Antecedent Administration of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonists and Survival After Hospitalization for COVID-19 Syndrome.

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) utilizes the angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE-2) receptor to enter human cells. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin II receptor antagonists (ARB) are associated with ACE-2 upregulation. We hypothesized that antecedent use of ACEI/ARB may be associated with mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods and Results We used the Coracle registry, which contains data of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in 4 regions of Italy, and restricted analyses to those ≥50 years of age. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Among these 781 patients, 133 (17.0%) used an ARB and 171 (21.9%) used an ACEI. While neither sex nor smoking status differed by user groups, patients on ACEI/ARB were older and more likely to have hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and congestive heart failure. The overall mortality rate was 15.1% (118/781) and increased with age (PTrend<0.0001). The crude odds ratios (ORs) for death for ACEI users and ARB users were 0.98, 95% CI, 0.60-1.60, P=0.9333, and 1.13, 95% CI, 0.67-1.91, P=0.6385, respectively. After adjusting for age, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and congestive heart failure, antecedent ACEI administration was associated with reduced mortality (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.98, P=0.0436); a similar, but weaker trend was observed for ARB administration (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.32-1.07, P=0.0796). Conclusions In those aged ≥50 years hospitalized with COVID-19, antecedent use of ACEI was independently associated with reduced risk of inpatient death. Our findings suggest a protective role of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibition in patients with high cardiovascular risk affected by COVID-19.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak on Emergency Department Presentation and Prognosis of Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Updated Meta-Analysis.

We performed an updated meta-analysis to robustly quantify admission trends of patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI) during the first wave of the pandemic and to characterize on a large basis the risk profile and early prognosis. Studies having the same observation period for the comparison between SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in 2020 versus control period in 2019 were included. Primary endpoints were the relative variation of hospital admissions, the difference of in-hospital mortality for STEMI and NSTEMI. Secondary were: mortality according to countries, income levels and data quality; cardiogenic shock, mechanical complications, door-to-balloon time, time from symptom onset to first medical contact, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and troponin. In total, 61 observational studies with 125,346 patients were included. Compared with 2019, during the pandemic for STEMI were observed: a 24% reduction of hospitalizations with an impact on early survival (OR = 1.33 in-hospital mortality); the time from symptom onset to first medical contact was 91.31 min longer, whereas door-to-balloon time was increased (+5.44 min); after STEMI, the rate of cardiogenic shock was 33% higher; LVEF at discharge was decreased (-3.46); elevated high-sensitivity troponin levels (1.52) on admission. For NSTEMI, in the COVID-19 period, we observed a 31% reduction of hospitalizations and higher in-hospital deaths (OR = 1.34). The highest mortality rates among countries were: Italy OR = 3.71 (high income), Serbia OR = 2.15 (upper middle) and Pakistan OR = 1.69 (lower middle). Later hospital presentation was associated with larger infarctions, as well as with increased cardiogenic shock and in-hospital mortality.

[Atrial fibrillation in patients with COVID-19. Usefulness of the CHA2DS2-VASc score: an analysis of the international HOPE COVID-19 registry]. / Fibrilación auricular en pacientes con COVID-19. Utilidad de la puntuación CHA2DS2-VASc: un análisis del registro internacional HOPE COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in acute situations, where it is associated with more complications and higher mortality. METHODS: Analysis of the international HOPE registry (NCT04334291). The objective was to assess the prognostic information of AF in COVID-19 patients. A multivariate analysis and propensity score matching were performed to assess the relationship between AF and mortality. We also evaluated the impact on mortality and embolic events of the CHA2DS2-VASc score in these patients. RESULTS: Among 6217 patients enrolled in the HOPE registry, 250 had AF (4.5%). AF patients had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities. After propensity score matching, these differences were attenuated. Despite this, patients with AF had a higher incidence of in-hospital complications such as heart failure (19.3% vs 11.6%, P = .021) and respiratory insufficiency (75.9% vs 62.3%, P = .002), as well as a higher 60-day mortality rate (43.4% vs 30.9%, P = .005). On multivariate analysis, AF was independently associated with higher 60-day mortality (hazard ratio, 1.234; 95%CI, 1.003-1.519). CHA2DS2-VASc score acceptably predicts 60-day mortality in COVID-19 patients (area ROC, 0.748; 95%CI, 0.733-0.764), but not its embolic risk (area ROC, 0.411; 95%CI, 0.147-0.675). CONCLUSIONS: AF in COVID-19 patients is associated with a higher number of complications and 60-day mortality. The CHA2DS2-VASc score may be a good risk marker in COVID patients but does not predict their embolic risk.

