Comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe/critical illness in the first wave versus the second wave.

Due to current advances and growing experience in the management of coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), the outcome of COVID-19 patients with severe/critical illness would be expected to be better in the second wave compared with the first wave. As our hospitalization criteria changed in the second wave, we aimed to investigate whether a favorable outcome occurred in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with only severe/critical illness. Among 642 laboratory-confirmed hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the first wave and 1121 in the second wave, those who met World Health Organization (WHO) definitions for severe or critical illness on admission or during follow-up were surveyed. Data on demographics, comorbidities, C-reactive protein (CRP) levels on admission, and outcomes were obtained from an electronic hospital database. Univariate analysis was performed to compare the characteristics of patients in the first and second waves. There were 228 (35.5%) patients with severe/critical illness in the first wave and 681 (60.7%) in the second wave. Both groups were similar in terms of age, gender, and comorbidities, other than chronic kidney disease. Median serum CRP levels were significantly higher in patients in the second wave compared with those in the first wave [109 mg/L (interquartile range [IQR]: 65-157) vs. 87 mg/L (IQR: 39-140); p < 0.001]. However, intensive care unit admission and mortality rates were similar among the waves. Even though a lower mortality rate in the second wave has been reported in previous studies, including all hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we found similar demographics and outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe/critical illness in the first and second wave.

Diagnosis of the coronavirus disease 2019 with chest computed tomography: A retrospective inter-observer agreement study between radiologists and clinicians

Background:Effective triage and early detection are very important for the control and treatment of coronavirus disease 2019. For this purpose, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and chest computed tomography are used in emergency departments.Objective:The aim of the study was to examine the diagnostic performance of computed tomography and to compare the inter-observer agreement among radiologists and between clinicians, in a coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia high-prevalence area.Methods:After exclusions, 534 patients were retrospectively included in this study. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction was considered as gold standard for diagnosis. All computed tomography images were independently reviewed by two radiologists who were blinded to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction results and other clinical information. Each computed tomography scan was scored in four categories as typical, intermediate, atypical, and negative, regarding coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia according to Radiological Society of North America guideline. As for the evaluation of the diagnostic performance, typical and intermediate appearances were accepted as positive for coronavirus disease 2019. In addition, the computed tomography scans were scored by two clinicians as coronavirus disease 2019 positive and negative.Results:The study group included 534 patients after the exclusion criteria. As a result of the repeated reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests, 396 (74%) patients were diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019, 138 (26%) patients had a negative result and were evaluated as a control group. When the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction results were referenced as the gold standard;the accuracy rates of radiologists and clinicians (R1, R2, C1, and C2) in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 were 78%, 79%, 73%, and 71%, their sensitivity rates were 83%, 83%, 74%, and 75%, and the negative predictive values were 57%, 58%, 49%, and 46%, respectively. Inter-observer agreements among the reviewers ranged from good to excellent.Conclusions:Radiological Society of North America guideline related to coronavirus disease 2019 has excellent inter-observer agreement among chest radiologists. In this study, radiologists and clinicians have presented similar and good diagnostic performances in the evaluation of coronavirus disease 2019?suspected patients with chest computed tomography in high-epidemic area.

Performance of pneumonia severity index and CURB-65 in predicting 30-day mortality in patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to analyze the usefulness of CURB-65 and the pneumonia severity index (PSI) in predicting 30-day mortality in patients with COVID-19, and to identify other factors associated with higher mortality. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed in a pandemic hospital in Istanbul, Turkey, which included 681 laboratory-confirmed patients with COVID-19. Data on characteristics, vital signs, and laboratory parameters were recorded from electronic medical records. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to quantify the discriminatory abilities of the prognostic scales. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify other predictors of mortality. RESULTS: Higher CRP levels were associated with an increased risk for mortality (OR: 1.015, 95% CI: 1.008-1.021; p < 0.001). The PSI performed significantly better than CURB-65 (AUC: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.88-0.93 vs AUC: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.85-0.90; p = 0.01), and the addition of CRP levels to PSI did not improve the performance of PSI in predicting mortality (AUC: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.88-0.93 vs AUC: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.89-0.94; p = 0.29). CONCLUSION: In a large group of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we found that PSI performed better than CURB-65 in predicting mortality. Adding CRP levels to PSI did not improve the 30-day mortality prediction.