Period of hospitalization and mortality in transferred versus non-transferred COVID-19 patients: results from Germany.

COVID-19 was a challenge for health-care systems worldwide, causing large numbers of hospitalizations and inter-hospital transfers. We studied whether transfer, as well as its reason, was associated with the duration of hospitalization in non-ICU and ICU patients. For this purpose, all patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 between August 1st and December 31st, 2021, in a network of hospitals in Southern Germany were comprehensively characterized regarding their clinical course, therapy, complications, transfers, reasons for transfer, involved levels of care, total period of hospitalization and in-hospital mortality, using univariate and multiple regression analyses. While mortality was not significantly associated with transfer, the period of hospitalization was. In non-ICU patients (n = 545), median (quartiles) time was 7.0 (4.0-11.0) in non-transferred (n = 458) and 18.0 (11.0-29.0) days in transferred (n = 87) patients (p < 0.001). In ICU patients (n = 100 transferred, n = 115 non-transferred) it was 12.0 (8.3-18.0) and 22.0 (15.0-34.0) days (p < 0.001). Beyond ECMO therapy (4.5%), reasons for transfer were medical (33.2%) or capacity (61.9%) reasons, with medical/capacity reasons in 32/49 of non-ICU and 21/74 of ICU patients. Thus, the transfer of COVID-19 patients between hospitals was associated with longer periods of hospitalization, corresponding to greater health care utilization, for which specific patient characteristics and clinical decisions played a role.

[Retrospective clinical-causal evaluation of a positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised patients across the age spectrum in a primary care hospital]. / Retrospektive klinisch-kausale Bewertung einer positiven PCR für SARS-CoV-2 bei hospitalisierten Patienten des gesamten Altersspektrums in einem Krankenhaus der Schwerpunktversorgung.

INTRODUCTION: It is often discussed that a positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients may not be causally linked to the hospital stay, but no scientific data are available from Germany. Therefore, we analyzed to what extent a positive PCR test could be assessed as causal or secondary to admission according to clinical criteria in a tertiary care hospital of the first 4 months of 2022. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2-positive patients of RoMed-Klinikum Rosenheim/Bavaria from 01/01/2022 to 30/04/2022 were included. Patients were divided into a group with COVID-19 as direct reason for admission (CAW), and a group, in which this did not apply according to a comprehensive clinical assessment (nCAW). Patients with no clear allocation to these groups were counted separately. Categorization was based on a multilevel procedure and performed by an internist experienced in COVD-19 (M.H.). It included all available clinical, radiological, and laboratory findings as well as treatment decisions. RESULTS: 647 cases were included (age 10 days to 101 years, median 68 years; 49.5% women), including 13 patients in two admissions with positive PCR. 45.3% (n=293) were attributable to the group with COVID as the reason for admission, 48.8% (n=316) were not, no clear decision could be made in 35 patients, 3 patients were transferred from other clinics for isolation. In infants (up to 1 year), a positive PCR test was more frequently categorized as causative than in older patients. Leading symptoms of classification were found to be fatigue/fatigue, fever/chills, and cough on admission. Febrile convulsions accounted for the reason for admission in 10 cases of children (age 1.1-7.6 years). Length of stay did not differ significantly between groups (median (quartiles) 5 (2; 10) days for CAW, 5 (2; 12) for nCAW), nor did in-hospital mortality and median age of deceased or survivors. DISCUSSION: A retrospective analysis of all clinical data revealed that positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR played a major and - according to clinical criteria - causative role for admission and hospitalization in nearly 50% of cases, whereas it was an incidental finding in just under 50%. These results confirm data from other countries and demonstrate that the role of a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test for hospitalization can only be answered by a comprehensive and elaborate analysis of individual data.

A simple risk score for mortality including the PCR Ct value upon admission in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19.

