Macrovascular Thrombotic Events in a Mayo Clinic Enterprise-Wide Sample of Hospitalized COVID-19–Positive Compared With COVID-19–Negative Patients

ObjectiveTo determine the difference in the rate of thromboembolic complications between hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–positive compared with COVID-19–negative patients.Patients and MethodsAdult patients hospitalized from January 1, 2020, through May 8, 2020, who had COVID-19 testing by polymerase chain reaction assay were identified through electronic health records across multiple hospitals in the Mayo Clinic enterprise. Thrombotic outcomes (venous and arterial) were identified from the hospital problem list.ResultsWe identified 3790 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 testing across 19 hospitals, 102 of whom had positive test results. The median age was lower in the COVID-positive patients (62 vs 67 years; P=.03). The median duration of hospitalization was longer in COVID-positive patients (8.5 vs 4 days; P<.001) and more required intensive care unit care (56.9% [58 of 102] vs 26.8% [987 of 3688]; P<.001). Comorbidities, including atrial fibrillation/flutter, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and malignancy, were observed less frequently with COVID-positive admissions. Any venous thromboembolism was identified in 2.9% of COVID-positive patients (3 of 102) and 4.6% of COVID-negative patients (168 of 3688). The frequency of venous and arterial events was not different between the groups. The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for COVID-positive–patients for any venous thromboembolism was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.19 to 2.02). A multivariable logistic regression model evaluated death within 30 days of hospital discharge; neither COVID positivity (adjusted OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.54 to 2.34) nor thromboembolism (adjusted OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.32) was associated with death.ConclusionEarly experience in patients with COVID-19 across multiple academic and regional hospitals representing different US regions demonstrates a lower than previously reported incidence of thrombotic events. This incidence was not higher than a contemporary COVID-negative hospitalized comparator.     

Prevalence of thromboembolic events and status of prophylactic anticoagulant therapy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Japan

IntroductionOne of the most prominent and concerning complications associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is venous and arterial thromboembolisms. The aim of the present study was to delineate the prevalence of thromboembolic events and the current status of prophylactic anticoagulation therapy in patients with COVID-19 in Japan.MethodsBetween February 1 and August 31, 2020, we performed a dual-center, retrospective cohort study based on data obtained from the medical charts of COVID-19 patients admitted to healthcare facilities in Japan. The primary outcome was any thromboembolic event including pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and other systemic thromboemboli.ResultsDuring the study period, we extracted 628 consecutive patients admitted for COVID-19. Prophylactic anticoagulant therapy was administered in 63 (10%) patients of whom 20 (31.7%) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Thromboembolic events occurred in 18 (2.9%) patients (14.3% of patients in ICU and 2.2% of patients in the general wards). DVT were detected in 13 (2.1%) patients, PE in 11 (1.8%), and both DVT and PE in 6 (0.96%) patients. An increasing prevalence in thromboembolic events was noted with progressive clinical severity. Overall in-hospital mortality was 4.8%.ConclusionsProphylactic anticoagulation therapy was administered in only 10% of all hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The prevalence of any thromboembolic events was 2.9% in COVID-19 patients with most events occurring in severe and critical patients. Therefore, prophylactic anticoagulation therapy may be warranted in severe and critical patients but in asymptomatic to moderate patients the practice remains controversial.     

Cardiac Abnormalities in COVID-19 and Relationship to Outcome

ObjectiveTo characterize the clinical and transthoracic echocardiographic features and 30-day outcomes of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsRetrospective cohort study that included consecutive inpatients with COVID-19 infection who underwent clinically indicated transthoracic echocardiography at 10 sites in the Mayo Clinic Health System between March 10 and August 5, 2020. Echocardiography was performed at bedside by cardiac sonographers according to an abbreviated protocol. Echocardiographic results, demographic characteristics, laboratory findings, and clinical outcomes were analyzed.ResultsThere were 179 patients, aged 59.8±16.9 years and 111 (62%) men; events within 30 days occurred in 70 (39%) patients, including prolonged hospitalization in 43 (24%) and death in 27 (15%). Echocardiographic abnormalities included left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50% in 29 (16%), regional wall motion abnormalities in 26 (15%), and right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) of 35 or greater mm Hg in 44 (44%) of 101 in whom it was measured. Myocardial injury, defined as the presence of significant troponin level elevation accompanied by new ventricular dysfunction or electrocardiographic abnormalities, was present in 13 (7%). Prior echocardiography was available in 36 (20%) patients and pre-existing abnormalities were seen in 28 (78%) of these. In a multivariable age-adjusted model, area under the curve of 0.81, prior cardiovascular disease, troponin level, D-dimer level, and RVSP were related to events at 30 days.ConclusionBedside Doppler assessment of RVSP appears promising for short-term risk stratification in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection undergoing clinically indicated echocardiography. Pre-existing echocardiographic abnormalities were common; caution should be exercised in attributing such abnormalities to the COVID-19 infection in this comorbid patient population.     

