Abstract
Background:
Length of hospital stay (LOS) for a disease is a vital estimate for healthcare logistics planning. The study aimed to illustrate the effect of factors elicited on arrival on LOS of the COVID-19 patients.
Materials and Methods:
It was a retrospective, record based, unmatched, case control study using hospital records of 334 COVID-19 patients admitted in an East Indian tertiary healthcare facility during May to October 2020. Discharge from the hospital (cases/survivors) was considered as an event while death (control/non-survivors) as right censoring in the case-control survival analysis using cox proportional hazard model.
Results:
Overall, we found the median LOS for the survivors to be 8 days [interquartile range (IQR): 7-10 days] while the same for the non-survivors was 6 days [IQR: 2-11 days]. In the multivariable cox-proportional hazard model; travel distance (>16 km) [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.69, 95% CI: (0.50-0.95)], mode of transport to the hospital (ambulance) [aHR: 0.62, 95% CI: (0.45-0.85)], breathlessness (yes) [aHR: 0.56, 95% CI: (0.40-0.77)], number of co-morbidities (1-2) [aHR: 0.66, 95% CI: (0.47-0.93)] (≥3) [aHR: 0.16, 95% CI: (0.04-0.65)], COPD/asthma (yes) [ [aHR: 0.11, 95% CI: (0.01-0.79)], DBP (<60/≥90) [aHR: 0.55, 95% CI: (0.35-0.86)] and qSOFA score (≥2) [aHR: 0.33, 95% CI: (0.12-0.92)] were the significant attributes affecting LOS of the COVID-19 patients.
Conclusion:
Factors elicited on arrival were found to be significantly associated with LOS. A scoring system inculcating these factors may be developed to predict LOS of the COVID-19 patients.
Keywords: length of stay, COVID-19, association, dyspnea, comorbidity
Introduction
It’s being more than a year since the first case of COVID-19 reported in Wuhan, China. 1 Since then, the pandemic has affected millions of lives around the globe. 2 It has interrupted routine healthcare delivery and challenged healthcare infrastructure of even developed countries.3-8 India reported first ever COVID-19 case in January 2020. 9 Since then, the country has reported over 30 million COVID-19 cases and 4 00 000 deaths associated with the disease. 2
Length of hospital stay (LOS) for a disease is a vital estimate for healthcare logistics planning. 10 Decreased LOS is reported to be associated with lowered risk of hospital acquired infection, reduction in financial burden for treatment among the patients, higher bed turnover rate of the hospitals (increases bed availability for the other patients) and vice versa can be told for increased LOS.11,12 For COVID-19 the reported associates of LOS are age, gender, nutritional status, presenting symptoms (ie, fever, breathlessness, fatigue, anorexia etc.), co-morbidities (ie, hypertension, heart disease, diabetes etc.), vitals (ie, respiratory rate, blood pressure etc.) laboratory parameters [ie, d-dimer, C-reactive protein (CRP), leucocyte count, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) etc.], radio graphical parameters (ie, chest X-ray, CT scan findings etc.), and medications (ie, tocilizumab, ACEI, ARB, metformin etc.).13-22 Although in terms of healthcare logistic planning the factors that could predict LOS of COVID-19 patients early bears additional importance. Patient characteristics and vital signs at the time of admission are being already linked with the level of care requirement, disease progression and mortality among COVID-19 patients by some prior studies.23-25 Although considering specifically for LOS, no such prior attempts have been made in Indian context.
Early identification of factors influencing LOS of COVID-19 patients may help policymakers to plan healthcare logistics (man, money, and material) for the disease accordingly. On extensive literature search we could only retrieve 2 prior Indian studies which have explored LOS among COVID-19 patients.13,14 Although these 2 studies had their own limitations. The study conducted by Thiruvengadam et al 13 did not report median survival time for the found associated variables. By contrast, Mishra et al 14 analyzed data extracted from media bulletin and elicited very few variables. Moreover, both these studies were conducted in Karnataka (a southern state of India). Therefore, the current retrospective case-control study was planned to illustrate the effect of factors elicited on arrival on LOS of the COVID-19 patients admitted in a tertiary care hospital of East India.
