COVID-19 and acute heart failure among patients with cancer

Background: Patients with cancer represent a uniquely vulnerable population not only with higher susceptibility to COVID-19 but also at increased risk for death. However, detailed information on causes of death and the contribution of pre-existing health conditions to death yet is missing. Purpose(s): This study focuses on the implications of COVID-19 in the cardiovascular health of patients with cancer by assessing the relation between cancer and de novo acute heart failure (AHF) with in-hospital mortality. Method(s): The initial population consisted of 3968 patients included in the ISACS COVID-19 registry between March 2020 and February 2022. Of these, 546 patients with chronic HF were excluded, leaving a final population of 3422. Patients were divided in two groups according to the presence or absence of a cancer diagnosis at the time of hospitalization for COVID- 19. Primary outcomes were incidence of in-hospital mortality or AHF during hospitalization. Association between cancer and outcomes was estimated using multivariable logistic regression analyses. Subsidiary analysis was conducted to evaluate differences between patients with prior vs active cancer. Result(s): Of the 3422 patients included in the study, 468 patients had cancer (8.2% active, 5.5% past cancer). Cancer patients were older (68.9+/-13.4 vs 63.3+/-15.6, p-value <0.001) and more likely to be female (50.4% vs 39.1%, p-value <0.001). They presented more frequently with a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (12.3% vs 7.6%, p-value = 0.001). When considering outcomes, cancer patients had a significantly higher incidence of in-hospital mortality (27.7% vs 19.2%;p-value <0.001). This despite the presence of a numerically higher mean PiO2/FiO2 (281+/-108.8 vs 267.05+/-122.5, p-value = 0.11) on admission and a lower rate of X-ray findings of interstitial pneumonia (60% vs 70.5%, p-value <0.001) than their non-oncological counterparts, as well as similar use of mechanical ventilation (30.6% vs 35.0%, p value=0.14). The association between cancer and death persisted when adjusting for demographic, laboratory findings and in-hospital treatment (OR: 1.46;95% CI: 1.11-1.94;p value=0.01). Cancer patients also had higher rates of AHF (9.6% vs 4.7%, p-value <0.001) during hospitalization. This association was independent from presence of cardiovascular risk factors or comorbidities (OR: 1.61;95% CI: 1.07-2.43;p value=0.02). When restricting the analysis to the cancer population, AHF appeared to be significantly associated with death (OR: 2.41;95% CI 1.18- 4.95;p-value = 0.01), but this correlation persisted only in patients affected by active cancer in age and sex adjusted analyses (OR: 4.27;95% CI: 1.51-12.07;p value=0.01 vs 1.20;95% CI: 0.38-3.76;p-value = 0.75). Conclusion(s): The incidence of AHF in cancer patients with COVID-19 is high. Patients with active cancer are also at high risk for mortality. This has implications for cardiac monitoring and chemotherapy administration during COVID-19.

Effects of early rehabilitation on motor function, dyspnoea intensity, respiratory muscle performance and handgrip strength in patients with COVID-19: an observational study

Background/aims Although an increasing volume of research is emerging, rehabilitative treatment of patients with COVID-19 still continues to be a matter of great importance that must be explored further. The purpose of the present study was to describe the effects of inpatient rehabilitation in acute patients treated in a sub-intensive hospital setting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted based on the prospectively collected data of 192 patients with COVID-19 undergoing a physiotherapeutic regimen during their hospitalisation. Patients were admitted because of COVID-19-related pneumonia from the periods of 25 March-12 June 2020 and 2 November 2020-9 June 2021. This study investigated dyspnoea intensity using the modified Borg scale, motor function through the 1-minute sit-to-stand test, and daily walked distance. In a subset of 57 patients, handgrip strength and respiratory muscle function was also evaluated. Measurements were taken at baseline and discharge. Results Patients were classified according to the severity of their ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (mean 225 +/- 82 mmHg). At discharge to home or to another hospital facility, patients performed a mean of 12 repetitions (1-minute sit-to-stand test);dyspnoea intensity was 1.4 (modified Borg scale), and they were able to walk a mean distance of 266.7 metres. The mean handgrip strength of the dominant hand was 29.3 kg, the maximal inspiratory pressure was 43.5 cmH(2)O, and the maximal expiratory pressure was 59.1 cmH(2)O. Overall, significant differences before and after treatment were detected for all clinical variables. Dyspnoea improved by 0.7 points;walked distance by 200 metres;the number of repetitions at the 1-minute sit-to-stand test by 5.6;the handgrip strength by 1.2 kg (right hand) and 1.7 kg (left hand);maximal inspiratory pressure by 7.7 cmH(2)O;and maximal expiratory pressure by 9.5 cmH(2)O. Conclusions Patients obtained significant improvements in functional capacity, dyspnoea perception, handgrip strength and respiratory muscle function. In addition, the treatment was feasible and well tolerated by patients, and no adverse related events were observed in a sub-intensive care setting.

