ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 are important aspects of the disease's pathogenesis and prognosis. Evidence on the prognostic role of troponin and myocardial injury in Latin American hospitalized COVID-19 patients is still scarce. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate myocardial injury as independent predictor of in-hospital mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation support in hospitalized patients, from the Brazilian COVID-19 Registry. METHODS: This cohort study is a substudy of the Brazilian COVID-19 Registry, conducted in 31 Brazilian hospitals of 17 cities, March-September 2020. Primary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation support. Models for the primary outcomes were estimated by Poisson regression with robust variance, with statistical significance of p<0.05. RESULTS: Of 2,925 patients (median age of 60 years [48-71], 57.1% men), 27.3% presented myocardial injury. The proportion of patients with comorbidities was higher among patients with cardiac injury (median 2 [1-2] vs. 1 [0-2]). Patients with myocardial injury had higher median levels of brain natriuretic peptide, lactate dehydrogenase, creatine phosphokinase, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, and C-reactive protein than patients without myocardial injury. As independent predictors, C-reactive protein and platelet counts were related to the risk of death, and neutrophils and platelet counts were related to the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation support. Patients with high troponin levels presented a higher risk of death (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.60-2.58) and invasive mechanical ventilation support (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.57-2.23), when compared to those with normal troponin levels. CONCLUSION: Cardiac injury was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation support in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
FUNDAMENTO: As complicações cardiovasculares da COVID-19 são aspectos importantes da patogênese e do prognóstico da doença. Evidências do papel prognóstico da troponina e da lesão miocárdica em pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 na América Latina são ainda escassos. OBJETIVOS: Avaliar a lesão miocárdica como preditor independente de mortalidade hospitalar e suporte ventilatório mecânico em pacientes hospitalizados, do registro brasileiro de COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Este estudo coorte é um subestudo do registro brasileiro de COVID-19, conduzido em 31 hospitais brasileiros de 17 cidades, de março a setembro de 2020. Os desfechos primários incluíram mortalidade hospitalar e suporte ventilatório mecânico invasivo. Os modelos para os desfechos primários foram estimados por regressão de Poisson com variância robusta, com significância estatística de p<0,05. RESULTADOS: Dos 2925 pacientes [idade mediana de 60 anos (48-71), 57,1%], 27,3% apresentaram lesão miocárdica. A proporção de pacientes com comorbidades foi maior nos pacientes com lesão miocárdica [mediana 2 (1-2) vs. 1 (0-20)]. Os pacientes com lesão miocárdica apresentaram maiores valores medianos de peptídeo natriurético cerebral, lactato desidrogenase, creatina fosfoquinase, N-terminal do pró-peptídeo natriurético tipo B e proteína C reativa em comparação a pacientes sem lesão miocárdica. Como fatores independentes, proteína C reativa e contagem de plaquetas foram relacionados com o risco de morte, e neutrófilos e contagem de plaquetas foram relacionados ao risco de suporte ventilatório mecânico invasivo. Os pacientes com níveis elevados de troponina apresentaram um maior risco de morte (RR 2,03, IC95% 1,60-2,58) e suporte ventilatório mecânico (RR 1,87;IC95% 1,57-2,23), em comparação àqueles com níveis de troponina normais. CONCLUSÃO: Lesão cardíaca foi um preditor independente de mortalidade hospitalar e necessidade de suporte ventilatório mecânico em pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Heart Injuries , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Brazil/epidemiology , C-Reactive Protein , Cohort Studies , Prognosis , AgedABSTRACT
Background Although dementia has emerged as an important risk factor for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, results on COVID-19-related complications and mortality are not consistent. We examined the clinical presentations and outcomes of COVID-19 in a multicentre cohort of in-hospital patients, comparing those with and without dementia. Methods This retrospective observational study comprises COVID-19 laboratory-confirmed patients aged ≥60 years admitted to 38 hospitals from 19 cities in Brazil. Data were obtained from electronic hospital records. A propensity score analysis was used to match patients with and without dementia (up to 3:1) according to age, sex, comorbidities, year and hospital of admission. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We also assessed admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), kidney replacement therapy (KRT), sepsis, nosocomial infection, and thromboembolic events. Results Among 8,947 eligible patients, 405 (4.5%) had a diagnosis of dementia and were matched with 1,151 patients without dementia. Compared to a group of similar demographics and comorbidities, patients with dementia presented a lower duration of symptoms (5.0 vs. 7.0 days; p<0.001) and frequency of dyspnoea, cough, myalgia, headache, ageusia, and anosmia. Fever and delirium were more frequent in patients with dementia than the control group. Patients with dementia also received more palliative care than the control group. Dementia was associated with lower admission (32.7% vs. 47.1%, p<0.001) and length of stay (7 vs. 9 days, p<0.026) in the ICU, frequency of sepsis (17% vs. 24%, p=0.005), KRT (6.4% vs. 13%, p<0.001), and IVM (4.6% vs. 9.8%, p=0.002). We did not find differences in hospital mortality among those with and without dementia. Conclusion Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 differ in older patients with and without dementia in the hospital, with delirium being highly prevalent among those with dementia. Our findings indicate that dementia alone might not explain higher short-term mortality after severe COVID-19. Clinicians should include other risk factors such as acute morbidity severity and baseline frailty when evaluating the prognosis of COVID-19 in the hospital.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
