Schroeder, Darrell

Purpose The purpose of the present study was to investigate body mass index, multi-morbidity, and COVID-19 Risk Score as predictors of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Patients Patients from this study are from a well-characterized patient cohort collected at Mayo Clinic between January 1, 2020 and May 23, 2020; with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis defined as a positive result on reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assays from nasopharyngeal swab specimens. Measures Demographic and clinical data were extracted from the electronic medical record. The data included: date of birth, gender, ethnicity, race, marital status, medications (active COVID-19 agents), weight and height (from which the Body Mass Index (BMI) was calculated, history of smoking, and comorbid conditions to calculate the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and the U.S Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) multi-morbidity score. An additional COVID-19 Risk Score was also included. Outcomes included hospital admission, ICU admission, and death. Results Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the impact on mortality or hospital admission. Age, sex, and race (white/Latino, white/non-Latino, other, did not disclose) were adjusted for in the model. Patients with higher COVID-19 Risk Scores had a significantly higher likelihood of being at least admitted to the hospital (HR = 1.80; 95% CI = 1.30, 2.50; P < .001), or experiencing death or inpatient admission (includes ICU admissions) (HR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.42; P = .028). Age was the only statistically significant demographic predictor, but obesity was not a significant predictor of any of the outcomes. Conclusion Age and COVID-19 Risk Scores were significant predictors of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Further work should examine the properties of the COVID-19 Risk Factors Scale.

Objective The purpose of this study was to determine self-reported knowledge, attitudes, prior experience, and perceived needs for the management of overweight and obese patients within a General Internal Medicine Practice. Patients and Methods An emailed cross-sectional survey was sent between June 20, 2019 and September 12, 2019 to 194 healthcare workers (93 primary care providers (PCPs) and 101 nurses) which focused on management of patients with weight issues. Results In total, 80 of the eligible 194 participants completed the survey (nurses = 42, PCPs = 38). Up to 87% were white, 74.7% female (74.7%). Most of the responders were either in the age group of 30’s (30%) or 50’s (30%). Among the responders, 48.8% reported some type of specialty training in weight management since their medical training with lectures being the most common form of training (36%). When asked about their interest in either weight management training or strategies to initiate weight conversations, 79% of the respondents reported an interest in education on weight management or strategies to initiate weight conversations, while 65.8% indicated they would be interested in both topics. Conclusion Our study suggests that healthcare workers have a self-reported need for further training in management of overweight and obese patients, irrespective of previous training in this area.

Background Postoperative falls are preventable complications. The study aims were to describe the rate and circumstances surrounding postoperative falls and explore potential associations with patient and procedural characteristics with emphasis on the use of sedative medications. Methods Medical records of hospitalized patients undergoing non-lower extremity surgery under general anesthesia from January 1, 2010, through April 30, 2018 were reviewed for falls within 72 postoperative hours. Perioperative use of sedatives, sleep aids, gabapentinoids, and opioids were abstracted. Each fall case was matched with two controls on age, sex, and procedure type. Descriptive statistics and multivariable analysis accounting for the matched design were performed. Results There were 343 falls among 200 186 hospitalized surgical patients (incidence of 17.1 [95% CI: 15.4, 19.0] falls per 10 000 procedures) with largest proportion of falls occurring on postoperative day 2 (n = 134, 39.1%). Most falls occurred in the general hospital wards (n = 304, 88.6%) and were unwitnessed (n = 186, 55.9%). The incidence of major injuries was 1.0 (95% CI: .1 – 3.6) per 100 000 procedures. Home use of non-benzodiazepine hypnotics (odds ratio 2.68, 95% CI: 1.47, 4.88, P=.001) and blood transfusions were associated with increased fall risk. Hospital stay was longer in patients who fall (7 [4, 15] vs. 5 [3, 9] days, P < .001). Conclusions The rate of postoperative falls in our institution was low and frequently unwitnessed. The use of non-benzodiazepine hypnotics is a modifiable risk factor associated with postoperative falls. Serious complications after falls were rare.

Objective To describe the process and outcome of creating a patient cohort in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in order to better understand the process of and predict the outcomes of COVID-19. Patients and Methods A total of 1169 adults aged 18 years of age or older who tested positive in Mayo Clinic Rochester or the Mayo Clinic Midwest Health System between January 1 and May 23 of 2020. Results Patients were on average 43.9 years of age and 50.7% were female. Most patients were white (69.0%), and Blacks (23.4%) and Asians (5.8%) were also represented in larger numbers. Hispanics represented 16.3% of the sample. Just under half of patients were married (48.4%). Common comorbid conditions included: cardiovascular diseases (25.1%), dyslipidemia (16.0%), diabetes mellitus (11.2%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (6.6%), asthma (7.5%), and cancer (5.1%). All other comorbid conditions were less the 5% in prevalence. Data on 3 comorbidity indices are also available including the: DHHS multi-morbidity score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Mayo Clinic COVID-19 Risk Factor Score. Conclusion In addition to managing the ever raging pandemic and growing death rates, it is equally important that we develop adequate resources for the investigation and understanding of COVID-19-related predictors and outcomes.

