Child maltreatment (CM) is a global public health issue, with reported impacts on health and social outcomes. Evidence on mortality is lacking. In this study, we aimed to estimate the impact of CM on death rates in persons 16 to 33 years.A retrospective cohort study of all persons born in South Australia 1986 to 2003 using linked administrative data. CM exposure was based on child protection service (CPS) contact: unexposed, no CPS contact before 16 years, and 7 exposed groups. Deaths were observed until May 31, 2019 and plotted from 16 years. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) by CPS category were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for child and maternal characteristics. Incident rate ratios (IRRs) were derived for major causes of death, with and without CPS contact.The cohort included 331 254 persons, 20% with CPS contact. Persons with a child protection matter notification and nonsubstantiated or substantiated investigation had more than twice the death rate compared with persons with no CPS contact: aHR = 2.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.62-2.70) to aHR = 2.61 (95% CI = 1.99-3.43). Relative to no CPS contact, persons ever placed in out-of-home care had the highest mortality if first placed in care aged ≥3 years (aHR = 4.67 [95% CI = 3.52-6.20]); aHR was 1.75(95% CI = 0.98-3.14) if first placed in care aged <3 years. The largest differential cause-specific mortality (any contact versus no CPS contact) was death from poisonings, alcohol, and/or other substances (IRR = 4.82 [95% CI = 3.31-7.01]) and from suicide (IRR = 2.82 [95% CI = 2.15-3.68]).CM is a major underlying cause of potentially avoidable deaths in early adulthood. Clinical and family-based support for children and families in which CM is occurring must be a priority to protect children from imminent risk of harm and early death as young adults.
Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies.
Objective
To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19–related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.
Design, Setting, and Participants
A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19–related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021.
Interventions
Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475).
Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days.
Results
The trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, −8% [95% CI, −15% to −1%],P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, −1% [95% CI, −8% to 6%],P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group.
Conclusions and Relevance
Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings.
Abstract Introduction This study aims to explore the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on critical care by examining associations between vaccination and admission to critical care with COVID-19 during England’s Delta wave, by age group, dose, and over time. Methods We used linked routinely-collected data to conduct a population cohort study of patients admitted to adult critical care in England for management of COVID-19 between 1 May and 15 December 2021. Included participants were the whole population of England aged 18 years or over (44.7 million), including 10,141 patients admitted to critical care with COVID-19. The intervention was vaccination with one, two, or a booster/three doses of any COVID-19 vaccine. Results Compared with unvaccinated patients, vaccinated patients were older (median 64 years for patients receiving two or more doses versus 50 years for unvaccinated), with higher levels of severe comorbidity (20.3% versus 3.9%) and immunocompromise (15.0% versus 2.3%). Compared with patients who were unvaccinated, those vaccinated with two doses had a relative risk reduction (RRR) of between 90.1% (patients aged 18–29, 95% CI, 86.8% to 92.7%) and 95.9% (patients aged 60–69, 95% CI, 95.5% to 96.2%). Waning was only observed for those aged 70+, for whom the RRR reduced from 97.3% (91.0% to 99.2%) to 86.7% (85.3% to 90.1%) between May and December but increased again to 98.3% (97.6% to 98.8%) with a booster/third dose. Conclusion Important demographic and clinical differences exist between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients admitted to critical care with COVID-19. While not a causal analysis, our findings are consistent with a substantial and sustained impact of vaccination on reducing admissions to critical care during England’s Delta wave, with evidence of waning predominantly restricted to those aged 70+.
Background New-onset atrial fibrillation occurs in around 10% of adults treated in an intensive care unit. New-onset atrial fibrillation may lead to cardiovascular instability and thromboembolism, and has been independently associated with increased length of hospital stay and mortality. The long-term consequences are unclear. Current practice guidance is based on patients outside the intensive care unit; however, new-onset atrial fibrillation that develops while in an intensive care unit differs in its causes and the risks and clinical effectiveness of treatments. The lack of evidence on new-onset atrial fibrillation treatment or long-term outcomes in intensive care units means that practice varies. Identifying optimal treatment strategies and defining long-term outcomes are critical to improving care. Objectives In patients treated in an intensive care unit, the objectives were to (1) evaluate existing evidence for the clinical effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, (2) compare the use and clinical effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, and (3) determine outcomes associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation. Methods We undertook a scoping review that included studies of interventions for treatment or prevention of new-onset atrial fibrillation involving adults in general intensive care units. To investigate the long-term outcomes associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation, we carried out a retrospective cohort study using English national intensive care audit data linked to national hospital episode and outcome data. To analyse the clinical effectiveness of different new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, we undertook a retrospective cohort study of two large intensive care unit databases in the USA and the UK. Results Existing evidence was generally of low quality, with limited data suggesting that beta-blockers might be more effective than amiodarone for converting new-onset atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm and for reducing mortality. Using linked audit data, we showed that patients developing new-onset atrial fibrillation have more comorbidities than those who do not. After controlling for these differences, patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation had substantially higher mortality in hospital and during the first 90 days after discharge (adjusted odds ratio 2.32, 95% confidence interval 2.16 to 2.48; adjusted hazard ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.26 to 1.70, respectively), and higher rates of subsequent hospitalisation with atrial fibrillation, stroke and heart failure (adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 5.86, 95% confidence interval 5.33 to 6.44; adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.93; and adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.44, respectively), than patients who did not have new-onset atrial fibrillation. From intensive care unit data, we found that new-onset atrial fibrillation occurred in 952 out of 8367 (11.4%) UK and 1065 out of 18,559 (5.7%) US intensive care unit patients in our study. The median time to onset of new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients who received treatment was 40 hours, with a median duration of 14.4 hours. The clinical characteristics of patients developing new-onset atrial fibrillation were similar in both databases. New-onset atrial fibrillation was associated with significant average reductions in systolic blood pressure of 5 mmHg, despite significant increases in vasoactive medication (vasoactive-inotropic score increase of 2.3; p < 0.001). After adjustment, intravenous beta-blockers were not more effective than amiodarone in achieving rate control (adjusted hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.44) or rhythm control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.11). Digoxin therapy was associated with a lower probability of achieving rate control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.86) and calcium channel blocker therapy was associated with a lower probability of achieving rhythm control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.79) than amiodarone. Findings were consistent across both the combined and the individual database analyses. Conclusions Existing evidence for new-onset atrial fibrillation management in intensive care unit patients is limited. New-onset atrial fibrillation in these patients is common and is associated with significant short- and long-term complications. Beta-blockers and amiodarone appear to be similarly effective in achieving cardiovascular control, but digoxin and calcium channel blockers appear to be inferior. Future work Our findings suggest that a randomised controlled trial of amiodarone and beta-blockers for management of new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients should be undertaken. Studies should also be undertaken to provide evidence for or against anticoagulation for patients who develop new-onset atrial fibrillation in intensive care units. Finally, given that readmission with heart failure and thromboembolism increases following an episode of new-onset atrial fibrillation while in an intensive care unit, a prospective cohort study to demonstrate the incidence of atrial fibrillation and/or left ventricular dysfunction at hospital discharge and at 3 months following the development of new-onset atrial fibrillation should be undertaken. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13252515. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 25, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Abstract Several studies have reported associations between COVID-19 vaccination and risk of cardiac diseases, especially in young people; the impact on mortality, however, remains unclear. We use national, linked electronic health data in England to assess the impact of COVID-19 vaccination and positive SARS-CoV-2 tests on the risk of cardiac and all-cause mortality in young people (12 to 29 years) using a self-controlled case series design. Here, we show there is no significant increase in cardiac or all-cause mortality in the 12 weeks following COVID-19 vaccination compared to more than 12 weeks after any dose. However, we find an increase in cardiac death in women after a first dose of non mRNA vaccines. A positive SARS-CoV-2 test is associated with increased cardiac and all-cause mortality among people vaccinated or unvaccinated at time of testing.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)