Inpatient Mortality According to Level of Respiratory Support Received for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) Infection: A Prospective Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe patients according to the maximum degree of respiratory support received and report their inpatient mortality due to coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Analysis of patients in the Coracle registry from February 22, 2020, to April 1, 2020. SETTING: Hospitals in the Piedmont, Lombardy, Tuscany, and Lazio regions of Italy. PATIENTS: Nine-hundred forty-eight patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 948 patients, 122 (12.87%) received invasive ventilation, 637 (67.19%) received supplemental oxygen only, and 189 (19.94%) received no respiratory support. The median (quartile 1-quartile 3) age was 65 years (54-76.59 yr), and there was evidence of differential respiratory treatment by decade of life (p = 0.0046); patients greater than 80 years old were generally not intubated. There were 606 men (63.9%) in this study, and they were more likely to receive respiratory support than women (p < 0.0001). The rate of in-hospital death for invasive ventilation recipients was 22.95%, 12.87% for supplemental oxygen recipients, and 7.41% for those who received neither (p = 0.0004). A sensitivity analysis of the 770 patients less than 80 years old revealed a lower, but similar mortality trend (18.02%, 8.10%, 5.23%; p = 0.0008) among the 14.42%, 65.71%, and 19.87% of patients treated with mechanical ventilation, supplemental oxygen only, or neither. Overall, invasive ventilation recipients who died were significantly older than those who survived (median age: 68.5 yr [60-81.36 yr] vs 62.5 yr [55.52-71 yr]; p = 0.0145). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019, 13% received mechanical ventilation, which was associated with a mortality rate of 23%.

Excess all-cause mortality during COVID-19 outbreak: potential role of untreated cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has rapidly spread globally. Due to different testing strategies, under-detection of positive subjects and COVID-19-related-deaths remains common. Aim of this analysis was to assess the real impact of COVID-19 through the analysis of 2020 Italian all-cause mortality data compared to historical series. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 2020 and 2015-2019 all-cause mortality data released by the Italian National Institute for Statistics (ISTAT) for the time period January 1st-March 21st. This preliminary sample included 1084 Italian municipalities showing at least 10 deaths during the above-mentioned timeframe and an increase in mortality of more than 20% as compared to the previous five years (2015-2019), with a resulting coverage of 21% of Italian population. The difference between 2020 observed and expected deaths (mean of weekly deaths in 2015-2019) was computed, together with mortality rate ratio (MRR) for each of the four weeks following detection of the first autochthonous COVID-19 case in Italy (February 23rd, 2020 - March 21st, 2020), as well as for this entire timeframe. Subgroup analysis by age groups was also performed. RESULTS: Overall MRR was 1.79 [1.75-1.84], with an observed excess mortality of 8750 individuals in the investigated sample, which in itself outweighs Italian Civil Protection report of only 4,825 COVID-19-related deaths across Italy, as of March 21. Subgroup analysis did not show any difference in mortality rate in '0-14 years' age group, while MRRs were significantly increased in older age groups, in particular in patients >75 years (MRR 1.84 [1.79-1.89]). In addition, week-by-week analysis showed a progressive increase in MRR during this period, peaking in the last week (March 15th, 2020 - March 21st, 2020) with an estimated value of 2.65 [2.53-2.78]. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of all-cause mortality data in Italy indicates that reported COVID-19-related deaths are an underestimate of the actual death toll. All-cause death should be seen as the epidemiological indicator of choice to assess the real mortality impact exerted by SARS-CoV-2, given that it also best reflects the toll on frail patient subsets (e.g. the elderly or those with cardiovascular disease).

