One-year readmissions for circulatory diseases and in-hospital mortality after an index episode of heart failure in elderly patients. A nationwide data from public hospitals in Spain between 2016 and 2018.

INTRODUCTION: Heart failure (HF) is one of the leading causes of hospitalization and death in elderly patients. However, there is limited evidence on readmission and mortality 1-year after discharge for HF. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the Minimum Basic Data Set, including HF episodes, discharged from Spanish hospitals between 2016 and 2018 in ≥ 75 years. We calculated: (a) the rate of readmissions due to circulatory system diseases (CSD) 365 days after index episode; (b) in-hospital mortality in readmissions; and (c) predictors of mortality and readmission. RESULTS: We included 178,523 patients (59.2% women) aged 85.1 ± 5.5 years. The most frequent comorbidities were arrhythmias (56.0%) and renal failure (39.5%). During the follow-up, 48,932 patients (27.4%) had at least one readmission for CSD and a crude rate of 40.2%, the most frequent one HF (52.8%). The median between the date of readmission and discharge from the last admission was 70 days [IQI 24; 171] for the first readmission. The most relevant predictors of the number of readmissions were valvular heart disease and myocardial ischemia. During the readmissions, 26,757 patients (79.1%) died, representing a cumulative in-hospital mortality of 47,945 (26.9%). The factors in the index episode predictors of mortality during readmissions were cardio-respiratory failure and stroke. The number of readmissions was a risk factor for in-hospital mortality (OR 1.13; 95% CI 1.11-1.14). CONCLUSIONS: The readmission rate for CSD 1-year after the index episode of HF in patients ≥ 75 years was 28.4%. The cumulative in-hospital mortality rate during the readmissions was 26.9%, and the number of rehospitalizations was identified as one of the main predictors of mortality.

Comprehensive Assessment of Myocardial Ischemia Mechanisms in the Catheterization Laboratory: Design and Rationale of the Advanced Invasive Diagnosis Strategy for Patients with Stable Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Coronary ANGIOgraphy - the AID-ANGIO Study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic yield of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) to identify obstructive coronary artery disease in the context of chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is very low. Furthermore, myocardial ischemia may have a non-obstructive origin, which cannot be detected by ICA. METHODS: AID-ANGIO is an observational, prospective, single-cohort, multicenter study, intended to evaluate the diagnostic yield of adopting a hierarchical strategy to assess obstructive and non-obstructive causes of myocardial ischemia in an all-comers population of patients with CCS at the time of ICA. The primary endpoint will investigate the additional diagnostic value of such strategy over angiography alone regarding the identification of ischemia-generating mechanisms. SUMMARY: An estimated sample of consecutive 260 patients with CCS referred by their clinicians to ICA, will be enrolled. In a stepwise manner, a conventional ICA will be performed as the initial diagnostic tool. Those patients with severe-grade stenosis will not undergo further assessment and an obstructive origin for myocardial ischemia will be assumed. Subsequently, the remainder with intermediate-grade stenosis will be assessed with pressure guidewires. Those with a negative result from physiological evaluation and those without epicardial coronary stenosis will be further studied for ischemia of non-obstructive origin, including microvascular dysfunction and vasomotor disorders. The study will be conducted in two steps. Firstly, ICA images will be displayed to patient's referring clinicians, who will be asked to identify the existent epicardial stenosis, their angiographic severity and probable physiological relevance, together with a tentative therapeutic approach. Then, the diagnostic algorithm will continue to be applied and, considering the whole gathered information, a definite therapeutic plan will be consensually established by the interventional cardiologist and patient's referring clinicians. CONCLUSION: The AID-ANGIO study will assess the additional diagnostic yield of a hierarchical strategy over ICA alone to identify ischemia-generating mechanisms in patients with CCS and its impact on therapeutic approach. Positive results of the study might support a streamlined invasive diagnostic process for patients with CCS.

Chronic Oral Anticoagulation Therapy and Prognosis of Patients Admitted to Hospital for COVID-19: Insights from the HOPE COVID-19 Registry.

