In COVID-19 Patients Who Suffer In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Outcomes May Be Impacted by Arrest Etiology and Local Pandemic Conditions

OBJECTIVES: The utility and risks to providers of performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation after in-hospital cardiac arrest in COVID-19 patients have been questioned. Additionally, there are discrepancies in reported COVID-19 in-hospital cardiac arrest survival rates. We describe outcomes after cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest in two COVID-19 patient cohorts. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, NY. PATIENTS: Those admitted with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020, as well as between March 1, 2021, and May 31, 2021, who received resuscitation after in-hospital cardiac arrest. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 103 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who were resuscitated after in-hospital cardiac arrest in spring 2020, most self-identified as Hispanic/Latino or African American, 35 (34.0%) had return of spontaneous circulation for at least 20 minutes, and 15 (14.6%) survived to 30 days post-arrest. Compared with nonsurvivors, 30-day survivors experienced in-hospital cardiac arrest later (day 22 vs day 7; = 0.008) and were more likely to have had an acute respiratory event preceding in-hospital cardiac arrest (93.3% vs 27.3%; \u3c 0.001). Among 30-day survivors, 11 (73.3%) survived to hospital discharge, at which point 8 (72.7%) had Cerebral Performance Category scores of 1 or 2. Among 26 COVID-19 patients resuscitated after in-hospital cardiac arrest in spring 2021, 15 (57.7%) had return of spontaneous circulation for at least 20 minutes, 3 (11.5%) survived to 30 days post in-hospital cardiac arrest, and 2 (7.7%) survived to hospital discharge, both with Cerebral Performance Category scores of 2 or less. Those who survived to 30 days post in-hospital cardiac arrest were younger (46.3 vs 67.8; = 0.03), but otherwise there were no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation after in-hospital cardiac arrest had low survival rates. Our findings additionally show return of spontaneous circulation rates in these patients may be impacted by hospital strain and that patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest preceded by acute respiratory events might be more likely to survive to 30 days, suggesting Advanced Cardiac Life Support efforts may be more successful in this subpopulation

A core outcome set for appendicitis: A consensus approach utilizing modified Delphi methodology.

BACKGROUND: Appendicitis is one of the most common pathologies encountered by general and acute care surgeons. The current literature is inconsistent, as it is fraught with outcome heterogeneity, especially in the area of nonoperative management. We sought to develop a core outcome set (COS) for future appendicitis studies to facilitate outcome standardization and future data pooling. METHODS: A modified Delphi study was conducted after identification of content experts in the field of appendicitis using both the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) landmark appendicitis papers and consensus from the EAST ad hoc COS taskforce on appendicitis. The study incorporated 3 rounds. Round 1 utilized free text outcome suggestions, then in rounds 2 and 3 the suggests were scored using a Likert scale of 1-9 with 1-3 denoting a less important outcome, 4-6 denoting an important but non-critical outcome, and 7-9 denoting a critically important outcome. Core outcome status consensus was defined a priori as \u3e70% of scores 7-9 and \u3c 15% of scores 1-3. RESULTS: Seventeen panelists initially agreed to participate in the study with 16 completing the process (94%). Thirty-two unique potential outcomes were initially suggested in Round 1 and 10 (31%) met consensus with one outcome meeting exclusion at the end of Round 2. At completion of Round 3 a total of 17 (53%) outcomes achieved COS consensus. CONCLUSIONS: An international panel of 16 appendicitis experts achieved consensus on 17 core outcomes that should be incorporated into future appendicitis studies as a minimum set of standardized outcomes to help frame future cohort-based studies on appendicitis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V, Diagnostic test or criteria