Usefulness of Combined Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors and Diuretic Treatment In Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.

Antecedent use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) prevents clinical deterioration and protects against cardiovascular/thrombotic complications of COVID-19, for indicated patients. Uncertainty exists regarding treatment continuation throughout infection and doing so with concomitant medications. Hence, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the differential effect of RASi continuation in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 according to diuretic use. We used the Coracle registry, which contains data of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 from 4 regions of Italy. We used Firth logistic regression for adult (>50 years) cases with admission on/after February 22, 2020, with a known discharge status as of April 1, 2020. There were 286 patients in this analysis; 100 patients (35.0%) continued RASi and 186 (65%) discontinued. There were 98 patients treated with a diuretic; 51 (52%) of those continued RASi. The in-hospital mortality rates in patients treated with a diuretic and continued versus discontinued RASi were 8% versus 26% (p = 0.0179). There were 188 patients not treated with a diuretic; 49 (26%) of those continued RASi. The in-hospital mortality rates in patients not treated with a diuretic and continued versus discontinued RASi were 16% versus 9% (p = 0.1827). After accounting for age, cardiovascular disease, and laboratory values, continuing RASi decreased the risk of mortality by approximately 77% (odds ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.95, p = 0.0419) for patients treated with diuretics, but did not alter the risk in patients treated with RASi alone. Continuing RASi in patients concomitantly treated with diuretics was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality.

Usefulness of Combined Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors and Diuretic Treatment In Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

Antecedent use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) prevents clinical deterioration and protects against cardiovascular/thrombotic complications of COVID-19, for indicated patients. Uncertainty exists regarding treatment continuation throughout infection and doing so with concomitant medications. Hence, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the differential effect of RASi continuation in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 according to diuretic use. We used the Coracle registry, which contains data of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 from 4 regions of Italy. We used Firth logistic regression for adult (>50 years) cases with admission on/after February 22, 2020, with a known discharge status as of April 1, 2020. There were 286 patients in this analysis;100 patients (35.0%) continued RASi and 186 (65%) discontinued. There were 98 patients treated with a diuretic;51 (52%) of those continued RASi. The in-hospital mortality rates in patients treated with a diuretic and continued versus discontinued RASi were 8% versus 26% (p = 0.0179). There were 188 patients not treated with a diuretic;49 (26%) of those continued RASi. The in-hospital mortality rates in patients not treated with a diuretic and continued versus discontinued RASi were 16% versus 9% (p = 0.1827). After accounting for age, cardiovascular disease, and laboratory values, continuing RASi decreased the risk of mortality by approximately 77% (odds ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.95, p = 0.0419) for patients treated with diuretics, but did not alter the risk in patients treated with RASi alone. Continuing RASi in patients concomitantly treated with diuretics was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality.

ACE-I and ARBS do not influence the chest CT presentation and 1-year survival of COVID-19 patients: Italian multicentre registry