Materials and Methods
Study Setting and Period
It was a retrospective, record based, unmatched, case control study using hospital records of COVID-19 patients admitted in an East Indian tertiary healthcare facility situated in Patna city beside holy river Ganges during May to October 2020. Our institute have pioneered COVID-19 care in the region since its emergence with over 400 general and 60 intensive care unit (ICU) beds and over 3000 dedicated healthcare workforces. During July to December, 2020 the institute have also functioned as COVID-19 dedicated tertiary healthcare facility to meet increasing tertiary COVID-19 care needs of the region. Those who were discharged as per medical advice were the cases, while those who died were deemed as controls for the study. Notably those who were admitted in non-COVID-19 wards of the hospital before ultimately being diagnosed as a COVID-19 patient and left against medical advice (LAMA) during the study period were not considered for inclusion.
Sample Size Determination
Considering 1.75 relative hazard (median LOS in hospital for discharged and died cases were reported to be 14 and 8 days subsequently by Rees et al 26 ), equal number of cases and controls, 99% precision and 85% power the minimum sample size for each group was calculated to be 167 using an online sample size calculator. 27 The said online sample size calculator uses following formula for sample size estimation in case of survival analysis: n = (Zα + Zβ)2/(log(RH))2q0q1 where RH = relative hazard, q1 = proportion of subjects that are in group 1 (exposed) and q0 = proportion of subjects that are in group 0 (unexposed); 1-q1.
Sampling Technique
During the study period in total 2981 COVID-19 patients (tested positive by RTPCR/rapid antigen test) were admitted in the selected healthcare facility. Out of these 297 (9.9%) were LAMA and 234 (7.8%) were admitted in non-COVID-19 wards before being diagnosed as COVID-19 positive. So, these were excluded. Out of the rest, 2450 patients 303 eventually died. Separate line list of these 2147 (87.6%) discharged cases and 303 (12.4%) death cases were prepared. The required number of cases and controls were selected from these line lists using simple random sampling. Microsoft excel 2016 was used to generate random numbers.
Data Collection Procedure
The variables extracted from the records of the selected COVID-19 patients were age (in completed years), sex (male/female), travel distance (distance of the current healthcare facility from his/her native place) (in kilometers), mode of seeking healthcare (contact tracing/self-reported) and mode of transport to the hospital (self-owned/ rented vehicle/ambulance). Presenting complaints like fever (yes/no), cough (yes/no), breathlessness (yes/no), sore throat (yes/no), diarrhea (yes/no), nausea/ vomiting (yes/no) and fatigue (yes/no) were documented. Presence of co-morbidities like ischemic heart disease (IHD) (yes/no), hypertension (HTN) (yes/no), diabetes (DM) (yes/no), cancer (yes/no), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)/asthma (yes/no) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) (yes/no) were elicited. Vitals documented at the time of admission like respiratory rate (RR) (in breaths per minute), temperature (in degree Fahrenheit), oxygen saturation (SpO2) (in percentage), pulse rate (PR) (in beats per minute), systolic blood pressure (SBP) (in mmHg), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (in mmHg), Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score and quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score were also documented for the study.
Statistical Analysis
The data were first entered in Microsoft excel 2016. Then imported on Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (Chicago, USA) (version 22.0) for analysis. We presented categorical variables as frequency (percentage) while median [interquartile range (IQR)] were used to report continuous variables. We considered discharge from the hospital as an event (cases/survivors) while death was deemed as right censoring (control/non-survivors). Overall survival of the study subjects was depicted using Kaplan-Meier curve. To report survival time median [95% confidence interval (CI)] was used. To elicit association between LOS and its associates at first univariate cox proportional hazard regression was done. Attributes which were significant in univariate analysis (P ≤ .05) were entered to multivariable cox proportional hazard model using backward likelihood ratio (LR) method. The multivariable model with highest −2 log likelihood value was finally reported. The strength of association was measured in terms of hazard ratios (HRs) at 95% confidence limits.
