Schroeder, Darrell

Objective: To evaluate the performance of an Electronic Health Record (EHR) integrated risk score for COVID-19 positive outpatients to predict 30-day risk of hospitalization. Patients and Methods: A retrospective observational study of 67 470 patients with COVID-19 confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test between March 12, 2020 and February 8, 2021. Risk scores were calculated based on data in the chart at the time of the incident infection. Results: The Mayo Clinic COVID-19 risk score consisted of 13 components included age, sex, chronic lung disease, congenital heart disease, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, end stage liver disease, end stage renal disease, hypertension, immune compromised, nursing home resident, and pregnant. Univariate analysis showed all components, except pregnancy, have significant ( P < .001) association with admission. The Mayo Clinic COVID-19 risk score showed a Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under Curve (AUC) of 0.837 for the prediction of admission for this large cohort of COVID-19 positive patients. Conclusion: The Mayo Clinic COVID-19 risk score is a simple score that is easily integrated into the EHR with excellent predictive performance for severe COVID-19. It can be leveraged to stratify risk for severe COVID-19 at initial contact, when considering therapeutics or in the allocation of vaccine supply.

Objectives: The purpose of the present study was to assess and describe the severity of symptoms reported by Covid-19 positive patients who vaped (smoked e-cigarettes) when compared to those who did not vape or smoke at the time of the diagnosis of Covid-19. Methods: Patients from this study are from a well-characterized patient cohort collected at Mayo Clinic between March 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021; with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis defined as a positive result on reverse-transcriptase–polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assays from nasopharyngeal swab specimens. Among the 1734 eligible patients, 289 patients reported current vaping. The cohort of vapers (N = 289) was age and gender matched to 1445 covid-19 positive patients who did not vape. The data analyzed included: date of birth, gender, ethnicity, race, marital status, as well as lifestyle history such as vaping and smoking and reported covid-19 symptoms experienced. Results: A logistic regression analysis was performed separately for each symptom using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust variance estimates in order to account for the 1:5 age, sex, and race matched set study design. Patients who vaped and developed Covid-19 infection were more likely to have chest pain or tightness (16% vs 10%, vapers vs non vapers, P = .005), chills (25% vs 19%, vapers vs non vapers, P = .0016), myalgia (39% vs 32%, vapers vs non vapers, P = .004), headaches (49% vs 41% vapers vs non vapers, P = .026), anosmia/dysgeusia (37% vs 30%, vapers vs non vapers, P = .009), nausea/vomiting/abdominal pain (16% vs 10%, vapers vs non vapers, P = .003), diarrhea (16% vs 10%, vapers vs non vapers, P = .004), and non-severe light-headedness (16% vs 9%, vapers vs non vapers, P < .001). Conclusion: Vapers experience higher frequency of covid-19 related symptoms when compared with age and gender matched non-vapers. Further work should examine the impact vaping has on post-covid symptom experience.

Background Non-depolarizing neuromuscular blockade can be reversed with neostigmine/glycopyrrolate or sugammadex. We test the hypothesis that sugammadex is associated with earlier postoperative recovery of bowel function (first bowel movement, BM). Methods In adult patients undergoing craniotomy from 2016 to 2019, we identified time of first postoperative BM after receiving neostigmine/glycopyrrolate or sugammadex to reverse neuromuscular blockade. Logistic and proportional hazard regression, with and without inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), were used to assess whether sugammadex is associated with earlier recovery of bowel function. Results Seven hundred and thirty-one patients underwent craniotomy, 323 (44.2%) received neostigmine/glycopyrrolate, and 408 (55.8%) sugammadex. From logistic regression analysis, the proportion of patients having a BM within the first 24 and 48 hours was higher in sugammadex group (unadjusted OR [95% CI]) 1.79 [1.16 to 2.77] P = .009; and 1.45 [1.08 to 1.94] P = .014; IPTW adjusted OR [95% CI]) 1.58 [.95, 2.61] P = .078; and 1.38 [.95 to 2.02] P = .095 for 24 and 48 h, respectively). From proportional hazards regression, sugammadex was associated with improved bowel function recovery (unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) [95% CI] 1.35 [1.08, 1.68], P = .008; IPTW adjusted HR 1.29 [.97 to 1.71], P = .076). Conclusion Patients undergoing craniotomy who had neuromuscular blockade reversed with sugammadex may have earlier recovered bowel function compared to patients reversed with neostigmine/glycopyrrolate.