Aims A possible interference between ACE-i or ARBs with ACE-2 receptor and SARS-CoV-2 pathway has been raised. Despite data have shown no clinical impact of therapy with ACE-I or ARBs on COVID-19, these drugs are often discontinued upon hospitalization or diagnosis. To evaluate the effects of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) and prior outpatient therapy with RAAS inhibitors on the chest CT severity score performed within 24 h of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection (before stopping medications or starting specific therapy for COVID-19) and on 1-year survival. Methods and results This is a multicentre, prospective, observational study. All admitted patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection who performed chest CT within 24 h of arrival were consecutively enrolled from 1 March to 1 June 2020. A severity score was attributed to Chest CT by two radiologists in blind to the patient’s clinical information and a cut-off value of 19.5 was considered to define severe radiological pneumonia. A 1-year telephone follow-up was performed in order to evaluate the determinants of 1-year survival. 590 patients with a mean age of 63 ± 14 years were included. Seventy-three (12.4%) patients were treated with ACE-I, 85 (14.4%) with ARBs and 62 (10.5%) with CCB. Cox regression analysis showed that male gender (OR: 1.4;95% CI: from 1.02 to 2.07;P = 0.035), diabetes (OR: 1.6;95% CI: from 1.03 to 2.7;P = 0.037), age (OR: 1.02;95% CI: from 1.008 to 1.033;P = 0.001), and obesity (OR: 3.04;95% CI: from 1.3 to 6.7;P < 0.001) were independently associated with a severe CT score. Of note, while prior outpatient therapy with ACE-I and ARBs was not independently associated with severe CT score, therapy with CCB was independently associated with a severe CT score (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: from 1.05 to 3.4, P = 0.033). Severe chest CT severity score (OR: 1.05;95% CI: from 1.02 to 1.08;P < 0.001), P/F ratio (OR: 0.998;95% CI: from 0.994 to 0.998;P < 0.001), and older age (OR: 1.06;95% CI: from 1.03 to 1.1;P < 0.001) were independently associated with mortality at 1-year follow-up. Neither ACE-I, ARBs, and CCB were associated with mortality at 1 year follow-up. Conclusions ACE-I and ARBs do not influence the chest CT presentation of COVID-19 patients at the time of diagnosis. Furthermore, ACE-I and ARBs do not influence 1-year survival of COVID-19 survivors.

Prognostic value of 12-leads admission electrocardiogram in low-risk patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac involvement significantly contributes to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality.12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) represents a fast, cheap, and easy to perform exam with the adjunctive advantage of the remote reporting possibility. In this study, we sought to investigate if electrocardiographic parameters can identify patients, deemed at low-risk at admission, who will face in-hospital unfavorable course. METHODS: From March 1, 2020, through March 30, 2021, 384 consecutive patients with confirmed low-risk COVID-19 were hospitalized at the University Hospital of Bari (Italy). Criteria for low risk were: admission to the division of Pneumology or Infectious Diseases, no need for immediate (within 24 hours from admission) transfer to Intensive Care Unit or for respiratory support with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or for circulation support (either mechanical or pharmacological). Admission ECGs were reviewed and interpreted by two expert cardiologists. The primary outcomes were in-hospital death and the composite outcome of in-hospital death and IMV. RESULTS: In low-risk COVID-19 patients, atrial fibrillation (AF), poor R wave progression (PRWP), tachycardia, and right bundle branch block (RBBB) resulted as statistically significant and independent predictors of in-hospital all-cause mortality; AF, PRWP, Tachycardia, RBBB, and corrected QT interval showed to be statistically significant and independent risk factors for the occurrence of the composite endpoint of death and IMV. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated for the first time that RBBB and PRWP, assessed upon admission with ECG, are associated with unfavorable clinical course in a baseline low-risk population hospitalized for COVID-19.

Sepsis of Patients Infected by SARS-CoV-2: Real-World Experience From the International HOPE-COVID-19-Registry and Validation of HOPE Sepsis Score.

Background: Patients with sepsis with a concomitant coronavirus (COVID-19) infection are related to a high morbidity and mortality rate. We investigated a large cohort of patients with sepsis with a concomitant COVID-19, and we developed a risk score for the estimation of sepsis risk in COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a sub-analysis from the international Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation Registry for COVID-19 (HOPE-COVID-19-Registry, NCT04334291). Out of 5,837 patients with COVID-19, 624 patients were diagnosed with sepsis according to the Sepsis-3 International Consensus. Results: In multivariable analysis, the following risk factors were identified as independent predictors for developing sepsis: current smoking, tachypnoea (>22 breath per minute), hemoptysis, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) <92%, blood pressure (BP) (systolic BP <90 mmHg and diastolic BP <60 mmHg), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) <15, elevated procalcitonin (PCT), elevated troponin I (TnI), and elevated creatinine >1.5 mg/dl. By assigning odds ratio (OR) weighted points to these variables, the following three risk categories were defined to develop sepsis during admission: low-risk group (probability of sepsis 3.1-11.8%); intermediate-risk group (24.8-53.8%); and high-risk-group (58.3-100%). A score of 1 was assigned to current smoking, tachypnoea, decreased SpO2, decreased BP, decreased GCS, elevated PCT, TnI, and creatinine, whereas a score of 2 was assigned to hemoptysis. Conclusions: The HOPE Sepsis Score including nine parameters is useful in identifying high-risk COVID-19 patients to develop sepsis. Sepsis in COVID-19 is associated with a high mortality rate.