Factors Associated With Severe COVID-19 Infection Among Persons of Different Ages Living in a Defined Midwestern US Population

ObjectiveTo identify risk factors associated with severe COVID-19 infection in a defined Midwestern US population overall and within different age groups.Patients and MethodsWe used the Rochester Epidemiology Project research infrastructure to identify persons residing in a defined 27-county Midwestern region who had positive results on polymerase chain reaction tests for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and September 30, 2020 (N=9928). Age, sex, race, ethnicity, body mass index, smoking status, and 44 chronic disease categories were considered as possible risk factors for severe infection. Severe infection was defined as hospitalization or death caused by COVID-19. Associations between risk factors and severe infection were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models overall and within 3 age groups (0 to 44, 45 to 64, and 65+ years).ResultsOverall, 474 (4.8%) persons developed severe COVID-19 infection. Older age, male sex, non-White race, Hispanic ethnicity, obesity, and a higher number of chronic conditions were associated with increased risk of severe infection. After adjustment, 36 chronic disease categories were significantly associated with severe infection. The risk of severe infection varied significantly across age groups. In particular, persons 0 to 44 years of age with cancer, chronic neurologic disorders, hematologic disorders, ischemic heart disease, and other endocrine disorders had a greater than 3-fold increased risk of severe infection compared with persons of the same age without those conditions. Associations were attenuated in older age groups.ConclusionOlder persons are more likely to experience severe infections; however, severe cases occur in younger persons as well. Our data provide insight regarding younger persons at especially high risk of severe COVID-19 infection.     

Characteristics,Treatment Patterns,and Clinical Outcomes After Heart Failure Hospitalizations During the COVID-19 Pandemic,March to October 2020

ObjectiveTo compare clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and 30-day all-cause readmission and mortality between patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.Patients and MethodsThe study was conducted at 16 hospitals across 3 geographically dispersed US states. The study included 6769 adults (mean age, 74 years; 56% [5033 of 8989] men) with cumulative 8989 HF hospitalizations: 2341 hospitalizations during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1 through October 30, 2020) and 6648 in the pre–COVID-19 (October 1, 2018, through February 28, 2020) comparator group. We used Poisson regression, Kaplan-Meier estimates, multivariable logistic, and Cox regression analysis to determine whether prespecified study outcomes varied by time frames.ResultsThe adjusted 30-day readmission rate decreased from 13.1% (872 of 6648) in the pre–COVID-19 period to 10.0% (234 of 2341) in the COVID-19 pandemic period (relative risk reduction, 23%; hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.89). Conversely, all-cause mortality increased from 9.7% (645 of 6648) in the pre–COVID-19 period to 11.3% (264 of 2341) in the COVID-19 pandemic period (relative risk increase, 16%; number of admissions needed for one additional death, 62.5; hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.39). Despite significant differences in rates of index hospitalization, readmission, and mortality across the study time frames, the disease severity, HF subtypes, and treatment patterns remained unchanged (P>0.05).ConclusionThe findings of this large tristate multicenter cohort study of HF hospitalizations suggest lower rates of index hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions but higher incidence of 30-day mortality with broadly similar use of HF medication, surgical interventions, and devices during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the pre–COVID-19 time frame.     

