Clinical Profile and Determinants of Mortality in Patients with Interstitial Lung Disease Admitted for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Concern has risen about the effects of COVID-19 in interstitial lung disease (ILD) patients. The aim of our study was to determine clinical characteristics and prognostic factors of ILD patients admitted for COVID-19. METHODS: Ancillary analysis of an international, multicenter COVID-19 registry (HOPE: Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation) was performed. The subgroup of ILD patients was selected and compared with the rest of the cohort. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients with ILDs were evaluated. Mean ± SD age was 72.4 ± 13.6 years, and 65.8% were men. ILD patients were older, had more comorbidities, received more home oxygen therapy and more frequently had respiratory failure upon admission than non-ILD patients (all p < 0.05). In laboratory findings, ILD patients more frequently had elevated LDH, C-reactive protein, and D-dimer levels (all p < 0.05). A multivariate analysis showed that chronic kidney disease and respiratory insufficiency on admission were predictors of ventilatory support, and that older age, kidney disease and elevated LDH were predictors of death. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that ILD patients admitted for COVID-19 are older, have more comorbidities, more frequently require ventilatory support and have higher mortality than those without ILDs. Older age, kidney disease and LDH were independent predictors of mortality in this population.

Post-COVID-19 syndrome and diabetes mellitus: a propensity-matched analysis of the International HOPE-II COVID-19 Registry.

Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is one of the most frequent comorbidities in patients suffering from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with a higher rate of severe course of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, data about post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) in patients with DM are limited. Methods: This multicenter, propensity score-matched study compared long-term follow-up data about cardiovascular, neuropsychiatric, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and other symptoms in 8,719 patients with DM to those without DM. The 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) according to age and sex resulted in 1,548 matched pairs. Results: Diabetics and nondiabetics had a mean age of 72.6 ± 12.7 years old. At follow-up, cardiovascular symptoms such as dyspnea and increased resting heart rate occurred less in patients with DM (13.2% vs. 16.4%; p = 0.01) than those without DM (2.8% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.05), respectively. The incidence of newly diagnosed arterial hypertension was slightly lower in DM patients as compared to non-DM patients (0.5% vs. 1.6%; p = 0.18). Abnormal spirometry was observed more in patients with DM than those without DM (18.8% vs. 13; p = 0.24). Paranoia was diagnosed more frequently in patients with DM than in non-DM patients at follow-up time (4% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.009). The incidence of newly diagnosed renal insufficiency was higher in patients suffering from DM as compared to patients without DM (4.8% vs. 2.6%; p = 0.09). The rate of readmission was comparable in patients with and without DM (19.7% vs. 18.3%; p = 0.61). The reinfection rate with COVID-19 was comparable in both groups (2.9% in diabetics vs. 2.3% in nondiabetics; p = 0.55). Long-term mortality was higher in DM patients than in non-DM patients (33.9% vs. 29.1%; p = 0.005). Conclusions: The mortality rate was higher in patients with DM type II as compared to those without DM. Readmission and reinfection rates with COVID-19 were comparable in both groups. The incidence of cardiovascular symptoms was higher in patients without DM.

Post-COVID-19 Symptoms and Heart Disease: Incidence, Prognostic Factors, Outcomes and Vaccination: Results from a Multi-Center International Prospective Registry (HOPE 2).

BACKGROUND: Heart disease is linked to worse acute outcomes after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), although long-term outcomes and prognostic factor data are lacking. We aim to characterize the outcomes and the impact of underlying heart diseases after surviving COVID-19 hospitalization. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of the prospective registry HOPE-2 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19-2, NCT04778020). We selected patients discharged alive and considered the primary end-point all-cause mortality during follow-up. As secondary main end-points, we included any readmission or any post-COVID-19 symptom. Clinical features and follow-up events are compared between those with and without cardiovascular disease. Factors with p < 0.05 in the univariate analysis were entered into the multivariate analysis to determine independent prognostic factors. RESULTS: HOPE-2 closed on 31 December 2021, with 9299 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, and 1805 died during this acute phase. Finally, 7014 patients with heart disease data were included in the present analysis, from 56 centers in 8 countries. Heart disease (+) patients were older (73 vs. 58 years old), more frequently male (63 vs. 56%), had more comorbidities than their counterparts, and suffered more frequently from post-COVID-19 complications and higher mortality (OR heart disease: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.81-3.84). Vaccination was found to be an independent protector factor (HR all-cause death: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.04-0.19). CONCLUSIONS: After surviving the acute phase, patients with underlying heart disease continue to present a more complex clinical profile and worse outcomes including increased mortality. The COVID-19 vaccine could benefit survival in patients with heart disease during follow-up.