Regulation of Digital Behavior Models for Knowledge Transfer: Organizational Concerns of Remote Learning

Research on behavior regulation was carried out after several months of social isolation, provoked by the pandemic, between the months of February and March 2020. In spring 2020, many higher education institutions began to introduce digital tools of education, remote learning, and distance teaching. The reaction during the first weeks and months was negative, but the experience of this remote regime of work and learning continued into the autumn semester due to COVID-19. This experience included the perceptions of new organizational approaches that were needed to regulate digital behavior as a specific type of strategy and choices made in the virtual space. This need was expressed in an understanding of the improvements to be implemented in the organization of educational processes at traditional institutions to efficiently apply the remote learning regime. Between December 2020 and March 2021, six focus groups were conducted to investigate if the regulation of behavior for remote work and learning (work for university administrative staff and academic teachers;studying for students) differed, with informal interviews also conducted to check the validity of the opinions formulated. The hypotheses of the lack of responsibility, and of iterative accomplishment of shorter and simpler tasks, were supported with the data obtained. The hypothesis on an imbalanced vision of mutual interests, and of the assessments of gains and costs of the remote activity, was confirmed. The hypothesis of the externalization of motivation was neither confirmed nor rejected, contradictory opinions were obtained, and, thus, further quantitative study is required. The conclusions based on the obtained results included support for improving the regulation mechanisms required to organize knowledge transfer when digital tools are applied at traditional educational institutions. To enhance the remote regime of learning, redesign and reorganization is necessary when considering the assistance needed by teachers and learners. Specific organizational efforts need to be implemented to restructure the teaching to shorter sequences, to stimulate the creativity of both teachers and learners (due to the readiness to experiment and the lack of critics, and constant access to online bases), and to identify the borders of the “sandbox” to clearly define and articulate the common rules of behavior.

Reduction of admissions for urgent and elective pacemaker implant during the COVID-19 outbreak in Northern Italy.

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.

COVID-19 and the impact of arterial hypertension-An analysis of the international HOPE COVID-19 Registry (Italy-Spain-Germany).

BACKGROUND: A systematic analysis of concomitant arterial hypertension in COVID-19 patients and the impact of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have not been studied in a large multicentre cohort yet. We conducted a subanalysis from the international HOPE Registry (https://hopeprojectmd.com, NCT04334291) comparing COVID-19 in presence and absence of arterial hypertension. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Out of 5837 COVID-19 patients, 2850 (48.8%) patients had the diagnosis arterial hypertension. 1978/2813 (70.3%) patients were already treated with ACEI or ARBs. The clinical outcome of the present subanalysis included all-cause mortality over 40 days of follow-up. RESULTS: Patients with arterial hypertension suffered significantly more from different complications including respiratory insufficiency (60.8% vs 39.5%), heart failure (9.9% vs 3.1%), acute kidney injury (25.3% vs 7.3%), pneumonia (90.6% vs 86%), sepsis (14.7% vs 7.5%), and bleeding events (3.6% vs 1.6%). The mortality rate was 29.6% in patients with concomitant arterial hypertension and 11.3% without arterial hypertension (P < .001). Invasive and non-invasive respiratory supports were significantly more required in presence of arterial hypertension as compared without it. In the multivariate cox regression analysis, while age≥65, benzodiazepine, antidepressant at admission, elevated LDH or creatinine, respiratory insufficiency and sepsis might be a positive independent predictors of mortality, antiviral drugs, interferon treatment, ACEI or ARBs at discharge or oral anticoagulation at discharge might be an independent negative predictor of the mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rate and in-hospital complications might be increased in COVID-19 patients with a concomitant history of arterial hypertension. The history of ACEI or ARBs treatments does not seem to impact the outcome of these patients.

