ABSTRACT
Background: According to the Italian National Statistical Institute, the 12- month probability of survival in the general population between 90 and 94 years-old is 26%. Pacemaker (PM) implantation is often an urgent and necessary intervention, but in these patients the benefit in terms of quality and duration of life is unclear. Purpose(s): To analyze characteristics, outcome and factors associated with survival in patients who had turned 90 at the time of PM implant. Method(s): All the PM implants performed in patients >=90 from 1/1/2019 to 12/31/2020 were analyzed. Clinical parameters, device characteristics and follow-up data were extrapolated from the SuitEstensa Ebit reporting system;the exitus was verified by analyzing data from the Regional Health System. Result(s): During the study interval, among the 554 patients undergoing PM implantation in our Center, 69 (12%) were >=90 years-old (mean age 92+/-2 years, 46% male;complete/advanced AV block in 76%). Twenty-six (38%) patients had history of atrial fibrillation and 19 (28%) ischemic heart disease. A cardiological co-morbidity (excluding AF) was present in 23 patients (33%). Oncological, pneumological and neurological comorbidities were present in 12 (18%), 19 (28%) and 32 (46%) respectively. Renal impairment was present in 25 patients (36%). In 47 patients (68%) there were at least 2 co-morbidities. After implantation (single-chamber in 36, dualchamber in 25 and VDD single-lead dual-chamber in 8 patients) complications occurred in 3 patients (2 pneumothorax and 1 lead dislodgment). Remote monitoring was activated in 57 patients (83%). Within August 31st 2021 (mean follow-up 288+/-193 days) 24 patients died (35%, 219+/-241 days after implant). Five patients (19% of patients implanted in 2019) died within 12 months. No patients died for device malfunction. Three patients died because of COVID-19 pneumonia. Renal dysfunction (Hazard Ratio-HR 8.05, p=0.002) and the presence of 2 or more co-morbidities (HR 6.03;p=0.015) were associated with a higher risk of death at univariate analysis;other significant variables were diabetes (HR 2.34;p=0.038), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HR 0.70 for 5% variation;p=0.005), walking impairment (HR 2.99, p=0.006), the presence of oncological (HR 2.21;p=0.003), pneumological (HR 2.55;p=0.024) and neurological (HR 1.90, p=0.007) comorbidities. At multivariable analysis the only significant parameter associated with survival was LVEF (0.76 for 5% difference;p=0.043) Conclusion(s): At our Center, patients >=90 years-old undergo PM implantation mainly for advanced AVB. The good survival in the medium term, even better than expected in the general population, does not justify a too conservative attitude especially, but exclusively, in patients with less comorbidities.
ABSTRACT
Background Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients are strongly encouraged to vaccinate against SARS-COVID-19. In fact, the uptake of this vaccine in IBD cohorts has been greater than the general population. The adverse events of this vaccine are predicted to be low. The aim of this study was to assess the percentage of IBD patients who took the COVID-19 vaccine- including booster- and any significant adverse events. Any possible correlation with lifestyle habits, treatment and disease activity was also established. Methods Data was collected prospectively. 200 patients with a histological diagnosis of IBD were randomly recruited through our local database. Data was gathered using electronic case summaries and direct patient contact. Data collected included;diagnosis, type and number of COVID-19 vaccines taken, demographics, lifestyle habits, treatment and any adverse events to the vaccine. Patients were also asked about any concerns regarding this vaccine. Results 187 patients (57.8% male) were recruited. 73.8% of which had Crohn’s disease (CD), 25.7% had Ulcerative colitis (UC) and 0.5% were unclassified. Mean age was 41.96 (SD ±16.56). 37.8% were on Azathioprine/6- Mercaptopurine, 93.5% were on biologicals and 33.2% were on both. 61% had quiescent IBD while 2.1% had severe IBD. 19.7% were current smokers while 15.8% were ex-smokers. 98.9% received at least one COVID-19 vaccine. Table 1 illustrates the type of vaccine administered to IBD patients. 17% of patients were concerned regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine due to IBD treatment. 19.8% of IBD patients believed that the vaccine may trigger a flareup of their disease. 11.8% of patients felt that not enough information was available to make an informed choice. 7.1% of IBD patients had treatment altered in response to the COVID-19 vaccine. Graph 1 shows the percentage of both local and systemic adverse events to 1st, 2nd and 3rd Covid-19 vaccine in IBD patients. Conclusion This study demonstrates that the uptake of COVID-19 vaccine in IBD patients was high. The most commonly report adverse events were pain at the injection site and fever. Increased in temperature at the injection site occurred more frequently with the 3rd dose. A number of patients had a change in their medication in response to at least one the vaccines. Larger studies are needed to decipher whether data can be extrapolated on a larger scale.
