHR) data for patients who tested positive for COVID-19 from HCA Healthcare facilities, predictors of LOS and in-hospital mortality were assessed using regression. LOS and in-hospital mortality were assessed using logistic regression and negative binomial regression, respectively. All models included age, insurance status, and sex, while additional covariates were selected using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression. LOS data were presented as incidence rate ratios (IRR), and in-hospital mortality was presented as odds ratios (OR), followed by their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results There were 111,849 qualifying patient records from March 1, 2020, to August 23, 2020. After excluding those with missing data (n = 7), without clinically confirmed COVID-19 (n = 27,225), and those from a carceral environment (n = 1,861), there were 84,624 eligible patients. Compared to the population of the United States of America, our COVID-19 cohort had a larger proportion of African American patients (23.17% versus 13.4%). The African American patients were more likely to have private insurance providers (28.52% versus 23.68%) and shorter LOS (IRR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.86-0.90) than the White patient cohort. In addition, the African American versus White patients did not have increased odds (OR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.96-1.00) of in-hospital mortality. Patients on Medicaid (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.01-1.07) and self-pay (OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.00-1.14, noninclusive endpoints) had higher in-hospital mortality than private insurance. Several comorbidities were predictive of an increased LOS, including anxiety (IRR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.87-2.01) and sedative abuse (IRR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.63-2.64). Conclusions Race was not associated with increased LOS or in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 infections during the early pandemic. Insurance type, psychiatric comorbidities, and medical comorbidities significantly impacted outcomes in patients with COVID-19. This research and future research in the field should help to determine rational public policies to help mitigate the risk of diseases and their impact on future pandemics.

Association of dementia and patient outcomes among COVID-19 patients: A multi-center retrospective case-control study.

Background: We conducted a retrospective cohort study on COVID-19 patients with and without dementia by extracting data from the HCA Healthcare Enterprise Data Warehouse between January-September 2020. Aims: To describe the role of patients' baseline characteristics specifically dementia in determining overall health outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Methods: We grouped in-patients who had ICD-10 codes for dementia (DM) with age and gender-matched (1:2) patients without dementia (ND). Our primary outcome variables were in-hospital mortality, length of stay, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, ICU-free days, mechanical ventilation (MV) use, MV-free days and 90-day re-admission. Results: Matching provided similar age and sex in DM and ND groups. BMI (median, 25.8 vs. 27.6) and proportion of patients who had smoked (23.3 vs. 31.3%) were lower in DM than in ND patients. The median (IQR) Elixhauser Comorbidity Index was higher in dementia patients 7 (5-10) vs. 5 (3-7, p < 0.01). Higher mortality was observed in DM group (30.8%) vs. ND group (26.4%, p < 0.01) as an unadjusted univariate analysis. The 90-day readmission was not different (32.1 vs. 31.8%, p = 0.8). In logistic regression analysis, the odds of dying were not different between patients in DM and ND groups (OR = 1.0; 95% CI 0.86-1.17), but the odds of ICU admissions were significantly lower for dementia patients (OR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.51-0.66). Conclusions: Our data showed that COVID-19 patients with dementia did not fare substantially worse, but in fact, fared better when certain metrics were considered.

Aspirin use is associated with decreased inpatient mortality in patients with COVID-19: A meta-analysis.

Thromboembolism is a major cause of death in patients who suffer from COVID-19. Studies examining the effects of aspirin (ASA) on mortality relating to this phenomenon have showed conflicting results with varying degrees and certainties of evidence. We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis of fourteen studies encompassing 164,539 COVID-19 patients, which showed a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality associated with ASA use in eight studies that reported risk ratios (RR 0.90; 95 % CI 0.82-0.98; I2 = 27.33 %, P = 0.01), six studies that reported hazard ratios (HR 0.56; 95 % CI 0.41-0.76, P ≤ 0.01; I2 = 85.92 %) and pooled effect size (0.71; 95 % CI 0.59-0.85, P = 0.00, I2 = 91.51 %). The objective of this study is to report the association between low dose ASA and a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19.