Digital Communication Tools and Knowledge Creation Processes for Enriched Intellectual Outcome—Experience of Short-Term E-Learning Courses during Pandemic

Social isolation during the pandemic contributed to the transition of educational processes to e-learning. A short-term e-marketing education program for a variety of students was introduced in May 2020 and is taught entirely online. A survey was conducted regularly in the last week of training using Google Forms, and three cohorts were surveyed in July, September, and December 2020. A high level of satisfaction indicates an interest in the content and a positive assessment of the level of comfort of an organization adapted to the needs of students;this positive result contrasted with the negative opinion of the remote learning in Russia since March 2020, and this surprising satisfaction of students has motivated the study to try to explain its reasons. This result was compared with the short-term course taught through the educational pedagogical platform of a university. The students of traditional short- and long-term university programs were asked to assess their satisfaction with different digital communication tools used for e-learning. They showed low satisfaction with the pedagogical platform and a positive reaction to the e-communication tools (messengers, social media, short surveys, video conferences, etc.). The qualitative responses helped to better understand the real problems of the cognitive process and the triple structure of intellectual production during e-learning, including interest in the intellectual outcome, the need for emotional and motivational elements of cooperation and competition between students, and smooth behavioral enrichment, which requires special efforts from students and their leading from teachers. The main conclusion concerns a practical decision to continue the implementation of the educational program in the form of an online course with the use of the mixed digital communication tools of social media, messengers, and video conferences, which most likely meets the expectations and capabilities of students.

Atrial fibrillation in patients with COVID-19. Usefulness of the CHA2DS2-VASc score: an analysis of the international HOPE COVID-19 registry.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in acute situations, where it is associated with more complications and higher mortality. METHODS: Analysis of the international HOPE registry (NCT04334291). The objective was to assess the prognostic information of AF in COVID-19 patients. A multivariate analysis and propensity score matching were performed to assess the relationship between AF and mortality. We also evaluated the impact on mortality and embolic events of the CHA2DS2-VASc score in these patients. RESULTS: Among 6217 patients enrolled in the HOPE registry, 250 had AF (4.5%). AF patients had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities. After propensity score matching, these differences were attenuated. Despite this, patients with AF had a higher incidence of in-hospital complications such as heart failure (19.3% vs 11.6%, P=.021) and respiratory insufficiency (75.9% vs 62.3%, P=.002), as well as a higher 60-day mortality rate (43.4% vs 30.9%, P=.005). On multivariate analysis, AF was independently associated with higher 60-day mortality (hazard ratio, 1.234; 95%CI, 1.003-1.519). CHA2DS2-VASc score acceptably predicts 60-day mortality in COVID-19 patients (area ROC, 0.748; 95%CI, 0.733-0.764), but not its embolic risk (area ROC, 0.411; 95%CI, 0.147-0.675). CONCLUSIONS: AF in COVID-19 patients is associated with a higher number of complications and 60-day mortality. The CHA2DS2-VASc score may be a good risk marker in COVID patients but does not predict their embolic risk.

Underlying heart diseases and acute COVID-19 outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The presence of any underlying heart condition could influence outcomes during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: The registry HOPE-COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19, NCT04334291) is an international ambispective study, enrolling COVID-19 patients discharged from hospital, dead or alive. RESULTS: HOPE enrolled 2798 patients from 35 centers in 7 countries. Median age was 67 years (IQR: 53.0-78.0), and most were male (59.5%). A relevant heart disease was present in 682 (24%) cases. These were older, more frequently male, with higher overall burden of cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, smoking habit, obesity) and other comorbidities such renal failure, lung, cerebrovascular disease and oncologic antecedents (p < 0.01, for all). The heart cohort received more corticoids (28.9% vs. 20.4%, p < 0.001), antibiotics, but less hydroxychloroquine, antivirals or tocilizumab. Considering the epidemiologic profile, a previous heart condition was independently related with shortterm mortality in the Cox multivariate analysis (1.62; 95% CI 1.29-2.03; p < 0.001). Moreover, heart patients needed more respiratory, circulatory support, and presented more in-hospital events, such heart failure, renal failure, respiratory insufficiency, sepsis, systemic infammatory response syndrome and clinically relevant bleedings (all, p < 0.001), and mortality (39.7% vs. 15.5%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An underlying heart disease is an adverse prognostic factor for patients suffering COVID-19. Its presence could be related with different clinical drug management and would benefit from maintaining treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers during in-hospital stay.

