Differences in Inflammation,Treatment, and Outcomes Between Black and Non-Black Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Prospective Cohort Study

PurposeRacial disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes have been described. We sought to determine whether differences in inflammatory markers, use of COVID-19 therapies, enrollment in clinical trials, and in-hospital outcomes contribute to racial disparities between Black and non-Black patients hospitalized for COVID-19.MethodsWe leveraged a prospective cohort study that enrolled 1325 consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19, of whom 341 (25.7%) were Black. We measured biomarkers of inflammation and collected data on the use COVID-19-directed therapies, enrollment in COVID-19 clinical trials, mortality, need for renal replacement therapy, and need for mechanical ventilation.ResultsCompared to non-Black patients, Black patients had a higher prevalence of COVID-19 risk factors including obesity, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus and were more likely to require renal replacement therapy (15.8% vs 7.1%, P < .001) and mechanical ventilation (37.2% vs 26.6%, P < .001) during their hospitalization. Mortality was similar between both groups (15.5% for Blacks vs 14.0% for non-Blacks, P = .49). Black patients were less likely to receive corticosteroids (44.9% vs 63.8%, P< .001) or remdesivir (23.8% vs 57.8%, P < .001) and were less likely to be enrolled in COVID-19 clinical trials (15.3% vs 28.2%, P < .001). In adjusted analyses, Black race was associated with lower levels of C-reactive protein and soluble urokinase receptor and higher odds of death, mechanical ventilation, and renal replacement therapy. Differences in outcomes were not significant after adjusting for use of remdesivir and corticosteroids.ConclusionsRacial differences in outcomes of patients with COVID-19 may be related to differences in inflammatory response and differential use of therapies.     

Care and Outcomes of ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Across Multiple COVID-19 Waves

BackgroundThere are concerns of delays in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) care during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is unclear whether the care and outcomes of STEMI patients differ between COVID-19 waves and compared with historical periods.MethodsConsecutive patients in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority STEMI database were included to compare care during 3 distinct waves of the COVID-19 pandemic (9 months; March 2020 to January 2021) with an historical non–COVID-19 cohort. We compared STEMI incidence, baseline characteristics, and outcomes between groups. We also examined time from first medical contact (FMC) to reperfusion, symptom to FMC, and FMC to STEMI diagnosis, as well as predictors of delays.ResultsThe incidence of STEMI was similar during COVID-19 (n = 305; mean 0.93/day) and before COVID-19 (n = 949; 0.97/day; P = 0.80). The COVID-19 cohort showed significant delay in FMC-to-reperfusion (median 116 min vs 102 min; P < 0.001) and FMC-to-STEMI diagnosis (median 17 mins vs 11 min; P < 0.001). Delays in FMC-to-device times worsened across the 3 COVID-19 waves (FMC-to-device time ≤ 90 min in wave 1: 32.9%; in wave 2: 25.6%; in wave 3: 16.3%; P = 0.045 [47.5% before COVID-19; P < 0.001]). There were no significant predictors of delay were unique to the COVID-19 cohort.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates delays in reperfusion during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the historical control, with delays increasing during subsequent waves within the pandemic. It is critical to further understand these care gaps to improve STEMI care for future waves of the current and future pandemics.     

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on hospital onset bloodstream infections (HOBSI) at a large health system

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a considerable impact leading to increases in health care-associated infections, particularly bloodstream infections (BSI).MethodsWe evaluated the impact of COVID-19 in 69 US hospitals on BSIs before and during the pandemic. Events associated with 5 pathogens (Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Candida sp.) were stratified by community onset (CO) if ≤ 3 days from admission or hospital onset (HO) if > 3 days after admission. We compared pre-pandemic CO and HO rates with pandemic periods and the rates of BSI for those with and without COVID-19.ResultsCOVID-19 patients were less likely to be admitted with COBSI compared to others (10.85 vs 22.35 per 10,000 patient days; P < .0001). There was a significant increase between pre-pandemic and pandemic HOBSI rates (2.78 vs 3.56 per 10,000 patient days; P < .0001). Also, COVID-19 infected patients were 3.5 times more likely to develop HOBSI compared to those without COVID-19 infection (9.64 vs 2.74 per 10,000 patient-days; P < .0001).ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic period was associated with substantial increases in HOBSI and largely attributed to COVID-19 infected patients. Future research should evaluate whether such measures would be beneficial to incorporate in evaluating infection prevention trends.     