Results
The median age of the studied COVID-19 patients was 55 years with interquartile range (IQR) of 40 to 65 years. Overall, we found the median LOS for the survivors to be 8 days [interquartile range (IQR): 7-10 days] while the same for the non-survivors was 6 days [IQR: 2-11 days]. Survivors had more probability of higher LOS compared to non-survivors. In univariate cox-proportional hazard model; higher age, number of co-morbidities and travelling distance to seek healthcare, self-reporting to the healthcare facility, complaint of breathlessness, deranged RR, SpO2, PR, SBP, DBP, GCS, and qSOFA score on admission increased LOS while complaint of sore throat on admission decreased the same. Similarly, among the reported co-morbidities, COPD/asthma was found be associated with slowest recovery followed by CKD, diabetes, hypertension and ischemic heart disease. The median days since symptomatic prior to admission was 6 days with IQR of 4 to 8 days. The duration of symptoms prior to admission was not found to be associated with LOS [HR: 0.85, 95% CI: (0.63-1.16)] (Figure 1 and Table 1).
Figure 1.
Kaplan Meier curve showing overall survival of the COVID-19 patients (n = 334).
Table 1.
Univariate Cox Proportional Hazard Model Showing Factors Associated With Length of Hospital Stay Among COVID-19 Patients (n = 334).
| Variables | Total N (%) | LOS | β | HR (95% CI) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median (95% CI) | |||||
| Age: (in years) | |||||
| <40 (ref.) | 76 (22.8) | 9.0 (8.4-9.6) | |||
| 40-65 | 183 (54.8) | 10.0 (8.4-11.6) | −0.71 | 0.49 (0.36-0.68) | .000 |
| >65 | 75 (22.5) | 24.0 (11.6*-36.4) | −0.99 | 0.37 (0.22-0.62) | .000 |
| Sex | |||||
| Female (ref.) | 66 (19.8) | 9.0 (8.4-9.6) | |||
| Male | 268 (80.2) | 10.0 (9.4-10.6) | −0.05 | 0.96 (0.66-1.38) | .811 |
| Travel distance: (in kilometers) | |||||
| ≤16 (ref.) | 164 (49.1) | 9.0 (8.4-9.6) | |||
| >16 | 170 (50.9) | 10.0 (8.6-11.4) | −0.55 | 0.58 (0.43-0.79) | .001 |
| Mode of seeking healthcare: | |||||
| Contact Tracing (ref.) | 49 (14.7) | 9.0 (8.0-9.9) | |||
| Self-reported | 285 (85.3) | 10.0 (9.4-10.6) | −0.44 | 0.64 (0.45-0.92) | .017 |
| Mode of transport to hospital | |||||
| Self-owned/ rented vehicle (ref.) | 111 (33.2) | 9.0 (8.6-9.4) | |||
| Ambulance | 223 (66.8) | 11.0 (9.1-12.8) | −0.76 | 0.47 (0.34-0.63) | .000 |
| Fever | |||||
| No (ref.) | 94 (28.1) | 10.0 (8.7-11.3) | |||
| Yes | 240 (71.9) | 9.0 (8.4-9.6) | 0.22 | 1.29 (0.90-1.87) | .162 |
| Cough: | |||||
| No (ref.) | 142 (42.5) | 9.0 (8.3-9.6) | |||
| Yes | 192 (57.5) | 10.0 (9.0-10.9) | −0.30 | 0.74 (0.54-1.01) | .055 |
| Breathlessness | |||||
| No (ref.) | 123 (36.8) | 9.0 (8.6-9.4) | |||
| Yes | 211 (63.5) | 13.0 (10.8-15.2) | −0.78 | 0.46 (0.34-0.63) | .000 |
| Sore throat: | |||||
| No (ref.) | 313 (93.7) | 10.0 (9.4-10.6) | |||
| Yes | 21 (6.3) | 8.0 (6.7-9.3) | 0.74 | 2.09 (1.32-3.31) | .002 |
| Diarrhea | |||||