SUMMARY Background The rapid and accurate testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection is still crucial to mitigate, and eventually halt, the spread of this disease. Currently, nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) are the recommended standard sampling, yet, with some limitations. Several specimens that are easier to collect are being tested as alternatives to nasal/throat swabs in nucleic acid assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This study aims to critically appraise and compare the clinical performance of RT-PCR tests using oral saliva, deep-throat saliva/ posterior oropharyngeal saliva (DTS/POS), sputum, urine, feces, and tears/conjunctival swab [CS]) against standard specimens (NPS, OPS, or a combination of both). Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov and NIPH Clinical Trial) were searched up to the 30 th of December 2020. Case-control and cohort studies on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 were included. Methodological quality was assessed through the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS 2). Findings We identified 3022 entries, 33 of which (1.1%) met all required criteria and were included for the quantitative data analysis. Saliva presented the higher accuracy, 92.1% (95% CI: 70.0-98.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 83.9% (95% CI: 77.4-88.8) and specificity of 96.4% (95% CI: 89.5-98.8). DTS/POS samples had an overall accuracy of 79.7% (95% CI: 43.3-95.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 90.1% (95% CI: 83.3-96.9) and specificity of 63.1% (95% CI: 36.8-89.3). Remaining index specimens presented uncertainty given the lack of studies available. Interpretation Our meta-analysis shows that saliva samples from oral region provide a high sensitivity and specificity, being the best candidate as an alternative specimen to NPS/OPS for COVID-19 detection, with suitable protocols for swab-free sample collection to be determined and validated in the future. The distinction between oral and extra-oral salivary samples will be crucial since DTS/POS samples may induce a higher rate of false positives. Urine, feces, tears/CS and sputum seem unreliable for diagnosis. Saliva testing may increase testing capacity, ultimately promoting the implementation of truly deployable COVID-19 tests, which could either work at the point-of-care (e.g. hospitals, clinics) or outbreak control spots (e.g. schools, airports, and nursing homes). Funding Nothing to declare. Research in context Evidence before this study The lack of systematized data on the accuracy performance of alternative specimens for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 (against the standard NPS/OPS). The ever-growing number of studies available, made this updated systematic review timely and of the utmost importance Added value of this study Our meta-analysis shows that saliva samples from the oral region provide a high sensitivity and specificity, being the best candidate as an alternative specimen to NPS/OPS for COVID-19 detection, with suitable protocols for swab-free sample collection to be determined and validated in the future. The distinction between oral and extra-oral salivary samples will be crucial since DTS/POS samples may induce a higher rate of false positives. Implications of all the available evidence Saliva samples simply taken from the oral cavity are promising alternatives to the currently used nasal/throat swabs. Saliva specimens can be self-collected, mitigate the discomfort caused by sampling, reduce the transmission risk and increase testing capacity. Therefore, the validation of this alternative specimen will promote the implementation of truly deployable rapid tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection at the point-of-care or outbreak spots.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Oropharyngeal Neoplasms , Nasopharyngitis , White Coat HypertensionABSTRACT
Background: The rapid and accurate testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection is still crucial to mitigate, and eventually halt, the spread of this disease. Currently, nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) are the recommended standard sampling, yet, with some limitations. Several specimens that are easier to collect are being tested as alternatives to nasal/throat swabs in nucleic acid assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This study aims to critically appraise and compare the clinical performance of RT-PCR tests using oral saliva, deep-throat saliva/ posterior oropharyngeal saliva (DTS/POS), sputum, urine, feces, and tears/conjunctival swab [CS]) against standard specimens (NPS, OPS, or a combination of both).Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov and NIPH Clinical Trial) were searched up to the 30th of December 2020. Case-control and cohort studies on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 were included. Methodological quality was assessed through the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS 2).Findings: We identified 3022 entries, 33 of which (1.1%) met all required criteria and were included for the quantitative data analysis. Saliva presented the higher accuracy, 92.1% (95% CI: 70.0-98.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 83.9% (95% CI: 77.4-88.8) and specificity of 96.4% (95% CI: 89.5-98.8). DTS/POS samples had an overall accuracy of 79.7% (95% CI: 43.3-95.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 90.1% (95% CI: 83.3-96.9) and specificity of 63.1% (95% CI: 36.8-89.3). Remaining index specimens presented uncertainty given the lack of studies available.Interpretation: Our meta-analysis shows that saliva samples from oral region provide a high sensitivity and specificity, being the best candidate as an alternative specimen to NPS/OPS for COVID-19 detection, with suitable protocols for swab-free sample collection to be determined and validated in the future. The distinction between oral and extra-oral salivary samples will be crucial since DTS/POS samples may induce a higher rate of false positives. Urine, feces, tears/CS and sputum seem unreliable for diagnosis. Saliva testing may increase testing capacity, ultimately promoting the implementation of truly deployable COVID-19 tests, which could either work at the point-of-care (e.g. hospitals, clinics) or outbreak control spots (e.g. schools, airports, and nursing homes).Funding Statement: This work was supported by national funds from FCT - Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P. through the CiiEM (project IDB/04585/2020), the Applied Molecular Biosciences Unit-UCIBIO (project UID/Multi/04378/2013), co-financed by the ERDF under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007728) and the program Research4COVID 19 (Project nr. 662).Declaration of Interests: We declare no competing interests.