Outcomes of hospitalizations with atrial fibrillation-flutter on a weekday versus weekend: an analysis from a 2014 nationwide inpatient sample

Background Patients with atrial fibrillation-flutter (AF) admitted on the weekends were initially reported to have poor outcomes. The primary purpose of this study is to re-evaluate the outcomes for weekend versus weekday AF hospitalization using the 2014 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Methods Included hospitalizations were aged above 18 years. The hospitalizations with AF were identified using the international classification of diseases 9 (ICD-9) codes (427.31, 427.32). In-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), other co-morbidities, cardioversion procedures, and time to cardioversion were recorded. All analysis was performed using SAS 9.4 statistical software (Cary, North Carolina). Results A total of 453,505 hospitalizations with atrial fibrillation and flutter as primary discharge diagnosis were identified. Among the total hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of AF, 20.3% were admitted on the weekend. Among the weekend hospitalizations, 0.19% died in hospital compared to 0.74% among those admitted during the week. After adjusting for patient characteristics, hospital characteristics and disease severity, the adjusted odds for in-hospital mortality were not significantly different for weekend vs. weekday hospitalizations (OR = 0.91, 95% CI [0.77–1.11]; p = 0.33). The weekend admissions were associated with significantly lower odds of cardioversion procedures (OR = 0.72, 95% CI [0.69–0.76], P < 0.0001), lower cost of hospitalization (USD 8265.8 on weekends vs. USD 8966.5 on the weekdays, P < 0.001), slightly lower rate of anticoagulation (17.09% on the weekends vs. 18.73% on the weekdays. P < 0.0001), and slightly increased time to cardioversion (1.94 days on the weekend vs. 1.73 days on weekdays, P < 0.0005). The mean length of hospital stay (LOS) was statistically not different in both groups: (3.49 days ± 3.70 (SD) in the weekend group vs. 3.47 days ± 3.50 (SD) in the weekday group, P = 0.42) Discussion The weekend AF hospitalizations did not have a clinically significant difference in mortality and LOS compared to those admitted on a weekday. However, the use of cardioversion procedures and cost of hospitalization was significantly lower on the weekends

Temporal trends and factors associated with increased mortality among atrial fibrillation weekend hospitalizations: an insight from National Inpatient Sample 2005–2014

Abstract Objective Atrial fibrillation (AF) weekend hospitalizations were reported to have poor outcomes compared to weekday hospitalizations. The relatively poor outcomes on the weekends are usually referred to as ‘weekend effect’. We aim to understand trends and outcomes among weekend AF hospitalizations. The primary purpose of this study is to evaluate the trends for weekend AF hospitalizations using Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2005–2014. Hospitalizations with AF as the primary diagnosis, in-hospital mortality, length of stay, co-morbidities and cardioversion procedures have been identified using the international classification of diseases 9 codes. Results Since 2005, the weekend AF hospitalizations increased by 27% (72,216 in 2005 to 92,220 in 2014), mortality decreased by 29% (1.32% in 2005 to 0.94% in 2014), increase in urban teaching hospitalizations by 72% (33.32% in 2005 to 57.64% in 2014), twofold increase in depression and a threefold increase in the prevalence of renal failure were noted over the period of 10 years. After adjusting for significant covariates, weekend hospitalizations were observed to have higher odds of in-hospital mortality OR 1.17 (95% CI 1.108–1.235, P < 0.0001). Weekend AF hospitalizations appear to be associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Opportunities to improve care in weekend AF hospitalizations need to be explored.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152157/1/13104_2019_Article_4440.pd

Trends in Prevalence and Outcomes of Cannabis Use Among Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Hospitalizations: A Nationwide Population-Based Study 2005-2014

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the fourth leading cause of mortality in the United States. Due to the ongoing legalization of cannabis, its acceptance, availability, and use in the in-patient population are on the rise. In this retrospective study, we investigated the association of cannabis use with important outcomes in COPD hospitalizations. Methods: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) data were analyzed from 2005 to 2014. The primary outcome of interest was the trends and outcomes of cannabis use among COPD hospitalizations, including in-hospital mortality, pneumonia, sepsis, and respiratory failure. Results: We identified 6,073,862 hospitalizations, 18 years of age or older, with COPD using hospital discharge codes. Of these, 6,049,316 (99.6%) were without cannabis use, and 24,546 (0.4%) were admitted with cannabis use. The majority of COPD hospitalizations with cannabis use were aged 50-64 (60%). Cannabis use was associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.624 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.407-0.958]; p=0.0309) and pneumonia (OR 0.882 [95% CI 0.806-0.964]; p=0.0059) among COPD hospitalizations. Cannabis use also had lower odds of sepsis (OR 0.749 [95% CI 0.523-1.071]; p=0.1127) and acute respiratory failure (OR 0.995 [95% CI 0.877-1.13]; p=0.9411), but it was not statistically significant. Conclusions: Among hospitalized patients with a diagnosis of COPD, cannabis users had statistically significant lower odds of in-hospital mortality and pneumonia compared to noncannabis users. The association between cannabis use and these favorable outcomes deserves further study to understand the interaction between cannabis use and COPD

