Does chronic oral anticoagulation reduce in-hospital mortality among COVID-19 older patients?

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 experienced an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. AIMS: To evaluate the effect of chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy, both with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), on prognosis of COVID-19 older patients. METHODS: Single-center prospective study conducted in the Emergency Department (ED) of a teaching hospital, referral center for COVID-19 in central Italy. We evaluated all the patients ≥ 65 years, consecutively admitted to our ED for confirmed COVID-19. We compared the clinical outcome of those who were on chronic OAC at ED admission with those who did not, using a propensity score matched paired cohort of controls. The primary study endpoint was all-cause in-hospital death. Patients were matched for age, sex, clinical comorbidities, and clinical severity at presentation (based on NEWS ≥ 6). Study parameters were assessed for association to all-cause in-hospital death by a multivariate Cox regression analysis to identify independent risk factor for survival. RESULTS: Although overall mortality was slightly higher for anticoagulated patients compared to controls (63.3% vs 43.5%, p = 0.012), the multivariate adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death was not significant (HR = 1.56 [0.78-3.12]; p = 0.208). Both DOACs (HR 1.46 [0.73-2.92]; p = 0.283) and VKAs (HR 1.14 [0.48-2.73]; p = 0.761) alone did not affect overall survival in our cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Among older patients hospitalized for COVID-19, chronic OAC therapy was not associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital death. Moreover, our data suggest similar outcome both for patients on VKAs or in patients on DOACs.

Predictors of in-hospital mortality AND death RISK STRATIFICATION among COVID-19 PATIENTS aged ≥ 80 YEARs OLD.

INTRODUCTION: To date, mainly due to age-related vulnerability and to coexisting comorbidities, older patients often face a more severe COVID-19. This study aimed to identify at Emergency Department (ED) admission the predictors of in-hospital mortality and suitable scores for death risk stratification among COVID-19 patients ≥ 80 years old. METHODS: Single-centre prospective study conducted in the ED of an university hospital, referral center for COVID-19 in central Italy. We included 239 consecutive patients ≥ 80 years old with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The primary study endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed on significant variables at univariate analysis to identify independent risk factor for death. Overall performance in predicting mortality of WHO severity scale, APACHE II score, NEWS score, and CURB-65 was calculated. RESULTS: Median age was 85 [82-89] and 112 were males (46.9%). Globally, 77 patients (32.2%) deceased. The presence of consolidations at chest x-ray and the hypoxemic respiratory failure were significant predictors of poor prognosis. Moreover, age ≥ 85 years, dependency in activities of daily living (ADL), and dementia were risk factors for death, even after adjusting for clinical covariates and disease severity. All the evaluated scores showed a fairly good predictive value in identifying patients who could experience a worse outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients ≥ 80 years old hospitalized with COVID-19, not only a worse clinical and radiological presentation of the disease, but also the increasing age, dementia, and impairment in ADL were strong risk factors for in-hospital death, regardless of disease severity.

Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in COVID-19 Older Patients with Specifically Developed Scores.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Several scoring systems have been specifically developed for risk stratification in COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: We compared, in a cohort of confirmed COVID-19 older patients, three specifically developed scores with a previously established early warning score. Main endpoint was all causes in-hospital death. SETTING: This is a single-center, retrospective observational study, conducted in the Emergency Department (ED) of an urban teaching hospital, referral center for COVID-19. PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed the clinical records of the confirmed COVID-19 patients aged 60 years or more consecutively admitted to our ED over a 6-week period (March 1st to April 15th, 2020). A total of 210 patients, aged between 60 and 98 years were included in the study cohort. MEASUREMENTS: International Severe Acute Respiratory Infection Consortium Clinical Characterization Protocol-Coronavirus Clinical Characterization Consortium (ISARIC-4C) score, COVID-GRAM Critical Illness Risk Score (COVID-GRAM), quick COVID-19 Severity Index (qCSI), National Early Warning Score (NEWS). RESULTS: Median age was 74 (67-82) and 133 (63.3%) were males. Globally, 42 patients (20.0%) deceased. All the score evaluated showed a fairly good predictive value with respect to in-hospital death. The ISARIC-4C score had the highest area under ROC curve (AUROC) 0.799 (0.738-0.851), followed by the COVID-GRAM 0.785 (0.723-0.838), NEWS 0.764 (0.700-0.819), and qCSI 0.749 (0.685-0.806). However, these differences were not statistical significant. CONCLUSION: Among the evaluated scores, the ISARIC-4C and the COVID-GRAM, calculated at ED admission, had the best performance, although the qCSI had similar efficacy by evaluating only three items. However, the NEWS, already widely validated in clinical practice, had a similar performance and could be appropriate for older patients with COVID-19.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers and prognosis of hypertensive patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Among hypertensive patients, the association between treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) and the clinical severity of COVID-19, remains uncertain. AIMS: To determine whether hypertensive patients hospitalised with COVID-19 are at risk of worse outcomes if on treatment with ACEI or ARB compared to other anti-hypertensive medications. METHODS: This is a retrospective study conducted at a single academic medical centre (Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy) from 1 to 31 March 2020. We compared patients on treatment with an ACEI/ARB (ACEI/ARB group) to patients receiving other anti-hypertensive medications (No-ACEI/ARB group). The end-points of the study were the all-cause in-hospital death and the combination of in-hospital death or need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission. RESULTS: The sample included 166 COVID-19 patients; median age was 74 years and 109 (66%) were men. Overall, 111 (67%) patients were taking an ACEI or ARB. Twenty-nine (17%) patients died during the hospital stay, and 51 (31%) met the combined end-point. After adjustment for comorbidities, age and degree of severity at the presentation, ACEI or ARB treatment was an independent predictor neither of in-hospital death nor of the combination of in-hospital death/need for ICU. No differences were documented between treatment with ACEI compared to ARB. CONCLUSIONS: Among hypertensive patients hospitalised for COVID-19, treatment with ACEI or ARB is not associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death.

Lung Ultrasound for COVID-19 Patchy Pneumonia: Extended or Limited Evaluations?

OBJECTIVES: The 2019 novel coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) is causing cases of severe pneumonia. Lung ultrasound (LUS) could be a useful tool for physicians detecting a bilateral heterogeneous patchy distribution of pathologic findings in a symptomatic suggestive context. The aim of this study was to focus on the implications of limiting LUS examinations to specific regions of the chest. METHODS: Patients were evaluated with a standard sequence of LUS scans in 14 anatomic areas. A scoring system of LUS findings was reported, ranging from 0 to 3 (worst score, 3). The scores reported on anterior, lateral, and posterior landmarks were analyzed separately and compared with each other and with the global findings. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were enrolled. A higher prevalence of score 0 was observed in the anterior region (44.08%). On the contrary, 21.05% of posterior regions and 13.62% of lateral regions were evaluated as score 3, whereas only 5.92% of anterior regions were classified as score 3. Findings from chest computed tomography performed in 16 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 correlated with and matched the distribution of findings from LUS. CONCLUSIONS: To assess the quantity and severity of lung disease, a comprehensive LUS examination is recommended. Omitting areas of the chest misses involved lung.