Aspirin Therapy on Prophylactic Anticoagulation for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis of the HOPE-COVID-19 Registry.

Background COVID-19 is an infectious illness, featured by an increased risk of thromboembolism. However, no standard antithrombotic therapy is currently recommended for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of additional therapy with aspirin over prophylactic anticoagulation (PAC) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and its impact on survival. Methods and Results A total of 8168 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were enrolled in a multicenter-international prospective registry (HOPE COVID-19). Clinical data and in-hospital complications, including mortality, were recorded. Study population included patients treated with PAC or with PAC and aspirin. A comparison of clinical outcomes between patients treated with PAC versus PAC and aspirin was performed using an adjusted analysis with propensity score matching. Of 7824 patients with complete data, 360 (4.6%) received PAC and aspirin and 2949 (37.6%) PAC. Propensity-score matching yielded 298 patients from each group. In the propensity score-matched population, cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with PAC and aspirin versus PAC (15% versus 21%, Log Rank P=0.01). At multivariable analysis in propensity matched population of patients with COVID-19, including age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, kidney failure, and invasive ventilation, aspirin treatment was associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; [95% CI 0.42-0.92], P=0.018). Conclusions Combination PAC and aspirin was associated with lower mortality risk among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in a propensity score matched population compared to PAC alone.

Chronic Oral Anticoagulation Therapy and Prognosis of Patients Admitted to Hospital for COVID-19: Insights from the HOPE COVID-19 Registry.

Background: Most evidence regarding anticoagulation and COVID-19 refers to the hospitalization setting, but the role of oral anticoagulation (OAC) before hospital admission has not been well explored. We compared clinical outcomes and short-term prognosis between patients with and without prior OAC therapy who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods: Analysis of the whole cohort of the HOPE COVID-19 Registry which included patients discharged (deceased or alive) after hospital admission for COVID-19 in 9 countries. All-cause mortality was the primary endpoint. Study outcomes were compared after adjusting variables using propensity score matching (PSM) analyses. Results: 7698 patients were suitable for the present analysis (675 (8.8%) on OAC at admission: 427 (5.6%) on VKAs and 248 (3.2%) on DOACs). After PSM, 1276 patients were analyzed (638 with OAC; 638 without OAC), without significant differences regarding the risk of thromboembolic events (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.59-2.08). The risk of clinically relevant bleeding (OR 3.04, 95% CI 1.92-4.83), as well as the risk of mortality (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.47; log-rank p value = 0.041), was significantly increased in previous OAC users. Amongst patients on prior OAC only, there were no differences in the risk of clinically relevant bleeding, thromboembolic events, or mortality when comparing previous VKA or DOAC users, after PSM. Conclusion: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients on prior OAC therapy had a higher risk of mortality and worse clinical outcomes compared to patients without prior OAC therapy, even after adjusting for comorbidities using a PSM. There were no differences in clinical outcomes in patients previously taking VKAs or DOACs. This trial is registered with NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

Gender Differences in Takotsubo Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Male sex in takotsubo syndrome (TTS) has a low incidence and it is still not well characterized. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study is to describe TTS sex differences. METHODS: TTS patients enrolled in the international multicenter GEIST (GErman Italian Spanish Takotsubo) registry were analyzed. Comparisons between sexes were performed within the overall cohort and using an adjusted analysis with 1:1 propensity score matching for age, comorbidities, and kind of trigger. RESULTS: In total, 286 (11%) of 2,492 TTS patients were men. Male patients were younger (age 69 ± 13 years vs 71 ± 11 years; P = 0.005), with higher prevalence of comorbid conditions (diabetes mellitus 25% vs 19%; P = 0.01; pulmonary diseases 21% vs 15%; P = 0.006; malignancies 25% vs 13%; P < 0.001) and physical trigger (55 vs 32% P < 0.01). Propensity-score matching yielded 207 patients from each group. After 1:1 propensity matching, male patients had higher rates of cardiogenic shock and in-hospital mortality (16% vs 6% and 8% vs 3%, respectively; both P < 0.05). Long-term mortality rate was 4.3% per patient-year (men 10%, women 3.8%). Survival analysis showed higher mortality rate in men during the acute phase in both cohorts (overall: P < 0.001; matched: P = 0.001); mortality rate after 60 days was higher in men in the overall (P = 0.002) but not in the matched cohort (P = 0.541). Within the overall population, male sex remained independently associated with both in-hospital (OR: 2.26; 95% CI: 1.16-4.40) and long-term mortality (HR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.32-2.52). CONCLUSIONS: Male TTS is featured by a distinct high-risk phenotype requiring close in-hospital monitoring and long-term follow-up.

