Search

Background: First studies indicate that up to 6 months after hospital discharge, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes severe physical, cognitive, and psychological impairments, which may affect participation and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). After hospitalization for COVID-19, a number of patients are referred to medical rehabilitation centers or skilled nursing facilities for further treatment, while others go home with or without aftercare. The aftercare paths include 1] community-based rehabilitation; 2] in- and outpatient medical rehabilitation; 3] inpatient rehabilitation in skilled nursing facilities; and 4] sheltered care (inpatient). These aftercare paths and the trajectories of recovery after COVID-19 urgently need long-term in-depth evaluation to optimize and personalize treatment. CO-FLOW aims, by following the outcomes and aftercare paths of all COVID-19 patients after hospital discharge, to systematically study over a 2-year period: 1] trajectories of physical, cognitive, and psychological recovery; 2] patient flows, healthcare utilization, patient satisfaction with aftercare, and barriers/facilitators regarding aftercare as experienced by healthcare professionals; 3] effects of physical, cognitive, and psychological outcomes on participation and HRQoL; and 4] predictors for long-term recovery, health care utilization, and patient satisfaction with aftercare.Methods: CO-FLOW is a multicenter prospective cohort study in the mid-west of the Netherlands with a 2-year follow-up period. Measurements comprise non-invasive clinical tests and patient reported outcome measures from a combined rehabilitation, pulmonary, and intensive care perspective. Measurements are performed at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after hospital discharge and, if applicable, at rehabilitation discharge. CO-FLOW aims to include at least 500 patients who survived hospitalization for COVID-19, aged ≥18 years.Discussion: CO-FLOW will provide in-depth knowledge on the long-term sequelae of COVID-19 and the quality of current aftercare paths for patients who survived hospitalization. This knowledge is a prerequisite to facilitate the right care in the right place for COVID-19 and comparable future infectious diseases.Trial Registration: The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), https://www.trialregister.nl . Registered: 12-06-2020, CO-FLOW trialregister no. NL8710. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is little evidence to guide the timing of delivery of women with early-onset severe preeclampsia. We hypothesize that immediate delivery is not inferior for neonatal outcome but reduces maternal complications compared with temporizing management.Material and Methods: This Dutch multicenter open-label randomized clinical trial investigated non-inferiority for neonatal outcome of temporizing management as compared with immediate delivery (TOTEM NTR 2986) in women between 27+5 and 33+5 weeks of gestation admitted for early-onset severe preeclampsia with or without HELLP syndrome. In participants allocated to receive immediate delivery, either induction of labor or cesarean section was initiated at least 48 hours after admission. Primary outcomes were adverse perinatal outcome, defined as a composite of severe respiratory distress syndrome, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, culture proven sepsis, intraventricular hemorrhage grade 3 or worse, periventricular leukomalacia grade 2 or worse, necrotizing enterocolitis stage 2 or worse, and perinatal death. Major maternal complications were secondary outcomes. It was estimated 1130 women needed to be enrolled. Analysis was by intention-to-treat.Results: The trial was halted after 35 months because of slow recruitment. Between February 2011 and December 2013, a total of 56 women were randomized to immediate delivery (n = 26) or temporizing management (n = 30). Median gestational age at randomization was 30 weeks. Median prolongation of pregnancy was 2 days (interquartile range 1-3 days) in the temporizing management group. Mean birthweight was 1435 g after immediate delivery vs 1294 g after temporizing management (P = .14). The adverse perinatal outcome rate was 55% in the immediate delivery group vs 52% in the temporizing management group (relative risk 1.06; 95% confidence interval 0.67-1.70). In both groups there was one neonatal death and no maternal deaths. In the temporizing treatment group, one woman experienced pulmonary edema and one placental abruption. Analyses of only the singleton pregnancies did not result in other outcomes.Conclusions: Early termination of the trial precluded any conclusions for the main outcomes. We observed that temporizing management resulted in a modest prolongation of pregnancy without changes in perinatal and maternal outcome. Conducting a randomized study for this important research question did not prove feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent trauma guidelines recommend non-operative management for grade III splenic injury without contrast extravasation on computed tomography. Nevertheless, such recommendations rely on low-quality evidence, and practice variation characterizes clinical management for this type of injury. We aimed to identify the role of eleven selected clinical factors influencing the management of grade III splenic injury without contrast extravasation by expert consensus and a modified Delphi approach. Methods: A questionnaire was developed with the endorsement of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). This was delivered and answered live by acute care surgeons attending the 6th WSES congress in Nijmegen in 2019. A dedicated mobile phone application was utilized to collect the answers. All answers were evaluated for areas of discrepancy with an 80% threshold for consensus between respondents. Results: Three factors generated discrepancy in opinion for managing this pattern of injury: the patients' injury severity, the presence of a bleeding diathesis, and an associated intra-abdominal injury. Agreement was obtained for the other eight factors. Conclusion: Researchers should focus their efforts on the identified area of discrepancy. Clinicians should use additional care in the presence of the three factors for which discordant opinions were found. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]