Prognostic Impact of Hyponatremia and Hypernatremia in COVID-19 Pneumonia. A HOPE-COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19) Registry Analysis.

Dysnatremia is associated with increased mortality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. SARS-COV2 (Severe-acute-respiratory syndrome caused by Coronavirus-type 2) pneumonia can be fatal. The aim of this study was to ascertain whether admittance dysnatremia is associated with mortality, sepsis, or intensive therapy (IT) in patients hospitalized with SARS-COV2 pneumonia. This is a retrospective study of the HOPE-COVID-19 registry, with data collected from January 1th through April 31th, 2020. We selected all hospitalized adult patients with RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-COV2 pneumonia and a registered admission serum sodium level (SNa). Patients were classified as hyponatremic (SNa <135 mmol/L), eunatremic (SNa 135-145 mmol/L), or hypernatremic (SNa >145 mmol/L). Multivariable analyses were performed to elucidate independent relationships of admission hyponatremia and hypernatremia, with mortality, sepsis, or IT during hospitalization. Four thousand six hundred sixty-four patients were analyzed, median age 66 (52-77), 58% males. Death occurred in 988 (21.2%) patients, sepsis was diagnosed in 551 (12%) and IT in 838 (18.4%). Hyponatremia was present in 957/4,664 (20.5%) patients, and hypernatremia in 174/4,664 (3.7%). Both hyponatremia and hypernatremia were associated with mortality and sepsis. Only hyponatremia was associated with IT. In conclusion, hyponatremia and hypernatremia at admission are factors independently associated with mortality and sepsis in patients hospitalized with SARS-COV2 pneumonia. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04334291, NCT04334291.

Gender differences in acute coronary syndromes patterns during the COVID-19 outbreak.

BACKGROUND: Mortality from acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is strictly related to early management. As female patients usually experience longer delays before diagnosis and treatment, we assessed whether women were more affected by the dramatic drop in hospital admissions for ACS during the Covid-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of clinical and angiographic characteristics of consecutive patients who were admitted for ACS at 15 hospitals in Northern Italy comparing men and women data. The study period was defined as the time between the first confirmed case of Covid-19 in Italy (February 20, 2020) and March 31, 2020. We compared hospitalization rates between the study period and two control periods: the corresponding period during the previous year (February 20 to March 31, 2019) and the earlier period during the same year (January 1 to February 19, 2020). Incidence rate ratios comparing the study period with each of the control periods were calculated with the use of Poisson regression. RESULTS: Of the 547 patients who were hospitalized for ACS during the study period, only 127 (23%) were females, accounting for a mean of 3.1 admissions per day, while ACS hospitalized males were 420, with a mean of 10.2 admissions per day. There was a significant decrease driven by a similar reduction in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) diagnosis in both sexes compared to the control periods. A trend toward a greater reduction in admitted females was shown in the intra-year control period (46% admission reduction in females vs 37% in males, with females accounting for 26% of ACS, P=0.10) and a significant reduction when compared to the previous year control period (40% admission reduction in females vs 23% in males, with females accounting for 28% of ACS, P=0.03), mainly related to Unstable Angina diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The Covid-19 pandemic period closed the gap between men and women in ACS, with similar rates of reduction of hospitalized STEMI and NSTEMI and a trend toward greater reduction in UA admission among women. Furthermore, many typical differences between males and females regarding ischemic heart disease presentations and vessel distribution were leveled.