[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.

Thalassaemia is paradoxically associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital complications and mortality in COVID-19: Data from an international registry.

Although numerous patient-specific co-factors have been shown to be associated with worse outcomes in COVID-19, the prognostic value of thalassaemic syndromes in COVID-19 patients remains poorly understood. We studied the outcomes of 137 COVID-19 patients with a history of transfusion-dependent thalassaemia (TDT) and transfusion independent thalassaemia (TIT) extracted from a large international cohort and compared them with the outcomes from a matched cohort of COVID-19 patients with no history of thalassaemia. The mean age of thalassaemia patients included in our study was 41 ± 16 years (48.9% male). Almost 81% of these patients suffered from TDT requiring blood transfusions on a regular basis. 38.7% of patients were blood group O. Cardiac iron overload was documented in 6.8% of study patients, whereas liver iron overload was documented in 35% of study patients. 40% of thalassaemia patients had a history of splenectomy. 27.7% of study patients required hospitalization due to COVID-19 infection. Amongst the hospitalized patients, one patient died (0.7%) and one patient required intubation. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was required in almost 5% of study patients. After adjustment for age-, sex- and other known risk factors (cardiac disease, kidney disease and pulmonary disease), the rate of in-hospital complications (supplemental oxygen use, admission to an intensive care unit for CPAP therapy or intubation) and all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the thalassaemia group compared to the matched cohort with no history of thalassaemia. Amongst thalassaemia patients in general, the TIT group exhibited a higher rate of hospitalization compared to the TDT group (p = 0.001). In addition, the rate of complications such as acute kidney injury and need for supplemental oxygen was significantly higher in the TIT group compared to the TDT group. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, age and history of heart or kidney disease were all found to be independent risk factors for increased in-hospital, all-cause mortality, whereas the presence of thalassaemia (either TDT or TIT) was found to be independently associated with reduced all-cause mortality. The presence of thalassaemia in COVID-19 patients was independently associated with lower in-hospital, all-cause mortality and few in-hospital complications in our study. The pathophysiology of this is unclear and needs to be studied in vitro and in animal models.

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.

In-vivo evidence of systemic endothelial vascular dysfunction in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Endothelial dysfunction is one of the underlying mechanisms to vascular and cardiac complications in patients with COVID-19. We sought to investigate the systemic vascular endothelial function and its temporal changes in COVID-19 patients from a non-invasive approach with reactive hyperemia peripheral arterial tonometry (PAT). METHODS: This is a prospective, observational, case-control and blinded study. The population was comprised by 3 groups: patients investigated during acute COVID-19 (group 1), patients investigated during past COVID-19 (group 2), and controls 1:1 matched to COVID-19 patients by demographics and cardiovascular risk factors (group 3). The natural logarithmic scaled reactive hyperemia index (LnRHI), a measure of endothelium-mediated dilation of peripheral arteries, was obtained in all the participants and compared between study groups. RESULTS: 144 participants were enrolled (72 COVID-19 patients and 72 matched controls). Median time from COVID-19 symptoms to PAT assessment was 9.5 and 101.5 days in groups 1 and 2, respectively. LnRHI was significantly lower in group 2 compared to both group 1 and controls (0.53 ± 0.23 group 2 vs. 0.72 ± 0.26 group 1, p = 0.0043; and 0.79 ± 0.23 in group 3, p < 0.0001). In addition, within group 1, it was observed a markedly decrease in LnRHI from acute COVID-19 to post infection stage (0.73 ± 0.23 vs. 0.42 ± 0.26, p = 0.0042). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a deleterious effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection on systemic vascular endothelial function. These findings open new venues to investigate the clinical implication and prognostic role of vascular endothelial dysfunction in COVID-19 patients and post-COVID syndrome using non-invasive techniques.

Predictors of poor prognosis in healthy, young, individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infections.

OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of poor prognosis in previously healthy young individuals admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We studied a cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. All patients without co-morbidities, without usual treatments and ≤65 years old were selected from an international registry (HOPE-COVID-19, NCT04334291). We focused on baseline variables-symptoms and signs at admission-to analyse risk factors for poor prognosis. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse clinical events during hospitalization including mortality, mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen therapy, prone, sepsis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome and embolic events. RESULTS: Overall, 773 healthy young patients were included. The primary composite end point was observed in 29% (225/773) and the overall mortality rate was 3.6% (28/773). In the combined event group, 75% (168/225) of patients were men and the mean age was 49 (±11) years, whereas in the non-combined event group, the prevalence of male gender was 43% (238/548) and the mean age was 42 (±13) years (p < 0.001 for both). On admission, respiratory insufficiency and cough were described in 51.4% (114/222) and 76% (170/223) of patients, respectively, in the combined event group, versus 7.9% (42/533) and 56% (302/543) of patients in the other group (p < 0.001 for both). The strongest independent predictor for the combined end point was desaturation (Spo2 <92%) (OR 5.40; 95% CI 3.34-8.75; p < 0.001), followed by tachypnoea (OR 3.17; 95% CI 1.93-5.21; p < 0.001), male gender (OR 3.01; 95% CI 1.96-4.61; p < 0.001) and pulmonary infiltrates on chest X-ray at admission (OR 2.21; 95% CI 1.18-4.16; p 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Major adverse clinical events were unexpectedly high considering the baseline characteristics of the cohort. Signs of respiratory compromise at admission and male gender, were predictive for poor prognosis among young healthy patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

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.

Impact of smoking on COVID-19 outcomes: a HOPE Registry subanalysis.

BACKGROUND: Smoking has been associated with poorer outcomes in relation to COVID-19. Smokers have higher risk of mortality and have a more severe clinical course. There is paucity of data available on this issue, and a definitive link between smoking and COVID-19 prognosis has yet to be established. METHODS: We included 5224 patients with COVID-19 with an available smoking history in a multicentre international registry Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19 (NCT04334291). Patients were included following an in-hospital admission with a COVID-19 diagnosis. We analysed the outcomes of patients with a current or prior history of smoking compared with the non-smoking group. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital death. RESULTS: Finally, 5224 patients with COVID-19 with available smoking status were analysed. A total of 3983 (67.9%) patients were non-smokers, 934 (15.9%) were former smokers and 307 (5.2%) were active smokers. The median age was 66 years (IQR 52.0-77.0) and 58.6% were male. The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension (48.5%) and dyslipidaemia (33.0%). A relevant lung disease was present in 19.4%. In-hospital complications such sepsis (23.6%) and embolic events (4.3%) occurred more frequently in the smoker group (p<0.001 for both). All cause-death was higher among smokers (active or former smokers) compared with non-smokers (27.6 vs 18.4%, p<0.001). Following a multivariate analysis, current smoking was considered as an independent predictor of mortality (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.82, p=0.017) and a combined endpoint of severe disease (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.43, p=0.006). CONCLUSION: Smoking has a negative prognostic impact on patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

Gender Differences in the Presentation and Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

Gender-related differences in COVID-19 clinical presentation, disease progression, and mortality have not been adequately explored. We analyzed the clinical profile, presentation, treatments, and outcomes of patients according to gender in the HOPE-COVID-19 International Registry. Among 2,798 enrolled patients, 1,111 were women (39.7%). Male patients had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and more comorbidities at baseline. After propensity score matching, 876 men and 876 women were selected. Male patients more often reported fever, whereas female patients more often reported vomiting, diarrhea, and hyposmia/anosmia. Laboratory tests in men presented alterations consistent with a more severe COVID-19 infection (eg, significantly higher C-reactive protein, troponin, transaminases, lymphocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, and ferritin). Systemic inflammatory response syndrome, bilateral pneumonia, respiratory insufficiency, and renal failure were significantly more frequent in men. Men more often required pronation, corticosteroids, and tocilizumab administration. A significantly higher 30-day mortality was observed in men vs women (23.4% vs 19.2%; P = .039). Trial Numbers: NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

Anticoagulation Therapy in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Results From a Multicenter International Prospective Registry (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for Corona Virus Disease 2019 [HOPE-COVID19]).

