20,239 research outputs found
SARS-CoV-2 infection and venous thromboembolism after surgery: an international prospective cohort study
No full textSARS-CoV-2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri-operative or prior SARS-CoV-2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub-study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was defined as peri-operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery); recent (1-6 weeks before surgery); previous (>= 7 weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre-operative anti-coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS-CoV-2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri-operative SARS-CoV-2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri-operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1-2.0)) and recent SARS-CoV-2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2-3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS-CoV-2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9-3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30-day mortality (5.4 (95%CI 4.3-6.7)). In patients with SARS-CoV-2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri-operative or recent SARS-CoV-2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly
Long COVID research:an update from the PHOSP-COVID Scientific Summit
No full textThe severity of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection has decreased with the introduction of public health policies, vaccination, improved management of acute disease, and a degree of protective immunity in those who have survived past infection. However, in the wake of the pandemic, post-acute sequelae of COVID-19—referred to as long COVID—have emerged. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) describes long COVID as a condition in which signs and symptoms continue or develop after acute COVID-19 (>4 weeks), including ongoing symptomatic COVID‑19 and post‑COVID‑19 syndrome (≥12 weeks).3 years since the first UK national lockdown, the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP‑COVID) held a Scientific Summit in Leicester, UK (28–29 March, 2023) to review progress and address key questions related to future research. PHOSP-COVID is a UK consortium of multidisciplinary researchers and clinicians working together to understand and improve long-term health outcomes for adults who were hospitalised with COVID-19. Patients, clinicians, and scientists worked together in 2020 to agree priority research questions and, throughout the study, there has been close engagement between the consortium, patients involved in the study, and the wider public. 7935 adults who were discharged from hospital after COVID-19 between February 2020 and March 2021 were recruited into three tiers of research, which included follow-up at around 5 months and 12 months after discharge for deep phenotyping and bioresource sampling (Tier 2), and detailed immune profiling and multiorgan MRI (Tier 3). Recruitment across the four UK nations is now complete and analyses are ongoing
Sex differences in use of low tidal volume ventilation in COVID-19—insights from the PRoVENT–COVID study
No full textThe purpose of this study was to compare and understand differences in the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) between females and males with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This is a post-hoc analysis of an observational study in invasively ventilated patients with ARDS related to COVID-19 in 22 ICUs in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint was the use of LTVV, defined as having received a median tidal volume (VT) ≤6 ml/kg predicted body weight (PBW) during controlled ventilation. A mediation analysis was used to investigate the impact of anthropometric factors, next to the impact of sex per se. The analysis included 934 patients, 251 females and 683 males. All the patients had ARDS, and there were no differences in ARDS severity between the sexes. On the first day of ventilation, females received ventilation with a higher median VT compared with males [6.8 (interquartile range (IQR) 6.0–7.6 vs. 6.3 (IQR 5.8–6.9) ml/kg PBW; p < 0.001]. Consequently, females received LTVV less often than males (23 vs. 34%; p = 0.003). The difference in the use of LTVV became smaller but persisted over the next days (27 vs. 36%; p = 0.046 at day 2 and 28 vs. 38%; p = 0.030 at day 3). The difference in the use LTVV was significantly mediated by sex per se [average direct effect of the female sex, 7.5% (95% CI, 1.7–13.3%); p = 0.011] and by differences in the body height [average causal mediation effect, −17.5% (−21.5 to −13.5%); p < 0.001], but not by the differences in actual body weight [average causal mediation effect, 0.2% (−0.8 to 1.2%); p = 0.715]. In conclusion, in this cohort of patients with ARDS related to COVID-19, females received LTVV less often than males in the first days of invasive ventilation. The difference in the use of LTVV was mainly driven by an anthropometric factor, namely, body height. Use of LTVV may improve by paying attention to correct titration of VT, which should be based on PBW, which is a function of body height
Prevalence of swallow, communication, voice and cognitive compromise following hospitalisation for COVID-19: The PHOSP-COVID analysis
No full textData availability statement:
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.Supplementary Data are available online at https://bmjopenrespres.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/141491/field_highwire_adjunct_files/0/bmjresp-2023-001647supp001_data_supplement.pdf .Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Objective Identify prevalence of self-reported swallow, communication, voice and cognitive compromise following hospitalisation for COVID-19. Design Multicentre prospective observational cohort study using questionnaire data at visit 1 (2-7 months post discharge) and visit 2 (10-14 months post discharge) from hospitalised patients in the UK. Lasso logistic regression analysis was undertaken to identify associations. Setting 64 UK acute hospital Trusts. Participants Adults aged >18 years, discharged from an admissions unit or ward at a UK hospital with COVID-19. Main outcome measures Self-reported swallow, communication, voice and cognitive compromise. Results Compromised swallowing post intensive care unit (post-ICU) admission was reported in 20% (188/955); 60% with swallow problems received invasive mechanical ventilation and were more likely to have undergone proning (p=0.039). Voice problems were reported in 34% (319/946) post-ICU admission who were more likely to have received invasive (p<0.001) or non-invasive ventilation (p=0.001) and to have been proned (p<0.001). Communication compromise was reported in 23% (527/2275) univariable analysis identified associations with younger age (p<0.001), female sex (p<0.001), social deprivation (p<0.001) and being a healthcare worker (p=0.010). Cognitive issues were reported by 70% (1598/2275), consistent at both visits, at visit 1 respondents were more likely to have higher baseline comorbidities and at visit 2 were associated with greater social deprivation (p<0.001). Conclusion Swallow, communication, voice and cognitive problems were prevalent post hospitalisation for COVID-19, alongside whole system compromise including reduced mobility and overall health scores. Research and testing of rehabilitation interventions are required at pace to explore these issues.PHOSP-COVID is jointly funded by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19 (grant references: MR/V027859/1 and COV0319)
Effects of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery: an international prospective cohort study
No full textWe aimed to determine the impact of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery during the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We performed an international prospective cohort study including patients undergoing elective surgery in October 2020. Isolation was defined as the period before surgery during which patients did not leave their house or receive visitors from outside their household. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications, adjusted in multivariable models for measured confounders. Pre-defined sub-group analyses were performed for the primary outcome. A total of 96,454 patients from 114 countries were included and overall, 26,948 (27.9%) patients isolated before surgery. Postoperative pulmonary complications were recorded in 1947 (2.0%) patients of which 227 (11.7%) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients who isolated pre-operatively were older, had more respiratory comorbidities and were more commonly from areas of high SARS-CoV-2 incidence and high-income countries. Although the overall rates of postoperative pulmonary complications were similar in those that isolated and those that did not (2.1% vs 2.0%, respectively), isolation was associated with higher rates of postoperative pulmonary complications after adjustment (adjusted OR 1.20, 95%CI 1.05-1.36, p = 0.005). Sensitivity analyses revealed no further differences when patients were categorised by: pre-operative testing; use of COVID-19-free pathways; or community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. The rate of postoperative pulmonary complications increased with periods of isolation longer than 3 days, with an OR (95%CI) at 4-7 days or >= 8 days of 1.25 (1.04-1.48), p = 0.015 and 1.31 (1.11-1.55), p = 0.001, respectively. Isolation before elective surgery might be associated with a small but clinically important increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Longer periods of isolation showed no reduction in the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. These findings have significant implications for global provision of elective surgical care
Determinants of recovery from post-COVID-19 dyspnoea: analysis of UK prospective cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and community-based controls
No full textData sharing statement:
PHOSP-COVID: The protocol, consent form, definition and derivation of clinical characteristics and outcomes, training materials, regulatory documents, requests for data access and other relevant study materials are available online at https://www.phosp.org.
