Mortality and in-patient outcomes in pheochromocytoma patients with hypertensive emergency in the United States: A propensity score matched analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Pheochromocytoma is a rare cause of hypertensive emergency. The objective of this analysis was to compare the clinical characteristics, comorbidities, and in-hospital outcomes of patients admitted with hypertensive emergencies with and without co-existing pheochromocytoma. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) Database from 2016 to 2020 was conducted, encompassing 640,395 patients hospitalized for hypertensive emergencies, including 2535 patients diagnosed with pheochromocytoma. We compared demographics, comorbidities, in-hospital outcomes and resource utilization metrics in patients with and without pheochromocytoma. Propensity-score matching was utilized to account for potential confounders and risk of complications was compared. RESULTS: Among the pheochromocytoma cohort (51.9% female), a significant portion (35.7%) were under 50 years of age, with the majority being Caucasian (47.9%). Comorbid conditions such as obesity, diabetes, and smoking were prevalent, with notable differences in cancer (7.5% vs. 2.3%, p < 0.001) and peripheral vascular disease (17% vs. 8.2%, p < 0.001) rates compared to the non-pheochromocytoma cohort. Pheochromocytoma patients had a longer hospital stay (7.5 vs. 6 days, p = 0.002) and higher odds of acute kidney injury (AKI) (1.54, 1.18-2, p=0.001) but lower odds of requiring hemodialysis (0.52, 0.32-0.79, p < 0.001) or experiencing major cardiovascular events (0.5, 0.36-0.69, p < 0.001). No significant difference in inflation-adjusted hospitalization costs was found between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with hypertensive emergencies and pheochromocytoma had a higher incidence of AK, certain comorbidities (cancer, peripheral vascular disease), and more complex hospital courses suggested by longer length of stay. However, the overall cost of hospitalization did not significantly differ between the two cohorts.

Venous thromboembolism and cannabis consumption, outcomes among hospitalized patients in the United States: A nationwide analysis.

Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) carries significant clinical implications, and with the rise in cannabis consumption, its potential influence on VTE outcomes warrants investigation. Using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2016-2019), we analyzed 2,217,184 hospitalized VTE patients. Among these, 1.8 % (38,810) reported cannabis use. We compared demographics, comorbidities, in-hospital outcomes, and quality metrics between cannabis users and non-users with VTE. Cannabis users were chiefly younger males (average age 45 in cannabis users vs. 62 in non-cannabis users) from lower-income brackets. Notably, 5.4 % discharged against medical advice. Although in-hospital mortality was initially lower for cannabis users (2.8 % vs. 5.1 %, OR 0.6, 95 % CI 0.69-0.94, p = 0.008), this difference became non-significant post-propensity-score matching (aOR 0.9, 95% CI 0.72-1.10, p = 0.3). Non-users faced higher in-hospital complications, a trend that persisted post-PSM. Among cannabis users, key mortality predictors were peripheral vascular disease, acute kidney injury, vasopressor use, cardiogenic shock, myocardial infarction, invasive ventilation, and surgical embolectomy. Cannabis users also had a shorter hospital stay (4.2 vs. 5.4 days) and slightly reduced costs ($27,472.95 vs. $31,660.75). The significantly younger age of VTE patients who use cannabis, coupled with the considerable proportion discharging against medical advice, underscores the urgency for tailored care interventions. Additional research is vital to comprehensively understand the interplay between cannabis consumption and VTE outcomes.

Comparative Analysis of Clinical Outcomes for COVID-19 and Influenza among Cardiac Transplant Recipients in the United States.

COVID-19 infections can lead to worse outcomes in an immunocompromised population with multiple comorbidities, e.g., heart transplant patients. We used the National Inpatient Sample database to compare heart transplant outcomes in patients with COVID-19 vs. influenza. A total of 2460 patients were included in this study: heart transplant with COVID-19 (n = 1155, 47.0%) and heart transplant with influenza (n = 1305, 53.0%) with the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality. In-hospital mortality (n = 120) was significantly higher for heart transplant patients infected with COVID-19 compared to those infected with influenza (9.5% vs. 0.8%, adjusted OR: 51.6 [95% CI 4.3-615.9], p = 0.002) along with significantly higher rates of mechanical ventilation, acute heart failure, ventricular arrhythmias, and higher mean total hospitalization cost compared to the influenza group. More studies are needed on the role of vaccination and treatment to improve outcomes in this vulnerable population.