| No (ref.) | 323 (96.7) | 10.0 (9.4-10.6) | |||
| Yes | 11 (3.3) | 9.0 (8.4-9.6) | 0.45 | 1.57 (0.80-3.08) | .190 |
| Nausea/vomiting | |||||
| No (ref.) | 328 (98.2) | 10.0 (9.4-10.5) | |||
| Yes | 6 (1.8) | * | −0.61 | 0.54 (0.13-2.20) | .394 |
| Fatigue: | |||||
| No (ref.) | 315 (94.3) | 10.0 (9.4-10.6) | |||
| Yes | 19 (5.7) | 9.0 (8.1-9.9) | 0.15 | 1.16 (0.63-2.14) | .632 |
| Co-morbidity | |||||
| None (ref.) | 145 (43.4) | 9.0 (8.6-9.4) | |||
| 1-2 | 146 (43.7) | 10.0 (7.9-12.1) | −0.71 | 0.49 (0.36-0.69) | .000 |
| ≥3 | 43 (12.9) | * | −2.98 | 0.05 (0.01-0.21) | .000 |
| Ischemic heart disease | |||||
| No (ref.) | 315 (94.3) | 9.0 (8.5-9.5) | |||
| Yes | 19 (5.7) | 16.0 (4.8-27.2) | −1.26 | 0.28 (0.09-0.89) | .031 |
| Hypertension | |||||
| No (ref.) | 220 (65.9) | 9.0 (8.6-9.4) | |||
| Yes | 114 (34.1) | 14.0 (3.9-24.1) | −0.73 | 0.48 (0.33-0.70) | .000 |
| Diabetes | |||||
| No (ref.) | 211 (63.2) | 9.0 (8.6-9.4) | |||
| Yes | 123 (36.8) | 14.0 (4.9-23.1) | −0.79 | 0.45 (0.31-0.65) | .000 |
| Cancer | |||||
| No (ref.) | 326 (97.6) | 10.0 (9.5-10.5) | |||
| Yes | 8 (2.4) | * | −0.70 | 0.49 (0.12-1.99) | .265 |
| COPD/asthma | |||||
| No (ref.) | 292 (87.4) | 9.0 (8.5-9.5) | |||
| Yes | 42 (12.6) | * | −3.49 | 0.03 (0.00-0.22) | .001 |
| Chronic kidney disease | |||||
| No (ref.) | 320 (95.8) | 9.0 (8.4-9.5) | |||
| Yes | 14 (4.2) | * | −2.01 | 0.13 (0.02-0.95) | .045 |
| Respiratory rate: (in breaths per minute) | |||||
| 12-20 (ref.) | 104 (31.1) | 9.0 (8.5-9.5) | |||
| <12/>20 | 230 (68.9) | 10.0 (8.7-11.3) | −0.36 | 0.70 (0.52-0.95) | .024 |
| Temperature: (in degree Fahrenheit) | |||||
| 95-99.4 (ref.) | 297 (88.9) | 10.0 (9.4-10.6) | |||
| <95/≥99.5 | 37 (11.1) | 9.0 (8.2-9.8) | 0.38 | 1.46 (0.89-2.38) | .133 |
| SpO2: (in percentage) | |||||
| ≥95 (ref.) | 219 (65.6) | 9.0 (8.6-9.4) | |||
| <95 | 115 (34.4) | 24.0 (9.3-38.7) | −1.11 | 0.32 (0.21-0.49) | .000 |
| Pulse rate: (in beats per minute) | |||||
| 60-100 (ref.) | 213 (63.8) | 9.0 (8.6-9.4) | |||
| <60/>100 | 121 (36.2) | 11.0 (8.3-13.7) | −0.54 | 0.58 (0.40-0.84) | .004 |
| SBP: (in mmHg) | |||||
| 90-139 (ref.) | 232 (69.5) | 9.0 (8.5-9.5) | |||
| <90/≥140 | 102 (30.5) | 27.0 (8.2-45.8) | −0.86 | 0.42 (0.28-0.63) | .000 |
| DBP: (in mmHg) | |||||
| 60-89 (ref.) | 265 (79.3) | 9.0 (8.4-9.6) | |||
| <60/≥90 | 69 (20.7) | 12.0 (4.9-19.0) | −0.70 | 0.49 (0.32-0.76) | .001 |
| GCS score | |||||
| 15 (ref.) | 293 (87.7) | 9.0 (8.5-9.5) | |||
| <15 | 41 (12.3) | * | −1.61 | 0.20 (0.06-0.63) | .006 |
| qSOFA score | |||||
| 0 (ref.) | 97 (29.0) | 9.0 (8.5-9.5) | |||
| 1 | 198 (59.3) | 10.0 (8.9-11.0) | −0.33 | 0.72 (0.53-0.98) | .039 |
| ≥2 | 39 (11.7) | * | −1.63 | 0.19 (0.07-0.54) | .002 |
Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; GCS: Glasgow coma scale; HR: hazard ratio; LOS: length of hospital stay (in days); qSOFA: quick sequential organ failure assessment; ref.: reference; SBP: systolic blood pressure.
