The Vitamin D Serum Levels in Pregnant Women Affected by COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Vitamin D can modulate immune responses, and its deficiency is linked to increased autoimmunity and susceptibility to infection. In the general population, it has been observed that serum vitamin D levels are connected with the risk of COVID-19 and its severity. Our study aims to examine reported findings on the effect of vitamin D serum levels on infection of COVID-19 during pregnancy. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies. Serum vitamin D serum levels in COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative pregnant women were 24.61 ± 20.86 ng/mL and 24.12 ± 17.33 ng/mL, respectively. In mild vs. moderate to critical COVID-19 pregnant women, vitamin D serum levels were 16.71 ± 9.04 ng/mL vs. 10.7 ± 9.37 ng/mL and severe vs. non-severe were 13.21 ± 11.47 ng/mL vs. 15.76 ± 10.0 ng/mL. Only one study reported vitamin D serum levels in the placenta of COVID-19-positive pregnant women compared with the control and results varied and amounted to 14.06 ± 0.51 ng/mL vs. 12.45 ± 0.58 ng/mL, respectively. Vitamin D deficiency tends to be common in pregnant women who have COVID-19, and the level of this vitamin has been demonstrated to have a strong correlation with the severity of the illness. As vitamin D serum levels correlate with COVID-19 symptoms and even with its occurrence, appropriate vitamin D supplementation in the prenatal period is suggested.

Impact of VieScope® on first-attempt success during simulated COVID-19 patients intubation: A randomized cross-over simulation trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of our study was to determine the efficacy of intubation with VieScope® and Macintosh laryngoscope in different scenarios of simulated COVID-19 patients by paramedics wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol gener-ating procedures (AGPs). METHODS: Study was designed as a prospective, observational, randomized, crossover simulation trial. 37 paramedics took part in the study. They performed endotracheal intubation (ETI) of a person suspected of COVID-19. Intubation was performed using VieS-cope® and Macintosh laryngoscopes in two research scenarios: Scenario A - normal airway and Scenario B - difficult airway. Both the order of participants and the methods of intubation were random. RESULTS: In Scenario A, time to intubation using VieScope® and Macintosh laryngoscope amounted to 35.3 (IQR; 32-40) seconds and 35.8 (IQR: 30-40)s, respectively. Nearly all participants performed ETI successfully both with VieScope® and Macintosh laryngo-scope (100% vs. 94.6%). In scenario B, intubation with the VieScope®, compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope, was associated with a shorter intubation time (p<0.001), a higher success rate of the first intubation attempt (p<0.001), a better visualization degree glottis (p=0.012) and ease of intubation (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that the use of a VieScope® compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in difficult airway intuba-tion performed by paramedics wearing PPE-AGP is associated with shorter intubation times, greater intubation efficiency as well as better visualization of the glottis. Additional clinical trials are necessary to confirm the obtained results.

Prediction value of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) in COVID-19 patients - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: In COVID-19, the rapid prediction of the severity of a patient's condition using modern biomarkers can accelerate the implementation of appropriate therapy, and thus improve the patient's prognosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted of data available in the literature on the differences in baseline suPAR blood concentration between patients (1) who tested positive and negative for COVID-19, (2) who had severe and non-severe COVID-19, and (3) COVID-19 survivors and non-survivors. RESULTS: SuPAR levels in SARS-CoV-2 negative and positive patients varied and amounted to 3.61±1.59 ng/ml vs. 6.45±3.13 ng/ml, respectively (MD = -3.18; 95%CI: -4.71 to -1.66; p<0.001). suPAR levels among non-severe and severe COVID-19 patients were 7.06±2.64 ng/ml and 5.06±3.16 ng/ml (MD = 0.18; 95%CI: -2.48 to 2.83; p=0.90), respectively. Pooled analysis showed that suPAR levels between severe versus critical COVID-19 patients to be 5.59±1.54 ng/ml and 6.49±1.43 ng/ml, respectively (MD = -1.00; 95%CI: -1.31 to -0.70; p<0.001). The suPAR levels between ICU survivors versus non-survivors amounted to 5.82±2.33 ng/ml and 8.43±4.66 ng/ml (MD = -3.59; 95%CI: -6.19 to -1.00; p=0.007). In the case of in-hospital mortality, the mean suPAR level among survivors to hospital discharge was 5.63±1.27 ng/ml, compared to 7.85±2.61 ng/ml for patients who did not survive (MD = -3.58; 95%CI: -5.42 to -1.74; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SuPAR levels are significantly elevated in severe COVID-19 illness and maybe useful in predicting mortality. Further studies are needed to determine cut-off points and clarify the association of suPAR levels with disease progression. This is of utmost importance given the ongoing pandemic and overburdened health care systems.

The sFlt-1/PlGF Ratio in Pregnant Patients Affected by COVID-19.

COVID-19 in pregnant women increases the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preeclampsia. This meta-analysis aimed to examine the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection on sFlt-1/PIGF ratio during pregnancy. The study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies reporting the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in pregnant women with COVID-19. Results were compared using meta-analysis by the Mantel-Haenszel method. A total of 7 studies were included in the analysis. sFlt-1/PlGF ratios between COVID-19 positive vs. negative women were 45.8 ± 50.3 vs. 37.4 ± 22.5, respectively (SMD = 1.76; 95% CI: 0.43 to 3.09; p = 0.01). sFlt-1/PlGF ratios between asymptomatic vs. symptomatic patients were 49.3 ± 35.7 vs. 37.1 ± 25.6 (SMD = 0.30; 95% CI: -0.35 to 0.95; p = 0.36). sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in non-severe group was 30.7 ± 56.5, compared to 64.7 ± 53.5 for severe patients (SMD = -1.88; 95% CI: -3.77 to 0.01; p = 0.05). sFlt-1/PlGF ratios in COVID-19 patients, with and without hypertensive disease of pregnancy, were 187.0 ± 121.8 vs. 21.6 ± 8.6, respectively (SMD = 2.46; 95% CI: 0.99 to 3.93; p = 0.001). Conclusions: Patients with COVID-19, as compared to patients without COVID-19, were characterized by higher sFlt-1/PlGF ratio. Moreover, severe COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 infection in hypertensive pregnant women was related to significantly higher sFlt-1/PlGF ratio.

The effect of zinc supplementation on the course of COVID-19 - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Zinc is a trace element that plays a role in stimulating innate and acquired immunity. The aim of the study was to determine the antiviral effect of the administration of zinc in COVID-19 patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was performed in P Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases from 1 January 2020 - 22 August 2022. In addition, reference lists of the included articles and their related citations in PubMed were also reviewed for additional pertinent studies. RESULTS: A total of 9 eligible studies were identified. In-hospital mortality in zinc supplementation patients, and patients treated without zinc, varied and amounted to 21.6% vs. 23.04% difference (OR=0.71; 95%CI: 0.62-0.81; p<0.001). 28-day to 30-day mortality in patients treated with zinc was 7.7%, compared to 11.9% for patients treated without zinc (OR=0.61; 95%CI: 0.35-1.06; p=0.08). In-hospital adverse events among patients treated with and without COVID-19 did not show any statistically significant differences in relation to acute kidney injury occurrence (12.8% vs. 12.4%, respectively; OR=0.63; 95%CI: 0.19-2.12; p=0.45, as well as need for mechanical ventilation (13.2% vs. 14.1%; OR=0.83; 95%CI: 0.52-1.32; p=0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Zinc supplementation is associated with lower COVID-19 in-hospital mortality. Additionally, it is risk-free in COVID-19 patients since there have been no negative side effects, such as acute renal damage or the requirement for mechanical ventilation compared to patients without COVID-19. Due to scientific evidence and the role it represents in the human body, zinc supplementation should be taken into consideration for COVID-19 patients as an adjunct therapy.

COVID-19-induced coagulopathy: Experience, achievements, prospects.