Vitamin D Status Is Associated With In-Hospital Mortality and Mechanical Ventilation: A Cohort of COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients

ObjectiveTo explore the possible associations of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in-hospital mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation.Patients and MethodsA retrospective, observational, cohort study was conducted at 2 tertiary academic medical centers in Boston and New York. Eligible participants were hospitalized adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between February 1, 2020, and May 15, 2020. Demographic and clinical characteristics, comorbidities, medications, and disease-related outcomes were extracted from electronic medical records.ResultsThe final analysis included 144 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (median age, 66 years; 64 [44.4%] male). Overall mortality was 18%, whereas patients with 25(OH)D levels of 30 ng/mL (to convert to nmol/L, multiply by 2.496) and higher had lower rates of mortality compared with those with 25(OH)D levels below 30 ng/mL (9.2% vs 25.3%; P=.02). In the adjusted multivariable analyses, 25(OH)D as a continuous variable was independently significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.98; P=.007) and need for invasive mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93 to 0.99; P=.01). Similar data were obtained when 25(OH)D was studied as a continuous variable after logarithm transformation and as a dichotomous (<30 ng/mL vs ≥30 ng/mL) or ordinal variable (quintiles) in the multivariable analyses.ConclusionAmong patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, 25(OH)D levels were inversely associated with in-hospital mortality and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Further observational studies are needed to confirm these findings, and randomized clinical trials must be conducted to assess the role of vitamin D administration in improving the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19.     

Development and Validation of a Multivariable Risk Prediction Model for COVID-19 Mortality in the Southern United States

ObjectiveTo evaluate clinical characteristics of patients admitted to the hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Southern United States and development as well as validation of a mortality risk prediction model.Patients and MethodsSouthern Louisiana was an early hotspot during the pandemic, which provided a large collection of clinical data on inpatients with COVID-19. We designed a risk stratification model to assess the mortality risk for patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19. Data from 1673 consecutive patients diagnosed with COVID-19 infection and hospitalized between March 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020, was used to create an 11-factor mortality risk model based on baseline comorbidity, organ injury, and laboratory results. The risk model was validated using a subsequent cohort of 2067 consecutive hospitalized patients admitted between June 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020.ResultsThe resultant model has an area under the curve of 0.783 (95% CI, 0.76 to 0.81), with an optimal sensitivity of 0.74 and specificity of 0.69 for predicting mortality. Validation of this model in a subsequent cohort of 2067 consecutively hospitalized patients yielded comparable prognostic performance.ConclusionWe have developed an easy-to-use, robust model for systematically evaluating patients presenting to acute care settings with COVID-19 infection.     

Obesity is a Major Risk Factor for Hospitalization in Community-Managed COVID-19 Pneumonia

ObjectiveWe aimed to investigate whether the stratification of outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia by body mass index (BMI) can help predict hospitalization and other severe outcomes.Patients and MethodsWe prospectively collected consecutive cases of community-managed COVID-19 pneumonia from March 1 to April 20, 2020, in the province of Bergamo and evaluated the association of overweight (25 kg/m² ≤ BMI <30 kg/m²) and obesity (≥30 kg/m²) with time to hospitalization (primary end point), low-flow domiciliary oxygen need, noninvasive mechanical ventilation, intubation, and death due to COVID-19 (secondary end points) in this cohort. We analyzed the primary end point using multivariable Cox models.ResultsOf 338 patients included, 133 (39.4%) were overweight and 77 (22.8%) were obese. Age at diagnosis was younger in obese patients compared with those overweight or with normal weight (P<.001), whereas diabetes, dyslipidemia, and heart diseases were differently distributed among BMI categories. Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and prednisolone use were similar between BMI categories (P>.05). Overall, 105 (31.1%) patients were hospitalized, and time to hospitalization was significantly shorter for obese vs over- or normal-weight patients (P<.001). In the final multivariable analysis, obese patients were more likely to require hospitalization than nonobese patients (hazard ratio, 5.83; 95% CI, 3.91 to 8.71). Results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses. Low-flow domiciliary oxygen need, hospitalization with noninvasive mechanical ventilation, intubation, and death were significantly associated with obesity (P<.001).ConclusionIn patients with community-managed COVID-19 pneumonia, obesity is associated with a higher hospitalization risk and overall worse outcomes than for nonobese patients.     

Critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Tokyo,Japan: A single-center case series

IntroductionWe reported, in our previous study, a patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who was successfully treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Data on clinical courses and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Japan are limited in the literature. This study aimed to describe the clinical courses and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Tokyo, Japan.MethodsThis is a single-center case series study. Patients with COVID-19 treated with mechanical ventilation (MV) were reviewed retrospectively. Data on baseline characteristics, in-hospital treatment, and outcomes were collected.ResultsBetween February 2, 2020, and June 30, 2020, 14 critically ill patients with COVID-19 were treated with MV. Most patients were male and had comorbidities, especially hypertension or diabetes; 35.7% were overweight and 21.4% were obese. The majority of the patients had dyspnea on admission. The median duration of MV was 10.5 days, and the 28-day mortality rate was 35.7%. In the four patients with COVID-19 who died, the cause of death was respiratory failure.ConclusionsAs in previous reports from other countries, the mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 requiring intensive care remains high in Tokyo. Further study on the appropriate timing of MV initiation and specific treatments for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is needed.     