Statin Use in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Comprehensive Analysis of the New York City Public Hospital System

IntroductionStatins have been commonly used for primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention. We hypothesized that statins may improve in-hospital outcomes for hospitalized patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to its known anti-inflammatory effects.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study at the largest municipal health care system in the United States, including adult patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 1 and December 1, 2020. The primary endpoint was in-hospital death. Propensity score matching was conducted to balance possible confounding variables between patients receiving statins during hospitalization (statin group) and those not receiving statins (non-statin group). Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the association of statin use and other variables with in-hospital outcomes.ResultsThere were 8897 patients eligible for study enrollment, with 3359 patients in the statin group and 5538 patients in the non-statin group. After propensity score matching, both the statin and non-statin groups included 2817 patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the statin group had a significantly lower risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.80; P < .001) and mechanical ventilation (OR 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.90; P < .001) compared with the non-statin group.ConclusionStatin use was associated with lower likelihood of in-hospital mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.     

Factores de riesgo de muerte hospitalaria en pacientes con infarto agudo de miocardio durante la pandemia de la COVID-19

Introduction and objectivesDespite advances in treatment, patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) still exhibit unfavorable short- and long-term prognoses. In addition, there is scant evidence about the clinical outcomes of patients with AMI and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The objective of this study was to describe the clinical presentation, complications, and risk factors for mortality in patients admitted for AMI during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis prospective, multicenter, cohort study included all consecutive patients with AMI who underwent coronary angiography in a 30-day period corresponding chronologically with the COVID-19 outbreak (March 15 to April 15, 2020). Clinical presentations and outcomes were compared between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. The effect of COVID-19 on mortality was assessed by propensity score matching and with a multivariate logistic regression model.ResultsIn total, 187 patients were admitted for AMI, 111 with ST-segment elevation AMI and 76 with non-ST-segment elevation AMI. Of these, 32 (17%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. GRACE score, Killip-Kimball classification, and several inflammatory markers were significantly higher in COVID-19-positive patients. Total and cardiovascular mortality were also significantly higher in COVID-19-positive patients (25% vs 3.8% [P < .001] and 15.2% vs 1.8% [P = .001], respectively). GRACE score > 140 (OR, 23.45; 95%CI, 2.52–62.51; P = .005) and COVID-19 (OR, 6.61; 95%CI, 1.82-24.43; P = .02) were independent predictors of in-hospital death.ConclusionsDuring this pandemic, a high GRACE score and COVID-19 were independent risk factors associated with higher in-hospital mortality.Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en     

Influence of Different COVID-19 Pandemic Phases on STEMI: Experience From an Italian Hub Centre

IntroductionDuring Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic a reduction in ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction with an increase in in-hospital mortality has been observed. In our region the pandemic temporal trend was sinusoidal with peaks and valleys. A first outbreak was in March 2020, a reduction in May 2020 and a second outbreak in November 2020.Matherials & methodsOur hospital was reorganized as one of the 13 Macro-Hubs identified in Lombardy and we retrospectively analysed consecutive STEMI patients hospitalized in the three different phases of COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsWe did not register any difference in the number of STEMI hospitalized in the three phases. At multivariate analysis for the entire population COVID-19 infection was the strongest independent predictor of in-hospital mortality. Focusing on COVID-19 patients they experienced a 5-time increased incidence of in-hospital mortality (COVID-19^pos vs COVID-19^neg, 47.1% vs 8.6%; p < 0.0001) mainly driven by a higher incidence of respiratory complications (COVID-19^pos vs COVID-19^neg, 41.2% vs 6.2%; p < 0.0001) with a similar incidence of cardiac death.DiscussionAmong STEMI admitted during different phases of pandemic, this study found an increased mortality in patients affected by COVID-19; the co-presence of COVID-19 infection leads to an increase of mortality mostly related to respiratory complications. Interestingly the different incidence in the general population of COVID-19 did not influence the incidence of STEMI.ConclusionIn conclusion our data suggest the crucial need for an early and precise diagnosis of COVID-19 infection in STEMI to establish a correct management of these very high-risk patients.     

