Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
1.
Minerva Anestesiol ; 88(7-8): 594-603, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1934883

ABSTRACT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, prehospital and hospital services were put under great stress because of limited resources and increased workloads. One expected effect was the increased number of out-of-hospital (OHCA) and in-hospital (IHCA) cardiac arrests that occurred during 2020 compared to previous years. Both direct and indirect mechanisms were involved. In the former case, although the exact mechanisms by which SARS-CoV-2 causes cardiac arrest (CA) are still unknown, severe hypoxia, a dysregulated immune host response and sepsis are probably implicated and are often seen in COVID-19 patients with poor outcomes. In the latter case, the strain on hospitals, changes in treatment protocols, governments' actions to limit the spread of the disease and fear of the contagion naturally affected treatment efficacy and disrupted the CA chain of survival; as expected in OHCA, only a small proportion of patients were positive to COVID-19, and yet reported outcomes were worse during the pandemic. CA patient characteristics were reported, along with modifications in patient management. In this review, we summarize the evidence to date regarding OHCA and IHCA epidemiology and management during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Emergency Medical Services , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Demography , Emergency Medical Services/methods , Hospitals , Humans , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/epidemiology , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
3.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 22(9): 1845-1852.e1, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1345368

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate, in a cohort of adults aged ≥80 years, the overlapping effect of clinical severity, comorbidities, cognitive impairment, and frailty, for the in-hospital death risk stratification of COVID-19 older patients since emergency department (ED) admission. DESIGN: Single-center prospective observational cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The study was conducted in the ED of a teaching hospital that is a referral center for COVID-19 in central Italy. We enrolled all patients with aged ≥80 years old consecutively admitted to the ED between April 2020 and March 2021. METHODS: Clinical variables assessed in the ED were evaluated for the association with all-cause in-hospital death. Evaluated parameters were severity of disease, frailty, comorbidities, cognitive impairment, delirium, and dependency in daily life activities. Cox regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for poor outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 729 patients aged ≥80 years were enrolled [median age 85 years (interquartile range 82-89); 346 were males (47.3%)]. According to the Clinical Frailty Scale, 61 (8.4%) were classified as fit, 417 (57.2%) as vulnerable, and 251 (34.4%) as frail. Severe disease [hazard ratio (HR) 1.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31-2.59], ≥3 comorbidities (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.11-2.13), male sex (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.14-1.87), and frailty (HR 6.93, 95% CI 1.69-28.27) for vulnerable and an overall HR of 12.55 (95% CI 2.96-53.21) for frail were independent risk factors for in-hospital death. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The ED approach to older patients with COVID-19 should take into account the functional and clinical characteristics of patients being admitted. A sole evaluation based on the clinical severity and the presence of comorbidities does not reflect the complexity of this population. A comprehensive evaluation based on clinical severity, multimorbidity, and frailty could effectively predict the clinical risk of in-hospital death for patients with COVID-19 aged ≥80 years at the time of ED presentation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Frailty , Adult , Aged , Emergency Service, Hospital , Frail Elderly , Frailty/diagnosis , Frailty/epidemiology , Geriatric Assessment , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Male , Prospective Studies , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Arch Gerontol Geriatr ; 95: 104383, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1101106

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: To date, mainly due to age-related vulnerability and to coexisting comorbidities, older patients often face a more severe COVID-19. This study aimed to identify at Emergency Department (ED) admission the predictors of in-hospital mortality and suitable scores for death risk stratification among COVID-19 patients ≥ 80 years old. METHODS: Single-centre prospective study conducted in the ED of an university hospital, referral center for COVID-19 in central Italy. We included 239 consecutive patients ≥ 80 years old with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The primary study endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed on significant variables at univariate analysis to identify independent risk factor for death. Overall performance in predicting mortality of WHO severity scale, APACHE II score, NEWS score, and CURB-65 was calculated. RESULTS: Median age was 85 [82-89] and 112 were males (46.9%). Globally, 77 patients (32.2%) deceased. The presence of consolidations at chest x-ray and the hypoxemic respiratory failure were significant predictors of poor prognosis. Moreover, age ≥ 85 years, dependency in activities of daily living (ADL), and dementia were risk factors for death, even after adjusting for clinical covariates and disease severity. All the evaluated scores showed a fairly good predictive value in identifying patients who could experience a worse outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients ≥ 80 years old hospitalized with COVID-19, not only a worse clinical and radiological presentation of the disease, but also the increasing age, dementia, and impairment in ADL were strong risk factors for in-hospital death, regardless of disease severity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Activities of Daily Living , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
6.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 69(1): 37-43, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1066716

