Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) ; 23(1): 22-27, 2022 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1430637

ABSTRACT

AIMS: The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) outbreak has been recently associated with lower hospitalization rates for acute coronary syndromes. Aim of the study was to investigate whether a similar behaviour is observed in admissions for urgent pacemaker implant. METHODS: This retrospective study included 1315 patients from 18 hospitals in Northern Italy with a high number of COVID-19 cases. Hospitalization rates for urgent pacemaker implant were compared between the following periods: 20 February to 20 April 2020 (case period); from 1 January to 19 February 2020 (intra-year control period); from 20 February to 20 April 2019 (inter-year control period). RESULTS: The incidence rate of urgent implants was 5.0/day in the case period, 6.0/day in the intra-year control period and 5.8/day in the inter-year control period. Incidence rate in the case period was significantly lower than both the intra-year [incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.99, P = 0.040] and inter-year control periods (IRR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.95, P = 0.012); this reduction was highest after the national lockdown (IRR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.91, P = 0.009). The prevalence of residents in rural areas undergoing urgent pacemaker implant was lower in the case period (36%) than in both the intra-year (47%, P = 0.03) and inter-year control periods (51%, P = 0.002). Elective pacemaker implants also decreased in the case period, with the incidence rate here being 3.5/day vs. 6.4/day in the intra-year (-45%) and 6.9/day in the inter-year period (-49%). CONCLUSION: Despite severe clinical patterns, the COVID-19 outbreak has negatively affected the population presentation to Emergency Departments for bradyarrhythmias requiring urgent pacemaker implant in Northern Italy. This mainly occurred after the national lockdown and concerned patients living in rural areas.


Subject(s)
Bradycardia/epidemiology , Bradycardia/therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks/statistics & numerical data , Elective Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Emergencies/epidemiology , Pacemaker, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Incidence , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Retrospective Studies
2.
J Healthc Eng ; 2021: 5556207, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1314165

ABSTRACT

The efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating SARS-CoV-2 infection is harshly debated, with observational and experimental studies reporting contrasting results. To clarify the role of HCQ in Covid-19 patients, we carried out a retrospective observational study of 4,396 unselected patients hospitalized for Covid-19 in Italy (February-May 2020). Patients' characteristics were collected at entry, including age, sex, obesity, smoking status, blood parameters, history of diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular and chronic pulmonary diseases, and medications in use. These were used to identify subtypes of patients with similar characteristics through hierarchical clustering based on Gower distance. Using multivariable Cox regressions, these clusters were then tested for association with mortality and modification of effect by treatment with HCQ. We identified two clusters, one of 3,913 younger patients with lower circulating inflammation levels and better renal function, and one of 483 generally older and more comorbid subjects, more prevalently men and smokers. The latter group was at increased death risk adjusted by HCQ (HR[CI95%] = 3.80[3.08-4.67]), while HCQ showed an independent inverse association (0.51[0.43-0.61]), as well as a significant influence of cluster∗HCQ interaction (p < 0.001). This was driven by a differential association of HCQ with mortality between the high (0.89[0.65-1.22]) and the low risk cluster (0.46[0.39-0.54]). These effects survived adjustments for additional medications in use and were concordant with associations with disease severity and outcome. These findings suggest a particularly beneficial effect of HCQ within low risk Covid-19 patients and may contribute to clarifying the current controversy on HCQ efficacy in Covid-19 treatment.


Subject(s)
Antimalarials/adverse effects , Antimalarials/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/physiopathology , Cluster Analysis , Female , Humans , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
3.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 639970, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1285307

ABSTRACT

Background: Protease inhibitors have been considered as possible therapeutic agents for COVID-19 patients. Objectives: To describe the association between lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or darunavir/cobicistat (DRV/c) use and in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. Study Design: Multicenter observational study of COVID-19 patients admitted in 33 Italian hospitals. Medications, preexisting conditions, clinical measures, and outcomes were extracted from medical records. Patients were retrospectively divided in three groups, according to use of LPV/r, DRV/c or none of them. Primary outcome in a time-to event analysis was death. We used Cox proportional-hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting by multinomial propensity scores. Results: Out of 3,451 patients, 33.3% LPV/r and 13.9% received DRV/c. Patients receiving LPV/r or DRV/c were more likely younger, men, had higher C-reactive protein levels while less likely had hypertension, cardiovascular, pulmonary or kidney disease. After adjustment for propensity scores, LPV/r use was not associated with mortality (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), whereas treatment with DRV/c was associated with a higher death risk (HR = 1.89, 1.53 to 2.34, E-value = 2.43). This increased risk was more marked in women, in elderly, in patients with higher severity of COVID-19 and in patients receiving other COVID-19 drugs. Conclusions: In a large cohort of Italian patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in a real-life setting, the use of LPV/r treatment did not change death rate, while DRV/c was associated with increased mortality. Within the limits of an observational study, these data do not support the use of LPV/r or DRV/c in COVID-19 patients.