The presence of coagulopathy as part of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome is a characteristic feature of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Hematological changes (increased D-dimer [DD], prolonged activated partial thromboplastin clotting time [APTT] and prothrombin time [PT], high fibrinogen levels) have been observed in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, which characterize the risk of thrombotic events. Against the background of COVID-19 there is endothelial dysfunction, hypoxia and pulmonary congestion, mediated by thrombosis and microvascular occlusion. Up to 71.4% of patients who died from COVID-19 had disseminated intravascular coagulation syndrome, compared with only 0.6% of survivors. The main manifestation of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy is a significant increase in DD without a decrease in platelet count or prolongation of APTT and PT, indicating increased thrombin formation and the development of local fibrinolysis. An increase in DD levels of more than 3-4 times was associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Therefore, COVID-19 requires assessment of the severity of the disease for further tactics of thromboprophylaxis. The need for continued thromboprophylaxis, or therapeutic anticoagulation, in patients after inpatient treatment for two weeks using imaging techniques to assess of thrombosis assessment.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Pediatric Cardiac Arrest Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused a global pandemic, required the donning of personal protective equipment during clinical contact, and continues to be a significant worldwide public health concern. Pediatric cardiac arrest is a rare but critical condition with a high mortality rate, the outcomes of which may be negatively affected by donning personal protective equipment. The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric cardiac arrest outcomes. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis in the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from their inception to 1 October 2022. We included studies published in English on pediatric patients with cardiac arrest, dichotomized by the pre- and during-COVID-19 periods and then stratified by COVID-19 positive or negative status, to evaluate clinical outcomes associated with cardiac arrest. Six studies were included in the meta-analysis. In witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, there were no differences between the pandemic and pre-pandemic periods for witnessed cardiac arrest (28.5% vs. 28.7%; odds ratio (OR) = 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87 to 1.14; p = 0.93), administration of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (61.5 vs. 63.6%; OR = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.98 to 1.26; p = 0.11), bystander automated external defibrillator use (both 2.8%; OR = 1.00; 95%CI: 0.69 to 1.45; p = 0.99), return of spontaneous circulation(8.4 vs. 8.9%; OR = 0.93; 95%CI: 0.47 to 1.88; p = 0.85), survival to hospital admission (9.0 vs. 10.2%, OR = 0.81; 95%CI: 0.45 to 1.44; p = 0.47), or survival to hospital discharge (13.4 vs. 12.4%; OR = 0.62; 95%CI: 0.22 to 1.72; p = 0.35). COVID-19 did not change pediatric cardiac arrest bystander interventions or outcomes.

Systematic review with meta-analysis of mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proadm) as a prognostic marker in Covid-19-hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) is useful for risk stratification in patients with sepsis and respiratory infections. The study's purpose was to assess the available data and determine the association between MR-proADM levels and mortality in COVID-19 participants. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of medical electronic databases was performed including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and grey literature for relevant data published from 1 January 2020, to 20 November 2022. Mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Fourteen studies reported MR-proADM levels in survivors vs. non-survivors of COVID-19 patients. Pooled analysis showed that MR-proADM level in the survivor group was 0.841 ± 0.295 nmol/L for patients who survive COVID-19, compared to 1.692 ± 0.761 nmol/L for non-survivors (MD = -0.78; 95%CI: -0.92 to -0.64; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The main finding of this study is that mortality of COVID-19 is linked to MR-proADM levels, according to this meta-analysis. The use of MR-proADM might be extremely beneficial in triaging, assessing probable therapy escalation, predicting potential complications during therapy or significant clinical deterioration of patients, and avoiding admission which may not be necessary. Nevertheless, in order to confirm the obtained data, it is necessary to conduct large prospective studies that will address the potential diagnostic role of MR-proADM as a marker of COVID-19 severity.KEY MESSAGESSeverity of COVID-19 seems to be linked to MR-proADM levels and can be used as a potential marker for predicting a patient's clinical course.The use of MR-proADM might be beneficial in triaging, assessing probable therapy escalation, predicting potential complications during therapy or significant clinical deterioration of patients, and avoiding admission which may not be necessary.For patients with COVID-19, MR-proADM may be an excellent prognostic indicator because it is a marker of endothelial function that may predict the precise impact on the equilibrium between vascular relaxation and contraction and lowers platelet aggregation inhibitors, coagulation inhibitors, and fibrinolysis activators in favor of clotting factors.

