{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03146853146853147, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03613053613053613, 'mean_word_length': 5.3580246913580245, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
S3214 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) and Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD): A Nationwide Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION: With the recent Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemics, intensive care units (ICUs) across the country have been overrun with patients in florid acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as its name suggests is a pathologic condition that results in an exaggerated inflammatory response in the digestive tract The aim of this study was to determine how patients with ARDS and concurrent IBD might be affected METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who were hospitalized with the principle diagnosis of ARDS (via ICD-10 codes) in 2016 using the national inpatient sample (NIS) database Our study group was composed of patients who had the principle diagnosis of ARDS and the concurrent secondary diagnosis of IBD Our control group consisted of patients with the principle diagnosis of ARDS who did not have IBD as a secondary diagnosis Our primary endpoint was to elucidate if ARDS portended worse outcomes in patients with IBD This was accomplished by extracting variables such as age of presentation, in hospital mortality, length of hospital stay (LOS), and totalhospital charges Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square test, and continuous variables were compared using t-test Multivariate logistic regression models were developed using STATA software version 15 RESULTS: A total of 5,350 patients with the principle diagnosis of ARDS were identified in our study Of these, 30 patients had the secondary diagnosis of IBD, and 5,320 patients did not Patients with the secondary diagnosis of IBD presented at a later age, but these findings were not statistically significant (58 8 vs 36 9P-value: 0 20) Similarly there was not statistically significant difference in LOS (14 8 days vs 6 4 daysP-value: 0 06), total hospital charge (≥215,070 vs ≥97,098P-value 0 41), total hospital cost (≥51,702 vs ≥25,932P-value: 0 38) Patients with the secondary diagnosis had a statistically significant higher mortality rate (33% vs 13%P-value: 0 004) These findings however were not statistically significant on multivariate analysis when adjusting for age, gender, and race (OR: 2 2095% CI: 0 40-12 12P-value: 0 36) CONCLUSION: We conclude that ARDS has no significant impact on IBD patients This was evidenced by no difference in LOS, total hospital charges, total hospital cost and risk of mortality Given these findings we recommend no treatment adjustments be made to IBD patients