OBJECTIVES: No standard therapy, including anticoagulation regimens, is currently recommended for coronavirus disease 2019. Aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of anticoagulation in coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalized patients and its impact on survival. DESIGN: Multicenter international prospective registry (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for Corona Virus Disease 2019). SETTING: Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019. PATIENTS: Five thousand eight hundred thirty-eight consecutive coronavirus disease 2019 patients. INTERVENTIONS: Anticoagulation therapy, including prophylactic and therapeutic regimens, was obtained for each patient. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Five thousand four hundred eighty patients (94%) did not receive any anticoagulation before hospitalization. Two-thousand six-hundred one patients (44%) during hospitalization received anticoagulation therapy and it was not associated with better survival rate (81% vs 81%; p = 0.94) but with higher risk of bleeding (2.7% vs 1.8%; p = 0.03). Among patients admitted with respiratory failure (49%, n = 2,859, including 391 and 583 patients requiring invasive and noninvasive ventilation, respectively), anticoagulation started during hospitalization was associated with lower mortality rates (32% vs 42%; p < 0.01) and nonsignificant higher risk of bleeding (3.4% vs 2.7%; p = 0.3). Anticoagulation therapy was associated with lower mortality rates in patients treated with invasive ventilation (53% vs 64%; p = 0.05) without increased rates of bleeding (9% vs 8%; p = 0.88) but not in those with noninvasive ventilation (35% vs 38%; p = 0.40). At multivariate Cox' analysis mortality relative risk with anticoagulation was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.49-0.67) in patients admitted with respiratory failure, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.49-0.67) in those requiring invasive ventilation, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.51-1.01) in noninvasive ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation therapy in general population with coronavirus disease 2019 was not associated with better survival rates but with higher bleeding risk. Better results were observed in patients admitted with respiratory failure and requiring invasive ventilation.

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors effect before and during hospitalization in COVID-19 outcomes: Final analysis of the international HOPE COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19) registry.

BACKGROUND: The use of Renin-Angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been questioned because both share a target receptor site. METHODS: HOPE-COVID-19 (NCT04334291) is an international investigator-initiated registry. Patients are eligible when discharged after an in-hospital stay with COVID-19, dead or alive. Here, we analyze the impact of previous and continued in-hospital treatment with RASi in all-cause mortality and the development of in-stay complications. RESULTS: We included 6503 patients, over 18 years, from Spain and Italy with data on their RASi status. Of those, 36.8% were receiving any RASi before admission. RASi patients were older, more frequently male, with more comorbidities and frailer. Their probability of death and ICU admission was higher. However, after adjustment, these differences disappeared. Regarding RASi in-hospital use, those who continued the treatment were younger, with balanced comorbidities but with less severe COVID19. Raw mortality and secondary events were less frequent in RASi. After adjustment, patients receiving RASi still presented significantly better outcomes, with less mortality, ICU admissions, respiratory insufficiency, need for mechanical ventilation or prone, sepsis, SIRS and renal failure (p<0.05 for all). However, we did not find differences regarding the hospital use of RASi and the development of heart failure. CONCLUSION: RASi historic use, at admission, is not related to an adjusted worse prognosis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, although it points out a high-risk population. In this setting, the in-hospital prescription of RASi is associated with improved survival and fewer short-term complications.

Non-invasive ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 acute respiratory failure: a subanalysis from the HOPE COVID-19 registry.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has seriously challenged worldwide healthcare systems and limited intensive care facilities, leading to physicians considering the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for managing SARS-CoV-2-related acute respiratory failure (ARF). METHODS: We conducted an interim analysis of the international, multicentre HOPE COVID-19 registry including patients admitted for a confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection until 18 April 2020. Those treated with NIV were considered. The primary endpoint was a composite of death or need for intubation. The components of the composite endpoint were the secondary outcomes. Unadjusted and adjusted predictors of the primary endpoint within those initially treated with NIV were investigated. RESULTS: 1933 patients who were included in the registry during the study period had data on oxygen support type. Among them, 390 patients (20%) were treated with NIV. Compared with those receiving other non-invasive oxygen strategy, patients receiving NIV showed significantly worse clinical and laboratory signs of ARF at presentation. Of the 390 patients treated with NIV, 173 patients (44.4%) met the composite endpoint. In-hospital death was the main determinant (147, 37.7%), while 62 patients (15.9%) needed invasive ventilation. Those requiring invasive ventilation had the lowest survival rate (41.9%). After adjustment, age (adjusted OR (adj(OR)) for 5-year increase: 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.63, p<0.001), hypertension (adj(OR) 2.95, 95% CI 1.14 to 7.61, p=0.03), room air O2 saturation <92% at presentation (adj(OR) 3.05, 95% CI 1.28 to 7.28, p=0.01), lymphocytopenia (adj(OR) 3.55, 95% CI 1.16 to 10.85, p=0.03) and in-hospital use of antibiotic therapy (adj(OR) 4.91, 95% CI 1.69 to 14.26, p=0.003) were independently associated with the composite endpoint. CONCLUSION: NIV was used in a significant proportion of patients within our cohort, and more than half of these patients survived without the need for intubation. NIV may represent a viable strategy particularly in case of overcrowded and limited intensive care resources, but prompt identification of failure is mandatory to avoid harm. Further studies are required to better clarify our hypothesis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

Clinical Profile and 30-Day Mortality of Invasively Managed Patients with Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome During the COVID-19 Outbreak.