Prediction Value of KREBS Von Den Lungen-6 (KL-6) Biomarker in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic is a major issue that necessitates the use of cutting-edge disease prediction models. The aim of the study was to assess the existing evidence regarding association between Krebs von den Lungen-6 levels and COVID-19 severity. A literature search was performed on Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from 1 January 2020 up to 2 August 2022. The electronic database search was supplemented by searching Google Scholar. In addition, reference lists of relative articles were also reviewed. KL-6 levels among COVID-19 positive vs. negative patients varied and amounted to 443.37 ± 249.33 vs. 205.73 ± 86.8 U/mL (MD = 275.33; 95%CI: 144.57 to 406.09; p < 0.001). The KL-6 level was 402.82 ± 261.16 U/mL in the severe group and was statistically significantly higher than in the non-severe group (297.38 ± 90.46 U/mL; MD = 192.45; 95%CI: 118.19 to 266.72; p < 0.001). The KL-6 level in the mild group was 272.28 ± 95.42 U/mL, compared to 268.04 ± 55.04 U/mL in the moderate COVID-19 group (MD = -12.58; 95%CI: -21.59 to -3.57; p = 0.006). Our meta-analysis indicates a significant association between increased KL-6 levels and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Moreover, KL-6 levels are significantly higher in patients with a more severe course of COVID-19, indicating that KL-6 may be a useful predictor to identify patients at risk for severe COVID-19.

Prognostic Performance of Cystatin C in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Cystatin C is a specific biomarker of kidney function. We perform this meta-analysis to determine the association of Cystatin C with the COVID-19 severity. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Web of Science for studies published until 2nd September 2022 that reported associations between Cystatin C levels and COVID-19 severity. The analysis was performed using a random-effects model to calculate pooled standard mean difference (SMD). Twenty-five studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed statistically significant differences of Cystatin C levels among survive vs. decreased patients (0.998 ± 0.225 vs. 1.328 ± 0.475 mg/dL, respectively; SMD = -2.14; 95%CI: -3.28 to -1.01; p < 0.001). Cystatin C levels in COVID-19 severe vs. non-severe groups varied and amounted to 1.485 ± 1.191 vs. 1.014 ± 0.601 mg/dL, respectively (SMD = 1.81; 95%CI: 1.29 to 2.32; p < 0.001). Additionally, pooled analysis showed that Cystatin C levels in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) was 1.562 ± 0.885 mg/dL, compared to 0.811 ± 0.108 mg/dL for patients without AKI (SMD = 4.56; 95%CI: 0.27 to 8.85; p = 0.04). Summing up, Cystatin C is a potentially very good marker to be used in the context of COVID-19 disease due to the prognosis of patients' serious condition, risk of AKI and mortality. In addition, Cystatin C could be used as a marker of renal complications in COVID-19 other than AKI due to the need to monitor patients even longer after leaving the hospital.

Vitamin C Supplementation for the Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), millions of people have died, and the medical system has faced significant difficulties. Our purpose was to perform a meta-analysis to estimate the effect of vitamin C on in-hospital mortality and the ICU or hospital length of stay for patients diagnosed with COVID-19. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included studies that evaluated the effect of vitamin C supplementation, compared with standard treatment in COVID-19 patients who are ≥18 y of age. Nineteen trials were included in the meta-analysis. In-hospital mortality with and without vitamin C supplementation was 24.1% vs. 33.9% (OR = 0.59; 95%CI: 0.37 to 0.95; p = 0.03), respectively. Sub-analysis showed that, in randomized clinical trials, in-hospital mortality varied and amounted to 23.9% vs. 35.8% (OR = 0.44; 95%CI: 0.25 to 0.76; p = 0.003), respectively. In the non-randomized trials, in-hospital mortality was 24.2% vs. 33.5% (OR = 0.72; 95%CI: 0.38 to 1.39; p = 0.33), respectively. The ICU length of stay was longer in patients treated with vitamin C vs. standard therapy, 11.1 (7.3) vs. 8.3 (4.7) days (MD = 1.91; 95%CI: 0.89 to 2.93; p < 0.001), respectively. Acute kidney injury in patients treated with and without vitamin C varied and amounted to 27.8% vs. 45.0% (OR = 0.56; 95%CI: 0.40 to 0.78; p < 0.001), respectively. There were no differences in the frequency of other adverse events among patients' treatment with and without vitamin C (all p > 0.05). The use of vitamin C reduces hospital mortality. The length of stay in the ICU is longer among patients treated with vitamin C. In terms of patient safety, vitamin C has an acceptable profile. Low doses of vitamin C are effective and safe. Despite some evidence of the usefulness of vitamin C in modifying the course of COVID-19, it is too early to modify guidelines and recommendations. Further studies, in particular randomized clinical trials, are necessary.

