Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Patients with the Coronavirus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19) are at increased risk for thrombotic events and mortality. Various anticoagulation regimens are now being considered for these patients. Anticoagulation is known to increase the risk for adverse bleeding events, of which intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is one of the most feared. We present a retrospective study of 33 patients positive for COVID-19 with neuroimaging-documented ICH and examine anticoagulation use in this population. METHODS:Patients over the age of 18 with confirmed COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of ICH were included in this study. Evidence of hemorrhage was confirmed and categorized by a fellowship trained neuroradiologist. Electronic health records were analyzed for patient information including demographic data, medical history, hospital course, laboratory values, and medications. RESULTS:We identified 33 COVID-19 positive patients with ICH, mean age 61.6 years (range 37-83 years), 21.2% of whom were female. Parenchymal hemorrhages with mass effect and herniation occurred in 5 (15.2%) patients, with a 100% mortality rate. Of the remaining 28 patients with ICH, 7 (25%) had punctate hemorrhages, 17 (60.7%) had small- moderate size hemorrhages, and 4 (14.3%) had a large single site of hemorrhage without evidence of herniation. Almost all patients received either therapeutic dose anticoagulation (in 22 [66.7%] patients) or prophylactic dose (in 3 [9.1] patients) prior to ICH discovery. CONCLUSIONS:Anticoagulation therapy may be considered in patients with COVID-19 though the risk of ICH should be taken into account when developing a treatment regimen.

OBJECTIVE:To describe outcomes of people admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in the United States, and the clinical and laboratory characteristics associated with severity of illness. DESIGN/METHODS:Prospective cohort study. SETTING/METHODS:Single academic medical center in New York City and Long Island. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:5279 patients with laboratory confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) infection between 1 March 2020 and 8 April 2020. The final date of follow up was 5 May 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Outcomes were admission to hospital, critical illness (intensive care, mechanical ventilation, discharge to hospice care, or death), and discharge to hospice care or death. Predictors included patient characteristics, medical history, vital signs, and laboratory results. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify risk factors for adverse outcomes, and competing risk survival analysis for mortality. RESULTS:Of 11 544 people tested for SARS-Cov-2, 5566 (48.2%) were positive. After exclusions, 5279 were included. 2741 of these 5279 (51.9%) were admitted to hospital, of whom 1904 (69.5%) were discharged alive without hospice care and 665 (24.3%) were discharged to hospice care or died. Of 647 (23.6%) patients requiring mechanical ventilation, 391 (60.4%) died and 170 (26.2%) were extubated or discharged. The strongest risk for hospital admission was associated with age, with an odds ratio of >2 for all age groups older than 44 years and 37.9 (95% confidence interval 26.1 to 56.0) for ages 75 years and older. Other risks were heart failure (4.4, 2.6 to 8.0), male sex (2.8, 2.4 to 3.2), chronic kidney disease (2.6, 1.9 to 3.6), and any increase in body mass index (BMI) (eg, for BMI >40: 2.5, 1.8 to 3.4). The strongest risks for critical illness besides age were associated with heart failure (1.9, 1.4 to 2.5), BMI >40 (1.5, 1.0 to 2.2), and male sex (1.5, 1.3 to 1.8). Admission oxygen saturation of <88% (3.7, 2.8 to 4.8), troponin level >1 (4.8, 2.1 to 10.9), C reactive protein level >200 (5.1, 2.8 to 9.2), and D-dimer level >2500 (3.9, 2.6 to 6.0) were, however, more strongly associated with critical illness than age or comorbidities. Risk of critical illness decreased significantly over the study period. Similar associations were found for mortality alone. CONCLUSIONS:Age and comorbidities were found to be strong predictors of hospital admission and to a lesser extent of critical illness and mortality in people with covid-19; however, impairment of oxygen on admission and markers of inflammation were most strongly associated with critical illness and mortality. Outcomes seem to be improving over time, potentially suggesting improvements in care.

Background We sought to examine whether people with a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease (CVD) experienced a greater incidence of subsequent cognitive impairment (CI) compared to people without CVD, as suggested by prior studies, using a large longitudinal cohort. Methods We used biennial data collected on adults age >=50 from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) to compare the incidence of CI over 8 years in 1,931 participants newly diagnosed with CVD vs. 3,862 age- and gender-matched controls. Diagnosis of CVD was adjudicated with an established HRS methodology. CI was defined as <=11 on the 27-point Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status, based on a previously accepted clinical cutpoint. To examine the incidence of CI, we used a cumulative incidence function accounting for competing risk of death. Results Mean age at study entry was 70 years, and 55% were female. CI developed in 1,335 participants over 8 years. Death was more common among participants with incident CVD (20.4% vs. 13.4%, p <.001). Cumulative incidence analysis for CI, after adjusting for death, showed no significant difference in incidence of cognitive impairment between the CVD and control groups at the end of the study period (Figure). Conclusion We found no increased risk of subsequent cognitive impairment among participants with CVD (compared with no CVD), despite previous research indicating that CVD accelerates cognitive decline. This finding may be due to appropriately accounting for the competing risk of death. [Figure presented]
Copyright