Due to right censoring in these groups median survival time could not be calculated; HR < 1 indicates higher LOS.
In the multivariable cox-proportional hazard model; travel distance (>16 km) [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.69, 95% CI: (0.50-0.95)], mode of transport to the hospital (ambulance) [aHR: 0.62, 95% CI: (0.45-0.85)], breathlessness (yes) [aHR: 0.56, 95% CI: (0.40-0.77)], number of co-morbidities (1-2) [aHR: 0.66, 95% CI: (0.47-0.93)] (≥3) [aHR: 0.16, 95% CI: (0.04-0.65)], COPD/asthma (yes) [aHR: 0.11, 95% CI: (0.01-0.79)], DBP (<60/≥90) [aHR: 0.55, 95% CI: (0.35-0.86)] and qSOFA score (≥2) [aHR: 0.33, 95% CI: (0.12-0.92)] were the significant attributes affecting LOS of the COVID-19 patients. Thus, those who resided within 16 km from the health facility, used self-owned/rented vehicle on way to the hospital, did not have breathlessness, COPD/asthma and had no/less number of co-morbidities, normal DBP (between 60 to 89 mmHg) and lower qSOFA score at the time of admission recovered earlier compared to others (Table 2).
Table 2.
Multivariable Cox Proportional Hazard Model Showing Factors Associated with Length of Hospital Stay Among COVID-19 Patients: n = 334.
| Variables | B | aHR (95% CI) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Travel distance: (in kilometers) | |||
| ≤16 (ref.) | |||
| >16 | −0.37 | 0.69 (0.50-0.95) | .023 |
| Mode of transport to hospital: | |||
| Self-owned vehicle (ref.) | |||
| Ambulance | −0.48 | 0.62 (0.45–0.85) | .003 |
| Breathlessness: | |||
| No (ref.) | |||
| Yes | −0.59 | 0.56 (0.40–0.77) | .000 |
| Co-morbidity: | |||
| None (ref.) | |||
| 1-2 | −0.42 | 0.66 (0.47–0.93) | .018 |
| ≥3 | −1.87 | 0.16 (0.04–0.65) | .011 |
| COPD/asthma: | |||
| No (ref.) | |||
| Yes | −2.25 | 0.11 (0.01–0.79) | .029 |
| DBP: (in mmHg) | |||
| 60-89 (ref.) | |||
| <60/≥90 | −0.60 | 0.55 (0.35–0.86) | .009 |
| qSOFA score: | |||
| 0 (ref.) | |||
| 1 | −0.00 | 0.99 (0.72–1.38) | .997 |
| ≥2 | −1.11 | 0.33 (0.12–0.92) | .034 |
Abbreviations: aHR, adjusted hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; GCS, Glasgow coma scale; qSOFA, quick sequential organ failure assessment; ref., reference.
aHR <1 indicates higher LOS.
The multivariable cox-proportional hazard model can be presented as h(t) = h0(t) exp[−0.37 × (travel distance>16)−0.48 × (mode of transport to the hospitalambulance)−0.59 × (breathlessness at admissionyes)–0.42 × (co-morbidity1-2)−1.87 × (co-morbidity≥3)−2.25 × (COPD/asthmayes)−0.60 × (DBP<60/≥90)−1.11 × (qSOFA score≥2)]
Discussion
In this retrospective case-control study we found that higher travelling distance, use of an ambulance as mode of transport, presence of breathlessness at admission, co-morbidities, COPD/asthma, deranged DBP, and higher qSOFA score at admission were associated with greater duration of hospitalization. Demised COVID-19 patients had shorter LOS compared to those who were discharged. Development of a scoring system inculcating found significant attributes of LOS, giving each due weightage as per their adjusted strength of association might be useful in early prediction of LOS of COVID-19 patients. Moreover, linking this scoring system with the logistic management system of the hospital might help in optimal use of the available resources. This might also help in optimizing patient care and alleviate various logistical barriers associated with it (ie, shortage of staff, beds, medicines, equipment’s etc.).
