Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Respir Care ; 69(3): 281-289, 2024 Feb 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38176902

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In the first months of the pandemic, prior to the introduction of proven-effective treatments, 15-37% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were discharged on home oxygen. After proven-effective treatments for acute COVID-19 were established by evidence-based guidelines, little remains known about home oxygen requirements following hospitalization for COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multi-center cohort study of subjects hospitalized for COVID-19 between October 2020-September 2021 at 3 academic health centers. Information was abstracted from electronic health records at the index hospitalization and for 60 d after discharge. The World Health Organization COVID-19 Clinical Progression Scale score was used to identify patients with severe COVID-19. RESULTS: Of 517 subjects (mean age 58 y, 47% female, 42% Black, 36% Hispanic, 22% with severe COVID-19), 81% were treated with systemic corticosteroids, 61% with remdesivir, and 2.5% with tocilizumab. About one quarter of subjects were discharged on home oxygen (26% [95% CI 22-29]). Older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.02 per 5 y [95% CI 1.02-1.02]), higher body mass index (aOR 1.02 per kg/m2 [1.00-1.04]), diabetes (yes vs no, aOR 1.73 [1.46-2.02]), severe COVID-19 (vs moderate, aOR 3.19 [2.19-4.64]), and treatment with systemic corticosteroids (yes vs no, aOR 30.63 [4.51-208.17]) were associated with an increased odds of discharge on home oxygen. Comorbid hypertension (yes vs no, aOR 0.71 [0.66-0.77) was associated with a decreased odds of home oxygen. Within 60 d of hospital discharge, 50% had documentation of pulse oximetry; in this group, home oxygen was discontinued in 46%. CONCLUSIONS: About one in 41 subjects were prescribed home oxygen after hospitalization for COVID-19, even after guidelines established proven-effective treatments for acute illness. Evidence-based strategies to reduce the requirement for home oxygen in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 are needed.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Masculino , COVID-19/terapia , SARS-CoV-2 , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estudos de Coortes , Hospitalização , Oxigênio , Corticosteroides
2.
Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis ; 9(4): 510-519, 2022 Oct 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35998338

RESUMO

Background: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at higher risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). From the pandemic's onset there has been concern regarding effects on health and well-being of high-risk patients. Methods: This was an ancillary study to the Losartan Effects on Emphysema Progression (LEEP) Trial and was designed to collect descriptive information longitudinally about the health and wellbeing of COPD patients who were enrolled in a clinical trial. Participants were interviewed by telephone about their health status every 2 weeks and their mental health, knowledge, and behaviors every 8 weeks from June 2020 to April 2021. There were no pre-specified hypotheses. Results: We enrolled 157 of the 220 participants from the parent LEEP trial. Their median age was 69 years, 55% were male, and 82% were White; median forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)% predicted was 48%. Nine confirmed COVID-19 infections were reported, 2 resulting in hospitalization. Rates of elevated anxiety or depressive symptoms were 8% and 19% respectively in June 2020 and remained relatively stable during follow-up. By April 2021, 85% of participants said they were "very likely" to receive a vaccine; 91% were vaccinated (≥1 dose) by the end of December 2021. Conclusion: Our select cohort of moderate to severe COPD patients who were well integrated into a health care network coped well with the COVID-19 pandemic. Few participants were diagnosed with COVID-19, levels of depression and anxiety were stable, most adopted accepted risk reduction behaviors, and did not become socially isolated; most were vaccinated by the end of 2021.

3.
J Gen Intern Med ; 37(16): 4103-4111, 2022 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35260961

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Minority-serving hospitals (MSHs) need evidence-based strategies tailored to the populations they serve to improve patient-centered outcomes after hospitalization. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic randomized clinical trial (RCT) from October 2014 to January 2017 at a MSH comparing the effectiveness of a stakeholder-supported Navigator intervention vs. Usual care on post-hospital patient experience, outcomes, and healthcare utilization. Community health workers and peer coaches delivered the intervention which included (1) in-hospital visits to assess barriers to health/healthcare and to develop a personalized Discharge Patient Education Tool (DPET); (2) a home visit to review the DPET; and (3) telephone-based peer coaching. The co-primary outcomes were between-group comparisons of 30-day changes in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures of anxiety and informational support (minimum important difference is 2 to 5 units change); a p-value <0.025 was considered significant using intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included death, ED visits, or readmissions and measures of emotional, social, and physical health at 30 and 60 days. RESULTS: We enrolled 1029 adults hospitalized with heart failure (28%), pneumonia (22%), MI (10%), COPD (11%), or sickle cell disease (29%). Over 80% were non-Hispanic Black. Overall, there were no significant between-group differences in the 30-day change in anxiety (adjusted difference: -1.6, 97.5% CI -3.3 to 0.1, p=0.03), informational support (adjusted difference: -0.01, 97.5% CI -2.0 to 1.9, p=0.99), or any secondary outcomes. Exploratory analyses suggested the Navigator intervention improved anxiety among participants with COPD, a primary care provider, a hospitalization in the past 12 months, or higher baseline anxiety; among participants without health insurance, the intervention improved informational support (all p-values <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this pragmatic RCT at a MSH, the Navigator intervention did not improve post-hospital anxiety, informational support, or other outcomes compared to Usual care. Benefits observed in participant subgroups should be confirmed in future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02114515.


Assuntos
Transição do Hospital para o Domicílio , Adulto , Humanos , Hospitais , Avaliação de Resultados da Assistência ao Paciente , Alta do Paciente
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...