Treatments Associated with Lower Mortality among Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery in elderly patients and its association with patient-controlled analgesia

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to identify the risk factors for postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in elderly patients undergoing major abdominal surgery and to investigate the relationship between patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and PPCs.

DESIGN

A retrospective study.

METHOD

Clinical data and demographic information of elderly patients (aged ≥ 60 years) who underwent upper abdominal surgery at the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University from 2017 to 2019 were retrospectively collected. Patients with PPCs were identified using the Melbourne Group Scale Version 2 scoring system. A directed acyclic graph was used to identify the potential confounders, and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify independent risk factors for PPCs. Propensity score matching was utilized to compare PPC rates between patients with and without PCA, as well as between intravenous PCA (PCIA) and epidural PCA (PCEA) groups.

RESULTS

A total of 1,467 patients were included, with a PPC rate of 8.7%. Multivariable analysis revealed that PCA was an independent protective factor for PPCs in elderly patients undergoing major abdominal surgery (odds ratio = 0.208, 95% confidence interval = 0.121 to 0.358; P < 0.001). After matching, patients receiving PCA demonstrated a significantly lower overall incidence of PPCs (8.6% vs. 26.3%, P < 0.001), unplanned transfer to the intensive care unit (1.1% vs. 8.4%, P = 0.001), and in-hospital mortality (0.7% vs. 5.3%, P = 0.021) compared to those not receiving PCA. No significant difference in outcomes was observed between patients receiving PCIA or PCEA after matching.

CONCLUSION

Patient-controlled analgesia, whether administered intravenously or epidurally, is associated with a reduced risk of PPCs in elderly patients undergoing major upper abdominal surgery.

Using preoperative N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels for predicting major adverse cardiovascular events and myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery in Chinese advanced-age patients

BACKGROUND

N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) is often viewed as an indicator for heart failure. However, the prognostic association and the predictive utility of NT-proBNP for postoperative major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) among older patients are unclear.

METHODS

In this study, we included 5033 patients aged 65 years or older who underwent noncardiac surgery with preoperative NT-proBNP recorded. Logistic regression was adopted to model the associations between preoperative NT-proBNP and the risk of MACEs and MINS. The receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine the predictive value of NT-proBNP.

RESULTS

A total of 5033 patients were enrolled, 63 patients (1.25%) and 525 patients (10.43%) had incident postoperative MACEs and MINS, respectively. Analysis of the receiver operating characteristic curve indicated that the cutoff values of ln (NT-proBNP) for MACEs and MINS were 5.16 (174 pg/mL) and 5.30 (200 pg/mL), respectively. Adding preoperative ln (NT-proBNP) to the Revised Cardiac Risk Index score and the Cardiac and Stroke Risk Model boosted the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves from 0.682 to 0.726 and 0.787 to 0.804, respectively. The inclusion of preoperative NT-proBNP in the prediction models significantly increased the reclassification and discrimination.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased preoperative NT-proBNP was associated with a higher risk of postoperative MACEs and MINS. The inclusion of NT-proBNP enhances the predictive ability of the preexisting models.

Associations between the use of aspirin or other antiplatelet drugs and all-cause mortality among patients with COVID-19: A meta-analysis

Introduction: Whether aspirin or other antiplatelet drugs can reduce mortality among patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) remains controversial.

Methods: We identified randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and retrospective studies on associations between aspirin or other antiplatelet drug use and all-cause mortality among patients with COVID-19 in the PubMed database between March 2019 and September 2021. Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool were used to assess the risk of bias. The I2 statistic was used to assess inconsistency among trial results. The summary risk ratio (RR) and odds ratio (OR) were obtained through the meta-analysis.

Results: The 34 included studies comprised three randomized controlled trials, 27 retrospective studies, and 4 prospective cohort studies. The retrospective and prospective cohort studies showed low-to-moderate risks of bias per the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale score, while the randomized controlled trials showed low-to-high risks of bias per the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The randomized controlled trials showed no significant effect of aspirin use on all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 {risk ratio (RR), 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90–1.03]}. In retrospective studies, aspirin reduced all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 by 20% [odds ratio (OR), 0.80 (95% CI 0.70–0.93)], while other antiplatelet drugs had no significant effects. In prospective cohort studies, aspirin decreased all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 by 15% [OR, 0.85 (95% CI 0.80–0.90)].

Conclusion: The administration of aspirin may reduce all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19.

Antiplatelet therapy for patients with COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials

Background

Hyperinflammation and coagulopathy are hallmarks of COVID-19 and synergistically contribute to illness progression. Antiplatelet agents have been proposed as candidate drugs for COVID-19 treatment on the basis of their antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory properties. A systematic review and meta-analysis that included early observational studies and recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to summarize and compare evidence on this issue.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify studies published up to Nov 7, 2021, and the results of registered clinical trials were followed up to Mar 30, 2022. We included RCTs and observational studies assessing the effect of antiplatelet therapy in adult patients with COVID-19. Data on baseline patient characteristics, interventions, controls, and outcomes were extracted by two independent reviewers. The primary outcome was mortality. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

Results

Twenty-seven studies were included, of which 23 observational studies were pooled in a meta-analysis, and the remaining four RCTs (ACTIV-4B, RECOVERY, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP) were narratively synthesized. Based on 23 observational studies of 87,824 COVID-19 patients, antiplatelet treatment favors a lower risk of mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61–0.85; I² = 87.0%, P < 0.01]. The narrative synthesis of RCTs showed conflicting evidence, which did not support adding antiplatelet therapy to the standard care, regardless of the baseline illness severity and concomitant anticoagulation intensity.

Conclusion

While the rationale for using antiplatelet treatment in COVID-19 patients is compelling and was supported by the combined result of early observational studies, evidence from RCTs did not confirm this approach. Several factors that could explain this inconsistency were highlighted alongside perspectives on future research directions.

Chronic use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or acetaminophen and relationship with mortality among United States Veterans after testing positive for COVID-19

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen are among the most-frequently used medications. Although these medications have different mechanisms of action, they have similar indications and treatment duration has been positively correlated with cardiovascular risk although the degree of risk varies by medication. Our objective was to study treatment effects of chronic use of individual NSAID medications and acetaminophen on all-cause mortality among patients who tested positive for COVID-19 while accounting for adherence. We used the VA national datasets in this retrospective cohort study to differentiate between sporadic and chronic medication use: sporadic users filled an NSAID within the last year, but not recently or regularly. Using established and possible risk factors for severe COVID-19, we used propensity scores analysis to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between treatment groups. Then, we used multivariate logistic regression incorporating inverse propensity score weighting to assess mortality. The cohort consisted of 28,856 patients. Chronic use of aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, meloxicam, celecoxib, diclofenac or acetaminophen was not associated with significant differences in mortality at 30 days (OR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.95-1.00; OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-1.00; OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98-1.01; OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-1.00; OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98-1.01; OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97-1.01; and OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.99-1.02, respectively) nor at 60 days (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95-1.00; OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.99-1.01; OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-1.01; OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97-1.00; OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97-1.01; OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97-1.01; and OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99-1.02, respectively). Although the study design cannot determine causality, the study should assure patients as it finds no association between mortality and chronic use of these medications compared with sporadic NSAID use among those infected with COVID-19.