Physical Activity in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Recipients During the COVID-19 Pandemic

ObjectiveTo characterize the physical activity (PA) level in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and compare PA level during the pandemic in 2020 with the year 2019.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of PA activity in individuals implanted with a CIED enrolled in the BIOTRONIK CERTITUDE Registry. Mean daily and weekly PA from January to August 2020 was compared with 2019.ResultsA total of 21,660 individuals met eligibility criteria, with mean age of 72.6±11.6 years, and 12,411 (57.3)% were males. A significant decline in daily PA was noted following the pandemic declaration in 2020, with a maximum mean reduction of -24.5±36.3 minutes (P<.0001) observed in April 2020 compared with 2019. PA in 2020 increased from April to May (120.6±67.4 to 129.2±70.9 min/d). PA was lower for all months in 2020 compared with 2019. The decrease in PA was observed in all prespecified groups based on age, sex, type of device, and region of the country.ConclusionAfter the declaration of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, a significant decline in daily PA was observed in individuals with a CIED. Future investigation to establish the impact of this reduction on short and long-term cardiovascular outcomes is required.     

Leveraging the Electronic Health Record to Address the COVID-19 Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues its global spread. Coordinated effort on a vast scale is required to halt its progression and to save lives. Electronic health record (EHR) data are a valuable resource to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic. We review how the EHR could be used for disease surveillance and contact tracing. When linked to “omics” data, the EHR could facilitate identification of genetic susceptibility variants, leading to insights into risk factors, disease complications, and drug repurposing. Real-time monitoring of patients could enable early detection of potential complications, informing appropriate interventions and therapy. We reviewed relevant articles from PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar searches as well as preprint servers, given the rapidly evolving understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Examining Disparities and Excess Cardiovascular Mortality Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

ObjectiveTo investigate the patterns and demographic features of cardiovascular disease (CVD) death and subtypes myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and heart failure in the pre–COVID-19 era (2018-2019) vs during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021) in the United States.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, we used the US Multiple Cause of Death files for 2018 to 2021 to examine the trend of excess cause-specific deaths using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes for CVD (I00 to I99), MI (I21 and I22), stroke (I60 to I69), and heart failure (I42 and I50). Our primary outcome was excess mortality from CVD and its 3 subtypes (MI, stroke, and heart failure) between prepandemic (2018-2019) and pandemic (2020-2021) years. We performed a subgroup analysis on race and month-to-month and year-to-year variation using χ² analysis to test statistical significance.ResultsOverall, 3,598,352 CVD deaths were analyzed during the study period. There was a 6.7% excess CVD mortality, 2.5% MI mortality, and 8.5% stroke mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021) compared with the prepandemic era (2018-2019). Black individuals had higher excess CVD mortality (13.8%) than White individuals (5.1%; P<.001). This remained consistent across subtypes of CVD, including MI (9.6% vs 1.0%; P<.001), stroke (14.5% vs 6.9%; P<.001), and heart failure (5.1% vs ?1.2%; P<.001).ConclusionThere has been a significant rise in CVD and subtype-specific mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic that has been persistent despite 2 years since the onset of the pandemic. Excess CVD mortality has disproportionately affected Black compared with White individuals. Further studies targeting and eliminating health care disparities are necessary.     

Delivering Virtual Cancer Rehabilitation Programming During the First 90 Days of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multimethod Study

ObjectiveTo describe the adaptations made to implement virtual cancer rehabilitation at the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, as well as understand the experiences of patients and providers adapting to virtual care.DesignMultimethod study.SettingCancer center.ParticipantsA total of 1968 virtual patient visits were completed during the study period. Adult survivors of cancer (n=12) and oncology health care providers (n=12) participated in semi-structured interviews.InterventionsNot applicable.Main Outcome MeasuresFramework-driven categorization of program modifications, qualitative interviews with patients and providers, and a comparison of process outcomes with the previous 90 days of in-person care via referrals, completed visits and attendance, method of delivery, weekly capacities, and wait times.ResultsThe majority of program visits could be adapted to virtual delivery, with format, setting, and content modifications. Virtual care demonstrated an increase or maintenance in the number of completed visits by appointment type compared with in-person care, with attendance ranging from 80%-93%. For most appointment types, capacities increased, whereas wait times decreased slightly. Overall, 168 patients (11% of all assessments and follow-ups) assessed virtually were identified by providers as requiring an in-person appointment because of reassessment of musculoskeletal and/or neurologic impairment (n=109, 65%) and lymphedema (n=59, 35%). The interviews (n=24) revealed that virtual care was an acceptable alternative in some circumstances, with the ability to (1) increase access to care; (2) provide a sense of reassurance during a time of isolation; and (3) provide confidence in learning skills to self-manage impairments.ConclusionsMany appointments can be successfully adapted to virtual formats to deliver cancer rehabilitation programming. Based on our findings, we provide practical recommendations that can be implemented by providers and programs to facilitate the adoption and delivery of virtual care.     

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.     

