Search

BackgroundDuring the early phase of the Covid-19 pandemic, reductions of hospital admissions with a focus on emergencies have been observed for several medical and surgical conditions, while trend data during later stages of the pandemic are scarce. Consequently, this study aims to provide up-to-date hospitalization trends for several conditions including cardiovascular, psychiatry, oncology and surgery cases in both the in- and outpatient setting.Methods and findingsUsing claims data of 86 Helios hospitals in Germany, consecutive cases with an in- or outpatient hospital admission between March 13, 2020 (the begin of the "protection" stage of the German pandemic plan) and December 10, 2020 (end of study period) were analyzed and compared to a corresponding period covering the same weeks in 2019. Cause-specific hospitalizations were defined based on the primary discharge diagnosis according to International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) or German procedure classification codes for cardiovascular, oncology, psychiatry and surgery cases. Cumulative hospitalization deficit was computed as the difference between the expected and observed cumulative admission number for every week in the study period, expressed as a percentage of the cumulative expected number. The expected admission number was defined as the weekly average during the control period. A total of 1,493,915 hospital admissions (723,364 during the study and 770,551 during the control period) were included. At the end of the study period, total cumulative hospitalization deficit was -10% [95% confidence interval -10; -10] for cardiovascular and -9% [-10; -9] for surgical cases, higher than -4% [-4; -3] in psychiatry and 4% [4; 4] in oncology cases. The utilization of inpatient care and subsequent hospitalization deficit was similar in trend with some variation in magnitude between cardiovascular (-12% [-13; -12]), psychiatry (-18% [-19; -17]), oncology (-7% [-8; -7]) and surgery cases (-11% [-11; -11]). Similarly, cardiovascular and surgical outpatient cases had a deficit of -5% [-6; -5] and -3% [-4; -3], respectively. This was in contrast to psychiatry (2% [1; 2]) and oncology cases (21% [20; 21]) that had a surplus in the outpatient sector. While in-hospital mortality, was higher during the Covid-19 pandemic in cardiovascular (3.9 vs. 3.5%, OR 1.10 [95% CI 1.06-1.15], PConclusionsThere have been varying changes in care pathways and in-hospital mortality in different disciplines during the Covid-19 pandemic in Germany. Despite all the inherent and well-known limitations of claims data use, this data may be used for health care surveillance as the pandemic continues worldwide. While this study provides an up-to-date analysis of utilization of hospital care in the largest German hospital network, short- and long-term consequences are unknown and deserve further studies.

BACKGROUND: The role of intensive insulin therapy in patients with severe sepsis is uncertain. Fluid resuscitation improves survival among patients with septic shock, but evidence is lacking to support the choice of either crystalloids or colloids. METHODS: In a multicenter, two-by-two factorial trial, we randomly assigned patients with severe sepsis to receive either intensive insulin therapy to maintain euglycemia or conventional insulin therapy and either 10% pentastarch, a low-molecular-weight hydroxyethyl starch (HES 200/0.5), or modified Ringer's lactate for fluid resuscitation. The rate of death at 28 days and the mean score for organ failure were coprimary end points. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early for safety reasons. Among 537 patients who could be evaluated, the mean morning blood glucose level was lower in the intensive-therapy group (112 mg per deciliter [6.2 mmol per liter]) than in the conventional-therapy group (151 mg per deciliter [8.4 mmol per liter], P