Do Patients With COVID-19 Benefit from Rehabilitation? Functional Outcomes of the First 100 Patients in a COVID-19 Rehabilitation Unit

ObjectiveTo determine the benefits associated with brief inpatient rehabilitation for coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) patients.DesignRetrospective chart review.SettingA newly created specialized rehabilitation unit in a tertiary care medical center.ParticipantsConsecutive sample of patients (N=100) with COVID-19 infection admitted to rehabilitation.InterventionInpatient rehabilitation for postacute care COVID-19 patients.Main Outcome MeasuresMeasurements at admission and discharge comprised a Barthel Activities of Daily Living Index (including baseline value before COVID-19 infection), time to perform 10 sit-to-stands with associated cardiorespiratory changes, and grip strength (dynamometry). Correlations between these outcomes and the time spent in the intensive care unit (ICU) were explored.ResultsUpon admission to rehabilitation, 66% of the patients were men, the age was 66±22 years, mean delay from symptom onset was 20.4±10.0 days, body mass index was 26.0±5.4 kg/m², 49% had hypertension, 29% had diabetes, and 26% had more than 50% pulmonary damage on computed tomographic scans. The mean length of rehabilitation stay was 9.8±5.6 days. From admission to discharge, the Barthel index increased from 77.3±26.7 to 88.8±24.5 (P<.001), without recovering baseline values (94.5±16.2; P<.001). There was a 37% improvement in sit-to-stand frequency (0.27±0.16 to 0.37±0.16 Hz; P<.001), a 13% decrease in post-test respiratory rate (30.7±12.6 to 26.6±6.1; P=.03), and a 15% increase in grip strength (18.1±9.2 to 20.9±8.9 kg; P<.001). At both admission and discharge, Barthel score correlated with grip strength (ρ=0.39-0.66; P<.01), which negatively correlated with time spent in the ICU (ρ=–0.57 to –0.49; P<.05).ConclusionsInpatient rehabilitation for COVID-19 patients was associated with substantial motor, respiratory, and functional improvement, especially in severe cases, although there remained mild persistent autonomy loss upon discharge. After acute stages, COVID-19, primarily a respiratory disease, might convert into a motor impairment correlated with the time spent in intensive care.     

Outcomes of COVID-19 With the Mayo Clinic Model of Care and Research

ObjectiveTo report the Mayo Clinic experience with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related to patient outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2020, at any of the Mayo Clinic sites. We abstracted pertinent comorbid conditions such as age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index variables, and treatments received. Factors associated with hospitalization and mortality were assessed in univariate and multivariate models.ResultsA total of 7891 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection with research authorization on file received care across the Mayo Clinic sites during the study period. Of these, 7217 patients were adults 18 years or older who were analyzed further. A total of 897 (11.4%) patients required hospitalization, and 354 (4.9%) received care in the intensive care unit (ICU). All hospitalized patients were reviewed by a COVID-19 Treatment Review Panel, and 77.5% (695 of 897) of inpatients received a COVID-19–directed therapy. Overall mortality was 1.2% (94 of 7891), with 7.1% (64 of 897) mortality in hospitalized patients and 11.3% (40 of 354) in patients requiring ICU care.ConclusionMayo Clinic outcomes of patients with COVID-19 infection in the ICU, hospital, and community compare favorably with those reported nationally. This likely reflects the impact of interprofessional multidisciplinary team evaluation, effective leveraging of clinical trials and available treatments, deployment of remote monitoring tools, and maintenance of adequate operating capacity to not require surge adjustments. These best practices can help guide other health care systems with the continuing response to the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Clinical Characteristics,Management Strategies and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients With Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

