The effect of COVID-19 epidemic on vital signs in hospitalized patients: a pre-post heat-map study from a large teaching hospital.

The Lombardy SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in February 2020 represented the beginning of COVID-19 epidemic in Italy. Hospitals were flooded by thousands of patients with bilateral pneumonia and severe respiratory, and vital sign derangements compared to the standard hospital population. We propose a new visual analysis technique using heat maps to describe the impact of COVID-19 epidemic on vital sign anomalies in hospitalized patients. We conducted an electronic health record study, including all confirmed COVID-19 patients hospitalized from February 21st, 2020 to April 21st, 2020 as cases, and all non-COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the same wards from January 1st, 2018 to December 31st, 2018. All data on temperature, peripheral oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, arterial blood pressure, and heart rate were retrieved. Derangement of vital signs was defined according to predefined thresholds. 470 COVID-19 patients and 9241 controls were included. Cases were older than controls, with a median age of 79 vs 76 years in non survivors (p = < 0.002). Gender was not associated with mortality. Overall mortality in COVID-19 hospitalized patients was 18%, ranging from 1.4% in patients below 65 years to about 30% in patients over 65 years. Heat maps analysis demonstrated that COVID-19 patients had an increased frequency in episodes of compromised respiratory rate, acute desaturation, and fever. COVID-19 epidemic profoundly affected the incidence of severe derangements in vital signs in a large academic hospital. We validated heat maps as a method to analyze the clinical stability of hospitalized patients. This method may help to improve resource allocation according to patient characteristics.

One dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine exponentially increases antibodies in individuals who have recovered from symptomatic COVID-19.

BACKGROUNDThe COVID-19 vaccines currently in use require 2 doses to achieve optimal protection. Currently, there is no indication as to whether individuals who have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 should be vaccinated, or whether they should receive 1 or 2 vaccine doses.METHODSWe tested the antibody response developed after administration of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in 124 health care professionals, of whom 57 had a previous history of SARS-CoV-2 exposure with or without symptoms.RESULTSPostvaccine antibodies in SARS-CoV-2-exposed individuals increased exponentially within 5 to 18 days after the first dose compared to naive subjects (P < 0.0001). In a multivariate linear regression (LR) model we showed that the antibody response depended on the IgG prevaccine titer and on the exposure to SARS-CoV-2. In symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-exposed individuals, IgG reached a plateau after the second dose, and those who voluntarily refrained from receiving the second dose (n = 7) retained their antibody response. Gastrointestinal symptoms, muscle pain, and fever markedly positively correlated with increased IgG responses. By contrast, all asymptomatic/paucisymptomatic and unexposed individuals showed an important increase after the second dose.CONCLUSIONOne vaccine dose is sufficient in symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-exposed subjects to reach a high titer of antibodies, suggesting no need for a second dose, particularly in light of current vaccine shortage.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT04387929.FUNDINGDolce & Gabbana and the Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca corrente).

Critical Care Outreach Team During COVID-19: Ventilatory Support in the Ward and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, a critical care outreach team was implemented in our hospital to guarantee multidisciplinary patient assessment at admission and prompt ICU support in medical wards. In this paper, we report the activity plan results and describe the baseline characteristics of the referred subjects. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated data from 125 subjects referred to the critical care outreach team from March 22 to April 22, 2020. We considered subjects with a ceiling of care decision, with those deemed eligible assigned to level 3 care (ward subgroup), and those deemed ineligible admitted to the ICU (ICU subgroup). Quality indicators of the outreach team plan delivery included number of cardiac arrest calls, number of intubations in level 2 areas, and ineffective palliative support. RESULTS: We enrolled 125 consecutive adult subjects with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. We did not report any emergency endotracheal intubations in the clinical ward. In the care ceiling subgroup, we had 2 (3.3%) emergency calls for cardiac arrest, whereas signs of ineffective palliative support were reported in 5 subjects (12.5%). Noninvasive forms of respiratory assistance were delivered to 40.0% of subjects in the ward subgroup (median 3 d [interquartile range (IQR) 2-5]), to 45.9% of subjects in the care ceiling subgroup (median 5 d [IQR 3-7]), and to 64.7% of subjects in the ICU subgroup (median 2.5 d [IQR 1-3]). Thirty of the 31 ward subjects (96.7%), 26 of the 34 ICU subjects, (76.4%), and 19 of the 61 ceiling of care subjects (31.1%) were discharged. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of a hospital and ICU surge, a multidisciplinary daily plan supported by a dedicated critical care outreach team was associated with a low rate of cardiac arrest calls, no emergency intubations in the ward, and appropriate palliative care support for subjects with a ceiling of care decision.

Successful SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allergy risk-management: The experience of a large Italian University Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Novel Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines have been approved recently, and public concern regarding the risk of anaphylactic reactions arose after a few cases during the first days of mass vaccination. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been suggested as the most probable culprit agent for allergic reactions. OBJECTIVE: We describe the allergy work-up protocol implemented for the vaccination campaign in our Center, aiming to allow the greatest number of people to be vaccinated safely. METHODS: The protocol included the self-report of a history of suspected drug or vaccine allergies, and subsequent teleconsultation and allergometric tests for PEG and Polysorbate 80 (PS80). A desensitizing protocol of vaccine administration was applied to patients sensitized only to PS80, and to those with a suspect allergic reaction after the first vaccine dose. RESULTS: 10.2% (414 out of 4042) of the entire vaccine population have been screened: only one patient resulted allergic to PEG and therefore excluded from the vaccination. Another patient was sensitized to PS80 only and safely vaccinated applying the desensitizing protocol. Seven subjects without a previous history of allergic disease experienced suspect hypersensitivity reactions to the first administered dose: one of them resulted allergic to PEG and was excluded from the second dose, while the others safely completed the vaccination with the desensitizing protocol. CONCLUSION: A careful allergological risk-assessment protocol significantly reduces the number of patients who would have avoided SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for their allergies and to effectively identify and manage those rare patients with sensitization to PEGs and/or PS80.