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Several scoring systems have been specifically developed for risk stratification in COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: We compared, in a cohort of confirmed COVID-19 older patients, three specifically developed scores with a previously established early warning score. Main endpoint was all causes in-hospital death. SETTING: This is a single-center, retrospective observational study, conducted in the Emergency Department (ED) of an urban teaching hospital, referral center for COVID-19. PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed the clinical records of the confirmed COVID-19 patients aged 60 years or more consecutively admitted to our ED over a 6-week period (March 1st to April 15th, 2020). A total of 210 patients, aged between 60 and 98 years were included in the study cohort. MEASUREMENTS: International Severe Acute Respiratory Infection Consortium Clinical Characterization Protocol-Coronavirus Clinical Characterization Consortium (ISARIC-4C) score, COVID-GRAM Critical Illness Risk Score (COVID-GRAM), quick COVID-19 Severity Index (qCSI), National Early Warning Score (NEWS). RESULTS: Median age was 74 (67-82) and 133 (63.3%) were males. Globally, 42 patients (20.0%) deceased. All the score evaluated showed a fairly good predictive value with respect to in-hospital death. The ISARIC-4C score had the highest area under ROC curve (AUROC) 0.799 (0.738-0.851), followed by the COVID-GRAM 0.785 (0.723-0.838), NEWS 0.764 (0.700-0.819), and qCSI 0.749 (0.685-0.806). However, these differences were not statistical significant. CONCLUSION: Among the evaluated scores, the ISARIC-4C and the COVID-GRAM, calculated at ED admission, had the best performance, although the qCSI had similar efficacy by evaluating only three items. However, the NEWS, already widely validated in clinical practice, had a similar performance and could be appropriate for older patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Critical Illness/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Severity of Illness Index , Aged , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Critical Illness/therapy , Emergency Service, Hospital , Female , Humans , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies
8.
Intern Med J ; 50(12): 1483-1491, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-998973

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Among hypertensive patients, the association between treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) and the clinical severity of COVID-19, remains uncertain. AIMS: To determine whether hypertensive patients hospitalised with COVID-19 are at risk of worse outcomes if on treatment with ACEI or ARB compared to other anti-hypertensive medications. METHODS: This is a retrospective study conducted at a single academic medical centre (Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy) from 1 to 31 March 2020. We compared patients on treatment with an ACEI/ARB (ACEI/ARB group) to patients receiving other anti-hypertensive medications (No-ACEI/ARB group). The end-points of the study were the all-cause in-hospital death and the combination of in-hospital death or need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission. RESULTS: The sample included 166 COVID-19 patients; median age was 74 years and 109 (66%) were men. Overall, 111 (67%) patients were taking an ACEI or ARB. Twenty-nine (17%) patients died during the hospital stay, and 51 (31%) met the combined end-point. After adjustment for comorbidities, age and degree of severity at the presentation, ACEI or ARB treatment was an independent predictor neither of in-hospital death nor of the combination of in-hospital death/need for ICU. No differences were documented between treatment with ACEI compared to ARB. CONCLUSIONS: Among hypertensive patients hospitalised for COVID-19, treatment with ACEI or ARB is not associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/administration & dosage , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/administration & dosage , COVID-19/diagnosis , Hospitalization/trends , Hypertension/diagnosis , Hypertension/drug therapy , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/adverse effects , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/adverse effects , COVID-19/epidemiology , Electronic Health Records/trends , Female , Humans , Hypertension/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies
9.
Resuscitation ; 156: 84-91, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-752905

ABSTRACT

AIMS: To identify the most accurate early warning score (EWS) for predicting an adverse outcome in COVID-19 patients admitted to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: In adult consecutive patients admitted (March 1-April 15, 2020) to the ED of a major referral centre for COVID-19, we retrospectively calculated NEWS, NEWS2, NEWS-C, MEWS, qSOFA, and REMS from physiological variables measured on arrival. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of each EWS for predicting admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and death at 48 h and 7 days were calculated. RESULTS: We included 334 patients (119 [35.6%] females, median age 66 [54-78] years). At 7 days, the rates of ICU admission and death were 56/334 (17%) and 26/334 (7.8%), respectively. NEWS was the most accurate predictor of ICU admission within 7 days (AUROC 0.783 [95% CI, 0.735-0.826]; sensitivity 71.4 [57.8-82.7]%; NPV 93.1 [89.8-95.3]%), while REMS was the most accurate predictor of death within 7 days (AUROC 0.823 [0.778-0.863]; sensitivity 96.1 [80.4-99.9]%; NPV 99.4[96.2-99.9]%). Similar results were observed for ICU admission and death at 48 h. NEWS and REMS were as accurate as the triage system used in our ED. MEWS and qSOFA had the lowest overall accuracy for both outcomes. CONCLUSION: In our single-centre cohort of COVID-19 patients, NEWS and REMS measured on ED arrival were the most sensitive predictors of 7-day ICU admission or death. EWS could be useful to identify patients with low risk of clinical deterioration.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Risk Assessment/methods , Aged , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Early Warning Score , Female , Hospital Mortality/trends , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , ROC Curve , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Survival Rate/trends , Triage
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL