Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
2.
Endocr Connect ; 11(10)2022 Oct 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2054471

ABSTRACT

Objective: Hyponatremia in COVID-19 is often due to the syndrome of inadequate antidiuresis (SIAD), possibly mediated by interleukin-6 (IL-6)-induced non-osmotic arginine vasopressin (AVP) secretion. We hypothesized an inverse association between IL-6 and plasma sodium concentration, stronger in COVID-19 compared to other respiratory infections. Design: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study including patients with COVID-19 suspicion admitted to the Emergency Department, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, between March and July 2020. Methods: We included patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 and patients with similar symptoms, further subclassified into bacterial and other viral respiratory infections. The primary objective was to investigate the association between plasma sodium and IL-6 levels. Results: A total of 500 patients were included, 184 (37%) with COVID-19, 92 (18%) with bacterial respiratory infections, and 224 (45%) with other viral respiratory infections. In all groups, median (IQR) IL-6 levels were significantly higher in hyponatremic compared to normonatremic patients (COVID-19: 43.4 (28.4, 59.8) vs 9.2 (2.8, 32.7) pg/mL, P < 0.001; bacterial: 122.1 (63.0, 282.0) vs 67.1 (24.9, 252.0) pg/mL, P < 0.05; viral: 14.1 (6.9, 84.7) vs 4.3 (2.1, 14.4) pg/mL, P < 0.05). IL-6 levels were negatively correlated with plasma sodium levels in COVID-19, whereas the correlation in bacterial and other viral infections was weaker (COVID-19: R = -0.48, P < 0.001; bacterial: R = -0.25, P = 0.05, viral: R = -0.27, P < 0.001). Conclusions: IL-6 levels were inversely correlated with plasma sodium levels, with a stronger correlation in COVID-19 compared to bacterial and other viral infections. IL-6 might stimulate AVP secretion and lead to higher rates of hyponatremia due to the SIAD in these patients.

3.
Swiss Med Wkly ; 151: w30103, 2021 12 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1555555

ABSTRACT

STUDY AIMS: To quantify mimics and chameleons of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), to analyse the diagnostic accuracy of the triage protocol, and to describe the resulting groups of mimics and chameleons - including their presenting symptoms and final diagnoses. METHODS: Diagnostic accuracy study including all adult patients tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at the emergency department of the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland during the first wave of pandemic in spring 2020. Diagnostic accuracy of triage was determined by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratio. Triage to the group of suspected (+) and not suspected (-) COVID-19 was considered the index test, whereas a SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test result was used as reference standard. Mimics were defined as false positives and chameleons as false negatives. RESULTS: Of 2898 patients included in the analysis, 191 were true positives, 895 were false positives (mimics), 9 were false negatives (chameleons) and 1803 were true negatives. This resulted in a sensitivity of 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-0.98) and a specificity of 0.67 (95% CI 0.65-0.69) for standardised triage. Among mimics, the main categories of final diagnoses were other infections (n = 513, 57.3%), cardiovascular diseases (excluding cerebrovascular) (n = 125, 14%), and non-infectious diseases of the respiratory system (n = 84, 9.4%). Fever (n = 357, 39.9% vs n = 104, 54.5%), cough (n = 466, 52.1% vs n = 126 66%), and smell or taste dysfunction (n = 60, 6.7% vs n = 24, 12.6%) were less frequently observed in mimics than in COVID-19 patients. Eight of nine COVID-19 chameleons presented with either nonspecific complaints (weakness and/or fatigue) or gastrointestinal symptoms. CONCLUSION: The quantitative assessment of COVID-19 mimics and chameleons showed a high prevalence of mimics. Clinical differentiation between true positives and false positives is not feasible due to largely overlapping symptoms. Prevalence of chameleons was very low.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Pandemics , Predictive Value of Tests , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Triage
4.
J Clin Med ; 10(11)2021 Jun 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1259515

