ABSTRACT
Forms of noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) have been widely used to avoid endotracheal intubation in patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). However, inappropriate prolongation of NIRS may delay endotracheal intubation and worsen patient outcomes. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess whether the CARE score, a chest X-ray score previously validated in COVID-19 patients, may predict the need for endotracheal intubation and escalation of respiratory support in COVID-19 patients requiring NIRS. From December 2020 to May 2021, we included 142 patients receiving NIRS who had a first chest X-ray available at NIRS initiation and a second one after 48-72 h. In 94 (66%) patients, the level of respiratory support was increased, while endotracheal intubation was required in 83 (58%) patients. The CARE score at NIRS initiation was not predictive of the need for endotracheal intubation (odds ratio (OR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96-1.06) or escalation of treatment (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96-1.07). In conclusion, chest X-ray severity, as assessed by the CARE score, did not allow predicting endotracheal intubation or escalation of respiratory support in COVID-19 patients undergoing NIRS.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a convenient imaging modality in the setting of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) because it is easily available, can be performed bedside and repeated over time. We herein examined LUS patterns in relation to disease severity and disease stage among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: We performed a retrospective case series analysis of patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were admitted to the hospital because of pneumonia. We recorded history, clinical parameters and medications. LUS was performed and scored in a standardized fashion by experienced operators, with evaluation of up to 12 lung fields, reporting especially on B-lines and consolidations. RESULTS: We included 96 patients, 58.3% men, with a mean age of 65.9 years. Patients with a high-risk quick COVID-19 severity index (qCSI) were older and had worse outcomes, especially for the need for high-flow oxygen. B-lines and consolidations were located mainly in the lower posterior lung fields. LUS patterns for B-lines and consolidations were significantly worse in all lung fields among patients with high versus low qCSI. B-lines and consolidations were worse in the intermediate disease stage, from day 7 to 13 after onset of symptoms. While consolidations correlated more with inflammatory biomarkers, B-lines correlated more with end-organ damage, including extrapulmonary involvement. CONCLUSIONS: LUS patterns provide a comprehensive evaluation of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia that correlated with severity and dynamically reflect disease stage. LUS patterns may reflect different pathophysiological processes related to inflammation or tissue damage; consolidations may represent a more specific sign of localized disease, whereas B-lines seem to be also dependent upon generalized illness due to SARS-CoV-2 infection.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is responsible for a worldwide pandemic, with a high rate of morbidity and mortality. The increasing evidence of an associated relevant prothrombotic coagulopathy has resulted in an increasing use of antithrombotic doses higher than usual in COVID-19 patients. Information on the benefit/risk ratio of this approach is still lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of relevant bleeding complications in association with the antithrombotic strategy and its relationship with the amount of drug. METHODS: Consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted between February and April 2020 were included in a retrospective analysis. Major bleedings (MB) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) were obtained from patient medical records and were adjudicated by an independent committee. RESULTS: Of the 324 patients who were recruited, 240 had been treated with prophylactic doses and 84 with higher doses of anticoagulants. The rate of the composite endpoint of MB or CRNMB was 6.9 per 100-person/months in patients who had been given prophylactic doses, and 26.4 per 100-person/months in those who had been prescribed higher doses (hazard ratio, 3.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.90-7.97). The corresponding rates for overall mortality were 12.2 and 20.1 per 100-person/months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of relevant bleeding events was high in patients treated with (sub)therapeutic doses of anticoagulants. In the latter group, overall mortality did not differ from that of patients treated with standard prophylactic doses and was even higher. Our result does not support a strategy of giving (sub)therapeutic doses of anticoagulants in non-critically ill patients with COVID-19.