Risk of COVID-19 in healthcare workers working in intensive care setting

BackgroundThe higher risk of COVID-19 in health care workers (HCWs) is well-known. However, the risk within HCWs is not fully understood. The objective was to compare the COVID-19 risk in intensive care unit (ICU) vs non-ICU locations.MethodsA prospective surveillance study was conducted among HCWs at a large tertiary care facility in Riyadh between March 1st to November 30th, 2020. HCWs included both clinical (provide direct patient care) and nonclinical positions (do not provide direct patient care).ResultsA total 1,594 HCWs with COVID-19 were included; 103 (6.5%) working in ICU and 1,491 (93.5%) working in non-ICU locations. Compared with non-ICU locations, ICU had more nurses (54.4% vs 22.1%, P < .001) and less support staff (2.9% vs 53.1%, P < .001). COVID-19 infection was similar in ICU and non-ICU locations (9.0% vs 9.8%, P = .374). However, it was significantly higher in ICU nurses (12.3% vs 6.5%, P < .001). Support staff had higher risk than other HCWs, irrespective of ICU working status (15.1% vs 7.2%, P < 0.001). The crude relative risk of COVID-19 in ICU vs non-ICU locations was 0.92, 95% confidence interval ( was 0.76-1.11 (P = .374). However, relative risk adjusted for professional category was significantly increased to 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.50 (P = .036).ConclusionsICU had a significantly higher risk of COVID-19 infection only after adjusting for the distribution and risk of different professional categories. The latter is probably determined by both exposure level and protection practices. The finding underscores the importance of strict implementation of preventive measures among all HCWs, including those performing nonclinical services.     

Impacto de la COVID-19 en el tratamiento del infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST. La experiencia española

Introduction and objectivesThe COVID-19 outbreak has had an unclear impact on the treatment and outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to assess changes in STEMI management during the COVID-19 outbreak.MethodsUsing a multicenter, nationwide, retrospective, observational registry of consecutive patients who were managed in 75 specific STEMI care centers in Spain, we compared patient and procedural characteristics and in-hospital outcomes in 2 different cohorts with 30-day follow-up according to whether the patients had been treated before or after COVID-19.ResultsSuspected STEMI patients treated in STEMI networks decreased by 27.6% and patients with confirmed STEMI fell from 1305 to 1009 (22.7%). There were no differences in reperfusion strategy (> 94% treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention in both cohorts). Patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention during the COVID-19 outbreak had a longer ischemic time (233 [150-375] vs 200 [140-332] minutes, P < .001) but showed no differences in the time from first medical contact to reperfusion. In-hospital mortality was higher during COVID-19 (7.5% vs 5.1%; unadjusted OR, 1.50; 95%CI, 1.07-2.11; P < .001); this association remained after adjustment for confounders (risk-adjusted OR, 1.88; 95%CI, 1.12-3.14; P = .017). In the 2020 cohort, there was a 6.3% incidence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization.ConclusionsThe number of STEMI patients treated during the current COVID-19 outbreak fell vs the previous year and there was an increase in the median time from symptom onset to reperfusion and a significant 2-fold increase in the rate of in-hospital mortality. No changes in reperfusion strategy were detected, with primary percutaneous coronary intervention performed for the vast majority of patients. The co-existence of STEMI and SARS-CoV-2 infection was relatively infrequent.     

Status of hospital infection prevention practices in Thailand in the era of COVID-19: Results from a national survey

BackgroundA 2014 study assessed infection prevention (IP) practices in Thai hospitals for catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). This study compares current IP practices to results obtained in 2014.MethodsBetween February 1, 2021 and August 31, 2021, we resurveyed Thai hospitals regarding practices to prevent CAUTI, CLABSI, and VAP. We also assessed COVID-19 impact and healthcare worker burnout and coping strategies. We distributed 100 surveys to a convenience sample of infection preventionists.ResultsResponse rate: 100%. One-third (31%) of hospitals reported excellent leadership support for infection control (ie, responses of “good” or “excellent” to one survey question). Some prevention practices increased between 2014 vs 2021 (CAUTI: catheter reminder/stop-order/nurse-initiated discontinuation [50.0% vs 70.0%, P < .001]; condom catheters [36.3% vs 51.0%, P = .01]; ultrasound bladder scanner [4.7% vs 12.0%, P = .03]; CLABSI: chlorhexidine gluconate insertion site antisepsis [73.6% vs 85.0%, P = .03]; maximum sterile barrier precautions [63.2% vs 80.0%, P = .003]; VAP: selective digestive tract decontamination [26.9% vs 40.0%, P = .02]). Antimicrobial catheter use decreased since 2014 (10.4% vs 3.0%, P < .001). Many other practices remain suboptimal. COVID-19 challenges: staff shortages (71%), financial hardships (67%). Only 46% of infection preventionists felt safe working during COVID-19.ConclusionsMore national strategic support is needed for IP programs to prevent CAUTI, CLABSI, VAP and healthcare worker well-being in Thailand during the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Population Decline in COPD Admissions During the COVID-19 Pandemic Associated with Lower Burden of Community Respiratory Viral Infections

BackgroundThe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to widespread implementation of public health measures, such as stay-at-home orders, social distancing, and masking mandates. In addition to decreasing spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, these measures also impact the transmission of seasonal viral pathogens, which are common triggers of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations. Whether reduced viral prevalence mediates reduction in COPD exacerbation rates is unknown.MethodsWe performed retrospective analysis of data from a large, multicenter health care system to assess admission trends associated with community viral prevalence and with initiation of COVID-19 pandemic control measures. We applied difference-in-differences analysis to compare season-matched weekly frequency of hospital admissions for COPD prior to and after implementation of public health measures for COVID-19. Community viral prevalence was estimated using regional Centers for Disease Control and Prevention test positivity data and correlated to COPD admissions.ResultsData involving 4422 COPD admissions demonstrated a season-matched 53% decline in COPD admissions during the COVID-19 pandemic, which correlated to community viral burden (r = 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.78) and represented a 36% greater decline over admission frequencies observed in other medical conditions less affected by respiratory viral infections (incidence rate ratio 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.71, P < .001). The post-COVID-19 decline in COPD admissions was most pronounced in patients with fewer comorbidities and without recurrent admissions.ConclusionThe implementation of public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with decreased COPD admissions. These changes are plausibly explained by reduced prevalence of seasonal respiratory viruses.     

The effect of glucocorticoids on mortality in severe COVID-19 patients: Evidence from 13 studies involving 6612 cases

Background:Since the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there is an urgent need for effective therapies for patients with COVID-19. In this study, we aimed to assess the therapeutic efficacy of glucocorticoids in severe COVID-19.Methods:A systematic literature search was performed across PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (up to June 26, 2021). The literature investigated the outcomes of interest were mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation.Results:The search identified 13 studies with 6612 confirmed severe COVID-19 patients. Our meta-analysis found that using glucocorticoids could significantly decrease COVID-19 mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45–0.79, P < .001), relative to non-use of glucocorticoids. Meanwhile, using glucocorticoids also could significantly decrease the risk of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation for severe COVID-19 patients (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.58–0.83, P < .001). Compared with using dexamethasone (HR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.50–0.92, P = .012), methylprednisolone use had a better therapeutic effect for reducing the mortality of patients (HR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.19–0.64, P = .001).Conclusion:The result of this meta-analysis showed that using glucocorticoids could reduce mortality and risk of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.     

Hand hygiene compliance of healthcare workers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A long-term follow-up study

BackgroundInformation about the long-term effects of hand hygiene (HH) interventions is needed. We aimed to investigate the change in HH compliance (HHC) of healthcare workers (HCWs) once a data-driven feedback intervention was stopped, and to assess if the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the HH behavior.MethodsWe conducted an observational, extension trial in a surgical department between January 2019–December 2020. Doctors (n = 19) and nurses (n = 53) were included and their HHC was measured using an electronic HH monitoring system (EHHMS). We compared the changes in HHC during 3 phases: (1) Intervention (data presentation meetings), (2) Prepandemic follow-up and (3) Follow-up during COVID-19.ResultsThe HHC during phase 1 (intervention), phase 2 (prepandemic follow-up) and phase 3 (follow-up during COVID-19) was 58%, 46%, and 34%, respectively. Comparison analyses revealed that the HHC was significantly lower in the prepandemic follow-up period (46% vs 58%, P < .0001) and in the follow-up period during COVID-19 (34% vs 58%, P < .0001) compared with the intervention period (phase 1).ConclusionsDespite the COVID-19 pandemic, the HHC of the HCWs significantly decreased over time once the data presentation meetings from management stopped. This study demonstrates that HCWs fall back into old HH routines once improvement initiatives are stopped.     

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Outcomes of Acute Coronary Syndrome

During the pandemic, health care resources were primarily focused on treating COVID-19 infections and its related complications, with various Clinical units were converted to COVID-19 units, This study aims to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the clinical course of patients who had developed acute coronary syndrome (ACS) including ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In this large nationwide observational study utilizing National Inpatient Sample 2019 and 2020.The primary outcomes of our study were in-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), total hospital charges and time from admission to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Using the National Inpatient Sample 2020 database we found 32,355,827 hospitalizations in 2020 and 521,484 of which had a primary diagnosis of STEMI that met our criteria. Patients with COVID-19 infection were similar in mean age, more likely to be men, were treated in the same hospital settings as those without COVID-19 and had higher rates of diabetes with chronic complications. These patients had a similar prevalence of traditional coronary artery disease risk factors including hypertension, peripheral vascular disease and obesity. There was higher inpatient mortality (adjusted odds ratios 3.10; 95% CI, 2.40-4.02; P < 0.01) and LOS (95% CI 1.07-2.25; P < 0.01) in STEMI patient with concurrent COVID-19 infection. The average time from admission to PCI was significantly higher among unstable angina (UA) and None ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in patients with a secondary diagnosis of COVID-19 infection compared to patients without: 0.45 days (95% CI: .155-758; P < 0.01). The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the treatment of patients with ACS, resulting in increased inpatient mortality, higher costs, and longer lengths of stay. During the pandemic, for patients with UA and NSTEMI the time from admission to PCI was significantly longer in patients with a secondary diagnosis of COVID-19 compared to patients without. When comparing ACS outcomes between pre-pandemic to pandemic periods (2019 versus 2020), the 2020 data showed higher mortality, higher hospital costs, and a decrease in LOS. Finally, the time from admission to PCI was longer for UA and NSTEMI in 2020 but not for patients with STEMI.     

Decreased door-to-balloon time in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction during the early COVID-19 pandemic in South Korea: An observational study

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulted in a marked decrease in the number of patient visits for acute myocardial infarction and delayed patient response and intervention in several countries. This study evaluated the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of patients, patient response time (pain-to-door), and intervention time (door-to-balloon) for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI).Patients with STEMI or NSTEMI visiting a hospital in South Korea who underwent primary coronary intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic (January 29, 2020, to December 31, 2020) were compared with those in the equivalent period from 2018 to 2019. Patient response and intervention times were compared for the COVID-19 pandemic window (2020) and the equivalent period from 2018 to 2019.We observed no decrease in the number of patients with STEMI (P = .88) and NSTEMI (P = 1.00) during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to that in the previous years. Patient response times (STEMI: P = .39; NSTEMI: P = .59) during the overall COVID-19 pandemic period did not differ significantly. However, we identified a significant decrease in door-to-balloon time among patients with STEMI (14%; P < .01) during the early COVID-19 pandemic.We found that the number of patients with STEMI and NSTEMI was consistent during the COVID-19 pandemic and that no time delays in patient response and intervention occurred. However, the door-to-balloon time among patients with STEMI significantly reduced during the early COVID-19 pandemic, which could be attributed to decreased emergency care utilization during the early pandemic.     