Context Early appropriate antimicrobial therapy leads to lower mortality rates associated with severe sepsis. The role of empirical combination therapy comprising at least 2 antibiotics of different mechanisms remains controversial. Objective To compare the effect of moxifloxacin and meropenem with the effect of meropenem alone on sepsis-related organ dysfunction. Design, Setting, and Patients A randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial of 600 patients who fulfilled criteria for severe sepsis or septic shock (n = 298 for monotherapy and n = 302 for combination therapy). The trial was performed at 44 intensive care units in Germany from October 16, 2007, to March 23, 2010. The number of evaluable patients was 273 in the monotherapy group and 278 in the combination therapy group. Interventions Intravenous meropenem (1 g every 8 hours) and moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 hours) or meropenem alone. The intervention was recommended for 7 days and up to a maximum of 14 days after randomization or until discharge from the intensive care unit or death, whichever occurred first. Main Outcome Measure Degree of organ failure (mean of daily total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] scores over 14 days; score range: 0-24 points with higher scores indicating worse organ failure); secondary outcome: 28-day and 90-day all-cause mortality. Survivors were followed up for 90 days. Results Among 551 evaluable patients, there was no statistically significant difference in mean SOFA score between the meropenem and moxifloxacin group (8.3 points; 95% CI, 7.8-8.8 points) and the meropenem alone group (7.9 points; 95% CI, 7.5-8.4 points) (P = .36). The rates for 28-day and 90-day mortality also were not statistically significantly different. By day 28, there were 66 deaths (23.9%; 95% CI, 19.0%-29.4%) in the combination therapy group compared with 59 deaths (21.9%; 95% CI, 17.1%-27.4%) in the monotherapy group (P = .58). By day 90, there were 96 deaths (35.3%; 95% CI, 29.6%-41.3%) in the combination therapy group compared with 84 deaths (32.1%; 95% CI, 26.5%-38.1%) in the monotherapy group (P = .43). Conclusion Among adult patients with severe sepsis, treatment with combined meropenem and moxifloxacin compared with meropenem alone did not result in less organ failure. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00534287

Background Treatment numbers of various cardiovascular diseases were reduced throughout the early phase of the ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic. Aim of this study was to (a) expand previous study periods to examine the long‐term course of hospital admission numbers, (b) provide data for in‐ and outpatient care pathways, and (c) illustrate changes of numbers of cardiovascular procedures. Methods and Results Administrative data of patients with ICD‐10‐encoded primary diagnoses of cardiovascular diseases (heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, valvular heart disease, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease) and in‐ or outpatient treatment between March, 13th 2020 and September, 10th 2020 were analyzed and compared with 2019 data. Numbers of cardiovascular procedures were calculated using OPS‐codes. The cumulative hospital admission deficit (CumAD) was computed as the difference between expected and observed admissions for every week in 2020. In total, 80 hospitals contributed 294 361 patient cases to the database without relevant differences in baseline characteristics between the studied periods. There was a CumAD of −10% to −16% at the end of the study interval in 2020 for all disease groups driven to varying degrees by both reductions of in‐ and outpatient case numbers. The number of performed interventions was significantly reduced for all examined procedures (catheter ablations: −10%; cardiac electronic device implantations: −7%; percutaneous cardiovascular interventions: −9%; cardiovascular surgery: −15%). Conclusions This study provides data on the long‐term development of cardiovascular patient care during the COVID‐19 pandemic demonstrating a significant CumAD for several cardiovascular diseases and a concomitant performance deficit of cardiovascular interventions.

Purpose Psychiatric emergency hospital admissions for distinct psychiatric disorders and length of inpatient stay in the hospital during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak have not been thoroughly assessed. Methods A retrospective study was performed analyzing claims data from a large German Hospital network during the COVID-19 outbreak (study period: March 13–May 21, 2020) as compared to periods directly before the outbreak (same year control: January 1–March 12, 2020) and one year earlier (previous year control: March 13–May 21, 2019). Results A total of 13,151 emergency hospital admissions for psychiatric diagnoses were included in the analysis. For all psychiatric diagnoses combined, emergency admissions significantly decreased during the study period with mean (interquartile range) incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of 0.68 (0.65, 0.71) and 0.70 (0.67, 0.73) as compared to the same and previous year controls, respectively (both p

