Inter-hospital transfer and clinical outcomes for people with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units in Australia: an observational cohort study

A randomised, open-label trial of nebulised unfractionated heparin in patients mechanically ventilated for COVID-19

Nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) might reduce time to ventilator separation in patients with COVID-19 by reducing virus infectivity, pulmonary coagulopathy, and inflammation, but clinical trial data are limited. Between 1 July 2020 and 23 March 2022, we conducted, at two hospitals in Victoria, Australia, a randomised, parallel-group, open-label, controlled trial of nebulised UFH. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or more, intubated, under intensive care unit management, had a PaO2 to FIO2 ratio of 300 or less, had acute opacities affecting at least one lung quadrant and attributed to COVID-19, and were polymerase chain reaction-positive for SARS-CoV-2 or had further testing planned. The target sample size was 270, however, the trial was stopped due to slow recruitment. There were 50 enrolments, all of whom were analysed. The median age was 55 (interquartile range (IQR) 46-64) years, 28 (56%) were males, and 46 (92%) had acute respiratory distress syndrome. Twenty-seven (54%) were randomised to nebulised heparin and 23 (46%) to standard care. Nebulised UFH was administered to the heparin group on 6 (IQR 4-10) days; median daily dose of 83 (IQR 75-88) kIU. The primary outcome, time to separation from invasive ventilation to day 28 adjusted for the competing risk of death, was not significantly different between groups but took numerically longer in the nebulised heparin group (12.0, standard deviation (SD) 10.4 days versus 7.4, SD 6.9 days; hazard ratio (HR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 1.01, P = 0.052). One patient died by day 28 in each group, fewer than expected. Time to separation from invasive ventilation among survivors to day 28 occurred more quickly than expected in the standard care group and was, without correction for multiple comparisons, significantly slower in the heparin group (11.3, SD 10.0 days, n = 26 versus 6.4, SD 5.2 days, n = 22; HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.92, P = 0.024). Nebulised heparin did not reduce time to ventilator separation in intubated adult patients with COVID-19. The study is limited by the small sample size and potential for sampling bias. Further study is required.

Interhospital transports and mortality in patients with critical COVID-19: a single-centre cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare mortality rates and length of hospital stay between patients with critical COVID-19 transferred to another hospital due to capacity constraints and those who remained at their initial admission hospital.

DESIGN

Single-centre cohort study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

665 patients were treated for SARS-CoV-2 at two intensive care units (ICUs) in Stockholm, Sweden, from 1 March 2020 to 30 June 2021. Data on interhospital transfers (IHTs) were retrieved from medical records and patient data management systems according to predefined protocols.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcomes were 30-day and 90-day mortality, days alive and out of ICU. HR with 95% CI were calculated using Cox proportional hazard models with adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, severity of illness, comorbidity, invasive ventilation, treatment limitations and pandemic waves.

RESULTS

Of 665 patients, 133 (20%) were transferred to another hospital. The mortality rate of transferred patients compared with non-transferred patients at 30 days was 19% vs 26% (p=0.13) and at 90 days 26% vs 30% (p=0.43). In the adjusted Cox regression analysis, IHT was associated with a lower mortality risk at 30 days (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.76) and 90 days (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.79). However, the number of days alive and out of ICU was significantly lower for the IHT group at 30 days.

CONCLUSION

In our study, IHT due to capacity constraints among critically ill COVID-19 patients was not associated with a higher mortality risk. The suitability for transfer was likely associated with lower mortality, although residual confounding cannot be ruled out. The requirement for invasive ventilation among transferred patients might account for the extended length of ICU stay, rather than the transfer itself. However, the difficulty in studying this issue lies in the fact that while patients are likely exposed to risks during transfer, they are simultaneously the patients stable enough to be transported.

Interhospital transfer among US veterans admitted to community and veterans affairs hospitals for acute myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Veterans Health Administration (VHA) enrollees may use community hospitals for inpatient care and sometimes require transfer to larger community or VHA hospitals. Little is known about interhospital transfer patterns among veterans using community and VHA hospitals or how coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case surges affected transfer.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study among veterans age 65+ admitted to community and VHA hospitals for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or acute ischemic stroke (AIS) during 2018-2021. We examined associations between COVID-19 case density in regional hospital referral networks and the likelihood of transfer.