Deployment of an Interdisciplinary Predictive Analytics Task Force to Inform Hospital Operational Decision-Making During the COVID-19 Pandemic

In March 2020, our institution developed an interdisciplinary predictive analytics task force to provide coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospital census forecasting to help clinical leaders understand the potential impacts on hospital operations. As the situation unfolded into a pandemic, our task force provided predictive insights through a structured set of visualizations and key messages that have helped the practice to anticipate and react to changing operational needs and opportunities. The framework shared here for the deployment of a COVID-19 predictive analytics task force could be adapted for effective implementation at other institutions to provide evidence-based messaging for operational decision-making. For hospitals without such a structure, immediate consideration may be warranted in light of the devastating COVID-19 third-wave which has arrived for winter 2020–2021.     

Changes in Burnout and Satisfaction With Work-Life Integration in Physicians During the First 2 Years of the COVID-19 Pandemic

ObjectiveTo evaluate the prevalence of burnout and satisfaction with work-life integration (WLI) in US physicians at the end of 2021, roughly 21 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, with comparison to 2020, 2017, 2014, and 2011.MethodsBetween December 9, 2021, and January 24, 2022, we surveyed US physicians using methods similar to those of our prior studies. Burnout, WLI, depression, and professional fulfillment were assessed with standard instruments.ResultsThere were 2440 physicians who participated in the 2021 survey. Mean emotional exhaustion and depersonalization scores were higher in 2021 than those observed in 2020, 2017, 2014, and 2011 (all P<.001). Mean emotional exhaustion scores increased 38.6% (2020 mean, 21.0; 2021 mean, 29.1; P<.001), whereas mean depersonalization scores increased 60.7% (2020 mean, 6.1; 2021 mean, 9.8; P<.001). Overall, 62.8% of physicians had at least 1 manifestation of burnout in 2021 compared with 38.2% in 2020, 43.9% in 2017, 54.4% in 2014, and 45.5% in 2011 (all P<.001). Although these trends were consistent across nearly all specialties, substantial variability by specialty was observed. Satisfaction with WLI declined from 46.1% in 2020 to 30.2% in 2021 (P<.001). Mean scores for depression increased 6.1% (2020 mean, 49.54; 2021 mean, 52.59; P<.001).ConclusionA dramatic increase in burnout and decrease in satisfaction with WLI occurred in US physicians between 2020 and 2021. Differences in mean depression scores were modest, suggesting that the increase in physician distress was overwhelmingly work related. Given the association of physician burnout with quality of care, turnover, and reductions in work effort, these findings have profound implications for the US health care system.     

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.     

Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Posthospital Brain Injury Rehabilitation Providers

Rehabilitation after significant acquired brain injury (ABI) to address complex independent activities of daily living and return to family and community life is offered primarily after initial hospitalization in outpatient day treatment, group home, skilled nursing, and residential settings and in the home and community of the person served. The coronavirus 2019 pandemic threatened access to care and the health and safety of staff, persons served, and families in these settings. This article describes steps taken to contain this threat by 7 leading posthospital ABI rehabilitation organizations. Outpatient and day treatment facilities were temporarily suspended. In other settings, procedures for isolation, transportation, cleaning, exposure control, infection control, and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) were reinforced with staff. Visitation and community activities were restricted. Staff and others required to enter facilities were screened with symptom checklists and temperature checks. Individuals showing symptoms of infection were quarantined and tested, as possible. New admissions were carefully screened for infection and often initially quarantined. Telehealth played a major role in reducing direct interpersonal contact while continuing to provide services both to outpatients and within facilities. Salary, benefits, training, and managerial support were enhanced for staff. Despite early outbreaks, these procedures were generally effective, with preliminary initial infections rates of only 1.1% for persons served and 2.1% for staff. Reductions in admissions, services, and unanticipated expenses (eg, PPE, more frequent and thorough cleaning) had a major negative financial effect. Providers continue to be challenged to adapt rehabilitative approaches and to reopen services.     

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.     

Place and Underlying Cause of Death During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Cohort Study of 3.5 Million Deaths in England and Wales, 2014 to 2020

ObjectiveTo describe the place and cause of death during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to assess its impact on excess mortality.MethodsThis national death registry included all adult (aged ≥18 years) deaths in England and Wales between January 1, 2014, and June 30, 2020. Daily deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic were compared against the expected daily deaths, estimated with use of the Farrington surveillance algorithm for daily historical data between 2014 and 2020 by place and cause of death.ResultsBetween March 2 and June 30, 2020, there was an excess mortality of 57,860 (a proportional increase of 35%) compared with the expected deaths, of which 50,603 (87%) were COVID-19 related. At home, only 14% (2267) of the 16,190 excess deaths were related to COVID-19, with 5963 deaths due to cancer and 2485 deaths due to cardiac disease, few of which involved COVID-19. In care homes or hospices, 61% (15,623) of the 25,611 excess deaths were related to COVID-19, 5539 of which were due to respiratory disease, and most of these (4315 deaths) involved COVID-19. In the hospital, there were 16,174 fewer deaths than expected that did not involve COVID-19, with 4088 fewer deaths due to cancer and 1398 fewer deaths due to cardiac disease than expected.ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a large excess of deaths in care homes that were poorly characterized and likely to be the result of undiagnosed COVID-19. There was a smaller but important and ongoing excess in deaths at home, particularly from cancer and cardiac disease, suggesting public avoidance of hospital care for non–COVID-19 conditions.     