ObjectiveTo investigate the management strategies, temporal trends, and clinical outcomes of patients with a history of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI).Patients and MethodsWe undertook a retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample database from the United States (January 2004–September 2015), identified all inpatient MI admissions (7,250,768 records) and stratified according to history of CABG (group 1, CABG-naive [94%]; group 2, prior CABG [6%]).ResultsPatients in group 2 were older, less likely to be female, had more comorbidities, and were more likely to present with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction compared with group 1. More patients underwent coronary angiography (68% vs 48%) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (44% vs 26%) in group 1 compared with group 2. Following multivariable logistic regression analyses, the adjusted odd ratio (OR) of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.005; P=.11), all-cause mortality (OR, 1; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04; P=.6) and major bleeding (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.03; P=.54) were similar to group 1. Lower adjusted odds of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.72; P<.001), all-cause mortality (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.53; P<.001), and acute ischemic stroke (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.86; P<.001) were observed in group 2 patients who underwent PCI compared with those managed medically without any increased risk of major bleeding (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.23; P=.26).ConclusionsIn this national cohort, MI patients with prior-CABG had a higher risk profile, but similar in-hospital adverse outcomes compared with CABG-naive patients. Prior-CABG patients who received PCI had better in-hospital clinical outcomes compared to those who received medical management.     

Intensive care burden of COVID-19 in tertiary care hospitals during the first year of outbreak in Kawasaki City,Japan: A retrospective cohort study

IntroductionThis study aimed to describe the changes in the intensive care burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the first year of outbreak in Japan.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included COVID-19 patients who received mechanical ventilation (MV) support in two designated hospitals for critical patients in Kawasaki City. We compared the lengths of MV and stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) or high care unit (HCU) according to the three epidemic waves. We calculated in-hospital mortality rates in patients with or without MV.ResultsThe median age of the sample was 65.0 years, and 22.7% were women. There were 37, 29, and 62 patients in the first (W1), second (W2), and third waves (W3), respectively. Systemic steroids, remdesivir, and prone positioning were more frequent in W2 and W3. The median length of MV decreased from 18.0 days in W1 to 13.0 days in W3 (P = 0.019), and that of ICU/HCU stay decreased from 22.0 days in W1 to 15.5 days in W3 (P = 0.027). The peak daily number of patients receiving MV support was higher at 18 patients in W1, compared to 8 and 15 patients in W2 and W3, respectively. The mortality rate was 23.4%, which did not significantly change (P = 0.467).ConclusionsThe lengths of MV and ICU/HCU stay per patient decreased over time. Despite an increase in the number of COVID-19 patients who received MV in W3, this study may indicate that the intensive care burden during the study period did not substantially increase.     

Proton Pump Inhibitors and In-Hospital Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Receiving Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and in-hospital gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) taking dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT).Patients and MethodsThis study is based on the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-ACS project, an ongoing collaborative registry and quality improvement project of the American Heart Association and the Chinese Society of Cardiology. A total of 25,567 patients with ACS taking DAPT from 172 hospitals from July 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018, were included. Multivariable Cox regression and propensity score–matched analyses were used to evaluate the association between PPI use and in-hospital GI bleeding.ResultsOf these patients with ACS, 63.9% (n=16,332) were prescribed PPIs within 24 hours of admission. Patients using PPIs had a higher rate of GI bleeding compared with those not using PPIs (1.0% vs 0.5%; P<.001). In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, early PPI use was associated with a 58% higher risk of GI bleeding (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.18; P=.005). Further propensity score matching attenuated the association but still showed that patients using PPIs had a higher rate of GI bleeding (0.8% vs 0.6%; P=.04).ConclusionIn China, PPIs are widely used within 24 hours of admission in patients with ACS taking DAPT. An increased risk of GI bleeding is observed in inpatients with early PPI use. Randomized trials on early use of PPIs in patients with ACS receiving DAPT are warranted.Trial Registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02306616.     

Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Recurrent C difficile Infection During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience and Recommendations

ObjectiveTo report experience with fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI) and provide recommendations for management of rCDI and donor testing during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA retrospective study of patients with rCDI who underwent FMT from May 26, 2020, to September 30, 2020, with stool from well-screened donors with health and infectious screening and a newly implemented strategy for COVID-19 screening with every 2-week bookend testing with stool quarantine. Patients were followed up for development of rCDI and COVID-19.ResultsOf the 57 patients who underwent FMT for rCDI, 29 were tested for COVID-19 via nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and 22 via serology. All results were negative, except for 1 positive serology. Donor testing every 2 weeks for COVID-19 via serology and nasopharyngeal swab PCR was negative, except for 2 donors at 1 center who were excluded. Three patients had rCDI after FMT, and 1 underwent repeat FMT. One patient developed respiratory symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 and tested negative via nasopharyngeal PCR. Eleven patients who underwent COVID-19 testing for elective procedures or hospitalizations tested negative. No SARS-CoV-2 transmission was noted.ConclusionsWith appropriate donor screening, FMT can be performed safely for rCDI during the COVID-19 pandemic. Development of a validated stool assay for SARS-CoV-2 will simplify this process further.     

