ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease is a pandemic that has disrupted many human lives, threatening people's physical and mental health. Each pandemic wave struck in different ways, infectiveness-wise and mortality-wise. This investigation focuses on critically ill patients affected by the last two variants, Delta and Omicron, and aims to analyse if any difference exists between the two groups. METHODS: intensive care unit (ICU) COVID-19 consecutive admissions between 1 October 2021 and 31 March 2022 were recorded daily, and data concerning the patients' demographics, variants, main comorbidities, ICU parameters on admission, and the outcome were analysed by a univariate procedure and by a multivariate analysis. RESULTS: 65 patients were enrolled, 31 (47.69%) belonging to the Omicron versus 34 (52.31%) to the Delta group. The mortality rate was 52.94% for the Omicron group versus 41.9% for the Delta group. A univariate analysis showed that the Omicron variant was associated with total comorbidities number, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), pre-existing pulmonary disease, vaccination status, and acute kidney injury (AKI). In stepwise multivariate analysis, the total number of comorbidities was positively associated with the Omicron group, while pulmonary embolism was negatively correlated with the Omicron group. CONCLUSION: Omicron appears to have lost some of the hallmarks of the Delta variant, such as endothelialitis and more limited cellular tropism when it comes to the patients in the ICU. Further studies are encouraged to explore different therapeutic approaches to treat critical patients with COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has revolutionized the habits of entire communities, having even more profound negative effects on assistance for the chronically ill. The sudden demand for extraordinary resources caught all worldwide countries unprepared, highlighting shortages in provision of care services. This applies to all patients, affected by COVID-19 or not, as many need continuing access to chronic diseases treatments. Almost all of the energy available has been directed toward care of COVID-19 patients, and almost nothing has been done to continue therapy for patients with spasticity. This study builds on a recent article and discusses its results as a basis for highlighting the ethical dilemmas and unintended consequences of health systems changing their priorities during the pandemic. The above mentioned study has shown increased patient-perceived spasticity during lockdown (72.2%) with reductions in perceived quality of life (70.9%). Telemedicine tools have proved insufficient, with access by only 7.3% of these patients. Despite the health emergency, it cannot be denied that this situation is a violation of these patients' rights and dignity. The healthcare system will also have to bear increased costs in the future to recover the loss of previous therapies benefits, because of their interruption. The real challenge will be to exploit the critical issues emerged during the pandemic, and to resolve the measures needed to take the care to the patient, and not vice versa. This applies particularly to fragile patients, to respect their dignity and right to care.