The Relationship Between Diabetes Mellitus and COVID-19 Prognosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study in Wuhan,China

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an emerging infectious disease that first appeared in Wuhan, China, and quickly spread throughout the world. We aimed to understand the relationship between diabetes mellitus and the prognosis of COVID-19.MethodsDemographic, clinical, laboratory, radiologic, treatments, complications, and clinical outcomes data were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between diabetes (n = 84) and nondiabetes (n = 500) groups. Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox analysis were applied to determine the risk factors for the prognosis of COVID-19.ResultsCompared with nondiabetic patients, diabetic patients had higher levels of neutrophils (P = .014), C-reactive protein (P = .008), procalcitonin (P < .01), and D-dimer (P = .033), and lower levels of lymphocytes (P = .032) and albumin (P = .035). Furthermore, diabetic patients had a significantly higher incidence of bilateral pneumonia (86.9%, P = .020). In terms of complications and clinical outcomes, the incidence of respiratory failure (36.9% vs 24.2%, P = .022), acute cardiac injury (47.4% vs 21.2%, P < .01), and death (20.2% vs 8.0%, P = .001) in the diabetes group was significantly higher than that in the nondiabetes group. Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed that COVID-19 patients with diabetes had a shorter overall survival time. Multivariate Cox analysis indicated that diabetes (hazard ratio 2.180, P = .031) was an independent risk factor for COVID-19 prognosis. In subgroup analysis, we divided diabetic patients into insulin-required and non-insulin-required groups according to whether they needed insulin, and found that diabetic patients requiring insulin may have a higher risk of disease progression and worse prognosis after the infection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.ConclusionsDiabetes is an independent risk factor for the prognosis of COVID-19. More attention should be paid to the prevention and treatment for diabetic patients, especially those who require insulin therapy.     

Aggression,Micro-aggression,and Abuse Against Health Care Providers During the COVID-19 Pandemic. A Latin American Survey

The COVID-19 pandemic has had tremendous consequences globally. Notably, increasing complaints of verbal and physical violence against health care providers have been reported. A cross-sectional electronic survey was conducted between January 11 and February 28, 2022 to delineate the violent behavior against front-line health professionals in Latin America. A total of 3544 participants from 19 countries were included. There were 58.5% women, 70.8% were physicians, 16% were nurses, and 13.2% were other health team members. About 54.8% reported acts of abuse: 95.6% verbal abuse, 11.1% physical abuse, and 19.9% other types. Nearly half of those who reported abuse experienced psychosomatic symptoms after the event, 56.2% considered changing their care tasks, and 33.6% considered quitting their profession. In a logistic regression model, nurses (odds ratio (OR) 1.90, P < 0.001), doctors (OR 2.11, P < 0.001), and administrative staff (OR 3.53, P = 0.005) experienced more abuse than other health workers. Women more frequently reported abuse (OR 1.56, P < 0.001), as well as those who worked directly with COVID-19 patients (OR 3.66, P < 0.001). A lower probability of abuse was observed at older ages (OR 0.95, P < 0.001). There has been a high prevalence of abuse against health personnel in Latin America during the COVID-19 pandemic. Those caring for COVID-19 patients, younger staff, and women were found to be at elevated risk. It is imperative to develop strategies to mitigate these acts and their repercussions on the patient-provider relationship and outcomes.     

