Citations

AbstractBackgroundAccurate automated wide QRS complex tachycardia (WCT) differentiation into ventricular tachycardia (VT) and supraventricular wide complex tachycardia (SWCT) can be accomplished using calculations derived from computerized electrocardiogram (ECG) data of paired WCT and baseline ECGs.ObjectiveDevelop and trial novel WCT differentiation approaches for patients with and without a corresponding baseline ECG.MethodsWe developed and trialed WCT differentiation models comprised of novel and previously described parameters derived from WCT and baseline ECG data. In Part 1, a derivation cohort was used to evaluate five different classification models: logistic regression (LR), artificial neural network (ANN), Random Forests [RF], support vector machine (SVM), and ensemble learning (EL). In Part 2, a separate validation cohort was used to prospectively evaluate the performance of two LR models using parameters generated from the WCT ECG alone (Solo Model) and paired WCT and baseline ECGs (Paired Model).ResultsOf the 421 patients of the derivation cohort (Part 1), a favorable area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) by all modeling subtypes: LR (0.96), ANN (0.96), RF (0.96), SVM (0.96), and EL (0.97). Of the 235 patients of the validation cohort (Part 2), the Solo Model and Paired Model achieved a favorable AUC for 103 patients with (Solo Model 0.87; Paired Model 0.95) and 132 patients without (Solo Model 0.84; Paired Model 0.95) a corroborating electrophysiology procedure or intracardiac device recording.ConclusionAccurate WCT differentiation may be accomplished using computerized data of (i) the WCT ECG alone and (ii) paired WCT and baseline ECGs.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

Delirium is known to be underdiagnosed and underdocumented. Delirium detection in retrospective studies occurs mostly by clinician diagnosis or nursing documentation. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of natural language processing-confusion assessment method (NLP-CAM) algorithm when compared to conventional modalities of delirium detection. A multicenter retrospective study analyzed 4351 COVID-19 hospitalized patient records to identify delirium occurrence utilizing three different delirium detection modalities namely clinician diagnosis, nursing documentation, and the NLP-CAM algorithm. Delirium detection by any of the 3 methods is considered positive for delirium occurrence as a comparison. NLP-CAM captured 80% of overall delirium, followed by clinician diagnosis at 55%, and nursing flowsheet documentation at 43%. Increase in age, Charlson comorbidity score, and length of hospitalization had increased delirium detection odds regardless of the detection method. Artificial intelligence-based NLP-CAM algorithm, compared to conventional methods, improved delirium detection from electronic health records and holds promise in delirium diagnostics.

ImportanceThere is limited evidence for therapeutic options for pediatric COVID-19 outside of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).ObjectiveTo determine whether the use of steroids within 2 days of admission for non–MIS-C COVID-19 in children is associated with hospital length of stay (LOS). The secondary objective was to determine their association with intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, inflammation, and fever defervescence.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study analyzed data retrospectively for children (<18 years) who required hospitalization for non–MIS-C COVID-19. Data from March 2020 through September 2021 were provided by 58 hospitals in 7 countries who participate in the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS) COVID-19 registry.ExposureAdministration of steroids within 2 days of admission.Main Outcomes and MeasuresLength of stay in the hospital and ICU. Adjustment for confounders was done by mixed linear regression and propensity score matching.ResultsA total of 1163 patients met inclusion criteria and had a median (IQR) age of 7 years (0.9-14.3). Almost half of all patients (601/1163, 51.7%) were male, 33.8% (392/1163) were non-Hispanic White, and 27.9% (324/1163) were Hispanic. Of the study population, 184 patients (15.8%) received steroids within 2 days of admission, and 979 (84.2%) did not receive steroids within the first 2 days. Among 1163 patients, 658 (56.5%) required respiratory support during hospitalization. Overall, patients in the steroids group were older and had greater severity of illness, and a larger proportion required respiratory and vasoactive support. On multivariable linear regression, after controlling for treatment with remdesivir within 2 days, country, race and ethnicity, obesity and comorbidity, number of abnormal inflammatory mediators, age, bacterial or viral coinfection, and disease severity according to ICU admission within first 2 days or World Health Organization ordinal scale of 4 or higher on admission, with a random intercept for the site, early steroid treatment was not significantly associated with hospital LOS (exponentiated coefficient, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.81-1.09; P = .42). Separate analyses for patients with an LOS of 2 days or longer (n = 729), those receiving respiratory support at admission (n = 286), and propensity score–matched patients also showed no significant association between steroids and LOS. Early steroid treatment was not associated with ICU LOS, fever defervescence by day 3, or normalization of inflammatory mediators.Conclusions and RelevanceSteroid treatment within 2 days of hospital admission in a heterogeneous cohort of pediatric patients hospitalized for COVID-19 without MIS-C did not have a statistically significant association with hospital LOS.

PURPOSE: Financial hardship (FH) in cancer care is a growing challenge for patients, their caregivers, and health care providers with impact on morbidity and mortality. In this study, we report on a standardized approach to describe the prevalence and predictors for FH as part of routine clinical workflow. We also report on the association of FH with survival in our cancer patient population. METHODS: This study includes patients who completed a FH screen at least once between 2018 and 2020. Demographics, disease state, and mortality data were extracted from the medical records. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine association of sociodemographic and disease variables with FH. By using propensity score weighting to account for differences in demographic and clinical factors between patients with and without FH, we then fit Cox proportional hazards models to examine the relationship between FH and survival. RESULTS: The study cohort included 31,154 patients. FH was reported by 14% (n = 4,250) of the patients. A significantly higher likelihood of having FH ( P < .001 for all) was reported by racial/ethnic minority patients; those who were unemployed/disabled, single, or divorced; patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods; and those who were self-pay or had government insurance. Older age, being retired, and living farther from the cancer center were associated with significantly less likelihood of endorsing FH. Patients who endorsed FH had a lower survival (hazard ratio for mortality 1.46). CONCLUSION: Our study identified key groups more likely to report FH in a relatively affluent population at a large cancer center and showed an adverse association between FH and survival. Further research is needed to develop clinical care pathways for patients at high risk for worse financial and clinical outcomes.

Abstract BACKGROUND Uncertainty remains over the relationship between blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV), measured in hospital settings, and clinical outcomes following acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We examined the association between within-person systolic blood pressure (SBP) variability (SBPV) during hospitalization and readmission-free survival, all-cause readmission, or all-cause mortality 1 year after AIS. METHODS In a cohort of 862 consecutive patients (age [mean ± SD] 75 ± 15 years, 55% women) with AIS (2005–2018, follow-up through 2019), we measured SBPV as quartiles of standard deviations (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV) from a median of 16 SBP readings obtained throughout hospitalization. RESULTS In the cumulative cohort, the measured SD and CV of SBP in mmHg were 16 ± 6 and 10 ± 5, respectively. The hazard ratios (HR) for readmission-free survival between the highest vs. lowest quartiles were 1.44 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04–1.81) for SD and 1.29 (95% CI 0.94–1.78) for CV after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities. Similarly, incident readmission or mortality remained consistent between the highest vs. lowest quartiles of SD and CV (readmission: HR 1.29 [95% CI 0.90–1.78] for SD, HR 1.29 [95% CI 0.94–1.78] for CV; mortality: HR 1.15 [95% CI 0.71–1.87] for SD, HR 0.86 [95% CI 0.55–1.36] for CV). CONCULSIONS In patients with first AIS, SBPV measured as quartiles of SD or CV based on multiple readings throughout hospitalization has no independent prognostic implications for the readmission-free survival, readmission, or mortality. This underscores the importance of overall patient care rather than a specific focus on BP parameters during hospitalization for AIS.