Objective To estimate the health care workers (HCWs) self-reported stress, resilience, and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to determine inter-professional differences. Participants and Methods An email survey was sent to 474 HCW at a Midwestern HealthCare facility between April 9, 2020 and April 30, 2020. A total of 311 (65.6%) responses were received by May 31, 2020. The survey utilized 3 validated instruments: Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), Brief Resilience Coping Scale (BRCS). Results Of the 311 responses, 302 were evaluated: 97 from nonmedical staff with patient contact (NMPC); 86 from nonmedical staff with no patient contact (NMNPC); 62 from medical doctors (MD), physician assistants (PA) and nurse practitioners (NP); and 57 from nurses. Significant differences were noted across job categories for stress and resilience, with nurses reporting highest PSS scores (effect estimates: −2.72, P = .009 for NMNPC; −2.50, P = .015 for NMPC; −3.21, P = .006 for MD/NP/PA respectively), and MD/NP/PA group with highest BRS scores: nurses (−0.31, P = .02); NMPC (−0.3333, P = .01); and NMNPC (−0.2828, P = .02). Younger personnel had higher stress (−1.59 per decade of age, P < .01) and more resilience (0.11 per decade of age, P = .002). Conclusion These self-reported data indicate that MD/NP/PA had the highest resilience scores and the nurses had highest stress levels. Efforts are warranted to include all HCWs in systematic stress mitigating interventions with particular attention to understand specific factors contributing to stress for the nursing team.

Abstract Background Hospitalization can impair physical and functional status of older adults, but it is unclear whether these deficits are transient or chronic. This study determined the association between hospitalization of older adults and changes in long-term longitudinal trajectories of 2 measures of physical and functional status: gait speed (GS) and instrumental activities of daily living measured with Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ). Method Linear mixed-effects models assessed the association between hospitalization (nonelective vs elective, and surgical vs medical) and outcomes of GS and FAQ score in participants (older than 60 years) enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging who had longitudinal assessments. Results Of 4902 participants, 1879 had ≥1 hospital admission. Median GS at enrollment was 1.1 m/s. The slope of the annual decline in GS before hospitalization was −0.015 m/s. The parameter estimate (95% CI) for additional annual change in GS trajectory after hospitalization was −0.009 (−0.011 to −0.006) m/s, p &lt; .001. The accelerated GS decline was greater for medical versus surgical hospitalizations (−0.010 vs −0.003 m/s, p = .005), and nonelective versus elective hospitalizations (−0.011 vs −0.006 m/s, p = .067). The odds of a worsening FAQ score increased on average by 4% per year. Following hospitalization, odds of FAQ score worsening further increased (multiplicative annual increase in odds ratio per year [95% CI] following hospitalization was 1.05 [1.03, 1.07], p &lt; .001). Conclusions Hospitalization of older adults is associated with accelerated long-term decline in GS and functional limitations, especially after nonelective admissions and those for medical indications. However, for most well-functioning participants, these changes have little clinical significance.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective and prospective studies 2 decades ago from the authors’ institution reported the incidence of perioperative ulnar neuropathy persisting for at least several months in a noncardiac adult surgical population to be between 30 and 40 per 100,000 cases. The aim of this project was to assess the incidence and explore risk factors for perioperative ulnar neuropathy in a recent cohort of patients from the same institution using a similar definition for ulnar neuropathy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective incidence and case-control study of all adults (≥18 years) undergoing noncardiac procedures with anesthesia services between 2011 and 2015. Each incident case of persistent ulnar neuropathy within 6 months of surgery was matched by age, sex, procedure date, and procedure type to 5 surgical patient controls. For the case-control study, separate conditional logistic regression analyses were performed to assess specific risk factors including the patient’s body position and arm position, as well as body mass index (BMI), surgical duration, and selected patient comorbidities. RESULTS: Persistent ulnar neuropathy of at least 2 months duration was found in 22 of 324,124 anesthetics for patients who underwent these procedures during the study period for an incidence rate of 6.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3-10.3) per 100,000 anesthetics. The incidence of ulnar neuropathy was higher in men compared to women (10.7 vs 3.0 per 100,000; P = .016). From the matched case-control study, the odds of ulnar neuropathy increased with higher BMI (odds ratio [OR] = 1.67 [1.16-2.42] per 5 kg/m 2 increase in BMI; P = .006), history of cancer (OR = 6.46 [1.64-25.49]; P = .008), longer procedures (OR = 1.53 [1.18-1.99] per hour; P = .001), and when 1 or both arms were tucked during surgery (OR = 6.16 [1.85-20.59]; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of persistent perioperative ulnar neuropathy observed in this study was lower than the incidence reported 2 decades ago from the same institution and using a similar definition for ulnar neuropathy. Several of the previously reported risk factors continue to be associated with the development of persistent perioperative ulnar neuropathy, providing ongoing targets for practice changes that might further decrease the incidence of this problem.