Perception of Treatment Success and Impact on Function with Antibiotics or Appendectomy for Appendicitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial with an Observational Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To compare secondary patient reported outcomes of perceptions of treatment success and function for patients treated for appendicitis with appendectomy vs. antibiotics at 30 days. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial found antibiotics noninferior to appendectomy based on 30-day health status. To address questions about outcomes among participants with lower socioeconomic status, we explored the relationship of sociodemographic and clinical factors and outcomes. METHODS: We focused on 4 patient reported outcomes at 30 days: high decisional regret, dissatisfaction with treatment, problems performing usual activities, and missing \u3e10 days of work. The randomized (RCT) and observational cohorts were pooled for exploration of baseline factors. The RCT cohort alone was used for comparison of treatments. Logistic regression was used to assess associations. RESULTS: The pooled cohort contained 2062 participants; 1552 from the RCT. Overall, regret and dissatisfaction were low whereas problems with usual activities and prolonged missed work occurred more frequently. In the RCT, those assigned to antibiotics had more regret (Odd ratios (OR) 2.97, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 2.05-4.31) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.25-3.12), and reported less missed work (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.27-0.56). Factors associated with function outcomes included sociodemographic and clinical variables for both treatment arms. Fewer factors were associated with dissatisfaction and regret. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants reported high satisfaction, low regret, and were frequently able to resume usual activities and return to work. When comparing treatments for appendicitis, no single measure defines success or failure for all people. The reported data may inform discussions regarding the most appropriate treatment for individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785

Self-selection vs Randomized Assignment of Treatment for Appendicitis.

Importance: For adults with appendicitis, several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy. However, it remains unknown how the characteristics of patients in such trials compare with those of patients who select their treatment and whether outcomes differ. Objective: To compare participants in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial (RCT) with a parallel cohort study of participants who declined randomization and self-selected treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: The CODA trial was conducted in 25 US medical centers. Participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020; all participants were eligible for at least 1 year of follow-up, with all follow-up ending in 2021. The randomized cohort included 1094 adults with appendicitis; the self-selection cohort included patients who declined participation in the randomized group, of whom 253 selected appendectomy and 257 selected antibiotics. In this secondary analysis, characteristics and outcomes in both self-selection and randomized cohorts are described with an exploratory analysis of cohort status and receipt of appendectomy. Interventions: Appendectomy vs antibiotics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Characteristics among participants randomized to either appendectomy or antibiotics were compared with those of participants who selected their own treatment. Results: Clinical characteristics were similar across the self-selection cohort (510 patients; mean age, 35.8 years [95% CI, 34.5-37.1]; 218 female [43%; 95% CI, 39%-47%]) and the randomized group (1094 patients; mean age, 38.2 years [95% CI, 37.4-39.0]; 386 female [35%; 95% CI, 33%-38%]). Compared with the randomized group, those in the self-selection cohort were less often Spanish speaking (n = 99 [19%; 95% CI, 16%-23%] vs n = 336 [31%; 95% CI, 28%-34%]), reported more formal education (some college or more, n = 355 [72%; 95% CI, 68%-76%] vs n = 674 [63%; 95% CI, 60%-65%]), and more often had commercial insurance (n = 259 [53%; 95% CI, 48%-57%] vs n = 486 [45%; 95% CI, 42%-48%]). Most outcomes were similar between the self-selection and randomized cohorts. The number of patients undergoing appendectomy by 30 days was 38 (15.3%; 95% CI, 10.7%-19.7%) among those selecting antibiotics and 155 (19.2%; 95% CI, 15.9%-22.5%) in those who were randomized to antibiotics (difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, -1.7% to 9.5%). Differences in the rate of appendectomy were primarily observed in the non-appendicolith subgroup. Conclusions and Relevance: This secondary analysis of the CODA RCT found substantially similar outcomes across the randomized and self-selection cohorts, suggesting that the randomized trial results are generalizable to the community at large. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785

Use and Outcomes of Dexamethasone in the Management of Malignant Small Bowel Obstruction

