Search

Background A recent randomized trial, the MICHELLE trial, demonstrated improved posthospital outcomes with a 35‐day course of prophylactic rivaroxaban for patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 at high risk of venous thromboembolism. We explored how often these findings may apply to an unselected clinical population of patients hospitalized with COVID‐19. Methods and Results Using a 35‐hospital retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized between March 7, 2020, and January 23, 2021, with COVID‐19 (MI‐COVID19 database), we quantified the percentage of hospitalized patients with COVID‐19 who would be eligible for rivaroxaban at discharge per MICHELLE trial criteria and report clinical event rates. The main clinical outcome was derived from the MICHELLE trial and included a composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolus‐related death, nonhemorrhagic stroke, and cardiovascular death at 35 days. Multiple sensitivity analyses tested different eligibility and exclusion criteria definitions to determine the effect on eligibility for postdischarge anticoagulation prophylaxis. Of 2016 patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 who survived to discharge and did not have another indication for anticoagulation, 25.9% (n=523) would be eligible for postdischarge thromboprophylaxis per the MICHELLE trial criteria (range, 2.9%–39.4% on sensitivity analysis). Of the 416 who had discharge anticoagulant data collected, only 13.2% (55/416) were actually prescribed a new anticoagulant at discharge. Of patients eligible for rivaroxaban per the MICHELLE trial, the composite clinical outcome occurred in 1.2% (6/519); similar outcome rates were 5.7% and 0.63% in the MICHELLE trial's control (no anticoagulation) and intervention (rivaroxaban) groups, respectively. Symptomatic venous thromboembolism events and all‐cause mortality were 6.2% (32/519) and 5.66% in the MI‐COVID19 and MICHELLE trial control cohorts, respectively. Conclusions Across 35 hospitals in Michigan, ≈1 in 4 patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 would qualify for posthospital thromboprophylaxis. With only 13% of patients actually receiving postdischarge prophylaxis, there is a potential opportunity for improvement in care.

Over 40% of patients with cirrhosis will develop hepatic encephalopathy (HE). HE is associated with decreased survival, falls, motor vehicle accidents, and frequent hospitalization. Accordingly, we aimed to develop a tool to risk-stratify patients for HE development. We studied a population-based cohort of all patients with cirrhosis without baseline HE (N=1,979) from the Veterans Administration from Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio (1/1/2005-12/31/10) using demographic, clinical, laboratory, and pharmacy data. The primary outcome was the development of HE. Risk-scores were constructed with both baseline and longitudinal data (annually updated parameters) and validated using bootstrapping. The cohort had mean age of 58.0±8.3 years, 36% had hepatitis C, 17% had ascites. Opiates, benzodiazepines, statins, and nonselective beta-blockers were taken at baseline by 24%, 13%, 17%, and 12%. Overall, 863(43.7%) developed HE within 5 years. In multivariable models, risk factors (HR, 95%CI) for HE included higher bilirubin (1.07, 1.05-1.09) and nonselective beta-blocker use (1.34, 1.09-1.64), while higher albumin (0.54, 0.48-0.59) and statin use (0.80, 0.65-0.98) were protective. Other clinical factors, including opiate and benzodiazepine use were not predictive. The AUROC for HE using the 4 significant variables in baseline and longitudinal models were 0.68 (0.66-0.70) and 0.73 (0.71-0.75), respectively. Model effects were validated and converted into a risk score. A score ≤0 in our longitudinal model assigns a 6% 1-year probability of HE while a score >20 assigns a 38% 1-year risk. Conclusion: Patients with cirrhosis can be stratified by a simple risk-score for HE that accounts for changing clinical data. Our data also highlight a role for statins in reducing cirrhosis complications including HE. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Although the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium assessment, and Early exercise/mobility (ABCDE) bundle may be effective, individual components of ABCDE may not be implemented as intended. We examined the use of daily interruption of sedation (DIS) and early mobility, looking for an association between these bundle elements. Despite the growing use of DIS and early mobility, the two do not seem to be adopted together, with serious implications for the effectiveness of the ABCDE bundle.

The use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has increased substantially within hospitals during the past several years. Yet, the prevalence and practices of designated nurse PICC teams (i.e., specially trained nurses who are responsible for PICC insertions at a hospital) are unknown. We, therefore, identified the prevalence of and factors associated with having a designated nurse PICC team among U.S. acute care hospitals.We conducted a survey of infection preventionists at a random sample of U.S. hospitals in May 2013, which asked about personnel who insert PICCs and the use of practices to prevent device-associated infections, including central line-associated bloodstream infection. We compared practice use between hospitals that have a designated nurse PICC team versus those that do not.Survey response rate was 70% (403/575). According to the respondents, nurse PICC teams inserted PICCs in more than 60% of U.S. hospitals in 2013. Moreover, certain practices to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infection, including maximum sterile barrier precautions (93% versus 88%, P = 0.06), chlorhexidine gluconate for insertion site antisepsis (96% versus 87%, P = .003) and facility-wide insertion checklists (95% versus 87%, P = 0.02) were regularly used by a higher percentage of hospitals with nurse PICC teams compared with those without.These data suggest that nurse PICC teams play an integral role in PICC use at many hospitals and that use of such teams may promote key practices to prevent complications. Better understanding of the role, composition, and practice of such teams is an important area for future study.