Throughout the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, it has been critical to understand not only the viral disease itself but also its implications for the overall health care system. Reports about excess mortality in this regard have mostly focused on overall death counts during specific pandemic phases.To investigate hospitalization rates and compare in-hospital mortality rates with absolute mortality incidences across a broad spectrum of diseases, comparing 2020 data with those of prepandemic years.Retrospective, cross-sectional, multicentric analysis of administrative data from 5 821 757 inpatients admitted from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020, to 87 German Helios primary to tertiary care hospitals.Exposure to SARS-CoV-2.Administrative data were analyzed from January 1, 2016, to March 31, 2021, as a consecutive sample for all inpatients. Disease groups were defined according to International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10; German modification) encoded main discharge diagnoses. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for hospital admissions and hospital mortality counts, as well as relative mortality risks (RMRs) comparing 2016-2019 with 2020 (exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic), were calculated with Poisson regression with log-link function.Data were examined for 5 821 757 inpatients (mean [SD] age, 56.4 [25.3] years; 51.5% women), including 125 807 in-hospital deaths. Incidence rate ratios for hospital admissions were associated with a significant reduction for all investigated disease groups (IRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.86; P .001). After adjusting for age, sex, the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score, and SARS-CoV-2 infections, RMRs were associated with an increase in infectious diseases (RMR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.21-1.34; P .001), musculoskeletal diseases (RMR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.04-1.36; P = .009), and respiratory diseases (RMR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.14; P .001) but not for the total cohort (RMR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.02; P = .66). Regarding in-hospital mortality, IRR was associated with an increase within the ICD-10 chapter of respiratory diseases (IRR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.46; P .001) in comparing 2020 with 2016-2019, in contrast to being associated with a reduction in IRRs for the overall cohort and several other subgroups. After exclusion of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections, IRRs were associated with a reduction in absolute in-hospital mortality for the overall cohort (IRR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.84; P .001) and the subgroup of respiratory diseases (IRR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P .001).This cross-sectional study of inpatients from a multicentric German database suggests that absolute in-hospital mortality for 2020 across disease groups was not higher compared with previous years. Higher IRRs of in-hospital deaths observed in patients with respiratory diseases were likely associated with individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Adrenomedullin (ADM) regulates vascular tone and endothelial permeability during sepsis. Levels of circulating biologically active ADM (bio-ADM) show an inverse relationship with blood pressure and a direct relationship with vasopressor requirement. In the present prospective observational multinational Adrenomedullin and Outcome in Sepsis and Septic Shock 1 (, AdrenOSS-1) study, we assessed relationships between circulating bio-ADM during the initial intensive care unit (ICU) stay and short-term outcome in order to eventually design a biomarker-guided randomized controlled trial.AdrenOSS-1 was a prospective observational multinational study. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included organ failure as defined by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, organ support with focus on vasopressor/inotropic use, and need for renal replacement therapy. AdrenOSS-1 included 583 patients admitted to the ICU with sepsis or septic shock.Circulating bio-ADM levels were measured upon admission and at day 2. Median bio-ADM concentration upon admission was 80.5 pg/ml [IQR 41.5-148.1 pg/ml]. Initial SOFA score was 7 [IQR 5-10], and 28-day mortality was 22%. We found marked associations between bio-ADM upon admission and 28-day mortality (unadjusted standardized HR 2.3 [CI 1.9-2.9]; adjusted HR 1.6 [CI 1.1-2.5]) and between bio-ADM levels and SOFA score (p0.0001). Need of vasopressor/inotrope, renal replacement therapy, and positive fluid balance were more prevalent in patients with a bio-ADM70 pg/ml upon admission than in those with bio-ADM ≤ 70 pg/ml. In patients with bio-ADM70 pg/ml upon admission, decrease in bio-ADM below 70 pg/ml at day 2 was associated with recovery of organ function at day 7 and better 28-day outcome (9.5% mortality). By contrast, persistently elevated bio-ADM at day 2 was associated with prolonged organ dysfunction and high 28-day mortality (38.1% mortality, HR 4.9, 95% CI 2.5-9.8).AdrenOSS-1 shows that early levels and rapid changes in bio-ADM estimate short-term outcome in sepsis and septic shock. These data are the backbone of the design of the biomarker-guided AdrenOSS-2 trial.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02393781 . Registered on March 19, 2015.