Objective:. To describe rates of dexamethasone use in the nonoperative management of malignant small bowel obstruction (mSBO) and their outcomes. Background:. mSBO is common in patients with advanced abdominal-pelvic cancers. Management includes prioritizing quality of life and avoiding surgical intervention when possible. The use of dexamethasone to restore bowel function is recommended in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for mSBO. Yet, it is unknown how often dexamethasone is used for mSBO and whether results from nonresearch settings support its use. Methods:. This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study including unique admissions for mSBO from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021. Dexamethasone use and management outcomes were summarized with descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression. Results:. Among 571 admissions (68% female, mean age 63 years, 85% history of abdominal surgery) that were eligible and initially nonoperative, 26% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 23%–30%] received dexamethasone treatment (69% female, mean age 62 years, 87% history of abdominal surgery). Dexamethasone use by site ranged from 13% to 52%. Among dexamethasone recipients, 13% (95% CI = 9%–20%) subsequently required nonelective surgery during the same admission and 4 dexamethasone-related safety-events were reported. Amongst 421 eligible admissions where dexamethasone was not used, 17% (95% CI = 14%–21%) required nonelective surgery. Overall, the unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for nonelective surgery with dexamethasone use compared to without its use was 0.7 (95% CI = 0.4–1.3). Using multiple logistic regression, OR after adjusting for site, age, sex, history of abdominal surgery, nasogastric tube, and Gastrografin use was 0.6 (95% CI = 0.3–1.1). Conclusion:. Dexamethasone was used in about 1 in 4 eligible mSBO admissions with high variability of use between tertiary academic centers. This multicenter retrospective cohort study suggested an association between dexamethasone use and lower rates of nonelective surgery, representing a potential opportunity for quality improvement

A Randomized Trial Comparing Antibiotics with Appendectomy for Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic therapy has been proposed as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, nonblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy (10-day course) with appendectomy in patients with appendicitis at 25 U.S. centers. The primary outcome was 30-day health status, as assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better health status; noninferiority margin, 0.05 points). Secondary outcomes included appendectomy in the antibiotics group and complications through 90 days; analyses were prespecified in subgroups defined according to the presence or absence of an appendicolith. RESULTS: In total, 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) underwent randomization; 776 were assigned to receive antibiotics (47% of whom were not hospitalized for the index treatment) and 776 to undergo appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure). Antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of 30-day EQ-5D scores (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001 to 0.03). In the antibiotics group, 29% had undergone appendectomy by 90 days, including 41% of those with an appendicolith and 25% of those without an appendicolith. Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.98); the higher rate in the antibiotics group could be attributed to those with an appendicolith (20.2 vs. 3.6 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.11 to 15.38) and not to those without an appendicolith (3.7 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.43). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.50). CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of results of a standard health-status measure. In the antibiotics group, nearly 3 in 10 participants had undergone appendectomy by 90 days. Participants with an appendicolith were at a higher risk for appendectomy and for complications than those without an appendicolith. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; CODA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02800785.)

Patient Factors Associated With Appendectomy Within 30 Days of Initiating Antibiotic Treatment for Appendicitis

Importance: Use of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis is safe and has been found to be noninferior to appendectomy based on self-reported health status at 30 days. Identifying patient characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of appendectomy within 30 days in those who initiate antibiotics could support more individualized decision-making. Objective: To assess patient factors associated with undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics for appendicitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study using data from the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial, characteristics among patients who initiated antibiotics were compared between those who did and did not undergo appendectomy within 30 days. The study was conducted at 25 US medical centers; participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. A total of 1552 participants with acute appendicitis were randomized to antibiotics (776 participants) or appendectomy (776 participants). Data were analyzed from September 2020 to July 2021. Exposures: Appendectomy vs antibiotics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Conditional logistic regression models were fit to estimate associations between specific patient factors and the odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days after initiating antibiotics. A sensitivity analysis was performed excluding participants who underwent appendectomy within 30 days for nonclinical reasons. Results: Of 776 participants initiating antibiotics (mean [SD] age, 38.3 [13.4] years; 286 [37%] women and 490 [63%] men), 735 participants had 30-day outcomes, including 154 participants (21%) who underwent appendectomy within 30 days. After adjustment for other factors, female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.31), radiographic finding of wider appendiceal diameter (OR per 1-mm increase, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.18), and presence of appendicolith (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.28-3.10) were associated with increased odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days. Characteristics that are often associated with increased risk of complications (eg, advanced age, comorbid conditions) and those clinicians often use to describe appendicitis severity (eg, fever: OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.82-1.98) were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. The sensitivity analysis limited to appendectomies performed for clinical reasons provided similar results regarding appendicolith (adjusted OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.49-3.91). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that presence of an appendicolith was associated with a nearly 2-fold increased risk of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics. Clinical characteristics often used to describe severity of appendicitis were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. This information may help guide more individualized decision-making for people with appendicitis