Search

According to many studies, addressing the religious and spiritual (R/S) needs of patient's increase patient satisfaction. One area of interest is how patient self-perceived level of religiosity and spirituality (R/S) influences hospital needs. In this cross-sectional study, 195 inpatients at a non-faith-based academic hospital in Toledo, OH, USA completed surveys examining self-perceived R/S levels, as well as how those R/S levels impacted preferred services, conversations, and experiences in the hospital. Patients with no religious identity (self-identified as atheist, agnostic, or no religion) were less likely to report discussions about R/S needs than religious respondents (16.7% vs. 47.3%, p = 0.039). Nevertheless, such patients were just as likely to want a R/S conversation started by their healthcare provider (75% vs. 56%, p = 0.241). Those with no R/S identity were more likely to report presumed negative assumptions by hospital staff (25% vs. 0%, p

Background Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is associated with hypercoagulability and increased thrombotic risk in critically ill patients. To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated whether aspirin use is associated with reduced risk of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and in-hospital mortality. Methods A retrospective, observational cohort study of adult patients admitted with COVID-19 to multiple hospitals in the United States between March 2020 and July 2020 was performed. The primary outcome was the need for mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were ICU admission and in-hospital mortality. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for study outcomes were calculated using Cox-proportional hazards models after adjustment for the effects of demographics and comorbid conditions. Results Four hundred twelve patients were included in the study. Three hundred fourteen patients (76.3%) did not receive aspirin, while 98 patients (23.7%) received aspirin within 24 hours of admission or 7 days before admission. Aspirin use had a crude association with less mechanical ventilation (35.7% aspirin versus 48.4% nonaspirin, P = .03) and ICU admission (38.8% aspirin versus 51.0% nonaspirin, P = .04), but no crude association with in-hospital mortality (26.5% aspirin versus 23.2% nonaspirin, P = .51). After adjusting for 8 confounding variables, aspirin use was independently associated with decreased risk of mechanical ventilation (adjusted HR, 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.85, P = .007), ICU admission (adjusted HR, 0.57, 95% CI, 0.38-0.85, P = .005), and in-hospital mortality (adjusted HR, 0.53, 95% CI, 0.31-0.90, P = .02). There were no differences in major bleeding (P = .69) or overt thrombosis (P = .82) between aspirin users and nonaspirin users. Conclusions Aspirin use may be associated with improved outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, a sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial is needed to assess whether a causal relationship exists between aspirin use and reduced lung injury and mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Objective Hyperglycemia is an independent risk factor in hospitalized patients for adverse outcomes, even if patients are not diabetic. We used continuous glucose monitoring to evaluate whether glycemic control (hyperglycemia) in the first 72 h after an intensive care admission was associated with the need for admission to a post discharge long-term medical facility. Results We enrolled 59 coronary artery bypass grafting patients. Poor glycemic control was defined as greater than 33% of continuous glucose monitoring values 180 mg/dL (group 1); and then these patients were reevaluated with a less strict definition of poor glycemic control with greater than 25% of continuous glucose values 180 mg/dL (group 2). In group 1 4/10 (40.0%) whose glucose was not well controlled went to an extended care post discharge facility as opposed to 6/49 (12.2%) that were well controlled. In reevaluation as group 2, 5/14 (35.7%) whose glucose was not well controlled went to an extended care post discharge facility as opposed to 5/45 (11.1%) who were well controlled. Admission to a post discharge facility was increased in patients with poor glycemic control p = 0.045 and p = 0.042 for group 1 and group 2, and with odds ratios of 4.8 (95% CI 1.0–22.5) and 4.4 (95% CI 1.0–19.4), respectively.