RESULTS

A total of 8373 (23.6%) veterans with AMI and 4630 (13.1%) with AIS were transferred in the prepandemic period. Transfer was especially common for rural veterans (36% with AMI, 20% with AIS). Most transfers (88%) were between community hospitals and 6% from community to VHA. Among AMI patients, transfer was less likely among patients age >90 (relative to age 65-69), those with non-White race/ethnicity, and females. Transfer was more common among patients initially seen in rural hospitals (AMI, odds ratio [OR] = 2.73, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.90-3.74; AIS, OR = 2.43; 95% CI, 2.24-2.65). During 2020-2021, transfer among AMI patients was less likely during COVID-19 case density surges affecting the admitting hospital's referral network (OR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.96 for highest compared with lowest quartile of COVID-19 cases).

CONCLUSION

Interhospital transfer was common for veterans with AMI and AIS, especially among rural veterans. Few transfers were to VHA hospitals. COVID-19 case surges were associated with decreased transfer for veterans with AMI, potentially limiting access to needed care.

Impact of interhospital transfer status on outcomes of variceal and nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: insights from the National Inpatient Sample analysis, 2017 to 2020

Background

Variceal and nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (VUGIB and NVUGIB, respectively) require prompt intervention. Existing studies offer limited insight into the impact of interhospital transfers on patients with VUGIB and NVUGIB.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study using the US National Inpatient Sample database from 2017 to 2020. The outcomes included in-hospital mortality, incidence of complications, procedural performance, and resource utilization.

Results

A total of 28,275 VUGIB and 781,370 NVUGIB adult patients were included. Transferred VUGIB and NVUGIB patients, when compared to nontransferred ones, demonstrated higher inpatient mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.49 and 1.86, P < 0.05). Patients with VUGIB and NVUGIB had a higher likelihood of acute kidney injury requiring dialysis (AOR 3.79 and 1.76, respectively, P = 0.01), vasopressor requirement (AOR 2.13 and 2.37, respectively, P < 0.01), need for mechanical ventilation (AOR 1.73 and 2.02, respectively, P < 0.01), and intensive care unit admission (AOR 1.76 and 2.01, respectively, P < 0.01). Compared to their nontransferred counterparts, transferred VUGIB patients had a higher rate of undergoing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (AOR 3.26, 95% CI 1.92-5.54, P < 0.01), while transferred NVUGIB patients had a higher rate of interventional radiology-guided embolization (AOR 2.01, 95% CI 1.73-2.34, P < 0.01) and endoscopic hemostasis (AOR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.15, P < 0.01).

Conclusion

Interhospital transfer is associated with worse clinical outcomes and higher resource utilization for VUGIB and NVUGIB patients.

Standardization of a CT Protocol for Imaging Patients with Suspected COVID-19-A RACOON Project

CT protocols that diagnose COVID-19 vary in regard to the associated radiation exposure and the desired image quality (IQ). This study aims to evaluate CT protocols of hospitals participating in the RACOON (Radiological Cooperative Network) project, consolidating CT protocols to provide recommendations and strategies for future pandemics. In this retrospective study, CT acquisitions of COVID-19 patients scanned between March 2020 and October 2020 (RACOON phase 1) were included, and all non-contrast protocols were evaluated. For this purpose, CT protocol parameters, IQ ratings, radiation exposure (CTDIvol), and central patient diameters were sampled. Eventually, the data from 14 sites and 534 CT acquisitions were analyzed. IQ was rated good for 81% of the evaluated examinations. Motion, beam-hardening artefacts, or image noise were reasons for a suboptimal IQ. The tube potential ranged between 80 and 140 kVp, with the majority between 100 and 120 kVp. CTDIvol was 3.7 ± 3.4 mGy. Most healthcare facilities included did not have a specific non-contrast CT protocol. Furthermore, CT protocols for chest imaging varied in their settings and radiation exposure. In future, it will be necessary to make recommendations regarding the required IQ and protocol parameters for the majority of CT scanners to enable comparable IQ as well as radiation exposure for different sites but identical diagnostic questions.