ABSTRACT

Older age and frailty are predictors of adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. In emergency medicine, patients do not present with the diagnosis, but with suspicion of COVID-19. The aim of this study was to assess the association of frailty and age with death or admission to intensive care in patients with suspected COVID-19. This single-centre prospective cohort study was performed in the Emergency Department of a tertiary care hospital. Patients, 65 years and older, with suspected COVID-19 presenting to the Emergency Department during the first wave of the pandemic were consecutively enrolled. All patients underwent nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR swab tests. Patients with a Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) > 4, were considered to be frail. Associations between age, gender, frailty, and COVID-19 status with the composite adverse outcome of 30-day-intensive-care-admission and/or 30-day-mortality were tested. In the 372 patients analysed, the median age was 77 years, 154 (41.4%) were women, 44 (11.8%) were COVID-19-positive, and 125 (33.6%) were frail. The worst outcome was seen in frail COVID-19-patients with six (66.7%) adverse outcomes. Frailty (CFS > 4) and COVID-19-positivity were associated with an adverse outcome after adjustment for age and gender (frailty: OR 5.01, CI 2.56-10.17, p < 0.001; COVID-19: OR 3.47, CI 1.48-7.89, p = 0.003). Frailty was strongly associated with adverse outcomes and outperformed age as a predictor in emergency patients with suspected COVID-19.

5.
Eur J Endocrinol ; 184(3): 409-418, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1034947

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has rapidly spread globally and infected millions of people. The prevalence and prognostic impact of dysnatremia in COVID-19 is inconclusive. Therefore, we investigated the prevalence and outcome of dysnatremia in COVID-19. DESIGN: The prospective, observational, cohort study included consecutive patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 triaged to a Swiss Emergency Department between March and July 2020. METHODS: Collected data included clinical, laboratory and disease severity scoring parameters on admission. COVID-19 cases were identified based on a positive nasopharyngeal swab test for SARS-CoV-2, patients with a negative swab test served as controls. The primary analysis was to assess the prognostic impact of dysnatremia on 30-day mortality using a cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: 172 (17%) cases with COVID-19 and 849 (83%) controls were included. Patients with COVID-19 showed a higher prevalence of hyponatremia compared to controls (28.1% vs 17.5%, P < 0.001); while comparable for hypernatremia (2.9% vs 2.1%, P = 0.34). In COVID-19 but not in controls, hyponatremia was associated with a higher 30-day mortality (HR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.10-16.62, P = 0.05). In both groups, hypernatremia on admission was associated with higher 30-day mortality (COVID-19 - HR: 11.5, 95% CI: 5.00-26.43, P < 0.001; controls - HR: 5.3, 95% CI: 1.60-17.64, P = 0.006). In both groups, hyponatremia and hypernatremia were significantly associated with adverse outcome, for example, intensive care unit admission, longer hospitalization and mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSION: Our results underline the importance of dysnatremia as predictive marker in COVID-19. Treating physicians should be aware of appropriate treatment measures to be taken for patients with COVID-19 and dysnatremia.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Hypernatremia/diagnosis , Hypernatremia/epidemiology , Hyponatremia/diagnosis , Hyponatremia/epidemiology , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Case-Control Studies , Cohort Studies , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Hypernatremia/complications , Hypernatremia/therapy , Hyponatremia/complications , Hyponatremia/therapy , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Pandemics , Prevalence , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Switzerland/epidemiology , Triage
6.
J Clin Med ; 9(10)2020 Oct 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-905872

ABSTRACT

This prospective observational study evaluated the safety and feasibility of a low threshold testing process in a Triage and Test Center (TTC) during the early course of the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic. In addition, we aimed to identify clinical predictors for a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) swab result. Patients underwent informal triage, standardized history taking, and physician evaluation, only where indicated. Patients were observed for 30 days. Safety was the primary outcome and was defined as a COVID-19-related 30 day re-presentation rate <5% and mortality rate <1% in patients presenting to the TTC. Feasibility was defined as an overruling of informal triage <5%. Among 4815 presentations, 572 (11.9%) were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and 4774 were discharged. Mortality at 30-days was 0.04% (2 patients, one of which related to COVID-19). Fever (OR 2.03 [95% CI 1.70;2.42]), myalgia (OR 1.94 [1.63;2.31]), chills (OR 1.77 [1.44;2.16]), headache (OR 1.61 [1.34;1.94]), cough (OR 1.50 [1.24;1.83]), weakness (OR 1.46 [1.21;1.76]), and confusion (OR 1.39 [1.06;1.80]) were associated with test positivity. Re-presentation rate was 8% overall and 1.4% in COVID-19 related re-presentation (69 of 4774). The overruling rate of informal triage was 1.5%. According to our study, a low-threshold testing process in a TTC appeared to be safe (low re-presentation and low mortality) and is feasible (low overruling of informal triage). A COVID-19 diagnosis based on clinical parameters only does not appear possible.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL