Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
Front Cardiovasc Med ; 8: 645587, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1268240


Background: Increasing evidence points to cardiac injury (CI) as a common coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related complication. The characteristics of early CI (occurred within 72 h of admission) and late CI (occurred after 72 h of admission) and its association with mortality in COVID-19 patients is unknown. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients confirmed with COVID-19 in Union Hospital (Wuhan, China) from Jan 29th to Mar 15th, 2020. Clinical outcomes (discharge, or death) were monitored to April 15, 2020, the latest date of follow-up. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, as well as treatment and prognosis were collected and analyzed in patients with early, late CI and without CI. Results: A total of 196 COVID-19 patients were included for analysis. The median age was 65 years [interquartile range (IQR) 56-73 years], and 112 (57.1%) were male. Of the 196 COVID-19 patients, 49 (25.0%) patients had early and 20 (10.2%) patients had late CI, 56.6% developed Acute-Respiratory-Distress-Syndrome (ARDS) and 43 (21.9%) patients died. Patients with any CI were more likely to have developed ARDS (87.0 vs. 40.2%) and had a higher in-hospital mortality than those without (52.2 vs. 5.5%, P < 0.001). Among CI subtypes, a significantly higher risk of in-hospital death was found in patients with early CI with recurrence [19/49 patients, adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 7.184, 95% CI 1.472-35.071] and patients with late CI (adjusted OR = 5.019, 95% CI 1.125-22.388) compared to patients with early CI but no recurrence. Conclusions: CI can occur early on or late after, the initial 72 h of admission and is associated with ARDS and an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. Both late CI and recurrent CI after the initial episode were associated with worse outcomes than patients with early CI alone. This study highlights the importance of early examination and periodical monitoring of cardiac biomarkers, especially for patients with early CI or at risk of clinical deterioration.

Circulation ; 142(2):114-128, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-684109


BACKGROUND: To investigate deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we performed a single institutional study to evaluate its prevalence, risk factors, prognosis, and potential thromboprophylaxis strategies in a large referral and treatment center. METHODS: We studied a total of 143 patients with COVID-19 from January 29, 2020 to February 29, 2020. Demographic and clinical data, laboratory data, including ultrasound scans of the lower extremities, and outcome variables were obtained, and comparisons were made between groups with and without DVT. RESULTS: Of the 143 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (age 63±14 years, 74 [51.7%] men), 66 patients developed lower extremity DVT (46.1%: 23 [34.8%] with proximal DVT and 43 [65.2%] with distal DVT). Compared with patients who did not have DVT, patients with DVT were older and had a lower oxygenation index, a higher rate of cardiac injury, and worse prognosis, including an increased proportion of deaths (23 [34.8%] versus 9 [11.7%];P=0.001) and a decreased proportion of patients discharged (32 [48.5%] versus 60 [77.9%];P<0.001). Multivariant analysis showed an association only between CURB-65 (confusion status, urea, respiratory rate, and blood pressure) score 3 to 5 (odds ratio, 6.122;P=0.031), Padua prediction score ≥4 (odds ratio, 4.016;P=0.04), D-dimer >1.0 µg/mL (odds ratio, 5.818;P<0.014), and DVT in this cohort, respectively. The combination of a CURB-65 score 3 to 5, a Padua prediction score ≥4, and D-dimer >1.0 µg/mL has a sensitivity of 88.52% and a specificity of 61.43% for screening for DVT. In the subgroup of patients with a Padua prediction score ≥4 and whose ultrasound scans were performed >72 hours after admission, DVT was present in 18 (34.0%) patients in the subgroup receiving venous thromboembolism prophylaxis versus 35 (66.0%) patients in the nonprophylaxis group (P=0.010). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of DVT is high and is associated with adverse outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism may be protective in patients with a Padua protection score ≥4 after admission. Our data seem to suggest that COVID-19 is probably an additional risk factor for DVT in hospitalized patients.