524. Assessing the Safety of an Outpatient Remdesivir Infusion Program for Patients with Severe COVID-19 in the Setting of a Pandemic Surge

Background (i) Remdesivir (RDV) shortens recovery time among COVID-19 patients in an inpatient setting. (ii) Treatments for outpatients diagnosed with COVID-19 are limited. (iii) In early 2021, there was a national surge in COVID-19 hospitalizations, which resulted in hospital bed and staff shortages. (iv) In the face of this pandemic surge, we piloted a program to expand our RDV treatment capacity by establishing an off-label, outpatient infusion tent (OIT) for patients with severe COVID-19. (v) This is a retrospective, descriptive report examining the safety and efficacy of this program, with outcomes of interest being 30-day mortality and hospital admission within the subsequent 30 days Methods (i) The OIT, consisting of 11 chairs capable of treating 35 patients per day, was operational from January 1 to February 19, 2021. (ii) Patients were referred to the outpatient RDV program primarily from urgent care (UC) and the emergency department (ED), and from the inpatient setting to complete therapy. Patients received at least one dose prior to referral. (iii) Eligibility criteria included a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, radiographic evidence of viral pneumonia, and an oxygen saturation less than or equal to 94 on room air. (iv) Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, sepsis, end-stage renal disease or GFR < 30, hepatitis with transaminases 10 times the limit of normal. Patients with BMI > 40, age > 75, chronic lung disease, dementia, were considered on a case by case basis. (v) Patients received dexamethasone and deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis Results (i) A total of 88 patients received 258 infusions. The average number of outpatient infusions per participant was 2.9. (ii) Four out of 88 patients died (4.5%) within 30 days of first dose in the infusion tent. No deaths occurred in the outpatient setting. (iii) Fourteen out of 88 patients were admitted to the hospital within the subsequent 30 days (15.9%). (iv) 11/14 admissions (78.6%) were due to progression of COVID-19. There were no admissions due to adverse drug reactions Table 1. Patient Characteristics Table 2. Admissions Within Subsequent 30 Days Conclusion Mortality rate in outpatients with severe COVID-19 treated with RDV was similar to that reported in inpatients. In this cohort of patients with severe COVID, a majority (84.1%) avoided hospitalization while still receiving appropriate treatment. Results suggest RDV can be safely delivered to outpatients with severe COVID-19. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

EP.FRI.258 A closed loop audit of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis in the acute surgical receiving unit of a large teaching hospital; reducing morbidity and mortality, and improving cost-effectiveness

Aims Acute surgical patients have a significant risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) due to factors such as surgery, immobility, dehydration, and existing comorbidities. All patients admitted to an acute surgical unit should have their VTE risk assessed. Our aim was to assess VTE prophylaxis practices. Methods We performed a closed loop audit on DVT prophylaxis using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network proforma. Data on anti-embolic stockings (AES) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) were collected and presented at a local audit meeting. The intervention included reinforcing the importance of VTE prophylaxis compliance amongst junior doctors and nursing staff, and provision of posters within the department and on patient trolleys. Data was collected to complete the audit cycle. Results A total of 171 patients were included. Prior to the intervention, 13.9% did not receive LMWH when indicated and 37.4% were non-compliant with AES. Overall, 40% had insufficient DVT thromboprophylaxis. Post implementation, 8.9% did not receive LMWH when indicated and 46.4% were noncompliant with AES. Overall, 50% had insufficient DVT thromboprophylaxis. LMWH compliance was 5.0% higher on re-auditing however AES compliance was 9.0% lower. Conclusions Adherence to thromboprophylaxis regulations was below expected standards. Thromboprophylaxis is cost-effective and prevents considerable morbidity and mortality, so ongoing audits alongside analyses of potential causes should be encouraged. We acknowledge the data’s limitations in that the reasons for low compliance cannot be ascertained here, but results suggest that there exists room for more interventions aiming to encourage a marked improvement both in LMWH and AES compliance.

Achieving Noise Reduction With a Novel Lower Limb External Mechanical Compression System

Hospitals are one of the noisiest public environments in the United States, and hospital noise is associated with disrupted sleep. This study provides insights into the noise levels produced by three commonly used medical devices for mechanical deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis: the VenaFlow Elite System, the Kendall SCD Compression System, and the ArjoHuntleigh Flowtron. Noise levels produced were compared with a novel device, the RF Health MAC™ system, which was designed to provide improved comfort and noise reduction. Results suggest that future innovation in mechanical deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis should include efforts to reduce noise during operation.

Reversible Neurological Adverse Reaction to Apixaban

Prescriptions for the novel oral anticoagulant factor Xa inhibitors (rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban) have equalled or exceeded those for vitamin K antagonists in many clinical settings requiring chronic anticoagulation, and those of injectable heparins for deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. The authors report the case of an 80-year-old woman followed by her cardiologist for permanent atrial fibrillation who was prescribed apixaban. Within a few days the patient developed neurological symptoms of imbalance and non-vertiginous dizziness, headache, confusion/disorientation and asthenia. Her symptoms began to resolve after the drug was stopped, with return to baseline function within 72 h. The plasma concentration of apixaban was 4 times higher than the laboratory upper limit of normal. Symptoms did not recur when the patient was switched to rivaroxaban therapy.