Clinical frailty, and not features of acute infection, is associated with late mortality in COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with excess mortality after hospital discharge. Identification of patients at increased risk of death following hospital discharge is needed to guide clinical monitoring and early intervention. Herein, we aimed to identify predictors of early vs. late mortality in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A total of 471 patients with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 were followed up for 9 months [median (inter-quartile range) of follow-up time: 271 (14) days] after hospital admission. COVID-19-related signs and symptoms, laboratory features, co-morbidities, Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (4C) mortality and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) scores were analysed by logistic regression for association with early (28 day) vs. late mortality. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to determine the discriminative value of 4C and CFS scores for early vs. late mortality. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients died within 28 days from hospital admission. Of the remaining 351 patients, 41 died within the next 8 months. Respiratory failure, systemic inflammation, and renal impairment were associated with early mortality, while active cancer and dementia were associated with late mortality, after adjustment for age and sex. 4C mortality score and CFS were associated with both early [odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval-CI): 4C: 1.34 (1.25-1.45); CFS: 1.49 (1.33-1.66)] and late [OR (95% CI): 4C: 1.23 (1.12-1.36); CFS: 2.04 (1.62-2.56)] mortality. After adjustment for CFS, the association between 4C and late mortality was lost. By ROC analysis, 4C mortality score was superior to CFS for 28 day mortality [area under the curve (AUC) (95% CI): 0.779 (0.732-0.825) vs. 0.723 (0.673-0.773), respectively; P = 0.039]. In contrast, CFS had higher predictive value for late mortality compared with 4C mortality score [AUC (95% CI): 0.830 (0.776-0.883) vs. 0.724 (0.650-0.798), respectively; P = 0.007]. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, late mortality in COVID-19 patients is more strongly associated with premorbid clinical frailty than with severity of the acute infection phase.

Estimated pulse wave velocity improves risk stratification for all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19.

Accurate risk stratification in COVID-19 patients consists a major clinical need to guide therapeutic strategies. We sought to evaluate the prognostic role of estimated pulse wave velocity (ePWV), a marker of arterial stiffness which reflects overall arterial integrity and aging, in risk stratification of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. This retrospective, longitudinal cohort study, analyzed a total population of 1671 subjects consisting of 737 hospitalized COVID-19 patients consecutively recruited from two tertiary centers (Newcastle cohort: n = 471 and Pisa cohort: n = 266) and a non-COVID control cohort (n = 934). Arterial stiffness was calculated using validated formulae for ePWV. ePWV progressively increased across the control group, COVID-19 survivors and deceased patients (adjusted mean increase per group 1.89 m/s, P < 0.001). Using a machine learning approach, ePWV provided incremental prognostic value and improved reclassification for mortality over the core model including age, sex and comorbidities [AUC (core model + ePWV vs. core model) = 0.864 vs. 0.755]. ePWV provided similar prognostic value when pulse pressure or hs-Troponin were added to the core model or over its components including age and mean blood pressure (p < 0.05 for all). The optimal prognostic ePWV value was 13.0 m/s. ePWV conferred additive discrimination (AUC: 0.817 versus 0.779, P < 0.001) and reclassification value (NRI = 0.381, P < 0.001) over the 4C Mortality score, a validated score for predicting mortality in COVID-19 and the Charlson comorbidity index. We suggest that calculation of ePWV, a readily applicable estimation of arterial stiffness, may serve as an additional clinical tool to refine risk stratification of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 beyond established risk factors and scores.

COVID-19 Management in a UK NHS Foundation Trust with a High Consequence Infectious Diseases Centre: A Retrospective Analysis.

Recent large national and international cohorts describe the baseline characteristics and outcome of hospitalised patients with COVID-19, however there is limited granularity to these reports. We aimed to provide a detailed description of a UK COVID-19 cohort, focusing on management and outcome. We performed a retrospective single-centre analysis of clinical management and 28-day outcomes of consecutive adult inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 from 31 January to 16 April 2020 inclusive. In total, 316 cases were identified. Most patients were elderly (median age 75) with multiple comorbidities. One quarter were admitted from residential or nursing care. Mortality was 84 out of 316 (26.6%). Most deaths occurred in patients in whom a ceiling of inpatient treatment had been determined and for whom end of life care and specialist palliative care input was provided where appropriate. No deaths occurred in patients aged under 56 years. Decisions to initiate respiratory support were individualised after consideration of patient wishes, premorbid frailty and comorbidities. In total, 59 (18%) patients were admitted to intensive care, of which 31 (10% overall cohort) required intubation. Multiple logistic regression identified associations between death and age, frailty, and disease severity, with age as the most significant factor (odds ratio 1.07 [95% CI 1.03-1.10] per year increase, p < 0.001). These findings provide important clinical context to outcome data. Mortality was associated with increasing age. Most deaths were anticipated and occurred in patients with advance decisions on ceilings of treatment.