The past decade has seen a growing recognition of the importance of social determinants of health for health outcomes. However, the degree to which US health systems are directly investing in community programs to address social determinants of health as opposed to screening and referral is uncertain. We searched for all public announcements of new programs involving direct financial investments in social determinants of health by US health systems from January 1, 2017, to November 30, 2019. We identified seventy-eight unique programs involving fifty-seven health systems that collectively included 917 hospitals. The programs involved at least $2.5 billion of health system funds, of which $1.6 billion in fifty-two programs was specifically committed to housing-focused interventions. Additional focus areas were employment (twenty-eight programs, $1.1 billion), education (fourteen programs, $476.4 million), food security (twenty-five programs, $294.2 million), social and community context (thirteen programs, $253.1 million), and transportation (six programs, $32 million). Health systems are making sizable investments in social determinants of health.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to assess the perceptions of radiologists and emergency medicine (EM) providers regarding the quality, value, and challenges associated with using outside imaging (i.e., images obtained at facilities other than their own institution). MATERIALS AND METHODS. We surveyed radiologists and EM providers at a large academic medical center regarding their perceptions of the availability and utility of outside imaging. RESULTS. Thirty-four of 101 radiologists (33.6%) and 38 of 197 EM providers (19.3%) responded. A total of 32.4% of radiologists and 55.3% of EM providers had confidence in the quality of images from outside community facilities; 20.6% and 44.7%, respectively, had confidence in the interpretations of radiologists from these outside facilities. Only 23.5% of radiologists and 5.3% of EM physicians were confident in their ability to efficiently access reports (for outside images, 47.1% and 5.3%). Very few radiologists and EM providers had accessed imaging reports from outside facilities through an available stand-alone portal. A total of 40.6% of radiologists thought that outside reports always or frequently reduced additional imaging recommendations (62.5% for outside images); 15.6% thought that reports changed interpretations of new examinations (37.5% for outside images); and 43.8% thought that reports increased confidence in interpretations of new examinations (75.0% for outside images). A total of 29.4% of EM providers thought that access to reports from outside facilities reduced repeat imaging (64.7% for outside images), 41.2% thought that they changed diagnostic or management plans (50.0% for outside images), and 50.0% thought they increased clinical confidence (67.6% for outside images). CONCLUSION. Radiologists and EM providers perceive high value in sharing images from outside facilities, despite quality concerns. Substantial challenges exist in accessing these images and reports from outside facilities, and providers are unlikely to do so using separate systems. However, even if information technology solutions for seamless image integration are adopted, providers' lack of confidence in outside studies may remain an important barrier.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:Heart failure (HF) readmission rates have plateaued despite scrutiny of hospital discharge practices. Many HF patients are discharged to skilled nursing facility (SNF) after hospitalization before returning home. Home healthcare (HHC) services received during the additional transition from SNF to home may affect readmission risk. Here, we examined whether receipt of HHC affects readmission risk during the transition from SNF to home following HF hospitalization. DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING/METHODS:Fee-for-service Medicare data, 2012 to 2015. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Beneficiaries, aged 65 years and older, hospitalized with HF who were subsequently discharged to SNF and then discharged home. MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:The primary outcome was unplanned readmission within 30 days of discharge to home from SNF. We compared time to readmission between those with and without HHC services using a Cox model. RESULTS:Of 67 585 HF hospitalizations discharged to SNFs and subsequently discharged home, 13 257 (19.6%) were discharged with HHC, and 54 328 (80.4%) were discharged without HHC. Patients discharged home from SNFs with HHC had lower 30-day readmission rates than patients discharged without HHC (22.8% vs 24.5%; P < .0001) and a longer time to readmission. In an adjusted model, the hazard for readmission was 0.91 (0.86-0.95) with receipt of HHC. CONCLUSIONS:Recipients of HHC were less likely to be readmitted within 30 days vs those discharged home without HHC. This is unexpected, as patients discharged with HHC likely have more functional impairments. Since patients requiring a SNF stay after hospital discharge may have additional needs, they may particularly benefit from restorative therapy through HHC; however, only approximately 20% received such services.