Objective: The purpose of this report is to describe the elements of a Covid-19 Care Clinic (CCC), patient demographics, and outcomes. Methods: Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes. This report is based on 4934 unique patients seen in the CCC who provided research authorization within a 10-month period of time (April 1, 2020-January 31, 2021). The CCC infection control processes consisted of a rooming process that mitigated SARS-COV-2 transmission, preparing examination rooms, using PPE by staff, in room lab drawing, and escorting services to minimize the time in clinic. Results: Of the 4934 unique patients seen (age range newborn-102 years), 76.8% were tested for COVID-19. Of those tested, 11.8% were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Ninety-two percent of the patients with the reason for the visit documented had COVID-19 type symptoms. Cough, shortness of breath, and chest pain were the most common presenting symptom in those with COVID-19. At the time of the visit in the CCC, 5.8% of the patients were actively contagious. Thirty days after being seen in the CCC, 9.1% of the patients were seen in the emergency department (ED) and 0.2% died. During the 10-month period there were no known occupationally related COVID-19 infections. Conclusion: The COVID-19 Care Clinic provided face-to-face access for all ages with COVID-19 type symptoms. A minority of patients had COVID-19 who were seen in the clinic. The clinic provided an additional venue of care outside of the ED. The infectious control measures employed were highly effective in protecting the staff. Lessons learned allow for decentralization of COVID-19 symptom care to the primary care practices employing the infection control measures.

Abstract Background We describe the clinical course of medical and surgical patients who received naloxone on general hospital wards for suspected opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD). Methods From May 2018 through October 2020, patients who received naloxone on hospital wards were identified and their records reviewed for incidence and clinical course. Results There were 86,030 medical and 106,807 surgical admissions. Naloxone was administered to 99 (incidence 11.5 [95% confidence interval 9.4–14.0] per 10,000 admissions) medical and 63 (5.9 [95% confidence interval 4.5–7.5]) surgical patients (P &lt; 0.001). Median oral morphine equivalents administered within 24 hours before naloxone were 32 [15, 64] and 60 [32, 88] mg for medical and surgical patients, respectively (P = 0.002). The rapid response team was activated in 69 (69.7%) vs 42 (66.7%) and critical care transfers in 51 (51.5%) vs 30 (47.6%) medical and surgical patients respectively. The number of in-hospital deaths was 21 (21.2%) vs two (3.2%) and the number of discharges to hospice 12 (12.1%) vs one (1.6%) for medical and surgical patients, respectively (P = 0.001). Naloxone did not reverse OIRD in 38 (23%) patients, and these patients had more transfers to the intensive care unit and a higher 30-day mortality rate. Conclusion Medical inpatients are more likely to suffer OIRD than are surgical inpatients despite lower opioid doses. Definitive OIRD was confirmed in 77% of patients because of immediate naloxone response, whereas 23% of patients did not respond, and this subset was more likely to need a higher level of care and had a higher 30-day mortality rate. Careful monitoring of mental and respiratory variables is necessary when opiates are used in hospital.

