Search

Background Racial bias has always been a concern for healthcare. Lack of guideline directed utilization of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in cardiogenic shock (CS) may lead to implicit and racial bias. Purpose To identify the racial differences in the use of mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock and its association with outcomes. Methods National Inpatient Database from 2015–2018 using ICD 10 codes was used. Patients >18 years of age admitted for cariogenic shock were included. Results Among 1,021,274 patients hospitalized for cardiogenic shock, overall MCS was utilized in 11.4% (N=116,539). Use of MCS for patients stratified by race was 12.2% white (N=85543), 8% Blacks (N=14688), 11.3% Hispanics (N=11067), 13.8% Asian (N=4417), 12.3% Native American (N=825). IABP was the most commonly used MCS device, followed by Impella, ECMO and LVAD. Overall odds of MCS insertion was significantly higher in white population [1.18 (1.13–1.23) Conclusion(s) There still exist significant racial differences in the use of mechanical circulatory devices for cardiogenic shock potentially leading to significantly higher mortality in black population compared to whites. This difference in mortality is mitigated with equal use of MCS devices in cardiogenic shock among all races. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Active surveillance and treatment of hypomagnesemia along with strict avoidance of concurrent offending agents is essential to prevent its grave clinical consequences among patients on carboplatin therapy.

ObjectivesTo determine if obesity and diabetes are risk factors for severe outcomes in COVID-19 and to compare patient outcomes in those two conditions.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingUrban tertiary care center in New York City.Participants302 patients admitted in an inpatient setting, ≥18 years old, with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 via nasal PCR swab were randomly selected. Patients were separated into two cohorts based on their body mass index and hemoglobin A1c. 150 patients were placed in the non-obese, non-diabetic cohort and 152 patients were placed in the corresponding cohort (obesity alone, obesity and diabetes, and diabetes alone).MeasurementsPrimary outcomes were development of acute kidney injury, commencement of renal replacement therapy, aminotransferase elevation, troponin elevation, lactic acidosis, development of septic shock, use of vasopressors, presence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and intubation. The secondary outcomes were length of stay in days and mortality.ResultsPatients with obesity and/or diabetes were more likely to develop ARDS (79 patients vs 57 patients, pConclusionsIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19, those with obesity and/or diabetes were more likely to suffer severe complications, but had negligible differences in mortality. This highlights the importance of close monitoring of patients with these conditions and additional areas of research needed to explain the mortality findings.

Thrombotic complications in patients with prior COVID‐19 infection raises concern for a persistent hypercoagulable state among these patients. Thus, there is a dire need for further research aimed at anticoagulation guidelines for the same.