Introduction Spinal cord stimulation is frequently used for the treatment of intractable chronic pain conditions. Trialing of the spinal cord stimulator device is recommended to assess the patient’s response to neurostimulation before permanent implantation. The trial response is often assessed by Numeric Rating Scale changes and patient-reported percentage pain improvement. Using number rating scale changes between prespinal and postspinal cord stimulation trial, a calculated percentage pain improvement can be obtained. The aim of this study was to assess the difference between calculated and patient-reported percentage improvement in pain scale during spinal cord stimulation trials. Methods This study was a retrospective single center review of all spinal cord stimulation trials from January 1 2017 to July 1 2019. A total of 174 patients were included. The paired t-test was used to compare numeric pain scores obtained prestimulation versus poststimulation. The mean difference between methods (patient-reported minus calculated) was compared with zero using the 1-sample t-test. Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient was computed with a 95% CI, calculated using Fisher z-transformation; and a bootstrapping approach was used to compare the concordance correlation coefficient between groups. In all cases, two-tailed tests were used with p<0.05 considered statistically significant. Results Based on prestimulation and poststimulation numeric rating scale scores, the mean±SD calculated percentage improvement in pain scale was 54±28. The mean±SD patient-reported percentage improvement in pain scale was 59±25. The overall 95% limits of agreement for the two methods are −30% to +41%. The overall concordance correlation coefficient was 0.76 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.81). Conclusion Although the two methods are highly correlated, there is substantial lack of agreement between patient-reported and calculated percentage improvement in pain scale, suggesting that these measures should not be used interchangeably for spinal cord stimulator trial outcome assessment. This emphasizes the need for improved metrics to better measure patient response to neuromodulation therapies. Additionally, patient-reported percentage improvement in pain was found to be higher than calculated percentage improvement in pain, potentially highlighting the multidimensional experience of pain and the unpredictability of solely using Numeric Rating Scale scores to assess patient outcomes.

AbstractBackgroundThe potential adverse effects of exposures to general anesthesia on the developing human brain remain controversial. It has been hypothesized that hypotension accompanying anesthesia could be contributory. We hypothesized that among children exposed to multiple anesthetics prior to age 3, children developing adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes would be more likely to have intraoperative hypotension.MethodsTwo previously published study cohorts were utilized for analysis: the retrospective and prospective Mayo Anesthesia Safety in Kids cohorts. The two lowest consecutive systolic blood pressure measurements were abstracted and standardized by calculating a z‐score for noninvasive blood pressure reference ranges for children. The lowest systolic blood pressure z‐score (continuous variable) and intraoperative hypotension (lowest systolic blood pressure z‐score <−1.0) were used to assess the association of intraoperative hypotension with the incidence of learning disabilities or attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder(retrospective cohort) and factor scores/cluster membership (prospective cohort).ResultsOne hunderd and sixteen and 206 children with multiple exposures to general anesthesia were analyzed in the retrospective and prospective cohorts with mean lowest systolic blood pressure z‐scores −0.26 (SD 1.02) and −0.62 (SD 1.10), respectively. There was no overall association of the lowest z‐score or hypotension with learning disabilities or attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the retrospective cohort. In the prospective cohort, there was no overall association of the lowest systolic blood pressure or hypotension with factor scores or cluster membership.ConclusionsWe did not find evidence to support the hypothesis that, among children exposed to multiple anesthetics prior to age 3, children developing adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes would be more likely to have intraoperative hypotension compared with those who did not.

Background Postoperative in-hospital pneumonia is a serious complication. This study aims to investigate the association between 3 preoperative stratification tools (American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status [ASA-PS] score, Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI], and Rockwood Frailty Deficit Index [FI]) and risk for postoperative pneumonia. Methods We identified adult patients who developed postoperative pneumonia following noncardiothoracic surgery under general anesthesia, between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2017. Patients with postoperative pneumonia were 1:1 matched to control subjects based on age, sex, and the exact type of operations. Medical records were reviewed to identify variables that may be associated with risk for developing postoperative pneumonia. Analyses adjusted for clinical characteristics were performed using the conditional logistic regression, taking into account 1:1 matched set case-control study design. Results We identified 211 cases of postoperative pneumonia, and all 3 tested stratification tools were associated with increased risk: ASA-PS (after all adjustments of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) III, odds ratio 4.17 [95% confidence interval 1.74-10.01]; ASA > III 24.03 [6.54-88.32]), CCI (CCI values > 3, 1.29 [1.02-1.63] per unit CCI score), and frail FI score 3.25 (1.45-7.27). Because of incomplete intake documentation, the FI could not be calculated in 57 (13.5%) patients, but these “unknown frailty” patients were also at increased risk for postoperative pneumonia, 3.15 (1.29-7.72). Discussion Three commonly used stratification indices (ASA-PS score, CCI, and FI) were associated with increased risk for postoperative pneumonia. Patients unable to complete intake form to calculate the FI were also at increased risk.