Role of ROX index in the first assessment of COVID-19 patients in the emergency department

Aim of the study: During the first outbreak of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Emergency Departments (EDs) were overcrowded. Hence, the need for a rapid and simple tool to support clinical decisions, such as the ROX index (Respiratory rate-OXygenation), defined as the ratio of peripheral oxygen saturation and fraction of inspired oxygen, to respiratory rate. The aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of the ROX index in predicting hospitalization and mortality in patients with a diagnosis of COVID- 19 in the ED. The secondary outcomes were to assess the number of readmissions and the variations in the ROX index between the first and the second admission. Methods: This was an observational prospective monocentric study, carried out in the ED of Sant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital in Bologna, Italy. 554 consecutive patients with COVID19 were enrolled and the ROX index was calculated. Patients were followed until hospital discharge or death. Results: A ROX index value <25.7 was associated with hospitalization (area under the curve [AUC]=0.737, 95% CI 0.696-0.779, p<0.001). The ROX index <22.3 was statistically related to higher 30-day mortality (AUC=0.764, 95% CI 0.708-0.820, p<0.001). Eight patients were discharged and returned to the ED within the subsequent 7 days, their mean ROX index was 30.3 (6.2;range 21.9-39.4) at the first assessment and 24.6 (5.5;14.5-29.5) at the second assessment, (p=0.012). Conclusions: The ROX index, together with laboratory, imaging and clinical findings, correlated with the need for hospital admission, mechanical ventilation and mortality risk in COVID19 patients.

ABC: Archaeology in Bedriacum-Calvatone. An educational project

In 2011, with the launch of the project called "ABC. Archaeology in Bedriacum-Calvatone", promoted by the Municipality of Calvatone (CR) and by Prof. Maria Teresa Grassi, the educational activity of the University of Milan at the archaeological excavation of Calvatone began. The project's goal is the communication of research and excavation activities in the Roman settlement of Bedriacum. Communication activities target a wide audience, including schoolchildren and youth in order to raise awareness on the local cultural heritage. During the first nine years (before the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020), by using different communication tools, the educational activities have involved almost two thousand and five hundred children and teenagers.

METHYLPREDNISOLONE PULSES in HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS with SEVERE COVID-19 PNEUMONIA

Background: Pulse glucocorticoid therapy (> 250 mg of prednisone equivalent per day for 1 or a few days) is used in many immuno-inflammatory diseases for its quick and strong anti-inflammatory effect in emergency situations. It was used during in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome epidemics with no consistent data regarding its benefits. The efficacy and safety of this therapy associated to dexamethasone in coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pneumonia are unclear. Methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in hospitalized patients with COVID19-pneumonia. The study population included patients hospitalized for recent-onset Covid-19 pneumonia requiring supplemental oxygen in any delivery mode, except invasive mechanical ventilation, with PaO2/FiO2 between 100 and 300, and a C-reactive protein greater than 5 mg/dl. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 gram of methylprednisolone for 3 consecutive days or placebo in addition to standard dexamethasone. The primary outcome was the duration of the patient hospitalization, calculated as the time interval between randomization and hospital discharge without the need of supplementary oxygen. All-cause mortality, survival free from invasive ventilation and safety were also evaluated. Written informed consent was obtained from each patient or from the patient's legally authorized representative if the patient was unable to provide consent. Results: A total of 304 patients underwent randomization in 19 Italian sites between December 21, 2020, and March 10, 2021. Three patients retired the consent to the study one day after randomization, leaving 301 patients eligible for intention to treat analyses. 112 of 151 (74.2%) patients in the pulse methylprednisolone arm and 111 of 150 (74.0%) patients in the placebo arm were discharged from hospital without oxygen (p = 0.528) within 28 days from randomization. We did not observe any significant differences between pulse methylprednisolone and placebo arms in terms of admission to Intensive Care Unit with orotracheal intubation or death (19.9% versus 16.0% respectively;hazard ratio, 1.27;95%CI, 0.74-2.16), or in terms of overall mortality (9.3% versus 11.3% respectively;hazard ratio, 0.82;95%CI, 0.40-1.66). Serious adverse events occurred in 9 patients (6.0%) in the methylprednisolone pulse group and in 12 patients (8.0%) in the placebo group. Conclusion: Methylprednisolone pulse therapy in addition to dexamethasone was not of benefit in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Association between respiratory distress time and invasive mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients: A multicentre regional cohort study.