Background: Most evidence regarding anticoagulation and COVID-19 refers to the hospitalization setting, but the role of oral anticoagulation (OAC) before hospital admission has not been well explored. We compared clinical outcomes and short-term prognosis between patients with and without prior OAC therapy who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods: Analysis of the whole cohort of the HOPE COVID-19 Registry which included patients discharged (deceased or alive) after hospital admission for COVID-19 in 9 countries. All-cause mortality was the primary endpoint. Study outcomes were compared after adjusting variables using propensity score matching (PSM) analyses. Results: 7698 patients were suitable for the present analysis (675 (8.8%) on OAC at admission: 427 (5.6%) on VKAs and 248 (3.2%) on DOACs). After PSM, 1276 patients were analyzed (638 with OAC; 638 without OAC), without significant differences regarding the risk of thromboembolic events (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.59-2.08). The risk of clinically relevant bleeding (OR 3.04, 95% CI 1.92-4.83), as well as the risk of mortality (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.47; log-rank p value = 0.041), was significantly increased in previous OAC users. Amongst patients on prior OAC only, there were no differences in the risk of clinically relevant bleeding, thromboembolic events, or mortality when comparing previous VKA or DOAC users, after PSM. Conclusion: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients on prior OAC therapy had a higher risk of mortality and worse clinical outcomes compared to patients without prior OAC therapy, even after adjusting for comorbidities using a PSM. There were no differences in clinical outcomes in patients previously taking VKAs or DOACs. This trial is registered with NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

Aspirin Therapy on Prophylactic Anticoagulation for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis of the HOPE-COVID-19 Registry.

Background COVID-19 is an infectious illness, featured by an increased risk of thromboembolism. However, no standard antithrombotic therapy is currently recommended for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of additional therapy with aspirin over prophylactic anticoagulation (PAC) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and its impact on survival. Methods and Results A total of 8168 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were enrolled in a multicenter-international prospective registry (HOPE COVID-19). Clinical data and in-hospital complications, including mortality, were recorded. Study population included patients treated with PAC or with PAC and aspirin. A comparison of clinical outcomes between patients treated with PAC versus PAC and aspirin was performed using an adjusted analysis with propensity score matching. Of 7824 patients with complete data, 360 (4.6%) received PAC and aspirin and 2949 (37.6%) PAC. Propensity-score matching yielded 298 patients from each group. In the propensity score-matched population, cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with PAC and aspirin versus PAC (15% versus 21%, Log Rank P=0.01). At multivariable analysis in propensity matched population of patients with COVID-19, including age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, kidney failure, and invasive ventilation, aspirin treatment was associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; [95% CI 0.42-0.92], P=0.018). Conclusions Combination PAC and aspirin was associated with lower mortality risk among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in a propensity score matched population compared to PAC alone.

Thalassaemia is paradoxically associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital complications and mortality in COVID-19: Data from an international registry.

Although numerous patient-specific co-factors have been shown to be associated with worse outcomes in COVID-19, the prognostic value of thalassaemic syndromes in COVID-19 patients remains poorly understood. We studied the outcomes of 137 COVID-19 patients with a history of transfusion-dependent thalassaemia (TDT) and transfusion independent thalassaemia (TIT) extracted from a large international cohort and compared them with the outcomes from a matched cohort of COVID-19 patients with no history of thalassaemia. The mean age of thalassaemia patients included in our study was 41 ± 16 years (48.9% male). Almost 81% of these patients suffered from TDT requiring blood transfusions on a regular basis. 38.7% of patients were blood group O. Cardiac iron overload was documented in 6.8% of study patients, whereas liver iron overload was documented in 35% of study patients. 40% of thalassaemia patients had a history of splenectomy. 27.7% of study patients required hospitalization due to COVID-19 infection. Amongst the hospitalized patients, one patient died (0.7%) and one patient required intubation. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was required in almost 5% of study patients. After adjustment for age-, sex- and other known risk factors (cardiac disease, kidney disease and pulmonary disease), the rate of in-hospital complications (supplemental oxygen use, admission to an intensive care unit for CPAP therapy or intubation) and all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the thalassaemia group compared to the matched cohort with no history of thalassaemia. Amongst thalassaemia patients in general, the TIT group exhibited a higher rate of hospitalization compared to the TDT group (p = 0.001). In addition, the rate of complications such as acute kidney injury and need for supplemental oxygen was significantly higher in the TIT group compared to the TDT group. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, age and history of heart or kidney disease were all found to be independent risk factors for increased in-hospital, all-cause mortality, whereas the presence of thalassaemia (either TDT or TIT) was found to be independently associated with reduced all-cause mortality. The presence of thalassaemia in COVID-19 patients was independently associated with lower in-hospital, all-cause mortality and few in-hospital complications in our study. The pathophysiology of this is unclear and needs to be studied in vitro and in animal models.

