Italian good practice recommendations on management of persons with Long-COVID.

A significant number of people, following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, report persistent symptoms or new symptoms that are sustained over time, often affecting different body systems. This condition, commonly referred to as Long-COVID, requires a complex clinical management. In Italy new health facilities specifically dedicated to the diagnosis and care of Long-COVID were implemented. However, the activity of these clinical centers is highly heterogeneous, with wide variation in the type of services provided, specialistic expertise and, ultimately, in the clinical care provided. Recommendations for a uniform management of Long-COVID were therefore needed. Professionals from different disciplines (including general practitioners, specialists in respiratory diseases, infectious diseases, internal medicine, geriatrics, cardiology, neurology, pediatrics, and odontostomatology) were invited to participate, together with a patient representative, in a multidisciplinary Panel appointed to draft Good Practices on clinical management of Long-COVID. The Panel, after extensive literature review, issued recommendations on 3 thematic areas: access to Long-COVID services, clinical evaluation, and organization of the services. The Panel highlighted the importance of providing integrated multidisciplinary care in the management of patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and agreed that a multidisciplinary service, one-stop clinic approach could avoid multiple referrals and reduce the number of appointments. In areas where multidisciplinary services are not available, services may be provided through integrated and coordinated primary, community, rehabilitation and mental health services. Management should be adapted according to the patient's needs and should promptly address possible life-threatening complications. The present recommendations could provide guidance and support in standardizing the care provided to Long-COVID patients.

Lung Ultrasound in Patients With SARS-COV-2 Pneumonia: Correlations With Chest Computed Tomography, Respiratory Impairment, and Inflammatory Cascade.

OBJECTIVES: Lung ultrasound (LUS) might be comparable to chest computed tomography (CT) in detecting parenchymal and pleural pathology, and in monitoring interstitial lung disease. We aimed to describe LUS characteristics of patients during the hospitalization for COVID-19 pneumonia, and to compare the extent of lung involvement at LUS and chest-CT with inflammatory response and the severity of respiration impairment. METHODS: During a 2-week period, we performed LUS and chest CT in hospitalized patients affected by COVID-19 pneumonia. Dosages of high sensitivity C-reactive protein (HS-CRP), d-dimer, and interleukin-6 (IL-6) were also obtained. The index of lung function (P/F ratio) was calculated from the blood gas test. LUS and CT scoring were assessed using previously validated scores. RESULTS: Twenty-six consecutive patients (3 women) underwent LUS 34 ± 14 days from the early symptoms. Among them, 21 underwent CT on the same day of LUS. A fair association was found between LUS and CT scores (R = 0.45, P = .049), which became stronger if the B-lines score on LUS was not considered (R = 0.57, P = .024). LUS B-lines score correlated with IL-6 levels (R = 0.75, P = .011), and the number of involved lung segments detected by LUS correlated with the P/F ratio (R = 0.60, P = .019) but not with HS-CRP and d-Dimer levels. No correlations were found between CT scores and inflammations markers or P/F. CONCLUSION: In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, LUS was correlated with both the extent of the inflammatory response and the P/F ratio.

Breath-holding as a novel approach to risk stratification in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Despite considerable progress, it remains unclear why some patients admitted for COVID-19 develop adverse outcomes while others recover spontaneously. Clues may lie with the predisposition to hypoxemia or unexpected absence of dyspnea ('silent hypoxemia') in some patients who later develop respiratory failure. Using a recently-validated breath-holding technique, we sought to test the hypothesis that gas exchange and ventilatory control deficits observed at admission are associated with subsequent adverse COVID-19 outcomes (composite primary outcome: non-invasive ventilatory support, intensive care admission, or death). METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 (N = 50) performed breath-holds to obtain measurements reflecting the predisposition to oxygen desaturation (mean desaturation after 20-s) and reduced chemosensitivity to hypoxic-hypercapnia (including maximal breath-hold duration). Associations with the primary composite outcome were modeled adjusting for baseline oxygen saturation, obesity, sex, age, and prior cardiovascular disease. Healthy controls (N = 23) provided a normative comparison. RESULTS: The adverse composite outcome (observed in N = 11/50) was associated with breath-holding measures at admission (likelihood ratio test, p = 0.020); specifically, greater mean desaturation (12-fold greater odds of adverse composite outcome with 4% compared with 2% desaturation, p = 0.002) and greater maximal breath-holding duration (2.7-fold greater odds per 10-s increase, p = 0.036). COVID-19 patients who did not develop the adverse composite outcome had similar mean desaturation to healthy controls. CONCLUSIONS: Breath-holding offers a novel method to identify patients with high risk of respiratory failure in COVID-19. Greater breath-hold induced desaturation (gas exchange deficit) and greater breath-holding tolerance (ventilatory control deficit) may be independent harbingers of progression to severe disease.