ABSTRACT
Background Inflammatory Bowel Disease(IBD) and Irritable Bowel Syndrome(IBS) are gastrointestinal disorders which differ in pathophysiology and management. The use of immunomodulatory drugs brings concerns which increased during the pandemic. Similarly, patients with IBS may have concerns about the effect of infection and vaccine on their wellbeing. The aim of this study was to assess for any differences in swabbing, vaccine uptake, COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation rates and outcomes in patients with IBD on immunomodulatory treatment and patients with IBS. Methods Patients were recruited through the local database (March, 2020 – August, 2021). All IBD patients had a histological diagnosis while IBS patients were diagnosed according to ROME IV criteria. All patients were offered vaccination. Apart from demographic data the following was collected: number of COVID-19 swabs taken, vaccination rates, type of vaccine administered, infection secondary to COVID-19, hospitalization and outcomes. Results Overall, 250 IBD patients (43.6% female) and, 250 patients with IBS (78.4% female) were recruited. The mean patient age in the IBS cohort was, 40.6 years (SD ±, 11.99) whilst the mean patient age in the IBD cohort was, 40.7 years (SD±15.7). Patients with IBD underwent significantly more COVID-19 swab tests (n=759) than patients with IBS (n=615) (p =0.02). Patients with IBD were having the following biological therapy:, 62.8% Infliximab, 24.8% Adalimumab, 10% Vedolizumab and, 2.4% Ustekinumab. There was no significant difference in COVID-19 infection rate between the IBS cohort (8.8%;n=22 patients;, 2 patients not vaccinated) and the IBD cohort (6.4%;n=16 patients;, 3 patients not vaccinated)(p=0.3). The vaccine uptake rate was similar (IBD:, 91.2%, IBS: 90%). Table, 1 demonstrates the type of vaccine administered to both cohorts. In the IBS cohort, 1 patient was admitted to hospital in view of symptomatic hypoxaemia. The patient was treated with oxygen and dexamethasone, but did not require ventilatory support. Within the IBD cohort, 3 patients requiring admission for IBD related treatment, tested positive asymptomatically on pre-admission COVID-19 screening. All had an uneventful outcome.Table 1CohortPfizerAstraZenecaJohnson&JohnsonModernaIBD43%54%1%2%IBS57%31%7%5% Conclusion This study demonstrates that vaccine uptake, Covid-19 infection rates and outcomes were similar in patients with IBS and IBD patients on immunosuppressive therapy. However, IBD patients underwent significantly more swabbing than patients with IBS and this was generally due to patient concern of acquiring Covid-19 while being on immunosuppresive medications. This added psychological burden may further impact patients’ psychological state and thus their quality of life.
ABSTRACT
Aim: Evaluation of oral lesions in COVID-hospitalized patients, analyzing the potential etiopathogenetic mechanisms. Materials and methods: We evaluated a total of 58 hospitalized COVID patients in the time span from April 2021 to May 2021. The group analyzed consists of 38 male patients (66%) and 20 female patients (34%), aged between 22 and 92, with a preponderance of 60–80 years. All patients underwent an oral evaluation in order to detect the various oral manifestations;moreover, the onset time of these lesions has been correlated with the time of manifestation of the general symptoms of COVID infection. Results: Xerostomia has been the most frequent oral manifestation detected (30 patients, 51.7% of the sample), followed by ageusia (16 patients, 27.6%), and white tongue (13 patients, 22.4%). Other oral manifestations observed were aphthous lesions, fissured tongue, metallic taste, tingling in the lip and chin, and burning mouth syndrome. Conclusion: Our findings show a significant correlation between the oral manifestations and the burst of viral replication phase in COVID patients. Clinical significance: Awareness of the possible oral manifestations of COVID infection is important to conduct a correct diagnosis in oral pathology. © The Author(s). 2022.