Causal associations between COVID-19 and atrial fibrillation: A bidirectional Mendelian randomization study

Background and aimsObservational studies showed that coronavirus disease (2019) (COVID-19) attacks universally and its most menacing progression uniquely endangers the elderly with cardiovascular disease (CVD). The causal association between COVID-19 infection or its severity and susceptibility of atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unknown.Methods and resultsThe bidirectional causal relationship between COVID-19 (including COVID-19, hospitalized COVID-19 compared with not hospitalized COVID-19, hospitalized COVID-19 compared with the general population, and severe COVID-19) and AF are determined by using two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis. Genetically predicted severe COVID-19 was not significantly associated with the risk of AF [odds ratio (OR), 1.037; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.005–1.071; P = 0.023, q = 0.115]. In addition, genetically predicted AF was also not causally associated with severe COVID-19 (OR, 0.993; 95% CI, 0.888–1.111; P = 0.905, q = 0.905). There was no evidence to support the association between genetically determined COVID-19 and the risk of AF (OR, 1.111; 95% CI, 0.971–1.272; P = 0.127, q = 0.318), and vice versa (OR, 1.016; 95% CI, 0.976–1.058; P = 0.430, q = 0.851). Besides, no significant association was observed for hospitalized COVID-19 with AF. MR-Egger analysis indicated no evidence of directional pleiotropy.ConclusionOverall, this MR study provides no clear evidence that COVID-19 is causally associated with the risk of AF.     

Mask use among health care workers and feelings of safety at work pre- and post- COVID-19 vaccine

BackgroundCorrect mask use can prevent the spread of COVID-19 and hospitals require correct mask use. Despite this, there is variation in mask use among health care workers (HCW). Incorrect mask use may lead to increased infections and decreased feelings of safety. The purpose of this study was to determine variation in mask use among HCW as well as feelings of safety from exposure to COVID-19 when around colleagues before and after COVID-19 vaccine roll out.MethodsThis study used direct observation to assess mask use in patient-facing areas before and after COVID-19 vaccine. A staff survey was used to assess feelings of safety.ResultsOver 1,600 mask observations showed increased compliance from 94.6% to 97.5% (P = .001). Three hundred survey responses showed significantly increased feelings of safety (P < .001) after vaccine roll out, and 203 free-text responses with respondant reasoning were categorized into 6 themes.DiscussionUnderstanding mask use behaviors and safety attitudes of HCW can help improve policies, workplace culture, and reduce HCW to HCW infections.ConclusionsCorrect mask use was a highly adopted habit in patient-facing areas. The COVID-19 vaccine led to significantly increased feelings of safety among HCW, though the diverging narratives seen in the survey may be helpful to consider when crafting safety interventions.     

Steroid resistance and rebound phenomena in patients with COVID-19

BackgroundIn patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pneumonia, corticosteroids reduce progression to respiratory failure and death. Some patients, however, remain unresponsive to this treatment, or experience a rebound after termination.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included COVID-19 patients treated with systemic corticosteroids in a Japanese hospital between June 1, 2020, and January 17, 2021. Patients were categorized into three groups: success, rebound, and refractory, and clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared.ResultsA total of 319 COVID-19 patients were admitted to our hospital and 113 patients met inclusion criteria. The success group had 83 patients (73.5%), the rebound group had nine patients (8.0%), and the refractory group had 21 patients (18.6%). Compared with the success group, the rebound group received corticosteroids earlier, for a shorter duration, and stopped them sooner. The median time from symptom onset to rebound was 12 days. There was no rebound after 20 days. Compared with the success group, the hazard ratio for the number of days from corticosteroid onset to an improvement of two points on a seven-point ordinal scale was 0.29 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14–0.60, P < .001) for the rebound group versus 0.13 (95% CI, 0.07–0.25, P < .001) for the refractory group.ConclusionsCOVID-19 patients treated with corticosteroids were classified into three response groups: success, rebound, and refractory, between which recovery time and prognosis differed. It was found that corticosteroid administration may prevent rebound phenomena if administered at least two weeks from symptom onset.