Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Front Psychiatry ; 11: 577113, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2269778

ABSTRACT

Special attention and efforts to protect from or reduce health-related outcomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus triggering coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), should be applied in susceptible populations, including frail older people. In particular, the early death cases occurred primarily in older people with a frailty status, possibly due to a weaker immune system fostering faster progression of the viral infection. Frailty is an age-related multidimensional clinical condition defined as a non-specific state of vulnerability, identifying older people at increased risk of falls, institutionalization, hospitalization, disability, dementia, and death. Among frailty phenotypes, social frailty has been least studied. It considers the role of socioeconomic context as a vulnerability status later in life. COVID-19 does not affect all populations equally, and social inequalities contribute to drive the spread of infections. It was known that the perception of social isolation, e.g., loneliness, affects mental and physical health, but the implicated molecular mechanisms, also related to the immune system, and its associated cognitive and health-related sequelae, are poorly understood. The increasing psychological distress derived by prolonged exposure to stress due to the lockdown scenario, and the reduced sources of support, contributed to making heavy demands on personal resources, i.e., self-efficacy and interpersonal variables. So, perceived loneliness may be a factor associated with psychological distress and an outcome in itself. In the COVID-19 pandemic era, a correct assessment of social frailty may be essential in terms of the prevention of late-life neuropsychiatric disorders.

2.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 19251, 2021 09 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1442806

ABSTRACT

The prognosis of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients is variable and depends on several factors. Current data about the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and smoking on the clinical course of COVID-19 are still controversial. This study evaluated the prevalence and the prognosis of COPD patients and smokers in a cohort of 521 patients admitted to four intermediate Respiratory Intensive Care Units (Puglia, Italy) with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. The prevalence of COPD and current smokers was 14% and 13%, respectively. COPD patients had a higher 30-day all-cause mortality than non-COPD patients. Former smokers compared to never smokers and current smokers had higher 30-day all-cause mortality. COPD patients and former smokers had more comorbidities. This study described the prevalence and the outcomes of COPD patients and smokers in a homogenous cohort of COVID-19 patients. The study showed that the prevalence of COPD and current smokers was not high, suggesting that they were not at increased risk of getting the infection. However, when SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred, COPD patients and former smokers were those with the highest all-cause mortality, which seemed to be mainly related to the presence of comorbidities and not to COPD and smoking itself.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Comorbidity , Prognosis , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive , Smoking/adverse effects , Aged , Cohort Studies , Hospitalization , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Prevalence , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/physiopathology , Risk Factors
3.
Expert Rev Respir Med ; 15(12): 1619-1625, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1324535

ABSTRACT

Objectives: There are no comparative studies between patients belonging to the first and second waves of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the virus triggering coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed the clinical characteristics and the short-term outcomes of two groups of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) belonging to two different waves of the pandemic. Methods: We analyzed 97 consecutive patients from 11 March 2020 to 31 May 2020 and 52 consecutive patients from 28 August 2020 to 15 October 2020. Results: Patients belonging to the second wave were younger, had a lower number of concomitant chronic conditions (multimorbidity), and had a milder clinical phenotype. Medical treatments and respiratory support use have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on different laboratory results and disease clinical features. Patients in the second wave had better short-term clinical outcomes, with lower death rates and more step-down transfers to a general ward. Conclusion: The present findings show a clear phenotypic difference in patients hospitalized at different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. These results can help to stratify clinical risk and to better tailor medical treatments and respiratory support for patients with ARDS and COVID-19 pneumonia.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospitalization , Humans , Pandemics , Phenotype , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Respir Res ; 22(1): 16, 2021 Jan 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1067233

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Some studies investigated epidemiological and clinical features of laboratory-confirmed patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) the virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but limited attention has been paid to the follow-up of hospitalized patients on the basis of clinical setting and the expertise of clinical management. METHODS: In the present single-centered, retrospective, observational study, we reported findings from 87 consecutive laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory syndrome hospitalized in an intermediate Respiratory Intensive Care Unit (RICU), subdividing the patients in two groups according to the admission date (before and after March 29, 2020). RESULTS: With improved skills in the clinical management of COVID-19, we observed a significant lower mortality in the T2 group compared with the T1 group and a significantly difference in terms of mortality among the patients transferred in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) from our intermediate RICU (100% in T1 group vs. 33.3% in T2 group). The average length of stay in intermediate RICU of ICU-transferred patients who survived in T1 and T2 was significantly longer than those who died (who died 3.3 ± 2.8 days vs. who survived 6.4 ± 3.3 days). T CONCLUSIONS: The present findings suggested that an intermediate level of hospital care may have the potential to modify survival in COVID-19 patients, particularly in the present phase of a more skilled clinical management of the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Clinical Competence , Critical Care , Intensive Care Units , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Italy , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Admission , Retrospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
5.
Expert Rev Respir Med ; 15(6): 853-857, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-990448

ABSTRACT

Objectives: In the present single-centered, retrospective, observational study, we reported findings from 78 consecutive laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) hospitalized in an intermediate Respiratory Intensive Care Unit, subdividing the patients into two groups according to their clinical outcome, dead patients and discharged patients.Methods: We further subdivided patients depending on the noninvasive respiratory support used during hospitalization.Results: In those patients who died, we found significant older age and higher multimorbidity and higher values of serum lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein, and D-dimer. Among patients who were submitted to bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP), those who died had a significant shorter number of days in overall length of stay and lower values of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen ratio (PaO2/FiO2 ratio) compared to those who survived. No difference in all-cause mortality was observed between the two different noninvasive respiratory support groups [48% for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 52% for BPAP].Conclusion: In COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS using BPAP in an intermediate level of hospital care had more factors associated to all-cause mortality (shorter length of stay and lower baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio) compared to those who underwent CPAP.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/methods , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/etiology , COVID-19/pathology , Cause of Death , Comorbidity , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen/therapeutic use , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/physiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL