Predictors of in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients and the role of telemetry in an internal medicine ward during the third phase of the pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The first pandemic phase of COVID-19 in Italy was characterized by high in-hospital mortality ranging from 23% to 38%. During the third pandemic phase there has been an improvement in the management and treatment of COVID-19, so mortality and predictors may have changed. A prospective study was planned to identify predictors of mortality during the third pandemic phase. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 15 December 2020 to 15 May 2021, 208 patients were hospitalized (median age: 64 years; males: 58.6%); 83% had a median of 2 (IQR,1-4) comorbidities; pneumonia was present in 89.8%. Patients were monitored remotely for respiratory function and ECG trace for 24 hours/day. Management and treatment were done following the timing and dosage recommended by international guidelines. RESULTS: 79.2% of patients necessitated O2-therapy. ARDS was present in 46.1% of patients and 45.4% received non-invasive ventilation and 11.1% required ICU treatment. 38% developed arrhythmias which were identified early by telemetry and promptly treated. The in-hospital mortality rate was 10%. At multivariate analysis independent predictors of mortality were: older age (R-R for≥70 years: 5.44), number of comorbidities ≥3 (R-R 2.72), eGFR ≤60 ml/min (RR 2.91), high d-Dimer (R-R for≥1,000 ng/ml:7.53), and low PaO2/FiO2 (R-R for <200: 3.21). CONCLUSIONS: Management and treatment adherence to recommendations, use of telemetry, and no overcrowding appear to reduce mortality. Advanced age, number of comorbidities, severe renal failure, high d-Dimer and low P/F remain predictors of poor outcome. The data help to identify current high-risk COVID-19 patients in whom management has yet to be optimized, who require the greatest therapeutic effort, and subjects in whom vaccination is mandatory.

How did COVID-19 affect medical and cardiology journals? A pandemic in literature.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The spreading speed of the COVID-19 pandemic forced the medical community to produce efforts in updating and sharing the evidence about this new disease, trying to preserve the accuracy of the data but at the same time avoiding the potentially harmful delay from discovery to implementation. The aim of our analysis was to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical literature in terms of proportion of COVID-19-related published papers and temporal patterns of publications within a sample of general/internal medicine and cardiology journals. METHODS: We searched through PubMed scientific papers published from 1 January 2020 to 31 January 2021 about COVID-19 in ten major medical journals, of which five were in general/internal medicine and five in the cardiology field. We analyzed the proportion of COVID-19-related papers, and we examined temporal trends in the number of published papers. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of COVID-19-related papers was 18.5% (1986/10 756). This proportion was higher among the five selected general/internal medicine journals, compared with cardiology journals (23.8% vs 9.5%). The vast majority of papers were not original articles; in particular, in cardiology journals, there were 28% 'original articles', 17% 'review articles' and 55.1% 'miscellaneous', compared with 20.2%, 5.1% and 74.7% in general/internal medicine journals, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis highlights the big impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on international scientific literature. General and internal medicine journals were mainly involved, with cardiology journals only at a later time.

Reorganising for COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review of Structural Modifications by the Department of Internal Medicine in Low to Middle-income Countries.

Scientists classified the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as a novel coronavirus on January 7, 2020. The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged the SARS-CoV-2 outburst a public health emergency of international concern on January 30, 2020. Since its origin, this virus has disrupted the best healthcare systems, economies, and strained financial resources; and for underdeveloped countries' healthcare systems, the virus has become a crisis. To tackle the potential hazards from this virus, our Department restructured the services that not only helped us to cope with the pandemic, but also provided an example to copy for other contemporary institutes. This article aims to describe the measures and structural changes undertaken by the Internal Medicine Department, Aga Khan University Hospital (AKUH), Karachi, Pakistan. Key Words: COVID-19, Internal medicine, Structural modifications, Pandemic.

Impact of COVID-19 on liver function: results from an internal medicine unit in Northern Italy.

Little is known regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical spectrum in non-Asian populations. We herein describe the impact of COVID-19 on liver function in 100 COVID-19 consecutive patients (median age 70 years, range 25-97; 79 males) who were admitted to our internal medicine unit in March 2020. We retrospectively assessed liver function tests, taking into account demographic characteristics and clinical outcome. A patient was considered as having liver injury when alanine aminotransferase (ALT) was > 50 mU/ml, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) > 50 mU/ml, or total bilirubin > 1.1 mg/dl. Spearman correlation coefficient for laboratory data and bivariable analysis for mortality and/or need for intensive care were assessed. A minority of patients (18.6%) were obese, and most patients were non- or moderate-drinkers (88.5%). Liver function tests were altered in 62.4% of patients, and improved during follow-up. None of the seven patients with known chronic liver disease had liver decompensation. Only one patient developed acute liver failure. In patients with altered liver function tests, PaO2/FiO2 < 200 was associated with greater mortality and need for intensive care (HR 2.34, 95% CI 1.07-5.11, p = 0.033). To conclude, a high prevalence of altered liver function tests was noticed in Italian patients with COVID-19, and this was associated with worse outcomes when developing severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.