Mortality and length of stay among HIV patients hospitalized for heart failure: A multicenter retrospective study.

Study objective: The purpose of our study was to determine if CD4+ T-lymphocyte count (CD4 count) was inversely associated with inpatient mortality and length of stay (LOS) among patients with HIV hospitalized for acute heart failure. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: HCA hospitals throughout the United States. Participants: 1704 patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) hospitalized for acute heart failure with a documented, time-updated CD4 count. Interventions: Patients were categorized by CD4 count ranges consisting of >500, 200-499, <200 cells/µL. Main outcome measures: A multivariable negative binomial regression was performed with CD4 count as a predictor of length of stay. Multivariable logistic regression was performed with CD4 count as a predictor of mortality. Results: A CD4 count <200 cells/µL was associated with an increased length of stay compared to a CD4 > 500 cells/µL (IRR 1.24, 95 % CI: 1.11 to 1.39, P ≤ 0.01). A CD4 of 200-499 cells/µL was associated with a shorter LOS compared to a CD4 < 200 cells/µL (IRR 0.82, 95 % CI: 0.75 to 0.89, P ≤ 0.01). A CD4 < 200 cells/µL was associated with an increased mortality compared to a CD4 > 500 cells/µL (OR 3.62, 95 % CI: 1.63 to 8.05, P ≤ 0.01). CD4 count was not independently associated with in-patient mortality after adjusting for viral load. Conclusion: A time-updated CD4 count <200 cells/µL on hospital admission was independently associated with increased length of stay. CD4 cell count and viral load are important markers when considering the morbidity and mortality among patients with HIV hospitalized for acute heart failure.

A retrospective analysis of bleeding risk with rivaroxaban, enoxaparin, and aspirin following total joint arthroplasty or revision.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Rivaroxaban, enoxaparin, and aspirin are commonly used medications for thromboprophylaxis following lower extremity joint arthroplasty or revision. Previous research has demonstrated efficacy in preventing venous thromboembolism with each medication, however, the comparative risk of bleeding between them remains poorly understood. The aim of this study was to compare the odds of bleeding between rivaroxaban, enoxaparin, and aspirin following lower extremity joint arthroplasty or revision. DESIGN: This is a 3-year retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Data were obtained from 148 facilities across 55 states and territories of the United States. PATIENTS: This study included 85,938 patients who underwent hip or knee arthroplasty or revision. INTERVENTION: Patients received enoxaparin, rivaroxaban, or aspirin as monotherapy for thromboprophylaxis. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was all bleeding, classified as major or minor bleeding, occurring in the 40 days following surgery. The secondary outcome was venous thromboembolism. MAIN RESULTS: Among 85,938 patients, 10,465 received rivaroxaban, 14,047 received enoxaparin, and 61,426 received aspirin. Bleeding occurred in 126 (1.20%) patients with rivaroxaban, 253 (1.80%) with enoxaparin, and 611 (0.99%) with aspirin. There was a significant increase in odds of bleeding in the enoxaparin compared to aspirin group odds ratio (OR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.38, p = 0.042), and a trend toward increased odds of bleeding in rivaroxaban compared to aspirin group (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.99-1.47, p = 0.058) and rivaroxaban compared to enoxaparin (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82-1.28, p = 0.827). Odds of venous thromboembolism were not statistically significant between all three study medications. CONCLUSIONS: Among rivaroxaban, enoxaparin, and aspirin used for thromboprophylaxis in knee and hip arthroplasty or revision, aspirin had significantly decreased odds of bleeding complications compared to enoxaparin. Although not statistically significant, aspirin also had a trend toward decreased odds of bleeding complications compared to rivaroxaban. Our study results suggest that aspirin is a safer alternative for use in postoperative thromboprophylaxis following lower extremity joint arthroplasty or revision.