HIGHER HDL CHOLESTEROL LEVELS DECREASE SUSCEPTIBILITY TO COVID-19 INFECTION

Therapeutic Area: ASCVD/CVD Risk Factors Background: Host cell-membrane cholesterol, an important player in viral infections, is in constant interaction with serum lipids, such as high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Recent meta-analyses have shown an association between low serum lipid levels at hospital admission and COVID-19 severity. However, the effect of antecedent serum lipid levels on the risk of COVID-19 infection has not been explored previously. Methods: Our retrospective cohort from the Arkansas Clinical Data Repository included all adults with lipid levels available within the 2 years antecedent to COVID-19 testing. We assessed the association of trajectories of lipid levels antecedent to COVID-19 testing, identified using group-based-trajectory-modeling with the risk of COVID-19 infection using multivariable log-binomial regression. We used mixed-effects linear regression to assess the trends in serum lipid levels followed up to the time of, and 2-months after COVID-19 testing. Results: Among the 11001 individuals, 1340 (12.2%) tested positive for COVID-19. The median age was 59 years (IQR 46-70) and 40.8% were males. Log-binomial regression showed that the highest trajectory for antecedent serum HDL-C level was associated with a lower risk for COVID-19 infection (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46-0.86). Antecedent serum LDL-C, total cholesterol (TC), and triglycerides (TG) levels showed no independent association with COVID-19 infection risk. But the COVID-19 infection risk was the highest in the subgroup with lower HDL-C (Trajectory 1) and higher LDL-C or higher TG (Trajectory 3). In COVID-19 patients, at the time of testing, serum HDL-C (-7.7, 95% CI -9.8 to -5.5 mg/dL), LDL-C (-6.29, 95% CI -12.2 to -0.37 mg/dL) and TC (-11.71, 95%CI -18.9 to -4.5 mg/dL), but not TG levels, were lower. These returned to pre-infection values by 2-months following COVID-19 testing. Conclusion: Higher antecedent serum HDL-C, but not LDL-C, TC, and TG levels, were associated with a lower COVID-19 infection risk. Serum HDL-C, LDL-C, and TC levels declined transiently at the time of diagnosis, returning to pre-infection levels during follow-up. The results of our study could provide the impetus for clinical trials aimed at increasing HDL-C, such as CETP inhibitors, in the prevention and amelioration of COVID-19 infection or infections in general

HDL cholesterol levels and susceptibility to COVID-19

Summary: Background: Host cell-membrane cholesterol, an important player in viral infections, is in constant interaction with serum high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C). Low serum lipid levels during hospital admission are associated with COVID-19 severity. However, the effect of antecedent serum lipid levels on SARS-CoV-2 infection risk has not been explored. Methods: From our retrospective cohort from the Arkansas Clinical Data-Repository, we used log-binomial regression to assess the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among the trajectories of lipid levels during the 2 years antecedent to COVID-19 testing, identified using group-based-trajectory modelling. We used mixed-effects linear regression to assess the serum lipid level trends followed up to the time of, and 2-months following COVID-19 testing. Findings: Among the 11001 individuals with a median age of 59 years (IQR 46-70), 1340 (12.2%) tested positive for COVID-19. The highest trajectory for antecedent serum HDL-C was associated with the lowest SARS-CoV-2 infection risk (RR 0.63, 95%CI 0.46-0.86). Antecedent serum LDL-C, total cholesterol (TC), and triglycerides (TG) were not independently associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection risk. In COVID-19 patients, serum HDL-C (-7.7, 95%CI -9.8 to -5.5 mg/dL), and LDL-C (-6.29, 95%CI -12.2 to -0.37 mg/dL), but not TG levels, decreased transiently at the time of testing. Interpretation: Higher antecedent serum HDL-C, but not LDL-C, TC, or TG, levels were associated with a lower SARS-CoV-2 infection risk. Serum HDL-C, and LDL-C levels declined transiently at the time of infection. Further studies are needed to determine the potential role of lipid-modulating therapies in the prevention and management of COVID-19. Funding: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number UL1 TR003107