We found that patients who required to travel higher distance from their native place to seek healthcare from the present healthcare facility had longer LOS. It might be because our institute is the highest referral institute for most of the healthcare facilities in the state of Bihar. Therefore, usually critically ill patients from the peripheral institutes are used to be referred to our institute. Critically ill COVID-19 patients do usually have a longer LOS, as reported by a systematic review by Rees et al 26 Similarly, we found that those who used ambulance as mode of transport to the present healthcare facility had longer LOS. It was previously known that seriously ill and/or patients needing oxygen support during transportation use ambulance as a mode of transport. 28 Thus, distance from hospital and mode of transport to the hospital might serve as a reliable proxy indicator of illness severity and LOS.
In the current study, those who had breathlessness at the time of admission had longer LOS. This was analogous with the findings of Thiruvengadam et al 13 and Liu et al 18 but unlike the findings of Wu et al 17 who did not find this association. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Jain and Yuan 29 reported that dyspnea was the sole symptom which strongly predicted both intensive care unit (ICU) admission and serious disease. The said study also recommended using dyspnea as a measure of risk assessment and clinical management. Thus, breathlessness may be used as a prognostic indicator of LOS as well. With higher number of co-morbidities, LOS increased in the present study. This was identical with the finding of Thiruvengadam et al 13 which revealed similar opinion. This may be because with increased in the number of co-morbidities chances of developing a severe form of COVID-19 and mortality also reported to be increased. 30 Similarly, we observed that patients with COPD/asthma had slower recovery compared to others. A study in Mexico by Lee et al 31 reported that individuals with COPD are at higher risk of hospitalization and death owing to COVID-19. This might be because persons with chronic respiratory diseases like COPD and asthma have prevailing compromised lung function. COVID-19 infection might have further detorieted the lung function among them. This might have compelled them to hospitalize early. Unfortunately, most of them die. Those who survive recover gradually.32,33 Patients with deranged DBP at admission had longer LOS in our study. This was in line with the findings of a study in China by Ran et al 22 which reported that with elevation of DBP hazard of mortality among COVID-19 patients also increases. We observed significant association between higher qSOFA score and LOS in the present study. qSOFA score is a previously established prognostic indicator for COVID-19.34-36 An investigation in US by Wilfong et al 36 reported that on admission qSOFA score might predict ICU admission and fatality among COVID-19 patients.
Limitations
Despite adaptation of case-control design, we could not match background characteristics of the cases and controls. It could not be accomplished owing to restricted availability of controls for the study. However, use of simple random sampling might have alleviated chances of bias arising out of non-matching to some extent. There may be various other possible attributes (ie, nutritional status, insurance coverage, etc.) which might influence LOS of COVID patients.20,37 Effect of these factors on LOS could not be elicited due to non-documentation of those data in our hospital records.
Conclusion
Factors elicited on arrival was found to be significantly associated with LOS. Travel distance, mode of transport to the hospital, breathlessness, number of co-morbidities, presence of COPD/ asthma, DBP and qSOFA score which are easily elicitable at the time of admission found to be significantly associated with LOS. Further research is warranted to gain more knowledge on this issue. These future studies should elicit effect of nutritional status and insurance coverage on LOS of COVID-19 patients which we could not do due lack of those data. A scoring system inculcating these factors may be developed to predict LOS of the COVID-19 patients.
Footnotes
Author Contributions: All authors had full access to the data, contributed to the study, approved the final version for publication, and take responsibility for its accuracy and integrity. Concept or design: N Agarwal, B Biswas, CM Singh. Acquisition of data: B Biswas, R Nair, H Haripriya, G Mounica, KM Das, AR Jha. Analysis or interpretation of data: B Biswas, N Agarwal, CM Singh. Drafting of the manuscript: B Biswas, R Nair, H Haripriya, G Mounica, KM Das, AR Jha. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: N Agarwal, B Biswas, CM Singh, R Nair, H Haripriya, G Mounica, KM Das, AR Jha.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical Issues: Ethical clearance of the Institutional Ethical Committee (IEC) of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Patna (Ref. No.-AIIMS/Pat/IEC/2020/491, dated June 25, 2020) was taken before conduction of this research. Informed written consent of the study participants could not be collected because it was a retrospective analysis of regularly gathered information. Throughout the analysis and drafting of the article, confidentiality of the study participants was affirmed.