A Retrospective Analysis Comparing Post-Operative Bleeding with Various Doses of Aspirin after Lower Extremity Joint Arthroplasty or Revision.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have shown that aspirin is noninferior to other anticoagulation therapies in preventing postoperative venous thromboembolism following lower extremity arthroplasty or revision; however, its optimal dosing for this indication is less clear. This study aims to compare the odds of bleeding between different aspirin dosages following lower extremity joint arthroplasty or revision. DESIGN: This is a 3-year retrospective multi-center cohort study across the United States and its territories. SETTING: This study included patients admitted for total hip or knee arthroplasty or revision and were treated with prophylactic aspirin. PATIENTS, INTERVENTION, MEASUREMENTS: Patients were assigned to groups based on a total daily aspirin dose of 81, 162, 325, or 650 mg. Data were analyzed for postsurgical bleeding and thromboembolism events occurring during the initial admission and up to 40 days following surgery. Other exploratory variables included type of surgery, hip or knee arthroplasty, length of stay, and patient demographic data. MAIN RESULTS: Among 53,848 patients receiving aspirin, 3922 received a total daily dose of 81 mg, 19,341 received a total daily dose of 162 mg, 5256 received a total daily dose of 325 mg, and 25,329 received a total daily dose of 650 mg. Bleeding occurred in 466 (0.87%) patients and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in 209 patients (0.39%). The odds of bleeding were compared using logistic regression, with the 650-mg dose as the reference group. None were statistically significant for bleeding between all studied aspirin doses: 81 mg (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.83-1.51, p = 0.451), 162 mg (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67-1.03, p = 0.097), and 325 mg (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59-1.13, p = 0.245). The odds of VTE were also not statistically significant: 81 mg (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.40-1.17, p = 0.181), 162 mg (OR 0.75 95% CI 0.54-1.03, p = 0.072), and 325 mg (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64-1.53, p = 0.989). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in the odds of bleeding or venous thromboembolism among all studied aspirin dosages in patients receiving aspirin for thromboprophylaxis following lower extremity joint arthroplasty or revision.

Improving the Quality and Design of Retrospective Clinical Outcome Studies that Utilize Electronic Health Records.

Description Electronic health records (EHRs) are an excellent source for secondary data analysis. Studies based on EHR-derived data, if designed properly, can answer previously unanswerable clinical research questions. In this paper we will highlight the benefits of large retrospective studies from secondary sources such as EHRs, examine retrospective cohort and case-control study design challenges, as well as methodological and statistical adjustment that can be made to overcome some of the inherent design limitations, in order to increase the generalizability, validity and reliability of the results obtained from these studies.

Unscreened: Urgent and Emergent Surgical Outcomes in the Early COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background Creating useful recommendations for changes in surgical protocols during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has been difficult due to a lack of studies based on representative samples. This study evaluates the clinical outcomes and characteristics of patients undergoing urgent or emergent surgeries. Methods This is a multi-center (eight-hospital), retrospective, observational study of urgent and emergent surgical patients from Colorado and Kansas, the United States, in the early stages of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Patient groups were divided based on their coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) status: positive, negative and untested. COVID-19 testing was performed after the surgery if patients were symptomatic. Results The analysis includes 5,547 patients who underwent surgery from March 1, 2020 to May 17, 2020. Seventy-four percent (4,096) were not tested for COVID-19 due to lack of symptoms. Out of the 1,451 tested patients, 1,412 tested negative, and 39 tested positive. Out of all the patients who tested positive, 69.23% were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), whereas 16.72% of untested and 21.25% of the negative patients. The invasive ventilation rate for the patients that tested positive was 46.15%, 4.22% for untested, and 8.85% for patients who tested negative. The mortality rate in the positive group was 7.69%, 1.10% in the untested group, and 1.56% in the positive group.    Conclusion Patients who tested positive for COVID-19 had worse clinical outcomes than patients who tested negative and untested. We recommend creating criteria for testing based on patient characteristics and surgical procedure rather than testing all patients awaiting surgery; this would allow us to conserve resources moving forward.