AIM: To determine whether the duration of respiratory distress symptoms in severe COVID-19 pneumonia affects the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational multicentre cohort study of patients hospitalised in five COVID-19-designated ICUs of the University Hospitals of Emilia-Romagna Region. Patients included were adults with pneumonia due to SARS-CoV-2 with PaO2/FiO2 ratio <300 mmHg, respiratory distress symptoms, and need for mechanical ventilation (invasive or non-invasive). Exclusion criteria were an uncertain time of respiratory distress, end-of-life decision, and mechanical respiratory support before hospital admission. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analysed 171 patients stratified into tertiles according to respiratory distress duration (distress time, DT) before application of mechanical ventilation support. The rate of patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation was significantly different (p < 0.001) among the tertiles: 17/57 patients in the shortest duration, 29/57 in the intermediate duration, and 40/57 in the longest duration. The respiratory distress time significantly increased the risk of invasive ventilation in the univariate analysis (OR 5.5 [CI 2.48-12.35], p = 0.003). Multivariable regression analysis confirmed this association (OR 10.7 [CI 2.89-39.41], p < 0.001). Clinical outcomes (mortality and hospital stay) did not show significant differences between DT tertiles. DISCUSSION: Albeit preliminary and retrospective, our data raised the hypothesis that the duration of respiratory distress symptoms may play a role in COVID-19 patients' need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, our observations suggested that specific strategies may be directed towards identifying and managing early symptoms of respiratory distress, regardless of the levels of hypoxemia and the severity of the dyspnoea itself.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on electrophysiological procedures at a national referral center

Background-Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has generated serious repercussions on the health system, reducing the number of all cardiology procedures worldwide. Objectives: Describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the procedures performed by the electrophysiology department in a national referral center. Methods: We made a retrospective review of our data base and we compared procedures made in the last 3 years since 2017 to 2019 with the procedures made in the 2020. We divide the procedures into two large groups: Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices (CIED) related procedures (which included implants, revisions, changes, upgrades and extractions) and electrophysiological studies and ablations (which included conventional and complex procedures). Other types of procedures were no included. Results: There was a significant reduction in all procedures, the average of procedures performed in the last 3 previous years was 467 (there were 479 in 2017, 411 in 2018 and 511 in 2019), while in 2020 we performed only 319 (p = 0.01);this represents a reduction of 33.4% in the total number of procedures performed in our center. There was no statistical difference regarding the CIED related procedures, the average of procedures of the last 3 previous years was 174 (there were 186 in 2017, 148 in 2018 and 188 in 2019), and in 2020 we performed 189 procedures, this value is near to the average of the last 3 previous years and very close to the value of the 2019 (p = 0.46). Regarding the electrophysiological studies and ablations, the average of procedures of the last 3 previous years was 293 (there were 293 in 2017, 263 in 2018 and 323 in 2019), while in 2020 we performed only 129 procedures, considerably decreasing compared to the previous years (p < 0.01). The reduction in the electrophysiological studies and ablations was 55.97%. The most affected months were April, May and June. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic considerably affected the number of electrophysiological procedures in our center, reducing it by 33.4% compared to the previous years. The reduction of procedures fundamentally affected the electrophysiological studies and ablations, reducing them by 55.97%. The number of CIED related procedures were no affected. (Table Presented).