ORCID iD: Bijit Biswas 
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7609-6446
Data Availability: All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.
References
- 1. Li B, Yang J, Zhao F, et al. Prevalence and impact of cardiovascular metabolic diseases on COVID-19 in China. Clin Res Cardiol. 2020;109:531-538. doi: 10.1007/s00392-020-01626-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. World Health Organisation. WHO coronavirus (COVID-19) dashboard: situation by region, country, territory & area. World Health Organisation. 2021. Accessed July 8, 2021. https://covid19.who.int/table [Google Scholar]
- 3. Blumenthal D, Fowler EJ, Abrams M, Collins SR. Covid-19 - implications for the health care system. New Eng J Med. 2020;383:1483-1488. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb2021088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. World Health Organisation. COVID-19 significantly impacts health services for noncommunicable diseases. World Health Organisation. 2020. Accessed June 27, 2021. https://www.who.int/news/item/01-06-2020-covid-19-significantly-impacts-health-services-for-noncommunicable-diseases [Google Scholar]
- 5. Kumanan T, Rajasooriyar C, Guruparan M, Sreeharan N. The impact of COVID-19 on the delivery of critical health care: experience from a non-high-income country. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2020;32:473-475. doi: 10.1177/1010539520963626 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Meyer R, Levin G, Hendin N, Katorza E. Impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on routine obstetrical management. Isr Med Assoc J. 2020;22:483-488. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Moynihan R, Sanders S, Michaleff ZA, et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on utilisation of healthcare services: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e045343. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045343 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Riera R, Bagattini ÂM, Pacheco RL, Pachito DV, Roitberg F, Ilbawi A. Delays and disruptions in cancer health care due to COVID-19 pandemic: systematic review. J Glob Oncol. 2021;7:311-323. doi: 10.1200/GO.20.00639 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Tomar A, Gupta N. Prediction for the spread of COVID-19 in India and effectiveness of preventive measures. Sci Total Environ. 2020;728:138762. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138762 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Tsai PF, Chen PC, Chen YY, et al. Length of hospital stay prediction at the admission stage for cardiology patients using artificial neural network. J Healthc Eng. 2016;2016:1-11. doi: 10.1155/2016/7035463 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Baek H, Cho M, Kim S, Hwang H, Song M, Yoo S. Analysis of length of hospital stay using electronic health records: a statistical and data mining approach. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0195901. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195901 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Khajehali N, Alizadeh S. Extract critical factors affecting the length of hospital stay of pneumonia patient by data mining (case study: an Iranian hospital). Artif Intell Med. 2017;83:2-13. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2017.06.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Thiruvengadam G, Lakshmi M, Ramanujam R. A study of factors affecting the length of hospital stay of COVID-19 patients by cox-proportional hazard model in a South Indian tertiary care hospital. J Prim Care Community Health. 2021;12:21501327211000231. doi: 10.1177/21501327211000231 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Mishra V, Burma AD, Das SK, Parivallal MB, Amudhan S, Rao GN. COVID-19-Hospitalized patients in Karnataka: survival and stay characteristics. Indian J Public Health. 2020;64:S221-S224. doi: 10.4103/ijph.IJPH_486_20 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Eimer J, Vesterbacka J, Svensson AK, et al. Tocilizumab shortens time on mechanical ventilation and length of hospital stay in patients with severe COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study. J Intern Med. 2021;289:434-436. doi: 10.1111/joim.13162 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Braude P, Carter B, Short R, et al. The influence of ACE inhibitors and ARBs on hospital length of stay and survival in people with COVID-19. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2020;31:100660. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2020.100660 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Wu S, Xue L, Legido-Quigley H, et al. Understanding factors influencing the length of hospital stay among non-severe COVID-19 patients: a retrospective cohort study in a Fangcang shelter hospital. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0240959. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240959 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Liu X, Zhou H, Zhou Y, et al. Risk factors associated with disease severity and length of hospital stay in COVID-19 patients. J Infect. 2020;81:e95-e97. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.04.