AbstractObjectiveObesity is stigmatized and people with obesity report experiencing stigmatizing situations when seeking health care. The implications of these experiences are not well understood. This study tests an indirect effects model of negative care experiences as an intermediate variable between obesity and care avoidance/utilization and switching primary care doctors.MethodsA survey was completed by 2380 primary care patients in the Learning Health Systems Network (LHSNet) Clinical Data Research Network with a BMI >25 kg/m2. Measures included scales assessing stigmatizing situations, perceived patient‐centered communication, perceived respect, having delayed needed care, and having looked for a new primary doctor in the past 12 months. Sequential and serial indirect effects of care experiences and respect in the association between BMI and care utilization outcomes was modeled.ResultsThe hypothesized model was supported by findings. The associations between BMI and delaying needed care (OR = 1.06, p < 0.001) and attempting to switch primary doctors (OR = 1.02, p = 0.04) was mediated by both stigmatizing situations experienced in a health care context and lower patient‐centered communication. Lower perceived respect mediated the association between care experiences and utilization outcomes.ConclusionsPeople with higher BMIs may avoid care or switch doctors as a result of stigmatizing experiences and poor communication with doctors. These outcomes may contribute to morbidity in people with obesity if they delay or avoid care for health concerns when symptoms first present.

Abstract Introduction Mindfulness is a promising intervention for female sexual dysfunction (FSD); however, of the mindfulness interventions studied, few treat the woman and her partner. Aim We developed a brief online mindfulness, resilience, and psychoeducation intervention, Stress Management and Resiliency Training for Sexuality (Sex SMART), for women with sexual health concerns and their partners. Methods Women with female sexual interest/arousal disorder and their partners were recruited between February 24, 2015, and October 6, 2016, and randomized to treatment or control groups (received educational pamphlets). The treatment intervention comprised of an online SMART and sexual health psychoeducation module. Main Outcome Measures The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised (FSDS-R), Sexual Desire Inventory-2 (SDI-2), Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), and other subjective measures were used to assess sexual function and sexual distress at baseline and 12 weeks. Results The study included 60 women and their partners (30 couples in each group). In both groups, sexual function by total FSFI scores and sexual distress scores significantly improved at 12 weeks compared with baseline, with no significant between-group differences (FSFI effect estimate for Sex SMART vs control = +1.4 (90% CI [–0.6 to +3.4]; P=.13). Both participants and partners randomized to the intervention reported significantly improved attitude and feelings, comfort as a sexual person, and subjective sexual functioning at 12 weeks. The findings provide preliminary evidence for efficacy of an online intervention for couples with sexual health problems. Conclusions A brief online mindfulness, resilience, and psychoeducation–based intervention showed no significant improvement in many outcomes (FSFI, FSDS-R, SDI-2, RDAS) of sexual health versus controls. Although this is the first online randomized controlled trial to evaluate a mindfulness-based therapy intervention, it was limited by its lack of population diversity and high attrition rate. Significant improvements in subjective sexual health and partner sexual function by the International Index of Erectile Function were reported only in the intervention group.

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS) have been utilized for over 3 decades for management of chronic pain and spasticity. Patients with IDDS may present for surgical procedures unrelated to the IDDS device, although data are limited regarding perioperative outcomes. METHODS: This is a historical matched cohort study conducted between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2016 of patients with an opioid-based IDDS versus matched control patients undergoing surgery excluding interventional pain procedures. Patients in the IDDS group were matched with up to 2 patients without an IDDS. Multivariable regression analyses were utilized to assess differences in the primary outcome of cumulative perioperative opioid consumption (ie, intraoperative and postanesthesia care unit [PACU] opioid consumption), and opioid consumption during the first 24 and 72 postoperative hours. Postoperative clinical outcomes were also assessed including escalating oxygen requirements, naloxone administration, pain-sedation mismatch, and perioperative pain service consultation. RESULTS: A total of 321 surgeries were included, 112 with IDDS and 209 controls, with median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 57 (49–64) years. Compared to matched controls, patients with an IDDS had greater perioperative opioid consumption (median [IQR] oral morphine milligram equivalents [OME] of 110 [60–163] vs 93 [IQR, 53–142]; adjusted multiplicative increase 1.28 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.03–1.59]; P = .026). IDDS patients also had greater opioid consumption in the first 24 and 72 postoperative hours (multiplicative increases of 2.23 [95% CI, 1.36–3.63], P = .001, and 2.46 [95% CI, 1.41–4.32], P = .002, respectively). There were no significant differences in postoperative oxygen requirements, naloxone administration, or pain-sedation mismatch. Inpatient pain medicine consultation was more frequent in IDDS patients compared to controls (51.8% vs 6.2%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with opioid-based IDDS received more perioperative opioids and were more likely to receive postoperative pain service consultation compared to matched controls. There were no significant differences in clinical safety outcomes, suggesting tolerance for higher opioid doses. Further research is warranted to optimize perioperative outcomes in those with IDDS.