PURPOSE: To develop a simple score for the outcomes from COVID-19 that integrates information obtained at the time of admission including the Ct value (cycle threshold) for SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 hospitalized from February 1st to May 31st 2021 in RoMed hospitals, Germany, were included. Clinical and laboratory parameters upon admission were recorded and patients followed until discharge or death. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine predictors of outcomes. Regression coefficients were used to develop a risk score for death. RESULTS: Of 289 patients (46% female, median age 66 years), 29% underwent high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy, 28% were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU, 51% put on invasive ventilation, IV), and 15% died. Age > 70 years, oxygen saturation ≤ 90%, oxygen supply upon admission, eGFR ≤ 60 ml/min and Ct value ≤ 26 were significant (p < 0.05 each) predictors for death, to which 2, 2, 1, 1 and 2 score points, respectively, could be attributed. Sum scores of ≥ 4 or ≥ 5 points were associated with a sensitivity of 95.0% or 82.5%, and a specificity of 72.5% or 81.7% regarding death. The high predictive value of the score was confirmed using data obtained between December 15th 2020 and January 31st 2021 (n = 215). CONCLUSION: In COVID-19 patients, a simple scoring system based on data available shortly after hospital admission including the Ct value had a high predictive value for death. The score may also be useful to estimate the likelihood for required interventions at an early stage.

Patients' treatment limitations as predictive factor for mortality in COVID-19: results from hospitalized patients of a hotspot region for SARS-CoV-2 infections.

BACKGROUND: In hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, outcomes markedly differ between locations, regions and countries. One possible cause for these variations in outcomes could be differences in patient treatment limitations (PTL) in different locations. We thus studied their role as predictor for mortality in a population of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In a region with high incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, adult hospitalized patients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were prospectively registered and characterized regarding sex, age, vital signs, symptoms, comorbidities (including Charlson comorbidity index (CCI)), transcutaneous pulse oximetry (SpO2) and laboratory values upon admission, as well as ICU-stay including respiratory support, discharge, transfer to another hospital and death. PTL assessed by routine clinical procedures comprised the acceptance of ICU-therapy, orotracheal intubation and/or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. RESULTS: Among 526 patients included (median [quartiles] age 73 [57; 82] years, 47% female), 226 (43%) had at least one treatment limitation. Each limitation was associated with age, dementia and eGFR (p < 0.05 each), that regarding resuscitation additionally with Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and cardiac disease. Overall mortality was 27% and lower (p < 0.001) in patients without treatment limitation (12%) compared to those with any limitation (47%). In univariate analyses, age and comorbidities (diabetes, cardiac, cerebrovascular, renal, hepatic, malignant disease, dementia), SpO2, hemoglobin, leucocyte numbers, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), C-reactive protein (CRP), Interleukin-6 and LDH were predictive for death (p < 0.05 each). In multivariate analyses, the presence of any treatment limitation was an independent predictor of death (OR 4.34, 95%-CI 2.10-12.30; p = 0.001), in addition to CCI, eGFR < 55 ml/min, neutrophil number > 5 G/l, CRP > 7 mg/l and SpO2 < 93% (p < 0.05 each). CONCLUSION: In hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2, the percentage of patients with treatment limitations was high. PTL were linked to age, comorbidities and eGFR assessed upon admission and strong, independent risk factors for mortality. These findings might be useful for further understanding of COVID-19 mortality and its regional variations. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04344171.

Annual failure rates and marginal bone-level changes of immediate compared to conventional loading of dental implants. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Immediate loading of dental implants appears to be a successful option. Questions still remain whether annual failure rates (AFRs) as well as annual marginal bone-level changes are comparable with conventionally loaded implants. HYPOTHESIS: Immediately loaded implants (≤24 h after implantation) do not show different annual survival rates or peri-implant bone-level changes as compared to conventionally loaded implants (≥3 months after implantation). MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic search in the National Library of Medicine and in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed for articles published up to November 2013. Only publications in English were considered. Additionally, the bibliographies of the full-text papers were searched. Primary outcome variable was percentage AFR; secondary outcome variable was annual radiographic bone-level change. RESULTS: Electronic search yielded 154 full-text articles; ten randomized controlled clinical trials were eventually meta-analyzed. Annual failure rates were 2.3% and 3.4% for conventionally and immediately loaded implants, respectively. No difference in implant failure rates was found (RR: 0.82). Regarding marginal bone-level changes, the weighted mean difference (WMD) between immediate and conventional loading amounted to 0.02 mm at 1 year (P > 0.05), to 0.08 mm at 2 years (P > 0.05), -0.10 mm at 3 years (P > 0.05) and -0.3 mm at 5 years (P < 0.05). The total WMD for the combined follow-up was 0.01 mm (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: No clinically relevant differences regarding annual failure rates or radiographic bone-level changes between conventionally and immediately loaded implants can be found for up to 5 years of follow-up.