Clinical characteristics and prognosis of immunosuppressed inpatients with COVID-19 in Japan

IntroductionWe aimed to analyze the clinical characteristics and outcomes of immunosuppressed inpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsIn this observational study, we utilized a large nationwide registry of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Japan. Patients’ baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared according to the immunosuppressed states of the patients. The impact of different therapeutic agents on the clinical courses of the patients was evaluated.ResultsData of 14,760 patients were included, and 887 (5.9%) were immunosuppressed. The immunosuppressed state of the patient resulted from solid tumor (43.3%, n = 384), chemotherapy within 3 months (15.6%, n = 138), collagen disease (16.9%, n = 150), use of immunosuppressive agents (16.0%, n = 142), and metastatic solid tumor (13.5%, n = 120). Immunosuppressed patients were older and had a higher severity of illness at admission and during hospitalization than non-immunosuppressed patients. The mortality rates for major diseases causing immunosuppression were as follows: solid tumor, 12.5% (48/384; P < 0.001; relative risk [RR], 3.41); metastatic solid tumor, 31.7% (38/120; P < 0.001; RR, 8.43); leukemia, 23.1% (9/39; P < 0.001; RR, 5.87); lymphoma, 33.3% (20/60; P < 0.001; RR, 8.63); and collagen disease, 15.3% (23/150; P < 0.001; RR 3.97). Underlying diseases with high mortality rates were not necessarily associated with high rates of invasive supportive care.ConclusionsThe prognosis of immunosuppressed COVID-19 inpatients varied according to the different immunosuppressed states. Multiple factors, including the severity of the underlying diseases, might have affected their invasive supportive care indications.     

Disability and the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of Individuals With Traumatic Brain Injury

ObjectivesTo identify the consequences of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic for individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI), with particular attention to unique effects for individuals with chronic disability.DesignIndividuals with and without a history of TBI completed a web-based survey.SettingParticipants were recruited from the Vanderbilt Brain Injury Patient Registry in Nashville, TN, and completed the survey from their homes between May and June 2020, during social distancing related to the COVID-19 pandemic.ParticipantsParticipants (N=47) in the chronic phase of moderate-severe TBI (>6mo postinjury) and 51 noninjured comparison (NC) peers completed the survey.InterventionsNot applicable.Main Outcome MeasuresParticipants, or respondents, answered a mix of multiple choice and free text questions about how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected their work, education, medical care, social communication, sources of information and decision making, and mental and physical well-being. Individuals with TBI also answered questions about how TBI has affected their experiences of the pandemic.ResultsAs a group, respondents with TBI reported less pandemic-related behavior change (eg, daily habits, virtual social visits, and masking) than NC peers. Both NCs and respondents with TBI identified health care providers as trusted sources of public health information. One-third of individuals with TBI indicated that brain injury has made coping with the pandemic more difficult, and respondents identified mental health challenges and social isolation as key barriers.ConclusionsThese results suggest that health care providers should look for ways to provide tailored education and reduce social isolation for individuals with disability during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We discuss several direct suggestions from participant responses.     

Long-Term Effects of COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the third deadly coronavirus infection of the 21st century that has proven to be significantly more lethal than its predecessors, with the number of infected patients and deaths still increasing daily. From December 2019 to July 2021, this virus has infected nearly 200 million people and led to more than 4 million deaths. Our understanding of COVID-19 is constantly progressing, giving better insight into the heterogeneous nature of its acute and long-term effects. Recent literature on the long-term health consequences of COVID-19 discusses the need for a comprehensive understanding of the multisystemic pathophysiology, clinical predictors, and epidemiology to develop and inform an evidence-based, multidisciplinary management approach. A PubMed search was completed using variations on the term post-acute COVID-19. Only peer-reviewed studies in English published by July 17, 2021 were considered for inclusion. All studies discussed in this text are from adult populations unless specified (as with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children). The preliminary evidence on the pulmonary, cardiovascular, neurological, hematological, multisystem inflammatory, renal, endocrine, gastrointestinal, and integumentary sequelae show that COVID-19 continues after acute infection. Interdisciplinary monitoring with holistic management that considers nutrition, physical therapy, psychological management, meditation, and mindfulness in addition to medication will allow for the early detection of post-acute COVID-19 sequelae symptoms and prevent long-term systemic damage. This review serves as a guideline for effective management based on current evidence, but clinicians should modify recommendations to reflect each patient's unique needs and the most up-to-date evidence. The presence of long-term effects presents another reason for vaccination against COVID-19.     

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.     

Clinical efficacy of remdesivir for COVID-19 in children: A propensity-score-matched analysis

Clinical efficacy of remdesivir in children with COVID-19 is unclear. This propensity-score-matched retrospective cohort study of children with COVID-19 showed that the rate of patients achieving defervescence on Day 4 was higher in the remdesivir group than in the non-remdesivir group, but was not statistically different (86.7% vs 73.3%, P = 0.333).