This analysis tested the hypothesis that current e-cigarette use was associated with an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients seeking medical care. E-cigarette and conventional cigarette use were ascertained using a novel electronic health record tool, and COVID-19 diagnosis was ascertained by a validated institutional registry. Logistic regression models were fit to assess whether current e-cigarette use was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis. A total of 69,264 patients who were over the age of 12 years, smoked cigarettes or vaped, and were sought medical care at Mayo Clinic between September 15, 2019 and November 30, 2020 were included. The average age was 51.5 years, 62.1% were females and 86.3% were white; 11.1% were currently smoking cigarettes or using e-cigarettes and 5.1% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Patients who used only e-cigarettes were not more likely to have a COVID-19 diagnosis (OR 0.93 [0.69-1.25], P = .628), whereas those who used only cigarettes had a decreased risk (OR 0.43 [0.35-0.53], P < .001). The OR for dual users fell between these 2 values (OR 0.67 [0.49-0.92], P = .013). Although e-cigarettes have the well-documented potential for harm, they do not appear to increase susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection. This result suggests the hypothesis that any beneficial effects of conventional cigarette smoking on susceptibility are not mediated by nicotine.

Background: Nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockade is reversed with neostigmine/glycopyrrolate or sugammadex. Anticholinergic glycopyrrolate decreases bladder detrusor muscle contractility, potentially leading to postoperative urinary retention (POUR). POUR commonly complicates inguinal herniorrhaphy. In this study we assess association between reversal technique and POUR. Methods: Records of adult patients undergoing unilateral inguinal herniorrhaphy with neuromuscular blockade from January 2013 to September 2020 were reviewed for POUR (unplanned postoperative insertion of urinary catheter). A propensity-adjusted analysis was performed to assess POUR in neostigmine/glycopyrrolate versus sugammadex using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust for potential confounding. Results: We identified 181 patients who underwent herniorrhaphy with amnio-steroidal neuromuscular blockers, 75 (41.4%) who received sugammadex and 106 (58.6%) neostigmine/glycopyrrolate. Compared with sugammadex, neostigmine/glycopyrrolate group had longer surgical course [unweighted standardized difference (USTD)=0.38, P=0.004], received more intraoperative opioids (USTD=0.704, P<0.001), more often performed via laparoscopic approach (USTD=0.407, P=0.012), and less often with periprocedural urinary catheter insertion (USTD=0.452, P=0.003). POUR was observed in 2 (3%) of patients in the sugammadex group, and 16 (15%) in neostigmine/glycopyrrolate [unadjusted odds ratio (OR)=0.15; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-0.69; P=0.015, and IPTW OR=0.13; 95% CI: 0.03-0.64; P=0.012]. Results remained similar with further analysis adjusted for opioid administration in the postanesthesia care unit (adjusted IPTW OR=0.18; 95% CI: 0.04-0.88; P=0.034). Of the POUR patients, 9 required unplanned overnight admission and 4 emergency room visit. Conclusion: These results suggest that neuromuscular blockade reversal with sugammadex is associated with lower rates of POUR following unilateral inguinal herniorrhaphy. Our results need to be reconfirmed in a randomized prospective study.