Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

TREATMENTS, RESOURCE UTILIZATION, AND OUTCOMES OF COVID-19 PATIENTS PRESENTING TO EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS ACROSS PANDEMIC WAVES: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY BY THE CANADIAN COVID-19 EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT RAPID RESPONSE NETWORK (CCEDRRN)

Corinne M. Hohl, Rhonda J. Rosychuk, Jeffrey P. Hau, Jake Hayward, Megan Landes, Justin W. Yan, Daniel K. Ting, Michelle Welsford, Patrick M Archambault, Eric Mercier, Kavish Chandra, Philip Davis, Samuel Vaillancourt, Murdoch Leeies, Serena Small, Laurie J. Morrison
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.30.21261288
Corinne M. Hohl
1Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
2Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: corinne.hohl@ubc.ca
Rhonda J. Rosychuk
3Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeffrey P. Hau
1Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
2Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jake Hayward
4Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Megan Landes
5Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
6University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Justin W. Yan
7Division of Emergency Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Canada
8Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel K. Ting
1Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michelle Welsford
9Division of Emergency Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
10Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patrick M Archambault
11Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Canada
12Centre de recherche du Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-Appalaches, Lévis, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eric Mercier
13Centre de recherche, CHU de Québec, Université Laval, Québec, Canada
14VITAM (Centre de recherche en santé durable), Québec, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kavish Chandra
15Department of Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie Medicine New Brunswick, Saint John, Canada
16Department of Emergency Medicine, Saint John Regional Hospital, Saint John, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Philip Davis
17Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Samuel Vaillancourt
5Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
6University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Murdoch Leeies
18Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
19Section of Critical Care Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Serena Small
1Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
2Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laurie J. Morrison
5Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
20Department of Emergency Medicine, St Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Background Treatment strategies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) evolved between pandemic waves. Our objective was to compare treatments, acute care resource utilization, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients presenting to Emergency Departments across two pandemic waves.

Methods This observational study enrolled consecutive eligible COVID-19 patients presenting to 46 Emergency Departments participating in the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) between March 1 and December 31, 2020. We collected data by retrospective chart review. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We used logistic regression modeling to assess the impact of pandemic wave on outcomes.

Results We enrolled 9,967 patients in 8 provinces, 3,336 from the first and 6,631 from the second wave. Patients in the second wave were younger, fewer met criteria for severe COVID-19, and more were discharged from the Emergency Department. Adjusted for patient characteristics and disease severity, steroid use increased (odds ratio [OR] 8.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.4 – 10.0), while the use of invasive mechanical ventilation decreased (OR 0.5; 95%CI 0.4 – 0.6) in the second wave. After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics and disease severity, the odds of hospitalization (OR 0.7; 95%CI 0.6 – 0.8) and critical care admission (OR 0.6; 95%CI 0.4 – 0.7) decreased, while mortality remained unchanged (OR 1.0; 95%CI 0.7-1.4).

Interpretation In patients presenting to Canadian acute care facilities, rapid uptake of steroid therapy was evident. Mortality was stable despite lower critical care utilization in the second wave.

Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04702945

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 continues to place a strain on acute care hospitals around the world. Early reports from the first wave of the pandemic were critical in allowing clinicians to gain an understanding of a new disease entity,(1–6) but reflected convenience samples of patients with more severe disease and typical presentations due to limited testing capacity.(7) Most studies omitted Emergency Department (ED) utilization,(1–6) even though EDs are the first point of contact in the acute care system for many with COVID-19, where critical admission and discharge decisions have to be made.

Early in the pandemic many patients were treated with experimental therapies such as hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, ritonavir/lopinavir, or ivermectin based on anecdotal evidence or inconclusive observational studies, some of which have been disproven.(8–10) While high-quality randomized controlled trials identified effective therapies and clear indications for their use,(11–13) others remain unsupported by high quality evidence.(14–16) Understanding changing treatments and resource utilization patterns is important to understanding the uptake of evidence-based therapies into clinical practice, and evaluating resource utilization and patient outcomes over time. These observations may guide jurisdictions with continued resource allocation challenges in future pandemic waves.

The Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN, pronounced “sedrin”) is a national collaboration that harmonized data collection on consecutive COVID-19 cases in 50 EDs across 8 provinces (https://canadiancovid19registry.org/).(17) CCEDRRN’s goal is to generate real-world high-quality observational studies to evaluate and inform the pandemic response. The main objective of this study was to compare treatments, acute care resource utilization, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients presenting to EDs across the first two pandemic waves.

METHODS

Design and Setting

This pan-Canadian observational study enrolled consecutive eligible COVID-19 patients who presented to the EDs of 46 participating acute care hospitals between March 1 and December 31, 2020.(17) The research ethics boards of participating institutions reviewed and approved the study protocol with a waiver of informed consent for patient enrollment. Patient partners with lived experience from geographically distributed locations across the country were engaged from study inception to completion. All study sponsors were not-for profit organizations, and had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing of this manuscript. All authors had access to study data, and vouch for this manuscript.

Study Population

Research assistants screened institutional or provincial medical microbiology testing lists for nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and lists of presenting complaints or discharge diagnoses for consecutive eligible patients.(17) We excluded data from two sites that were unable to initiate data entry in 2020, and two sites that were unable to demonstrate ≥99% compliance with patient enrollment to ensure an unbiased sample.

We included all COVID-19 patients presenting to the EDs of participating sites, who were seen by an emergency physician, and whose medical record review was complete at the time of the data cut (Figure 1). We excluded patients tested in the context of an elective admission as part of a pre-admission checklist (e.g., planned hip revision), who were never seen by an emergency physician (e.g., seen directly by a consultant), and those who acquired COVID-19 in-hospital.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 1. Gantt chart style for enrollment dates per site by pandemic wave

NS-Secondary Assessment Centre in NS closed in the first wave; ON-Toronto Western joined CCEDRRN in the second wave. We excluded four of 50 CCEDRRN sites. Two sites only started collecting data in 2021, and two sites had incomplete study trackers and were unable to demonstrate ≥99% compliance with patient enrollment.

Definitions

We defined confirmed COVID-19 as patients presenting with ongoing COVID-19 symptoms and a positive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) obtained 14 days prior to, or after their ED arrival. This allowed us to capture patients who were diagnosed in the community and subsequently presented to the ED, and those with early false negative tests. We included patients presenting with COVID-19 symptoms and diagnosed with “confirmed COVID-19” to capture patients who were transferred into a CCEDRRN hospital whose NAAT at the sending site could not be confirmed, and patients who were presumed by treating clinicians to have COVID-19 despite negative NAATs.

We defined repeat COVID infections as cases in whom SARS-CoV-2 was isolated on two ED visits at least 90 days apart, based on reports of the longest duration of viral shedding reported.(18–20)

We defined a wave as a period of sustained acceleration in cases followed by a period of sustained deceleration in cases on the World Health Organization (WHO) dashboard for Canada. Based on this, we allocated patients to the first wave if they presented between March 1 and June 30, 2020, and to the second wave if they presented between July 1 and December 31, 2020.

We defined presentations for severe COVID-19 according to WHO age-based criteria.(21) For adults, criteria for severe COVID-19 were met if the patient had an oxygen saturation of <90% on room air, a respiratory rate >30 breaths per minute, or signs of severe respiratory distress documented in the ED medical record.

Data Collection

Trained research assistants abstracted demographic and social, level of care, clinical, treatment, diagnostic and outcome variables from clinical records using standardized forms. We adhered to a data quality protocol and implemented data verification and quality checks to ensure high data quality.(17)

We calculated the seven-day moving average incident COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population for every health region included in the study.(22) We mapped every patient to the seven-day moving average incident COVID-19 case count of their health region using their postal code of residence and index ED visit date. As publicly available incident COVID-19 case data were not available for the early pandemic (0.1% of values were missing), we imputed values for the first five weeks of the pandemic by modeling reported COVID-19 over time using linear interpolation.(22)

Outcomes

Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included treatments, hospital and ICU admissions, and ED revisits and readmissions at seven and 30 days.

Statistical Analysis

We summarized patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes for each pandemic wave using descriptive statistics. We assessed wave differences with t-tests or analysis of variance (ANOVA) for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables. Separate logistic regressions with a random effect for patients modeled the associations between pandemic wave and the outcomes of interest. We considered different adjustments to provide an understanding of the incremental association between factors and the pandemic wave: (1) patient (age, sex, comorbidity, tobacco and illicit substance use) and presentation characteristics (arrival mode, arrival from, and WHO severe disease) recorded at the index ED visit, and (2) the variables in (1) as well as the seven-day moving average incident COVID-19 cases to account for changes in prognosis due to hospital burden.(23) We entered age and the seven-day moving average incident COVID-19 cases as continuous variables into our models; other variables were categorical. We conducted subgroup analyses on patients with severe COVID, pregnant patients, those reporting unstable housing, and those requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. We provided estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To ensure patient privacy, a cell size restriction policy prohibited us from reporting counts of less than five. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. We conducted all analyses using Stata (Version 16.1, StataCorp, College Station, Texas).

RESULTS

Main Results

We enrolled 9,967 COVID-19 patients, of whom 3,336 (33.5%) presented in the first and 6,631 (66.5%) in the second wave (Figures 1 & 2). Of these, 3,319 were enrolled in Quebec (33.3%), 2,868 in Alberta (28.8%) and 2,458 in British Columbia (25.6%). In all but 80 (0.8%) patients, a NAAT confirmed the COVID-19 diagnosis. Follow-up time was 30 days for discharged patients and between 30 and 229 days for admitted patients.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 2. Patient flow diagram

Pandemic Waves

Patients presenting to acute care hospitals differed between waves (Table 1). During the second wave, patients were younger (mean age 53.2 versus 59.4 years old) with a similar proportion being female (49.2% versus 49.7%), and fewer comorbidities compared to the first wave. In the second wave, patients were less likely to arrive from long-term care (5.6% versus 18.3%), report an occupational exposure (2.3% versus 8.7%), travel-related infection (1.9% versus 6.8%) or an institutional exposure (7.5% versus 18.6%). Fewer patients met criteria for severe disease in the second wave (11.8% versus 17.0%).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Patient and presentation characteristics by pandemic wave

Steroids were used more frequently (28.0% versus 9.5%, p<0.0001), and antimalarials (0.3% versus 9.0%, p<0.0001) and antivirals (1.5% versus 6.7%, p<0.0001) less frequently in the second wave (Table 2). Differences persisted after adjustment for baseline patient characteristics and disease severity (Tables 3a & b). A smaller proportion of patients were mechanically ventilated (3.7% versus 7.0%, p<0.0001) in the second wave versus the first, which also persisted after adjustment (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.41 – 0.64). Even though patients were intubated at the same time after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms (6.5 versus 6.3 days, p=0.81, Appendix Table 1), they were intubated later in their hospital course (3.2 versus 2.0 days, p<0.0001) in the second versus the first wave, and for a shorter duration of time (12.8 versus 16.4 days, p=0.018).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Acute care utilization and treatments of 9,967 patients, by pandemic wave

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 3a.

Adjusted and unadjusted difference in therapy between 9,903 visits in wave 1 and wave 21

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 3b.

Adjusted and unadjusted difference in therapy between 2,986 visits with WHO severe disease on arrival in wave 1 and wave 21

A greater proportion of patients were discharged directly from EDs in the second wave (61.3% versus 47.2%, p<0.0001; Table 4a). While a slightly higher proportion of patients revisited the ED within seven days (6.9% versus 5.8%, p=0.025), revisits were the same within 30 days (9.0% versus 8.8%, p=0.76) but more likely to result in admissions (8.2% versus 6.1%, p=0.008; Table 4b) in the second wave. In both waves a small proportion of patients died in the ED (0.5% versus 0.2%, p=0.016).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 4a.

Emergency Department visits (n=10,990) by pandemic wave

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 4b.

Hospital admissions (n=4,445) by pandemic wave

In the second wave, hospital admissions were shorter (mean 11.7 versus 15.6 days, p<0.0001; Table 4b), yet readmissions after hospital discharge were rare and similar across both waves (Appendix Table 2). In the second wave, fewer patients were admitted to critical care (7.7% versus 12.6%, p<0.0001; Table 2) and spent fewer days on average in critical care (10.5 versus 15.6 days, p<0.0001; Table 4b). These differences persisted after adjustment for differences in patient characteristics, disease severity, and the seven-day moving average incident COVID-19 cases (Table 5). Crude mortality was lower in the second wave (6.1% versus 8.5%; odds ratio [OR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.82), but disappeared after adjusting for patient characteristics, disease severity, and the seven-day moving average incident COVID-19 cases (OR 1.0; 95% CI 0.74-1.37).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 5.

Crude and adjusted effect of pandemic period on the outcomes of 9,903 visits1

Subgroups

During the study period, fewer than five of 9,967 patients (<0.05%, 95% CI 0.0002-0.0012%) re-visited a participating ED with a NAAT-confirmed re-infection greater than 90 days after their first visit. Among 119 pregnant patients, 28 (0.2%, 95% CI 0.2-0.3%) required admission, fewer than five (<0.05%, 95% CI: 0.013-0.09%) required mechanical ventilation, and none died. Among 176 (1.7%, 95% CI: 0.015-0.020%) patients reporting unstable housing (homeless, shelter, or single room occupancy), the proportion admitted was 50.6% (95% CI: 43.2-57.9%), and fewer than five (<5%, 95% CI: 0.84-5.93%) died.

INTERPRETATION

Main results

Our objective was to compare treatments, acute care utilization, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients presenting to acute care hospitals between pandemic waves. We found differences in patient characteristics between the first two waves reflecting public health measures to protect seniors and reduce travel.(24) We observed rapid uptake of evidence-based therapies and declining use of disproven therapies, indicating rapid translation of research evidence into practice. We observed decreasing hospital and critical care resource utilization over time, and less invasive mechanical ventilation with no adverse effect on mortality.

Explanation of the findings

Unlike previous studies that were limited to single sites,(25–27) we enrolled patients in urban and rural, and academic and non-academic sites across Canada. We captured all COVID-19 patients, including vulnerable patients who are typically unable to provide informed consent (e.g., those with language barriers). Thus, we are confident that our sample is representative of COVID-19 patients who presented to Canadian EDs during the study period. We ascertained the outcomes of all enrolled patients, without censoring of patient outcomes at 28 or 30 days, or at the time of analysis, as was commonly done in early studies leading to incomplete outcome ascertainments.(14,28) We observed changes to the frequency, initiation, and duration of invasive mechanical ventilation over the study period associated with decreasing critical care resource utilization, consistent with other studies.(29) Early in the pandemic, non-evidence based criteria had been widely disseminated recommending early endotracheal intubation.(30) These recommendations were widely adopted despite lack of supporting evidence. While ventilation strategies continue to lack high-quality supportive evidence, this guidance has been questioned.(14–16) Our study does not allow for causal inferences, but documented less frequent invasive mechanical ventilation, later intubations, and a shorter duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in the second wave. These were associated with reduced critical care resource utilization and no adverse impacts on mortality.

In contrast to other studies, mortality was stable in our cohort after adjustment for differences in baseline patient characteristics and disease severity. Some studies that used administrative data observed decreasing mortality in Spring 2020, before any evidence-based treatments had been identified.(6,31) While some hypothesized that these observations were the result of improved clinical care as clinicians gained experience treating COVID-19, it is possible that these findings were the result of ascertainment bias.(7) Testing restrictions during the first wave meant that only the sickest COVID-19 patients were recognized and tested, which could have introduced systematic error.(32) Studies describing risk factors for mortality have consistently pointed toward age and respiratory parameters as the two most important predictors for deterioration and mortality in COVID-19.(28) Administrative database studies are unable to capture these clinical variables, and thus are unable to adjust for differences in disease severity at presentation. As a result, it is possible that ascertainment bias and residual confounding explain the early drop in mortality observed in administrative database studies.(6) In the early pandemic, residents of long-term care were tested more liberally than healthier populations. Oversampling of long-term care residents early on may have increased the observed mortality risk in the first wave compared to the second due to competing risks.(31) These differences may explain the observed differences in mortality trends across studies. In contrast, CCEDRRN sites were able to enroll consecutive patients across both waves when testing resources were adequate and used clinical data to adjust for baseline differences.

Future directions

We were unable to link our data with genomic data to identify variants of concern which may be associated with higher in-hospital mortality.(33) While, variants of concern were limited in Canada during the study period, we plan to investigate this in future studies.

Limitations of the study

We captured data retrospectively, and thus were limited to what was documented in medical records. We validated retrospectively collected data elements at several sites by comparing retrospectively collected data with prospectively collected data.(17) We were unable to link our data with genomic data to identify variants of concern which may be associated with higher in-hospital mortality.(33) However, there was limited circulation of variants of concern in Canada during the study period. We removed data from four sites making the study less generalizable, but instead ensured the integrity of our sample of consecutive cases to avoid selection bias.

Conclusion

Our study documents rapid uptake of evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic, both for proven and disproven therapies, and efficiencies in resource utilization over time with increased rates of ED discharges and lower hospital and critical care resource use over time. This, indicates that advances in clinical decision-making and treatments created efficiencies, allowing health systems to safely care for greater numbers of patients.

Data Availability

The CCEDRRN network endorses the guidance put forth by the World Health Organization to enable data sharing to optimize learning. CCEDRRN accepts applications for access to data by external investigators, prioritizing data requests by network Members.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Ms. Amber Cragg in the preparation of this manuscript. We thank the UBC clinical coordinating centre staff, the UBC legal, ethics, privacy and contract staff and the research staff at each of the participating institutions in the network outlined in the attached Supplement. The network would not exist today without the dedication of these professionals.

Thank you to all of our patient partners who shared their lived experiences and perspectives to ensure that the knowledge we co-create addresses the concerns of patients and the public. Creating the largest network of collaboration across Canadian Emergency Departments would not have been feasible without the tireless efforts of Emergency Department Chiefs, and research coordinators and research assistants at participating sites. Finally, our most humble and sincere gratitude to all of our colleagues in medicine, nursing, and the allied health professions who have been on the front lines of this pandemic from day one staffing our ambulances, Emergency Departments, ICUs and hospitals bravely facing the risks of COVID-19 to look after our fellow citizens and after one another. We dedicate this network to you.

Appendix

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Appendix Table 1.

Characteristics of 479 mechanically ventilated patients

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Appendix Table 2A.

Number of hospital readmissions after index Emergency Department visits from which patients were discharged (n=361)

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Appendix Table 2B.

Number of hospital readmissions after index hospital admissions (n=106)

Footnotes

  • Funding: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (447679), Ontario Ministry of Colleges and Universities (C-655-2129), Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation (5357), Genome BC (COV024) and Fondation du CHU de Québec (Octroi No. 4007) provided peer-reviewed funding. The BC Academic Health Science Network and BioTalent Canada provided non-peer reviewed funding. These organizations are not-for-profit, and had no role in study conduct, analysis, or manuscript preparation.