COVIDENCE UK: De-identified participant data will be made available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.Supplementary data is available online at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666776223000546?via%3Dihub#appsec1 .Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Background: The risk factors for recovery from COVID-19 dyspnoea are poorly understood. We investigated determinants of recovery from dyspnoea in adults with COVID-19 and compared these to determinants of recovery from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea. Methods: We used data from two prospective cohort studies: PHOSP-COVID (patients hospitalised between March 2020 and April 2021 with COVID-19) and COVIDENCE UK (community cohort studied over the same time period). PHOSP-COVID data were collected during hospitalisation and at 5-month and 1-year follow-up visits. COVIDENCE UK data were obtained through baseline and monthly online questionnaires. Dyspnoea was measured in both cohorts with the Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants associated with a reduction in dyspnoea between 5-month and 1-year follow-up. Findings: We included 990 PHOSP-COVID and 3309 COVIDENCE UK participants. We observed higher odds of improvement between 5-month and 1-year follow-up among PHOSP-COVID participants who were younger (odds ratio 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01–1.03), male (1.54, 1.16–2.04), neither obese nor severely obese (1.82, 1.06–3.13 and 4.19, 2.14–8.19, respectively), had no pre-existing anxiety or depression (1.56, 1.09–2.22) or cardiovascular disease (1.33, 1.00–1.79), and shorter hospital admission (1.01 per day, 1.00–1.02). Similar associations were found in those recovering from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea, excluding age (and length of hospital admission). Interpretation: Factors associated with dyspnoea recovery at 1-year post-discharge among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were similar to those among community controls without COVID-19. Funding: PHOSP-COVID is supported by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19. The views expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. COVIDENCE UK is supported by the UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health Research, and Barts Charity. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders.PHOSP-COVID: This study would not be possible without all the participants who have given their time and support. We thank all the participants and their families. We thank the many research administrators, health-care and social-care professionals who contributed to setting up and delivering the study at all of the 65 NHS trusts/Health boards and 25 research institutions across the UK, as well as all the supporting staff at the NIHR Clinical Research Network, Health Research Authority, Research Ethics Committee, Department of Health and Social Care, Public Health Scotland, and Public Health England, and support from the ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium. We thank Kate Holmes at the NIHR Office for Clinical Research Infrastructure (NOCRI) for her support in coordinating the charities group. The PHOSP-COVID industry framework was formed to provide advice and support in commercial discussions, and we thank the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry as well NOCRI for coordinating this. We are very grateful to all the charities that have provided insight to the study: Action Pulmonary Fibrosis, Alzheimer's Research UK, Asthma + Lung UK, British Heart Foundation, Diabetes UK, Cystic Fibrosis Trust, Kidney Research UK, MQ Mental Health, Muscular Dystrophy UK, Stroke Association Blood Cancer UK, McPin Foundations, and Versus Arthritis. We thank the NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre patient and public involvement group and Long Covid Support.
COVIDENCE UK: We thank all participants of COVIDENCE UK, and the following organisations who supported study recruitment: Asthma UK/British Lung Foundation, the British Heart Foundation, the British Obesity Society, Cancer Research UK, Diabetes UK, Future Publishing, Kidney Care UK, Kidney Wales, Mumsnet, the National Kidney Federation, the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, the North West London Health Research Register (DISCOVER), Primary Immunodeficiency UK, the Race Equality Foundation, SWM Health, the Terence Higgins Trust, and Vasculitis UK
Companionship for women/birthing people using antenatal and intrapartum care in England during COVID-19: A mixed-methods analysis of national and organisational responses and perspectives
No full textObjectives: To explore stakeholders’ and national organisational perspectives on companionship for women/birthing people using antenatal and intrapartum care in England during COVID-19, as part of the ASPIRE COVID-19 study.
Setting: Maternity care provision in England.
Participants: Interviews were held with 26 national governmental, professional, and service-user organisation leads (July-Dec 2020). Other data included public-facing outputs logged from 25 maternity Trusts (Sept/Oct 2020) and data extracted from 78 documents from eight key governmental, professional, and service-user organisations that informed national maternity care guidance and policy (Feb-Dec 2020).
Results: Six themes emerged: ‘Postcode lottery of care’ highlights variations in companionship and visiting practices between trusts/locations, ‘Confusion and stress around ‘rules’’ relates to a lack of and variable information concerning companionship/visiting. ‘Unintended consequences’ concerns the negative impacts of restricted companionship or visiting on women/birthing people and staff, ‘Need for flexibility’ highlights concerns about applying companionship and visiting policies irrespective of need, ‘‘Acceptable’ time for support’ highlights variations in when and if companionship was ‘allowed’ antenatally and intrapartum; and 'Loss of human rights for gain in infection control’ emphasizes how a predominant focus on infection control was at a cost to psychological safety and human rights.
Conclusions: Policies concerning companionship and visiting have been inconsistently applied within English maternity services during the COVID-19 pandemic. In some cases, policies were not justified by the level of risk, and were applied indiscriminately regardless of need. There is an urgent need to determine how to sensitively and flexibly balance risks and benefits and optimise outcomes during the current and future crisis situations.
Strengths and limitations of this study
• This is the first paper to consider links between policy and practice in companionship and visiting in maternity care during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Data triangulation across national level stakeholders in policy and practice and public facing Trust documentation provides nuanced and context related perspectives on why and how companionship and visiting was impacted.
• Stakeholders included national representatives from all key agencies involved in maternity care.
• Practice related issues were collected from 25 Trusts websites and social media-based public facing information, which may or may not reflect actual care practices.
• The paper focuses on antenatal and intrapartum care, with postnatal (including neonatal) care to be the focus of future publications.
• The study does not include information directly reported by parents or healthcare professionals
Multiorgan MRI findings after hospitalisation with COVID-19 in the UK (C-MORE): a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study
No full textIntroduction: The multiorgan impact of moderate to severe coronavirus infections in the post-acute phase is still poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities after hospitalisation with COVID-19, evaluate their determinants, and explore associations with patient-related outcome measures. Methods: In a prospective, UK-wide, multicentre MRI follow-up study (C-MORE), adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital following COVID-19 who were included in Tier 2 of the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) and contemporary controls with no evidence of previous COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody negative) underwent multiorgan MRI (lungs, heart, brain, liver, and kidneys) with quantitative and qualitative assessment of images and clinical adjudication when relevant. Individuals with end-stage renal failure or contraindications to MRI were excluded. Participants also underwent detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical tests. The primary outcome was the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities (two or more organs) relative to controls, with further adjustments for potential confounders. The C-MORE study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510025. Findings: Of 2710 participants in Tier 2 of PHOSP-COVID, 531 were recruited across 13 UK-wide C-MORE sites. After exclusions, 259 C-MORE patients (mean age 57 years [SD 12]; 158 [61%] male and 101 [39%] female) who were discharged from hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and Nov 1, 2021, and 52 non-COVID-19 controls from the community (mean age 49 years [SD 14]; 30 [58%] male and 22 [42%] female) were included in the analysis. Patients were assessed at a median of 5·0 months (IQR 4·2–6·3) after hospital discharge. Compared with non-COVID-19 controls, patients were older, living with more obesity, and had more comorbidities. Multiorgan abnormalities on MRI were more frequent in patients than in controls (157 [61%] of 259 vs 14 [27%] of 52; p<0·0001) and independently associated with COVID-19 status (odds ratio [OR] 2·9 [95% CI 1·5–5·8]; p
adjusted=0·0023) after adjusting for relevant confounders. Compared with controls, patients were more likely to have MRI evidence of lung abnormalities (p=0·0001; parenchymal abnormalities), brain abnormalities (p<0·0001; more white matter hyperintensities and regional brain volume reduction), and kidney abnormalities (p=0·014; lower medullary T1 and loss of corticomedullary differentiation), whereas cardiac and liver MRI abnormalities were similar between patients and controls. Patients with multiorgan abnormalities were older (difference in mean age 7 years [95% CI 4–10]; mean age of 59·8 years [SD 11·7] with multiorgan abnormalities vs mean age of 52·8 years [11·9] without multiorgan abnormalities; p<0·0001), more likely to have three or more comorbidities (OR 2·47 [1·32–4·82]; p
adjusted=0·0059), and more likely to have a more severe acute infection (acute CRP >5mg/L, OR 3·55 [1·23–11·88]; p
adjusted=0·025) than those without multiorgan abnormalities. Presence of lung MRI abnormalities was associated with a two-fold higher risk of chest tightness, and multiorgan MRI abnormalities were associated with severe and very severe persistent physical and mental health impairment (PHOSP-COVID symptom clusters) after hospitalisation. Interpretation: After hospitalisation for COVID-19, people are at risk of multiorgan abnormalities in the medium term. Our findings emphasise the need for proactive multidisciplinary care pathways, with the potential for imaging to guide surveillance frequency and therapeutic stratification. Funding: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research.</p
Characteristics and risk factors for post-COVID breathlessness after hospitalisation for COVID-19
No full textBACKGROUND: Persistence of respiratory symptoms—particularly breathlessness—after acute COVID-19 infection has emerged as a significant clinical problem. We aimed to characterise and identify risk factors for patients with persistent breathlessness following COVID-19 hospitalisation. METHODS: PHOSP-COVID is a multi-centre prospective cohort study of UK adults hospitalised for COVID-19. Clinical data were collected during hospitalisation and at a follow-up visit. Breathlessness was measured by a numeric rating scale of 0–10. We defined post-COVID breathlessness as an increase in score of 1 or more compared to the pre-COVID-19 level. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors, and to develop a prediction model for post-COVID breathlessness. RESULTS: We included 1226 participants (37% female, median age 59 years, 22% mechanically ventilated). At a median five months after discharge, 50% reported post-COVID breathlessness. Risk factors for post-COVID breathlessness were socio-economic deprivation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.14–2.44), pre-existing depression/anxiety (1.58; 1.06–2.35), female sex (1.56; 1.21–2.00) and admission duration (1.01; 1.00–1.02). Black ethnicity (0.56; 0.35–0.89) and older age groups (0.31; 0.14–0.66) were less likely to report post-COVID breathlessness. Post-COVID breathlessness was associated with worse performance on the shuttle walk test and forced vital capacity, but not with obstructive airflow limitation. The prediction model had fair discrimination (concordance-statistic 0.66; 0.63–0.69), and good calibration (calibration slope 1.00; 0.80–1.21). CONCLUSIONS: Post-COVID breathlessness was commonly reported in this national cohort of patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and is likely to be a multifactorial problem with physical and emotional components
Long-term impact of COVID-19 hospitalisation among individuals with pre-existing airway diseases in the UK:a multicentre, longitudinal cohort study - PHOSP-COVID
No full textBACKGROUND: The long-term outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalisation in individuals with pre-existing airway diseases are unknown.METHODS: Adult participants hospitalised for confirmed or clinically suspected COVID-19 and discharged between 5 March 2020 and 31 March 2021 were recruited to the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 (PHOSP-COVID) study. Participants attended research visits at 5 months and 1 year post discharge. Clinical characteristics, perceived recovery, burden of symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of individuals with pre-existing airway disease (i.e., asthma, COPD or bronchiectasis) were compared to the non-airways group.RESULTS: A total of 615 out of 2697 (22.8%) participants had a history of pre-existing airway diseases (72.0% diagnosed with asthma, 22.9% COPD and 5.1% bronchiectasis). At 1 year, the airways group participants were less likely to feel fully recovered (20.4% versus 33.2%, p<0.001), had higher burden of anxiety (29.1% versus 22.0%, p=0.002), depression (31.2% versus 24.7%, p=0.006), higher percentage of impaired mobility using short physical performance battery ≤10 (57.4% versus 45.2%, p<0.001) and 27% had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning) versus 16.6%, p=0.014. HRQoL assessed using EQ-5D-5L Utility Index was lower in the airways group (mean±SD 0.64±0.27 versus 0.73±0.25, p<0.001). Burden of breathlessness, fatigue and cough measured using a study-specific tool was higher in the airways group.CONCLUSION: Individuals with pre-existing airway diseases hospitalised due to COVID-19 were less likely to feel fully recovered, had lower physiological performance measurements, more burden of symptoms and reduced HRQoL up to 1 year post-hospital discharge.</p
- …
