Home Oxygen After Hospitalization for COVID-19: Results From the Multi-Center OXFORD Study.

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.

Patients Undergoing Revision Hip Arthroscopy Demonstrate Comparable Survivability and Improvement but Worse Postoperative Outcomes Compared to Patients Undergoing Primary Hip Arthroscopy: A Propensity Matched Study at Five-Year Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: To compare mid-term clinical outcomes between patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy (HA) versus revision hip arthroscopy (RHA) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 1,862 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS from January 2012 to April 2017. Patients who underwent RHA were propensity matched in a 1:4 ratio by age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and exercise status to patients who underwent primary HA. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs were assessed. Patient-reported outcomes before and at 5 years after surgery, including the Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living subscale (HOS-ADL) and Sports subscale (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Pain and Satisfaction, were compared between groups. Minimally clinically important difference and patient-acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) achievement rates were compared using previously published thresholds. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients who underwent RHA (35 female, 16 male; age 36.2 ± 10.2 years; BMI 26.5 ± 5.9) were followed up for 63.9 ± 9.2 months and then propensity matched in a 1:4 ratio by sex, age, and BMI to 204 control patients who underwent primary HA. At midterm follow-up, patients in the RHA cohort had significantly lower scores for HOS-SS (RHA 64.9 ± 32.5 vs HA 75.3 ± 26.2, P = .044), mHHS (RHA 72.2 ± 22.4 vs HA 80.1 ± 18.1, P = .039), and iHOT-12 (RHA 61.4 ± 29.3 vs HA 71 ± 27.6, P = .043) compared to primary HA patients. Rates of achieving PASS were significantly decreased for HOS-SS (RHA 38.3% vs HA 55.4%, P = .039) and iHOT-12 (RHA 41.9% vs HA 59.9%, P = .035) in the RHA cohort. There were no significant differences in rates of conversion to THA or subsequent reoperation on the index hip between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy demonstrate comparable survivability and magnitude of improvement but may experience worse overall outcome scores and meet thresholds for clinically significant outcomes less often when compared to primary hip arthroscopy patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III; retrospective comparative study.