4.
Dis Markers ; 2021: 8863053, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1231192

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The clinical course of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is highly heterogenous, ranging from asymptomatic to fatal forms. The identification of clinical and laboratory predictors of poor prognosis may assist clinicians in monitoring strategies and therapeutic decisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we retrospectively assessed the prognostic value of a simple tool, the complete blood count, on a cohort of 664 patients (F 260; 39%, median age 70 (56-81) years) hospitalized for COVID-19 in Northern Italy. We collected demographic data along with complete blood cell count; moreover, the outcome of the hospital in-stay was recorded. RESULTS: At data cut-off, 221/664 patients (33.3%) had died and 453/664 (66.7%) had been discharged. Red cell distribution width (RDW) (χ 2 10.4; p < 0.001), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (NL) ratio (χ 2 7.6; p = 0.006), and platelet count (χ 2 5.39; p = 0.02), along with age (χ 2 87.6; p < 0.001) and gender (χ 2 17.3; p < 0.001), accurately predicted in-hospital mortality. Hemoglobin levels were not associated with mortality. We also identified the best cut-off for mortality prediction: a NL ratio > 4.68 was characterized by an odds ratio for in-hospital mortality (OR) = 3.40 (2.40-4.82), while the OR for a RDW > 13.7% was 4.09 (2.87-5.83); a platelet count > 166,000/µL was, conversely, protective (OR: 0.45 (0.32-0.63)). CONCLUSION: Our findings arise the opportunity of stratifying COVID-19 severity according to simple lab parameters, which may drive clinical decisions about monitoring and treatment.


Subject(s)
Blood Cell Count , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/mortality , Clinical Decision Rules , Hospital Mortality , Severity of Illness Index , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies
5.
Thromb Haemost ; 121(8): 1054-1065, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1112023

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: A hypercoagulable condition was described in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and proposed as a possible pathogenic mechanism contributing to disease progression and lethality. AIM: We evaluated if in-hospital administration of heparin improved survival in a large cohort of Italian COVID-19 patients. METHODS: In a retrospective observational study, 2,574 unselected patients hospitalized in 30 clinical centers in Italy from February 19, 2020 to June 5, 2020 with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection were analyzed. The primary endpoint in a time-to event analysis was in-hospital death, comparing patients who received heparin (low-molecular-weight heparin [LMWH] or unfractionated heparin [UFH]) with patients who did not. We used multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression models with inverse probability for treatment weighting by propensity scores. RESULTS: Out of 2,574 COVID-19 patients, 70.1% received heparin. LMWH was largely the most used formulation (99.5%). Death rates for patients receiving heparin or not were 7.4 and 14.0 per 1,000 person-days, respectively. After adjustment for propensity scores, we found a 40% lower risk of death in patients receiving heparin (hazard ratio = 0.60; 95% confidence interval: 0.49-0.74; E-value = 2.04). This association was particularly evident in patients with a higher severity of disease or strong coagulation activation. CONCLUSION: In-hospital heparin treatment was associated with a lower mortality, particularly in severely ill COVID-19 patients and in those with strong coagulation activation. The results from randomized clinical trials are eagerly awaited to provide clear-cut recommendations.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Heparin/therapeutic use , Thrombophilia/etiology , Thrombophilia/prevention & control , Aged , Blood Coagulation/drug effects , COVID-19/blood , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Survival Analysis , Thrombophilia/blood , COVID-19 Drug Treatment
6.
J Thromb Thrombolysis ; 52(3): 782-790, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1111318

ABSTRACT

A pro-thrombotic milieu and a higher risk of thrombotic events were observed in patients with CoronaVirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Accordingly, recent data suggested a beneficial role of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), but the optimal dosage of this treatment is unknown. We evaluated the association between prophylactic vs. intermediate-to-fully anticoagulant doses of enoxaparin and in-hospital adverse events in patients with COVID-19. We retrospectively included 436 consecutive patients admitted in three Italian hospitals. Outcome according to the use of prophylactic (4000 IU) vs. higher (> 4000 IU) daily dosage of enoxaparin was evaluated. The primary end-point was in-hospital death. Secondary outcome measures were in-hospital cardiovascular death, venous thromboembolism, new-onset acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and mechanical ventilation. A total of 287 patients (65.8%) were treated with the prophylactic enoxaparin regimen and 149 (34.2%) with a higher dosing regimen. The use of prophylactic enoxaparin dose was associated with a similar incidence of all-cause mortality (25.4% vs. 26.9% with the higher dose; OR at multivariable analysis, including the propensity score: 0.847, 95% CI 0.400-0.1.792; p = 0.664). In the prophylactic dose group, a significantly lower incidence of cardiovascular death (OR 0.165), venous thromboembolism (OR 0.067), new-onset ARDS (OR 0.454) and mechanical intubation (OR 0.150) was observed. In patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the use of a prophylactic dosage of enoxaparin appears to be associated with similar in-hospital overall mortality compared to higher doses. These findings require confirmation in a randomized, controlled study.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19/therapy , Enoxaparin/administration & dosage , Hospitalization , Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , Enoxaparin/adverse effects , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Protective Factors , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Thromboembolism/blood , Thromboembolism/diagnosis , Thromboembolism/mortality , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
8.
Sci Rep ; 10(1): 20731, 2020 11 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-947552

ABSTRACT

Clinical features and natural history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) differ widely among different countries and during different phases of the pandemia. Here, we aimed to evaluate the case fatality rate (CFR) and to identify predictors of mortality in a cohort of COVID-19 patients admitted to three hospitals of Northern Italy between March 1 and April 28, 2020. All these patients had a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by molecular methods. During the study period 504/1697 patients died; thus, overall CFR was 29.7%. We looked for predictors of mortality in a subgroup of 486 patients (239 males, 59%; median age 71 years) for whom sufficient clinical data were available at data cut-off. Among the demographic and clinical variables considered, age, a diagnosis of cancer, obesity and current smoking independently predicted mortality. When laboratory data were added to the model in a further subgroup of patients, age, the diagnosis of cancer, and the baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio were identified as independent predictors of mortality. In conclusion, the CFR of hospitalized patients in Northern Italy during the ascending phase of the COVID-19 pandemic approached 30%. The identification of mortality predictors might contribute to better stratification of individual patient risk.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/virology , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Risk Factors , Sex Factors , Smoking , Survival Rate
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL