ABSTRACT
The objective of this study was to investigate the accuracy of the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), Rapid Acute Physiology Score (RAPS), Worthing Physiological Scoring System (WPSS), and Revised Trauma Score (RTS) for predicting the inhospital mortality of COVID-19 patients. This diagnostic accuracy study was conducted in Tehran, Iran, from November 15, 2020, to March 10, 2021. The participants consisted of 246 confirmed cases of COVID-19 patients who were admitted to the emergency department. The patients were followed from the point of admission up until discharge from the hospital. The mortality status of patients (survivor or nonsurvivor) was reported at the discharge time, and the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of each scoring system for predicting inhospital mortality was estimated. The area under the curve of REMS was significantly higher than other scoring systems and in cutoff value of 6 and greater had a sensitivity and specificity of 89.13% and 55.50%, respectively. Among the five scoring systems employed in this study, REMS had the best accuracy to predict the inhospital mortality rate of COVID-19 patients and RAPS had the lowest accuracy for inhospital mortality. Thus, REMS is a useful tool that can be employed in identifying high-risk COVID-19 patients.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Prognosis , Iran , Emergency Service, Hospital , Sensitivity and Specificity , Hospital MortalityABSTRACT
Background: Currently, there is lack of evidence regarding the long-term follow-up of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. The aim of this study is to present a 6-month follow-up of COVID-19 patients who were discharged from hospital after their recovery. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was performed to assess the six-month follow-up of COVID-19 patients who were discharged from the hospital between February 18 and July 20, 2020. The primary outcome was 6-month all-cause mortality. Results: Data related to 614 patients were included to this study. Of these 614 patients, 48 patients died (7.8%). The cause of death in 26 patients (54.2%) was the relapse of COVID-19. Also, 44.2% of deaths happened in the first week after discharge and 74.4% in the first month. Risk factors of all-cause mortality included increase in age (odds ratio [OR]=1.09;P<0.001), increase in neutrophil percentage (OR=1.05;P=0.009) and increase in heart rate (OR=1.06;P=0.002) on the first admission. However, the risk of all-cause death was lower in patients who had higher levels of hematocrit (OR=0.93;P=0.021), oxygen saturation (OR=0.90;P=0.001) and mean arterial pressure (OR=0.93;P=0.001). In addition, increase in age (OR=1.11;P<0.001) was an independent risk factor for COVID-19-related death, while higher levels of lymphocyte percentage (OR=0.96;P=0.048), mean arterial pressure (OR=0.93;P=0.006) and arterial oxygen saturation (OR=0.91;P=0.009) were protective factors against COVID-19-related deaths during the 6-month period after discharge. Conclusion: Death is relatively common in COVID-19 patients after their discharge from hospital. In light of our findings, we suggest that elderly patients who experience a decrease in their mean arterial pressure, oxygen saturation and lymphocyte count during their hospitalization, should be discharged cautiously. In addition, we recommend that one-month follow-up of discharged patients should be take place, and urgent return to hospital should be advised when the first signs of COVID-19 relapse are observed.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The available literature regarding the rate of readmission of COVID-19 patients after discharge is rather scarce. Thus, the aim in the current study was to evaluate the readmission rate of COVID-19 patients and the components affecting it, including clinical symptoms and relevant laboratory findings. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, COVID-19 patients who were discharged from Imam Hossein hospital, Tehran, Iran, were followed for six months. Data regarding their readmission status were collected through phone calls with COVID-19 patients or their relatives, as well as hospital registry systems. Eventually, the relationship between demographic and clinical characteristics and readmission rate was assessed. Results: 614 patients were entered to the present study (mean age 58.7±27.2 years; 51.5% male). 53 patients were readmitted (8.6%), of which 47 patients (7.6%) had a readmission during the first 30 days after discharge. The reasons for readmission were relapse of COVID-19 symptoms and its pulmonary complications in 40 patients (6.5%), COVID-19 related cardiovascular complications in eight patients (1.3%), and non-COVID-19 related causes in five patients (0.8%). Older age (OR=1.04; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.06; p=0.002) and increased mean arterial pressure during the first admission (OR=1.04; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.08; p=0.022) were found to be independent prognostic factors for the readmission of COVID-19 patients. Conclusion: Readmission is relatively frequent in COVID-19 patients. Lack of adequate hospital space may be the reason behind the early discharge of COVID-19 patients. Hence, to reduce readmission rate, extra care should be directed towards the discharge of older or hypertensive patients.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Outcome prediction of intensive care unit (ICU)-admitted patients is one of the important issues for physicians. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Confusion, Urea, Respiratory Rate, Blood Pressure and Age Above or Below 65 Years (CURB-65), and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) scores in predicting the in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients. Methods: This prognostic accuracy study was performed on 225 ICU-admitted patients with a definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 from July to December 2021 in Tehran, Iran. The patients' clinical characteristics were evaluated at the time of ICU admission, and they were followed up until discharge from ICU. The screening performance characteristics of CURB-65, qSOFA, and SIRS in predicting their mortality was compared. Results: 225 patients with the mean age of 63.27±14.89 years were studied (56.89% male). The in-hospital mortality rate of this series of patients was 39.10%. The area under the curve (AUC) of SIRS, CURB-65, and qSOFA were 0.62 (95% CI: 0.55 - 0.69), 0.66 (95% CI: 0.59 - 0.73), and 0.61(95% CI: 0.54 - 0.67), respectively (p = 0.508). In cut-off ≥1, the estimated sensitivity values of SIRS, CURB-65, and qSOFA were 85.23%, 96.59%, and 78.41%, respectively. The estimated specificity of scores were 34.31%, 6.57%, and 38.69%, respectively. In cut-off ≥2, the sensitivity values of SIRS, CURB-65, and qSOFA were evaluated as 39.77%, 87.50%, and 15.91%, respectively. Meanwhile, the specificity of scores were 72.99%, 34.31%, and 92.70%. Conclusions: It seems that the performance of SIRS, CURB-65, and qSOFA is similar in predicting the ICU mortality of COVID-19 patients. However, the sensitivity of CURB-65 is higher than qSOFA and SIRS.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids on the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV). METHOD: An extensive search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Central databases until the end of March 2020, using keywords related to corticosteroids, COVID-19, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. The main outcome was considered to be the mortality rate, length of stay, virus clearance time, symptom improvement, and lung function improvement. The findings are presented as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). RESULTS: Fifteen paper compromising 5 studies on COVID-19, 8 studies on SARS-CoV and 2 studies on MERS-CoV were included. One study was clinical trial and the rest were cohort. The analyses showed that corticosteroids were not reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 (OR=1.08; 95% CI: 0.34 to 3.50) and SARS-CoV (OR=0.77; 95% CI: 0.34 to 1.3) patients, while they were associated with higher mortality rate of patients with MERS-CoV (OR = 2.52; 95% CI: 1.41 to 4.50). Moreover, it appears that corticosteroids administration would not be effective in shortening viral clearance time, length of hospitalization, and duration of relief symptoms following viral severe acute respiratory infections. CONCLUSION: There is no evidences that corticosteroids are safe and effective on the treatment of severe acute respiratory infection when COVID-19 disease is suspected. Therefore, corticosteroids prescription in COVID-19 patients should be avoided.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and chest computed tomography (CT) scan are main diagnostic modalities of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there is still no consensus on which of these methods is superior to the other. Therefore, the present meta-analysis was designed to answer to the question whether CT scan can be used in diagnosis of COVID-19 or not. METHODS: Searches were performed in Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases until the end of April 2020. Two researchers gathered the data of diagnostic accuracy studies that had attempted to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of CT scan in diagnosis of COVID-19. RESULTS: Data of 9 studies were included. Area under the curve of ground glass opacity (GGO), consolidation, pleural effusion, other CT features, and simultaneous observation of GGO with other CT features was 0.64 (95% CI 0.60-0.69), 0.30 (95% CI 0.26-0.34), 0.60 (95% CI 0.56-0.64), 0.61 (95% CI 0.56-0.65), and 0.90 (95% CI 0.87-0.92), respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of simultaneous observation of GGO with other CT scan features was higher than all of the other signs. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio of this sign was calculated to be 0.90, 0.89, and 20, respectively. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous observation of GGO and other features of viral pneumonia in CT scan had optimum performance in detection of COVID-19. However, it is suggested to make the final diagnosis based on both CT scan and RT-PCR, as none of the two diagnostic modalities are reliable alone.
ABSTRACT
COVID-19 is a novel infectious disease, which has challenged people all around the world. As of today, healthcare practitioners and researchers have made great effort to understand the characteristics and clinical presentations of the disease; however, the existing literature is still incomplete in this regard. A growing body of evidence indicates that coagulopathies and thromboembolic events are of utmost importance in COVID-19 patients and are related to poor prognosis. Here, we report three ICU admitted cases of COVID-19, in which massive pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) occurred a few days after disease onset. Unfortunately, one of the patients did not survive and two were treated; one with thrombectomy and other with antithrombotic agents. It seems that severe cases of COVID-19 are at risk for developing PTE and in-charge physicians should be prepared and plan for anticoagulant prophylaxis using low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH).
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Since there is still no definitive conclusion regarding which non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are most effective and safe in viral respiratory infections, we decided to evaluate the efficacy and safety of various NSAIDs in viral respiratory infections so that we can reach a conclusion on which NSAID is best choice for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A search was performed in Medline (via PubMed), Embase and CENTRAL databases until 23 March 2020. Clinical trials on application of NSAIDs in viral respiratory infections were included. RESULTS: Six clinical trials were included. No clinical trial has been performed on COVID-19, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome infections. Studies show that ibuprofen and naproxen not only have positive effects in controlling cold symptoms, but also do not cause serious side effects in rhinovirus infections. In addition, it was found that clarithromycin, naproxen and oseltamivir combination leads to decrease in mortality rate and duration of hospitalisation in patients with pneumonia caused by influenza. CONCLUSION: Although based on existing evidence, NSAIDs have been effective in treating respiratory infections caused by influenza and rhinovirus, since there is no clinical trial on COVID-19 and case-reports and clinical experiences are indicative of elongation of treatment duration and exacerbation of the clinical course of patients with COVID-19, it is recommended to use substitutes such as acetaminophen for controlling fever and inflammation and be cautious about using NSAIDs in management of COVID-19 patients until there are enough evidence. Naproxen may be a good choice for future clinical trials.
Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , SARS-CoV-2 , Survival Rate , COVID-19 Drug TreatmentABSTRACT
Although the findings of some studies have been indicative of the direct relationship between the severity of clinical findings and imaging, reports have been published regarding inconsistency of clinical findings with imaging and laboratory evidence. Physicians treating these patients frequently report cases in which patients, sometimes in the recovery phase and despite improvements in imaging indices, suddenly deteriorate and in some instances suddenly expire. This letter aimed to draw attention to the role of pulmonary thromboembolism as a potential and possible cause of clinical deterioration in covid-19 patients.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the current systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy of antiviral therapies in treatment of COVID-19. In addition, clinical trials on the efficacy of antiviral therapies in the management of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) or Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) have also been reviewed, in order to identify potential treatment options for COVID-19. METHOD: An extensive search was performed in Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and CENTRAL databases until the end of March 15, 2020. Two independent researchers performed the screening, and finally the related studies were included. RESULTS: Only one clinical trial on the efficacy of antiviral therapy in management of COVID-19 was found. The results depicted that adding Lopinavir-Ritonavir to the standard treatment regimen of patients with severe COVID-19 has no benefits. Moreover, 21 case-series and case-report studies reported the prescription of antiviral agents in COVID-19, none of which can be used to determine the efficacy of antiviral therapies in confronting COVID-19. In addition, no clinical trials were found to be performed on the efficacy of antiviral agents in the management of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. CONCLUSION: The current evidence impede researchers from proposing an appropriate antiviral therapy against COVID-19, making the current situation a serious concern for international organizations such as World Health Organization (WHO). In the time of the current pandemic and future epidemics, organizations such as WHO should pursue more proactive actions and plan well-designed clinical trials so that their results can be used in managing future epidemics.
ABSTRACT
Background: We aimed to examine the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids on the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV). Method: An extensive search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Central databases until the end of March 2020, using keywords related to corticosteroids, COVID-19, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. The main outcome was considered to be the mortality rate, length of stay, virus clearance time, symptom improvement, and lung function improvement. The findings are presented as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Results: Fifteen paper compromising 5 studies on COVID-19, 8 studies on SARS-CoV and 2 studies on MERS-CoV were included. One study was clinical trial and the rest were cohort. The analyses showed that corticosteroids were not reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 (OR=1.08;95% CI: 0.34 to 3.50) and SARS-CoV (OR=0.77;95% CI: 0.34 to 1.3) patients, while they were associated with higher mortality rate of patients with MERS-CoV (OR = 2.52;95% CI: 1.41 to 4.50). Moreover, it appears that corticosteroids administration would not be effective in shortening viral clearance time, length of hospitalization, and duration of relief symptoms following viral severe acute respiratory infections. Conclusion: There is no evidences that corticosteroids are safe and effective on the treatment of severe acute respiratory infection when COVID-19 disease is suspected. Therefore, corticosteroids prescription in COVID-19 patients should be avoided.