| Literature DB >> 34301738 |
Mark J Ponsford1,2, Rhys Jefferies3,4, Chris Davies5, Daniel Farewell6, Ian R Humphreys2,7, Stephen Jolles8, Sara Fairbairn3,9, Keir Lewis10,11, Daniel Menzies12, Amit Benjamin13, Favas Thaivalappil14, Chris Williams15, Simon M Barry16.
Abstract
The burden of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection remains poorly defined. We report on the outcomes of 2508 adults with molecularly-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 admitted across 18 major hospitals, representing over 60% of those hospitalised across Wales between 1 March and 1 July 2020. Inpatient mortality for nosocomial infection ranged from 38% to 42%, consistently higher than participants with community-acquired infection (31%-35%) across a range of case definitions. Those with hospital-acquired infection were older and frailer than those infected within the community. Nosocomial diagnosis occurred a median of 30 days following admission (IQR 21-63), suggesting a window for prophylactic or postexposure interventions, alongside enhanced infection control measures. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; clinical epidemiology; infection control; respiratory Infection; viral infection
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34301738 PMCID: PMC8606436 DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-216964
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Thorax ISSN: 0040-6376 Impact factor: 9.102
Demographics and clinical features at presentation
| Variable | Died (%) | Discharged (%) | Total (%) |
| Admission hospital | 2508 | ||
| A | 174 (40.6) | 255 (59.4) | 429 (17.1) |
| B | 165 (38.9) | 259 (61.1) | 424 (16.9) |
| C | 96 (39.8) | 145 (60.2) | 241 (9.6) |
| D | 78 (32.9) | 159 (67.1) | 237 (9.4) |
| E | 97 (42.9) | 129 (57.1) | 226 (9.0) |
| F | 46 (27.1) | 124 (72.9) | 170 (6.8) |
| G | 35 (22.4) | 121 (77.6) | 156 (6.2) |
| H | 48 (33.3) | 96 (66.7) | 144 (5.7) |
| I | 19 (22.6) | 65 (77.4) | 84 (3.3) |
| J | 22 (27.2) | 59 (72.8) | 81 (3.2) |
| K | 35 (43.2) | 46 (56.8) | 81 (3.2) |
| L | 24 (32.0) | 51 (68.0) | 75 (3.0) |
| M | 14 (21.2) | 52 (78.8) | 66 (2.6) |
| N | 24 (38.7) | 38 (61.3) | 62 (2.5) |
| O | 6 (25.0) | 18 (75.0) | 24 (1.0) |
| P* | 2 (25.0) | 6 (75.0) | 8 (0.3) |
| Age group (years) | |||
| <65 | 115 (14.7) | 667 (85.3) | 782 (31.2) |
| 65–75 | 305 (44.4) | 382 (55.6) | 687 (27.4) |
| 75–85 | 273 (50.6) | 267 (49.4) | 540 (21.5) |
| >85 | 192 (38.5) | 307 (61.5) | 499 (19.9) |
| Sex | |||
| Female | 377 (32.9) | 768 (67.1) | 1145 (45.7) |
| Male | 508 (37.3) | 855 (62.7) | 1363 (54.3) |
| Median comorbidity count (IQR) | 3 (2–4) | 2 (0.5–3.5) | 2 (0.5–3.5) |
| Supplementary fields | |||
| WIMD† | |||
| Q1—most deprived | 265 (33.9) | 517 (66.2) | 782 (31.2) |
| Q2 | 251 (38.0) | 409 (62.0) | 660 (26.3) |
| Q3 | 163 (34.5) | 310 (65.5) | 473 (18.9) |
| Q4—least deprived | 168 (35.7) | 302 (64.3) | 470 (18.7) |
| WIMD unrecorded | 38 (30.9) | 85 (69.1) | 123 (4.9) |
| CFS score | |||
| 1—very fit | 21 (12.8) | 143 (87.2) | 164 (6.5) |
| 2—fit | 32 (16.1) | 167 (83.9) | 199 (7.9) |
| 3—managing well | 47 (27.3) | 125 (72.7) | 172 (6.9) |
| 4—vulnerable | 63 (39.9) | 95 (60.1) | 158 (6.3) |
| 5—mildly frail | 70 (52.6) | 63 (47.4) | 133 (5.3) |
| 6—frail | 117 (49.6) | 119 (50.4) | 236 (9.4) |
| 7—severely frail | 87 (50.0) | 87 (50.0) | 174 (6.9) |
| 8—very severely frail | 36 (62.1) | 22 (37.9) | 58 (2.3) |
| 9—terminally ill | 7 (63.6) | 4 (36.4) | 11 (0.4) |
| CFS score unrecorded | 405 (33.7) | 798 (66.3) | 1203 (48.0) |
| Ceiling of care | |||
| Intensive care | 102 (30.0) | 238 (70.0) | 340 (13.6) |
| Ward (CPAP) | 98 (42.2) | 134 (57.8) | 232 (9.2) |
| Ward (no CPAP) | 572 (41.2) | 817 (58.8) | 1389 (55.4) |
| Ceiling of care unrecorded | 113 (20.7) | 434 (79.3) | 547 (21.8) |
*Represents three combined centres (<5 patients each).
†WIMD, 1=most deprived, 1909=least deprived.
CFS, Clinical Frailty Scale; CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure; WIMD, Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation.
Figure 1Inpatient mortality rates by admission hospital sites scatter plot showing inpatient mortality rates for patients with community-acquired COVID-19 (circles) and nosocomial COVID-19 (triangles) by individual sites, with hospitals arranged by decreasing overall case load are plotted from the left. for 11/15 sites, inpatient mortality rates for nosocomial cases exceeds that of community acquired cases. Individual sites with fewer than five cases were excluded from analysis.
Figure 2Competing risk analysis plot of nosocomial and community infection outcomes of patients with COVID-19. Time to event analysis cumulative incidence analysis for the competing risks of discharge and diagnosis, using the time from SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. COVID-19 origin is assigned by the commonly used case definition, as outlined by Carter et al,2 nosocomial and community-acquired COVID-19 as labelled. Dotted lines: cumulative incidence of death, continuous lines: cumulative incidence of discharge on probability scale. To deal with potential survivorship bias introduced by including community-diagnoses tested prior to admission (who cannot reach discharge or death until admission), day 0 was defined as the more recent of day of admission or date of first positive diagnostic SARS-CoV-2 testing.