Diagnostic value of lactate dehydrogenase in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis outlines the role of elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels in assessing the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: The current study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis. Embase, Pub- Med, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify the usefulness of LDH as a marker of COVID-19 severity. All extracted data were analyzed using RevMan V.5.4 or STATA V.14 software. RESULTS: A total of 264 records were selected for this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that LDH levels were statistically significantly lower in the group of survivors compared to patients who died in hospital (standardized mean differences [SMD] = -3.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.40 to -2.79; I2 = 99%; p < 0.001). Lower LDH levels were observed in non-severe groups compared to severe course of COVID-19 (SMD = -2.38; 95% CI: -2.61 to -2.14; I2 = 99%; p < 0.001). The level of LDH was statistically significantly lower in the severe group compared to the critical group (SMD = -1.48; 95% CI: -2.04 to -0.92; I2 = 98%; p < 0.001). Patients who did not require treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) showed significantly lower levels of LDH compared to patients who required treatment in the ICU (SMD = -3.78; 95% CI: -4.48 to -3.08; I2 = 100%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that elevated LDH was associated with a poor outcome in COVID-19.

Point-of-care testing as the future of pre-hospital emergency medicine: an overview

Point-of-care testing (POCT) plays an increasingly important role in pre-emergency medicine by ensuring that patient's continuum of care is commenced before arrival at health facilities. Given the benefits of POCT during the COVID-19 pandemic, this commentary described the advantages and disadvantages of POCT, and its current practices in pre-hospital emergency medicine. Point-of-care tests are easy to operate, cost-effective, and yield quick and accurate response, but are posed with challenges such as safety errors, poor adherence to quality control standards, and inspection errors. To optimize the benefits of POCT in pre-emergency medicine, it is required that regular trainings are conducted for POCT operators, and total compliance to POCT handling and management guidelines should be considered by each POCT operator. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Signa Vitae is the property of Pharmamed Mado Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Effect of Coronary Artery Disease on COVID-19-Prognosis and Risk Assessment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Patients with pre-existing CAD were shown to have a more severe course of COVID-19, but this association has not been clarified. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the association between CAD and COVID-19 outcomes. We searched Scopus, Medline (PubMed), Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to 2 November 2021. There were 62 studies with a total population of 49,286 patients included in the meta-analysis. CAD occurrence in survivor vs. non-survivor groups varied and amounted to 9.2% vs. 22.9%, respectively (OR = 0.33; 95%CI: 0.29 to 0.39; I2 = 70%; p < 0.001). CAD was also associated with increased severity of COVID-19 disease and was (10.8% vs. 5.6%, respectively, for severe vs. non-severe groups (OR = 2.28; 95%CI: 1.59 to 3.27; I2 = 72%; p < 0.001). The role of history of CAD in mortality and severe condition in COVID-19 presents itself as prominent-although a risk of bias in retrospective trials needs to be assessed, in case of our meta-analysis the statistically significant results when it comes to higher mortality among patients with CAD compared to non-CAD patients, a more severe condition observed in patients with CAD, and a visibly more frequent admission to intensive care unit in patients with CAD, it seems that an incidence of cardiovascular events plays a role in COVID-19 prognosis.

Impact of COVID-19 on in-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes: An updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The main purposes of this meta-analysis are to update the information about the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and to investigate the impact of being infected by by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on IHCA outcomes. METHODS: The current meta-analysis is an update and follows the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: In analyses, pre- and intra-COVID-19 periods were observed for: shockable rhythms in 17.6% vs. 16.2% (odds ratio [OR]: 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-1.72; p = 0.65), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in 47.4% vs. 44.0% (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 0.90-2.07; p = 0.15), 30-day mortality in 59.8% vs. 60.9% (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.75-1.22; p = 0.69) and overall mortality 75.8% vs. 74.7% (OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.49-1.28; p = 0.35), respectively. In analyses, SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients were observed for: shockable rhythms in 9.6% vs. 19.8% (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.35-0.73; p < 0.001), ROSC in 33.9% vs. 52.1% (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.30-0.73; p < 0.001), 30-day mortality in 77.2% vs. 59.7% (OR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.28-3.38; p = 0.003) and overall mortality in 94.9% vs. 76.7% (OR: 3.20; 95% CI: 0.98-10.49; p = 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite ROSC, 30-day and overall mortality rate were not statistically different in pre- vs. intra-COVID-19 periods, a lower incidence of ROSC and higher 20-day mortality rate were observed in SARS-CoV-2 (+) compared to SARS-CoV-2 (-) patients.