Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ; 12: 747732, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1598924

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate the association between overweight and obesity on the clinical course and outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Design: Retrospective, observational cohort study. Methods: We performed a multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study of hospitalized COVID-19 patients to evaluate the associations between overweight and obesity on the clinical course and outcomes. Results: Out of 1634 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 473 (28.9%) had normal weight, 669 (40.9%) were overweight, and 492 (30.1%) were obese. Patients who were overweight or had obesity were younger, and there were more women in the obese group. Normal-weight patients more often had pre-existing conditions such as malignancy, or were organ recipients. During admission, patients who were overweight or had obesity had an increased probability of acute respiratory distress syndrome [OR 1.70 (1.26-2.30) and 1.40 (1.01-1.96)], respectively and acute kidney failure [OR 2.29 (1.28-3.76) and 1.92 (1.06-3.48)], respectively. Length of hospital stay was similar between groups. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 27.7%, and multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that overweight and obesity were not associated with increased mortality compared to normal-weight patients. Conclusion: In this study, overweight and obesity were associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute kidney injury, but not with in-hospital mortality nor length of hospital stay.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Obesity/complications , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/complications , Aged , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Discharge , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
2.
Chest ; 159(3): 1126-1135, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1099074

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: CT is thought to play a key role in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnostic workup. The possibility of comparing data across different settings depends on the systematic and reproducible manner in which the scans are analyzed and reported. The COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) and the corresponding CT severity score (CTSS) introduced by the Radiological Society of the Netherlands (NVvR) attempt to do so. However, this system has not been externally validated. RESEARCH QUESTION: We aimed to prospectively validate the CO-RADS as a COVID-19 diagnostic tool at the ED and to evaluate whether the CTSS is associated with prognosis. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study in two tertiary centers in The Netherlands, between March 19 and May 28, 2020. We consecutively included 741 adult patients at the ED with suspected COVID-19, who received a chest CT and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) PCR (PCR). Diagnostic accuracy measures were calculated for CO-RADS, using PCR as reference. Logistic regression was performed for CTSS in relation to hospital admission, ICU admission, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Seven hundred forty-one patients were included. We found an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.91 (CI, 0.89-0.94) for CO-RADS using PCR as reference. The optimal CO-RADS cutoff was 4, with a sensitivity of 89.4% (CI, 84.7-93.0) and specificity of 87.2% (CI, 83.9-89.9). We found a significant association between CTSS and hospital admission, ICU admission, and 30-day mortality; adjusted ORs per point increase in CTSS were 1.19 (CI, 1.09-1.28), 1.23 (1.15-1.32), 1.14 (1.07-1.22), respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients for CO-RADS and CTSS were 0.94 (0.91-0.96) and 0.82 (0.70-0.90). INTERPRETATION: Our findings support the use of CO-RADS and CTSS in triage, diagnosis, and management decisions for patients presenting with possible COVID-19 at the ED.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral , Radiology Information Systems , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Clinical Decision-Making , Evaluation Studies as Topic , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Netherlands/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/etiology , Prognosis , Radiology Information Systems/organization & administration , Radiology Information Systems/standards , Research Design/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data
3.
ERJ Open Res ; 6(4)2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1029219

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In this coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, fast and accurate testing is needed to profile patients at the emergency department (ED) and efficiently allocate resources. Chest imaging has been considered in COVID-19 workup, but evidence on lung ultrasound (LUS) is sparse. We therefore aimed to assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of LUS and computed tomography (CT) in suspected COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This multicentre, prospective, observational study included adult patients with suspected COVID-19 referred to internal medicine at the ED. We calculated diagnostic accuracy measures for LUS and CT using both PCR and multidisciplinary team (MDT) diagnosis as reference. We also assessed agreement between LUS and CT, and between sonographers. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-seven patients were recruited between March 19 and May 4, 2020. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) was 0.81 (95% CI 0.75-0.88) for LUS and 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.94) for CT. Sensitivity and specificity for LUS were 91.9% (95% CI 84.0-96.7) and 71.0% (95% CI 61.1-79.6), respectively, versus 88.4% (95% CI 79.7-94.3) and 82.0% (95% CI 73.1-89.0) for CT. Negative likelihood ratio was 0.1 (95% CI 0.06-0.24) for LUS and 0.14 (95% CI 0.08-0.3) for CT. No patient with a false negative LUS required supplemental oxygen or admission. LUS specificity increased to 80% (95% CI 69.9-87.9) compared to MDT diagnosis, with an AUROC of 0.85 (95% CI 0.79-0.91). Agreement between LUS and CT was 0.65. Interobserver agreement for LUS was good: 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.93). CONCLUSION: LUS and CT have comparable diagnostic accuracy for COVID-19 pneumonia. LUS can safely exclude clinically relevant COVID-19 pneumonia and may aid COVID-19 diagnosis in high prevalence situations.

5.
J Thromb Haemost ; 18(8): 1995-2002, 2020 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-186482

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to systemic coagulation activation and thrombotic complications. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence of objectively confirmed venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Single-center cohort study of 198 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients (38%) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). At time of data collection, 16 (8%) were still hospitalized and 19% had died. During a median follow-up of 7 days (IQR, 3-13), 39 patients (20%) were diagnosed with VTE of whom 25 (13%) had symptomatic VTE, despite routine thrombosis prophylaxis. The cumulative incidences of VTE at 7, 14 and 21 days were 16% (95% CI, 10-22), 33% (95% CI, 23-43) and 42% (95% CI 30-54) respectively. For symptomatic VTE, these were 10% (95% CI, 5.8-16), 21% (95% CI, 14-30) and 25% (95% CI 16-36). VTE appeared to be associated with death (adjusted HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.02-5.5). The cumulative incidence of VTE was higher in the ICU (26% (95% CI, 17-37), 47% (95% CI, 34-58), and 59% (95% CI, 42-72) at 7, 14 and 21 days) than on the wards (any VTE and symptomatic VTE 5.8% (95% CI, 1.4-15), 9.2% (95% CI, 2.6-21), and 9.2% (2.6-21) at 7, 14, and 21 days). CONCLUSIONS: The observed risk for VTE in COVID-19 is high, particularly in ICU patients, which should lead to a high level of clinical suspicion and low threshold for diagnostic imaging for DVT or PE. Future research should focus on optimal diagnostic and prophylactic strategies to prevent VTE and potentially improve survival.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/blood , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , Pulmonary Embolism/epidemiology , Venous Thromboembolism/epidemiology , Venous Thrombosis/epidemiology , Aged , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Biomarkers , COVID-19 , Catheterization, Central Venous/adverse effects , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Female , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/analysis , Humans , Incidence , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands/epidemiology , Patients' Rooms/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pulmonary Embolism/blood , Pulmonary Embolism/diagnostic imaging , Pulmonary Embolism/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Thrombophilia/drug therapy , Thrombophilia/etiology , Thrombophlebitis/epidemiology , Thrombophlebitis/etiology , Venous Thromboembolism/blood , Venous Thromboembolism/diagnostic imaging , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , Venous Thrombosis/blood , Venous Thrombosis/diagnostic imaging , Venous Thrombosis/etiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL