Introduction Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged as a global pandemic that has placed an unprecedented burden on intensive care services worldwide. Identification of a reliable risk-stratification tool for COVID-19 patients is necessary for appropriate resource allocation, selection of clinical management pathways, and guidance of goals of care conversations with families and caregivers in the critical care setting. The Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scoring system is one of several predictive models used to classify illness severity and estimate mortality risk on admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Our retrospective study sought to evaluate the prognostic ability of the APACHE II score in COVID-19 patients according to endpoints of mortality and length of stay (LOS) as well as unfavorable clinical outcomes, including development of acute renal failure (ARF) requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) and acute venous thromboembolic events (VTE). Methods This multicenter retrospective cohort study evaluated a randomized sample of 3,102 patients with confirmed COVID-19 disease admitted to the ICU from January 2020 to May 2020. A total of 395 patients with complete data points for appropriate APACHE II score calculation, absence of the preexisting comorbidities end-stage renal disease, and history of VTE were included. Linear and logistic regression models were employed to evaluate primary outcomes of mortality and LOS as well as secondary outcomes of VTE and ARF requiring continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) or hemodialysis (HD). Key results Among the 395 patients enrolled, total percent mortality and mean LOS were 37.0% and 12.92 days, respectively. Primary outcome analysis revealed a statistically significant increase in odds of mortality as well as in mean LOS with every additional point increase in APACHE II score from a baseline of zero. Specifically, for every point increase in the APACHE II score, odds of mortality increased by 12% (p value < 0.001), and average LOS increased by 0.2 days (p value < 0.001). In our secondary outcome analysis, 14.43% and 62.2% of the total sample population developed ARF requiring RRT and VTE, respectively.

IntroductionDirect-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are approved for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation and treatment of venous thromboembolism. Most recent guidelines recommend DOACs over warfarin for most diagnoses given their predictable pharmacodynamics, lack of required monitoring, and safety profile. Specific outcomes such as shock, acute renal failure, and blood transfusion requirement while on oral anticoagulation compared to no anticoagulation remain unknown in patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds. MethodsThis retrospective study used the HCA Healthcare Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW) to analyze 13,440 patients aged >18 years that were admitted with an upper GI bleed from January 2017 to December 2019. The patients were categorized based on oral anticoagulant (i.e. rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran and warfarin). The control group was patients admitted with an upper GI bleed not on oral anticoagulation. We evaluated the severity of upper GI bleeds while on oral anticoagulation based on the outcomes: mortality rate, length of stay, acute renal failure, shock, and need for packed red blood cell transfusions (pRBC). Comorbid conditions assessed were coronary artery disease (CAD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure (HF), atrial fibrillation (AF), venous thromboembolism (VTE), peripheral vascular disease (PVD), tobacco abuse, alcohol abuse, and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Home use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI), aspirin, and P2Y12 inhibitors were also evaluated. ResultsPatients on a DOAC without home PPI have a mortality odds ratio of 3.066 with a confidence interval (CI) greater than 95% (1.48-6.26, p<0.05) compared to patients on a DOAC and home PPI. Patients on warfarin and no home PPI have a mortality odds ratio of 5.55 (95% CI (1.02-30.35), p<0.05) compared to those on warfarin with home PPI use. In the no anticoagulation group, those not on PPI have an odds ratio of 3.28 (95% CI (2.54-4.24), p<0.05) of death compared to home PPI use. There was no statistical difference in mortality between each DOAC and warfarin.There was no difference in the presence of acute renal failure or shock when comparing each DOAC, warfarin, and no medication. For patients presenting with GI bleed, 0.8414 units of pRBC were transfused. Patients not on oral anticoagulation were found to have statistically significant decrease in pRBC transfusion if they did not report alcohol use, CKD, HF, AF, VTE, PVD. Patients on DOACs and alcohol use have an average pRBC transfusion count that is 0.922 units more than those without reported alcohol use (p=0.006). In the warfarin group, there was no statistical significance noted when comparing pRBC transfusions and also when comparing to baseline comorbidities. ConclusionThe retrospective study leads us to conclude that overall, patients taking the DOACs or warfarin had no statistically significant increase in RBC transfusions, length of stay, shock, acute renal failure, or mortality rate compared to patients who were not on oral a...

Due to its minimal side-effect profile, immunotherapy has become a popular choice for the treatment of advanced melanoma as compared to conventional chemotherapy. The most common side effects associated with immunotherapy include gastrointestinal, pulmonary, and dermatologic manifestations. However, there have been very few documented occurrences of nephrotoxic side effects. We present a case of a 73-year-old male with a past medical history of chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 3A, metastatic uveal melanoma, and gastroesophageal reflux disease on pantoprazole who arrived at the intensive care unit with altered mental status and creatinine of 27 gm/dl (baseline creatinine of 3 gm/dl about one year prior), after receiving his first dose of ipilimumab and nivolumab approximately 21 days prior. Kidney biopsy demonstrated acute tubulointerstitial nephritis (ATIN). This case highlights the importance of recognizing acute tubulointerstitial nephritis as a side effect of immunotherapy for prompt diagnosis and early treatment.

The psychiatric and neurological symptoms of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are referred to as lupus cerebritis. The wide range of symptoms associated with SLE can pose a diagnostic challenge. We present a case of lupus cerebritis in a 31-year-old female presenting with psychosis. We present this case to increase awareness of the psychiatric manifestations of SLE that can be mistaken for more common etiologies of psychosis.

e19234 Background: More sophisticated treatment techniques in cancer management have led to increased complexity in patient care. The perception of cancer outcomes is different between physicians and may result in premature hospice referral in hospitalized patients with or without cancer-related acute illness. We created a clinical scenario-based survey to assess perceptions of goals of care choices of inpatient primary providers while caring for patients with malignancies. Methods: A survey was developed and sent to all internal medicine and primary care residency programs nationwide via “Survey Monkey” online platform. Cases were adapted from real patient encounters. A total of 8 cases were presented and physicians were asked to determine level of care. Two cases represented potentially curable disease, three described patients with treatable but incurable malignancies, and the remainder described patients with advanced malignancies appropriate for hospice care. Physicians were also questioned about patterns of consulting hematology/oncology (HO) and their opinions regarding barriers in providing care to patients with malignancies. Results: Of 269 physicians who took the survey, 184 physicians (68%) fully completed it. 37% reported consulting HO for every patient with underlying malignancy, while 2% of the providers do not have access to HO consultants. In curable cancers, 65% of physicians would request inpatient oncology consultation while 11% would initiate hospice referral. There was a significant variation in choices for care in treatable cancer cases. In case 1, 13% of surveyed physicians thought that patients were hospice appropriate, while a higher percentage felt the same for the 2nd and 3rd cases with 18% and 52%, respectively. For hospice-appropriate patients, 25% of providers felt that further cancer treatment should be performed in younger patients, while the majority agreed on hospice referral (91%) for older patients. The most reported barrier to providing care to hospitalized patients with malignancies was a disconnect between the perception of goals of care of the primary treating oncologist/hematologist and patient’s actual condition. Conclusions: Perceptions about goals of care in hospitalized patients with malignancies varies and is affected by patient age and perceived severity of disease, which doesn’t necessarily translate into outcome statistics reported in literature. A multidisciplinary approach and treating oncologist involvement might be warranted when patient goals of care change is planned in hospital setting.