  • Declaration of interests: The study authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Murthy S, Archambault PM, Atique A, Carrier FM, Cheng MP, Codan C, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital and intensive care in the first phase of the pandemic in Canada: a national cohort study. CMAJ Open. 2021 Mar;9(1):E181–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Verma AA, Hora T, Jung HY, Fralick M, Malecki SL, Lapointe-Shaw L, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of hospital admissions for COVID-19 and influenza in the Toronto area. CMAJ. 2021 Mar 22;193(12):E410–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.
    Mitchell R, Choi KB, Pelude L, Rudnick W, Thampi N, Taylor G, et al. Patients in hospital with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in a network of Canadian acute care hospitals, Mar. 1 to Aug. 31, 2020: a descriptive analysis. CMAJ Open. 2021 Mar;9(1):E149–56.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.
    Docherty AB, Harrison EM, Green CA, Hardwick HE, Pius R, Norman L, et al. Features of 20 133 UK patients in hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol: prospective observational cohort study. BMJ. 2020 May 22;m1985.
  5. 5.
    Richardson S, Hirsch JS, Narasimhan M, Crawford JM, McGinn T, Davidson KW, et al. Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2052.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Navaratnam AV, Gray WK, Day J, Wendon J, Briggs TWR. Patient factors and temporal trends associated with COVID-19 in-hospital mortality in England: an observational study using administrative data. Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Apr 1;9(4):397–406.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    Richterich P. Severe underestimation of COVID-19 case numbers: effect of epidemic growth rate and test restrictions [Internet]. Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS); 2020 Apr [cited 2021 Apr 8]. Available from: http://medrxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2020.04.13.20064220
  8. 8.↵
    The RECOVERY Collaborative Group. Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 19;383(21):2030–40.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.
    RECOVERY Collaborative Group. Lopinavir-ritonavir in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial. Lancet. 2020 Oct 5;S0140-6736(20)32013-4.
  10. 10.↵
    López-Medina E, López P, Hurtado IC, Dávalos DM, Ramirez O, Martínez E, et al. Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2021 Apr 13;325(14):1426.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Beigel JH, Tomashek KM, Dodd LE, Mehta AK, Zingman BS, Kalil AC, et al. Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Final Report. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 5;383(19):1813–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.
    WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group, Sterne JAC, Murthy S, Diaz JV, Slutsky AS, Villar J, et al. Association Between Administration of Systemic Corticosteroids and Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-analysis. JAMA. 2020 Oct 6;324(13):1330–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    The RECOVERY Collaborative Group. Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 25;384(8):693–704.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Botta M, Tsonas AM, Pillay J, Boers LS, Algera AG, Bos LDJ, et al. Ventilation management and clinical outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PRoVENT-COVID): a national, multicentre, observational cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Feb 1;9(2):139–48.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.
    Marini JJ, Gattinoni L. Management of COVID-19 Respiratory Distress. JAMA. 2020 Jun 9;323(22):2329–30.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Tobin MJ, Laghi F, Jubran A. Caution about early intubation and mechanical ventilation in COVID-19. Ann Intensive Care. 2020 Dec;10(1):78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Hohl CM, Rosychuk RJ, McRae AD, Brooks SC, Archambault P, Fok PT, et al. Development of the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network population-based registry: a methodology study. CMAJ Open. 2021 Jan 1;9(1):E261–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    Zhou B, She J, Wang Y, Ma X. The duration of viral shedding of discharged patients with severe COVID-19. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2020;
  19. 19.
    Noh JY, Yoon JG, Seong H, Choi WS, Sohn JW, Cheong HJ, et al. Asymptomatic infection and atypical manifestations of COVID-19: Comparison of viral shedding duration. J Infect. 2020 Nov;81(5):816–46.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Interim Guidance on Duration of Isolation and Precautions for Adults with COVID-19 [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jul 8]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/duration-isolation.html
  21. 21.↵
    World Health Organization.COVID-19 Clinical management: living guidance [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-clinical-2021-1
  22. 22.↵
    Esri Canada. COVID-19 Canada [Internet]. COVID-19 Resources. 2021. Available from: https://resources-covid19canada.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/3aa9f7b1428642998fa399c57dad8045/data?layer=1
  23. 23.↵
    Asch DA, Sheils NE, Islam MN, Chen Y, Werner RM, Buresh J, et al. Variation in US Hospital Mortality Rates for Patients Admitted With COVID-19 During the First 6 Months of the Pandemic. JAMA Intern Med [Internet]. 2020 Dec 22 [cited 2021 Apr 3]; Available from: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2774572
  24. 24.↵
    Canada PHA of. Individual and community-based measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in Canada [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Jul 8]. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/health-professionals/public-health-measures-mitigate-covid-19.html
  25. 25.↵
    Radovanovic D, Pini S, Franceschi E, Pecis M, Airoldi A, Rizzi M, et al. Characteristics and outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients during the first 28 days of the spring and autumn pandemic waves in Milan: An observational prospective study. Respir Med. 2021 Mar;178:106323.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.
    Iftimie S, López-Azcona AF, Vallverdú I, Hernández-Flix S, de Febrer G, Parra S, et al. First and second waves of coronavirus disease-19: A comparative study in hospitalized patients in Reus, Spain. PLoS One. 2021;16(3):e0248029.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    Warner F, Hitchings MDT, Cummings DAT, McPadden J, Krumholz HM, Ko AI, et al. Longitudinal Changes in COVID-19 Associated In-Hospital Mortality. medRxiv. 2021 May 7;2021.05.04.21255938.
  28. 28.↵
    Knight SR, Ho A, Pius R, Buchan I, Carson G, Drake TM, et al. Risk stratification of patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol: development and validation of the 4C Mortality Score. BMJ [Internet]. 2020 Sep 9 [cited 2021 Jun 7];370. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7116472/
  29. 29.↵
    Doidge JC, Gould DW, Ferrando-Vivas P, Mouncey PR, Thomas K, Shankar-Hari M, et al. Trends in Intensive Care for Patients with COVID-19 in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Mar 1;203(5):565–74.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    Zuo M-Z, Huang Y-G, Ma W-H, Xue Z-G, Zhang J-Q, Gong Y-H, et al. Expert Recommendations for Tracheal Intubation in Critically ill Patients with Noval Coronavirus Disease 2019. Chin Med Sci J. 2020 Feb 27;
  31. 31.↵
    Strålin K, Wahlström E, Walther S, Bennet-Bark AM, Heurgren M, Lindén T, et al. Second wave mortality among patients hospitalised for COVID-19 in Sweden: a nationwide observational cohort study. 2021 Mar 31 [cited 2021 Jul 8]; Available from: http://medrxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2021.03.29.21254557
  32. 32.↵
    Boudourakis L, Uppal A. Decreased COVID-19 Mortality-A Cause for Optimism. JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Apr 1;181(4):478–9.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    Jassat W, Mudara C, Ozougwu L, Tempia S, Blumberg L, Davies M-A, et al. Increased mortality among individuals hospitalised with COVID-19 during the second wave in South Africa. medRxiv. 2021 Mar 10;2021.03.09.21253184.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted August 01, 2021.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
TREATMENTS, RESOURCE UTILIZATION, AND OUTCOMES OF COVID-19 PATIENTS PRESENTING TO EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS ACROSS PANDEMIC WAVES: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY BY THE CANADIAN COVID-19 EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT RAPID RESPONSE NETWORK (CCEDRRN)
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
TREATMENTS, RESOURCE UTILIZATION, AND OUTCOMES OF COVID-19 PATIENTS PRESENTING TO EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS ACROSS PANDEMIC WAVES: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY BY THE CANADIAN COVID-19 EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT RAPID RESPONSE NETWORK (CCEDRRN)
Corinne M. Hohl, Rhonda J. Rosychuk, Jeffrey P. Hau, Jake Hayward, Megan Landes, Justin W. Yan, Daniel K. Ting, Michelle Welsford, Patrick M Archambault, Eric Mercier, Kavish Chandra, Philip Davis, Samuel Vaillancourt, Murdoch Leeies, Serena Small, Laurie J. Morrison
medRxiv 2021.07.30.21261288; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.30.21261288
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
TREATMENTS, RESOURCE UTILIZATION, AND OUTCOMES OF COVID-19 PATIENTS PRESENTING TO EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS ACROSS PANDEMIC WAVES: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY BY THE CANADIAN COVID-19 EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT RAPID RESPONSE NETWORK (CCEDRRN)
Corinne M. Hohl, Rhonda J. Rosychuk, Jeffrey P. Hau, Jake Hayward, Megan Landes, Justin W. Yan, Daniel K. Ting, Michelle Welsford, Patrick M Archambault, Eric Mercier, Kavish Chandra, Philip Davis, Samuel Vaillancourt, Murdoch Leeies, Serena Small, Laurie J. Morrison
medRxiv 2021.07.30.21261288; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.30.21261288

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Emergency Medicine
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (160)
  • Allergy and Immunology (412)
  • Anesthesia (90)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (855)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (156)
  • Dermatology (97)
  • Emergency Medicine (247)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (392)
  • Epidemiology (8534)
  • Forensic Medicine (4)
  • Gastroenterology (381)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (1739)
  • Geriatric Medicine (167)
  • Health Economics (370)
  • Health Informatics (1234)
  • Health Policy (618)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (467)
  • Hematology (196)
  • HIV/AIDS (369)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (10271)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (552)
  • Medical Education (192)
  • Medical Ethics (51)
  • Nephrology (210)
  • Neurology (1666)
  • Nursing (97)
  • Nutrition (247)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (325)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (450)
  • Oncology (925)
  • Ophthalmology (262)
  • Orthopedics (100)
  • Otolaryngology (172)
  • Pain Medicine (110)
  • Palliative Medicine (40)
  • Pathology (249)
  • Pediatrics (534)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (246)
  • Primary Care Research (205)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (1757)
  • Public and Global Health (3826)
  • Radiology and Imaging (622)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (317)
  • Respiratory Medicine (518)
  • Rheumatology (207)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (164)
  • Sports Medicine (156)
  • Surgery (190)
  • Toxicology (36)
  • Transplantation (100)
  • Urology (74)