Impact of a High-Risk,Ambulatory COVID-19 Remote Patient Monitoring Program on Utilization,Cost, and Mortality

ObjectiveTo evaluate care utilization, cost, and mortality among high-risk patients enrolled in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remote patient monitoring (RPM) program.MethodsThis retrospective analysis included patients diagnosed with COVID-19 at risk for severe disease who enrolled in the RPM program between March 2020 and October 2021. The program included in-home technology for symptom and physiologic data monitoring with centralized care management. Propensity score matching established matched cohorts of RPM-engaged (defined as ≥1 RPM technology interactions) and non-engaged patients using a logistic regression model of 59 baseline characteristics. Billing codes and the electronic death certificate system were used for data abstraction from the electronic health record and reporting of care utilization and mortality endpoints.ResultsAmong 5796 RPM-enrolled patients, 80.0% engaged with the technology. Following matching, 1128 pairs of RPM-engaged and non-engaged patients comprised the analysis cohorts. Mean patient age was 63.3 years, 50.9% of patients were female, and 81.9% were non-Hispanic White. Patients who were RPM-engaged experienced significantly lower rates of 30-day, all-cause hospitalization (13.7% vs 18.0%, P=.01), prolonged hospitalization (3.5% vs 6.7%, P=.001), intensive care unit admission (2.3% vs 4.2%, P=.01), and mortality (0.5% vs 1.7%; odds ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.78; P=.01), as well as cost of care ($2306.33 USD vs $3565.97 USD, P=0.04), than those enrolled in RPM but non-engaged.ConclusionHigh-risk COVID-19 patients enrolled and engaged in an RPM program experienced lower rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mortality, and cost than those enrolled and non-engaged. These findings translate to improved hospital bed access and patient outcomes.     

Changes in Burnout and Satisfaction With Work-Life Integration in Physicians and the General US Working Population Between 2011 and 2020

ObjectiveTo evaluate the prevalence of burnout and satisfaction with work-life integration (WLI) among physicians and US workers in 2020 relative to 2011, 2014, and 2017.MethodsBetween November 20, 2020, and March 23, 2021, we surveyed US physicians and a probability-based sample of the US working population using methods similar to our prior studies. Burnout and WLI were measured using standard tools. Information about specific work-related COVID-19 experiences was collected.ResultsThere were 7510 physicians who participated in the survey. Nonresponder analysis suggested that participants were representative of US physicians. Mean emotional exhaustion and depersonalization scores were lower in 2020 than in 2017, 2014, and 2011 (all P<.001). However, emotional exhaustion and depersonalization scores did not improve in specialties most heavily affected by COVID-19. Overall, 38.2% of physicians reported 1 or more symptoms of burnout in 2020 compared with 43.9% in 2017, 54.4% in 2014, and 45.5% in 2011 (all P<.001). Providing care without adequate personal protective equipment (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.72) and having suffered disruptive economic consequences due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.69) were independently associated with risk of burnout. On multivariable analysis, physicians were at increased risk for burnout (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.25 to 1.58) and were less likely to be satisfied with WLI (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.79) than other working US adults.ConclusionBurnout and satisfaction with WLI among US physicians improved between 2017 and 2020. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on physicians varies on the basis of professional characteristics and experiences. Physicians remain at increased risk for burnout relative to workers in other fields.     

A fatal case of extensive gastrointestinal necrosis due to portal and mesenteric vein thrombosis in the post-acute phase of COVID-19

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is considered a relatively rare thrombotic complication in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Most reported cases of PVT develop within 2 weeks from COVID-19 onset. We report a fatal case of extensive gastrointestinal necrosis due to portal and mesenteric vein thrombosis approximately 6 weeks after the onset of critical COVID-19. Excessive elevation of his plasma D-dimer level had continued for weeks during the hospitalization contrary with improvement of respiratory failure. Thrombotic complication should be cautiously paid attention even in the post-acute phase of COVID-19, especially in patients with persistent elevation of plasma D-dimer level.