Identifying medical professionals at risk for in-hospital COVID-19 infection: a snapshot during a "tsunami" highlighting unexpected risks.

The aim of this study was to profile healthcare professionals (HCPs) who infected with COVID-19 in hospital while working in a COVID-19 hub hospital during the pandemic. A questionnaire was sent to all HCPs from whom nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) were collected. The type of work, work environment, individual characteristics, and modality of infection were analyzed. Working areas were categorized into COVID-free areas (wards and ICUs for patients without COVID-19, medical offices, and hospitality counters) and COVID+ areas (dedicated wards and the ICU for patients with COVID-19). From March 1 to 20, 2020, 302 HCPs were tested: 251 (83.1%) responded to the questionnaire, but 9 were excluded since infection occurred outside the hospital. The remaining 242 subjects included 53 (21.9%) with positive NPS and 189 (78.1%) with negative NPS, significant differences in NPS results were evident depending on the subject's role (p = 0.028). Pairwise post hoc analysis revealed that surgeons had a significantly increased rate of positive NPS (p = 0.001). Of the 189 subjects with negative NPS, 175 (92.6%) worked in COVID-free areas, and 14 (7.4%) in COVID+ areas. Of the 53 subjects with positive NPS, 44 (83.1%) worked in COVID-free areas and 9 (16.9%) worked in COVID+ areas. Medical offices featuring an open space with adjacent desks were identified as areas of higher risk. An apparent cause of infection could not be identified in 21 (39.6%) subjects with positive NPS. Among a total of 251 subjects, 80 (41.5%) of the 193 subjects with negative NPS and 16 (27.6%) of the 58 subjects with positive NPS had been vaccinated against the common flu. In conclusion, the vast majority of subjects with positive NPS came from COVID-free areas. The source of infection could not be identified in a significant portion of subjects with positive NPS. Personnel need better protection, more testing with NPS needs to be performed, and workplace layouts need to be re-thought. Vaccination against the flu seems to provide some protection.

Prevalence of Taste and Smell Dysfunction in Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Importance: Early diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may help control the diffusion of the disease into the population. Objective: To investigate the presence of sinonasal manifestations at the onset of COVID-19 to achieve an earlier diagnosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective telephone survey study investigated patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from March 5 to March 23, 2020, who were hospitalized or discharged from a single referral center. Patients who were unable to answer (intubated, receiving noninvasive ventilation, or deceased) or unreachable by telephone were excluded. Of 359 consecutive patients, 204 fulfilled the inclusion criteria; 76 were unable to answer, 76 were unreachable by telephone, and 3 refused. Exposures: Sinonasal manifestations reported before COVID-19 diagnosis were studied with a validated questionnaire: Italian Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22 (I-SNOT-22). If reduction of taste and/or smell was documented by item 5 of the I-SNOT-22, further inquiries were made to score them separately on a scale from 0 to 5, with 0 indicating no problem and 5 indicating problem as bad as it can be. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prevalence of sinonasal manifestations preceding COVID-19 diagnosis. Results: Among the 204 patients enrolled (110 [53.9%] male; mean [SD] age, 52.6 [14.4] years), the median I-SNOT-22 total score was 21 (range, 0-73). I-SNOT-22 identified 116 patients (56.9%) with reduction of taste and/or smell, 113 (55.4%) with taste reduction (median score, 5; range, 2-5), and 85 (41.7%) with smell reduction (median score, 5; range, 1-5). Eighty-two patients (40.2%) reported both. Severe reduction of taste was present in 81 patients (39.7%), and severe reduction of smell was present in 72 patients (35.3%). Only 12 patients (14.8%) with severe taste reduction and 12 patients (16.7%) with severe smell reduction reported severe nasal obstruction. Severe reduction of taste and smell was more prevalent in female vs male patients (odds ratios, 3.16 [95% CI, 1.76-5.67] vs 2.58 [95% CI, 1.43-4.65]) and middle-aged vs younger patients (effect sizes, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.21-0.78] vs 0.85 [95% CI, 0.55-1.15]). No significant association was observed between smoking habits and severe reduction of taste (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.53-1.71) and/or smell (odds ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.35-1.21). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this telephone survey study suggest that reduction of taste and/or smell may be a frequent and early symptom of COVID-19. Nasal obstruction was not commonly present at the onset of the disease in this study. The general practitioner may play a pivotal role in identifying potential COVID-19 in patients at an early stage if taste and/or smell alterations manifest and in suggesting quarantine before confirmation or exclusion of the diagnosis.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak: what the department of endoscopy should know.

Italy recorded its first case of confirmed acute respiratory illness because of coronavirus on February 18, 2020, soon after the initial reports in China. Since that time, Italy and nations throughout the world have adopted very stringent and severe measures to protect populations from spread of infection. Despite these measures, the number of infected people is growing exponentially, with a significant number of patients developing acute respiratory insufficiency. Endoscopy departments face significant risk for diffusion of respiratory diseases that can be spread via an airborne route, including aspiration of oral and fecal material via endoscopes. The purpose of this article is to discuss the measures, with specific focus on personal protection equipment and dress code modalities, implemented in our hospital to prevent further dissemination of COVID-19 infection.