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Nafakhi H, Alareedh M, Al-Buthabhak K, Shaghee F, Nafakhi A, Kasim S. Predictors of adverse in-hospital outcome and recovery in patients with diabetes mellitus and COVID-19 pneumonia in Iraq. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2021;15:33-38. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.12.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Moriconi D, Masi S, Rebelos E, et al. Obesity prolongs the hospital stay in patients affected by COVID-19, and may impact on SARS-COV-2 shedding. Obes Res Clin Pract. 2020;14:205-209. doi: 10.1016/j.orcp.2020.05.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Rahim F, Amin S, Noor M, et al. Mortality of patients with severe COVID-19 in the intensive care unit: an observational study from a major COVID-19 receiving hospital. Cureus. 2020;12:e10906. doi: 10.7759/cureus.10906 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Ran J, Song Y, Zhuang Z, et al. Blood pressure control and adverse outcomes of COVID-19 infection in patients with concomitant hypertension in Wuhan, China. Hypertens Res. 2020;43:1267-1276. doi: 10.1038/s41440-020-00541-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Sands KE, Wenzel RP, McLean LE, et al. Patient characteristics and admitting vital signs associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related mortality among patients admitted with noncritical illness. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2021;42:399-405. doi: 10.1017/ice.2020.461 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Hao B, Sotudian S, Wang T, et al. Early prediction of level-of-care requirements in patients with COVID-19. eLife. 2020;9:e60519. doi: 10.7554/eLife.60519 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Feng Z, Yu Q, Yao S, et al. Early prediction of disease progression in COVID-19 pneumonia patients with chest CT and clinical characteristics. Nat Commun. 2020;11:4968. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18786-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Rees EM, Nightingale ES, Jafari Y, et al. COVID-19 length of hospital stay: a systematic review and data synthesis. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):270. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01726-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Kohn MA, Senyak J. Sample size calculators [website]. UCSF CTSI. 2021. Accessed June 16, 2021. https://www.sample-size.net/ [Google Scholar]
- 28. Miller A, Gallegly JD, Orsak G, et al. Potential predictors of hospital length of stay and hospital charges among patients with all-terrain vehicle injuries in rural northeast Texas. J Inj Violence Res. 2020;12:55-62. doi: 10.5249/jivr.v12i1.1219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Jain V, Yuan JM. Predictive symptoms and comorbidities for severe COVID-19 and intensive care unit admission: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Public Health. 2020;65(5):533-546. doi: 10.1007/s00038-020-01390-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Singh AK, Gillies CL, Singh R, et al. Prevalence of co-morbidities and their association with mortality in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020;22:1915-1924. doi: 10.1111/dom.14124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Lee SC, Son KJ, Han CH, Park SC, Jung JY. Impact of COPD on COVID-19 prognosis: a nationwide population-based study in South Korea. Sci Rep. 2021;11:3735. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-83226-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Gerayeli FV, Milne S, Cheung C, et al. COPD and the risk of poor outcomes in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;33:100789. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100789 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Carrillo-Vega MF, Salinas-Escudero G, García-Peña C, Gutiérrez-Robledo LM, Parra-Rodríguez L. Early estimation of the risk factors for hospitalization and mortality by COVID-19 in Mexico. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0238905. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238905 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Almazeedi S, Al-Youha S, Jamal MH, et al. Characteristics, risk factors and outcomes among the first consecutive 1096 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in Kuwait. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;24:100448. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100448 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Liu S, Yao N, Qiu Y, He C. Predictive performance of SOFA and qSOFA for in-hospital mortality in severe novel coronavirus disease. Am J Emerg Med. 2020;38:2074-2080. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.07.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Wilfong EM, Lovly CM, Gillaspie EA, et al. Severity of illness scores at presentation predict ICU admission and mortality in COVID-19. J Emerg Crit Care Med. 2021;5:7. doi: 10.21037/jeccm-20-92 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Mainous AG, Diaz VA, Everett CJ, Knoll ME. Impact of insurance and hospital ownership on hospital length of stay among patients with ambulatory care-sensitive conditions. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9:489-495. doi: 10.1370/afm.1315 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]