The COVID-19 pandemic severely disrupted cardiovascular care during the spring of 2020 in Europe. Our study analyzed the clinical profile, COVID-19 impact, and 30-day prognosis of invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared to a historical cohort.All invasively managed ACS patients from March 1st to April 30th, 2020 were compared to a cohort from the same timeframe of 2019 (n = 316). COVID-19 confirmed cases were defined by a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test (CoV+). The primary outcome was all-cause 30-day mortality and multivariable predictors of this outcome.A 40.4% reduction in ACS patients was noted (198 cases in 2019 to 118 in 2020), and 11% of 2020 ACS patients were CoV+. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. There were significantly more in-hospital patients with ACS (15.3% versus 6.1%, P = 0.007), and fewer patients were found to have a culprit lesion (58.5% versus 74.2%, P = 0.004) in 2020 compared to 2019. Thirty-day mortality in 2020 (7%) was not different from that in 2019 (4.2%), P = 0.294, but it was significantly higher in CoV+ patients (23.1%) compared to that in negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR test (CoV-) patients (5%), P = 0.047, in the 2020 group. In the multivariate analysis, CoV+ was an independent mortality predictor (OR = 9.8, 95% CI = 1.48-64.78), along with the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.86-0.97), P = 0.0006.This study found increased 30-day mortality of invasively managed CoV+ ACS patients compared to that of CoV- patients during the 2020 COVID-19 spring outbreak. In the multivariable analysis, a SARS-CoV-2 positive test was independently associated with 30-day mortality. Further investigations of the underlying physiopathological relations between COVID-19 and ACS are warranted.

Does there exist an obesity paradox in COVID-19? Insights of the international HOPE-COVID-19-registry.

BACKGROUND: Obesity has been described as a protective factor in cardiovascular and other diseases being expressed as 'obesity paradox'. However, the impact of obesity on clinical outcomes including mortality in COVID-19 has been poorly systematically investigated until now. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes among COVID-19 patients divided into three groups according to the body mass index (BMI). METHODS: We retrospectively collected data up to May 31st, 2020. 3635 patients were divided into three groups of BMI (<25 kg/m2; n = 1110, 25-30 kg/m2; n = 1464, and >30 kg/m2; n = 1061). Demographic, in-hospital complications, and predictors for mortality, respiratory insufficiency, and sepsis were analyzed. RESULTS: The rate of respiratory insufficiency was more recorded in BMI 25-30 kg/m2 as compared to BMI < 25 kg/m2 (22.8% vs. 41.8%; p < 0.001), and in BMI > 30 kg/m2 than BMI < 25 kg/m2, respectively (22.8% vs. 35.4%; p < 0.001). Sepsis was more observed in BMI 25-30 kg/m2 and BMI > 30 kg/m2 as compared to BMI < 25 kg/m2, respectively (25.1% vs. 42.5%; p = 0.02) and (25.1% vs. 32.5%; p = 0.006). The mortality rate was higher in BMI 25-30 kg/m2 and BMI > 30 kg/m2 as compared to BMI < 25 kg/m2, respectively (27.2% vs. 39.2%; p = 0.31) (27.2% vs. 33.5%; p = 0.004). In the Cox multivariate analysis for mortality, BMI < 25 kg/m2 and BMI > 30 kg/m2 did not impact the mortality rate (HR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.889-1.508; p = 0.27) (HR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.893-1.479; p = 0.27). In multivariate logistic regression analyses for respiratory insufficiency and sepsis, BMI < 25 kg/m2 is determined as an independent predictor for reduction of respiratory insufficiency (OR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.538-1.004; p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: HOPE COVID-19-Registry revealed no evidence of obesity paradox in patients with COVID-19. However, Obesity was associated with a higher rate of respiratory insufficiency and sepsis but was not determined as an independent predictor for a high mortality.