Predictors of poor prognosis in healthy, young, individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infections.

OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of poor prognosis in previously healthy young individuals admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We studied a cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. All patients without co-morbidities, without usual treatments and ≤65 years old were selected from an international registry (HOPE-COVID-19, NCT04334291). We focused on baseline variables-symptoms and signs at admission-to analyse risk factors for poor prognosis. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse clinical events during hospitalization including mortality, mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen therapy, prone, sepsis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome and embolic events. RESULTS: Overall, 773 healthy young patients were included. The primary composite end point was observed in 29% (225/773) and the overall mortality rate was 3.6% (28/773). In the combined event group, 75% (168/225) of patients were men and the mean age was 49 (±11) years, whereas in the non-combined event group, the prevalence of male gender was 43% (238/548) and the mean age was 42 (±13) years (p < 0.001 for both). On admission, respiratory insufficiency and cough were described in 51.4% (114/222) and 76% (170/223) of patients, respectively, in the combined event group, versus 7.9% (42/533) and 56% (302/543) of patients in the other group (p < 0.001 for both). The strongest independent predictor for the combined end point was desaturation (Spo2 <92%) (OR 5.40; 95% CI 3.34-8.75; p < 0.001), followed by tachypnoea (OR 3.17; 95% CI 1.93-5.21; p < 0.001), male gender (OR 3.01; 95% CI 1.96-4.61; p < 0.001) and pulmonary infiltrates on chest X-ray at admission (OR 2.21; 95% CI 1.18-4.16; p 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Major adverse clinical events were unexpectedly high considering the baseline characteristics of the cohort. Signs of respiratory compromise at admission and male gender, were predictive for poor prognosis among young healthy patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Antiplatelet therapy and outcome in COVID-19: the Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation Registry.

BACKGROUND: Standard therapy for COVID-19 is continuously evolving. Autopsy studies showed high prevalence of platelet-fibrin-rich microthrombi in several organs. The aim of the study was therefore to evaluate the safety and efficacy of antiplatelet therapy (APT) in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and its impact on survival. METHODS: 7824 consecutive patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in a multicentre international prospective registry (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation-COVID-19 Registry). Clinical data and in-hospital complications were recorded. Data on APT, including aspirin and other antiplatelet drugs, were obtained for each patient. RESULTS: During hospitalisation, 730 (9%) patients received single APT (93%, n=680) or dual APT (7%, n=50). Patients treated with APT were older (74±12 years vs 63±17 years, p<0.01), more frequently male (68% vs 57%, p<0.01) and had higher prevalence of diabetes (39% vs 16%, p<0.01). Patients treated with APT showed no differences in terms of in-hospital mortality (18% vs 19%, p=0.64), need for invasive ventilation (8.7% vs 8.5%, p=0.88), embolic events (2.9% vs 2.5% p=0.34) and bleeding (2.1% vs 2.4%, p=0.43), but had shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (8±5 days vs 11±7 days, p=0.01); however, when comparing patients with APT versus no APT and no anticoagulation therapy, APT was associated with lower mortality rates (log-rank p<0.01, relative risk 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.94). On multivariable analysis, in-hospital APT was associated with lower mortality risk (relative risk 0.39, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.48, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: APT during hospitalisation for COVID-19 could be associated with lower mortality risk and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, without increased risk of bleeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04334291.

Clinical Profile and Prognosis of a Real-World Cohort of Patients With Moderate or Severe Cancer Therapy-Induced Cardiac Dysfunction.

Introduction and Objectives: Cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) is a common cause of cancer treatment withdrawal, related to the poor outcomes. The cardiac-specific treatment could recover the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We analyzed the clinical profile and prognosis of patients with CTRCD in a real-world scenario. Methods: A retrospective study that include all the cancer patients diagnosed with CTRCD, defined as LVEF < 50%. We analyzed the cardiac and oncologic treatments, the predictors of mortality and LVEF recovery, hospital admission, and the causes of mortality (cardiovascular (CV), non-CV, and cancer-related). Results: We included 113 patients (82.3% women, age 49.2 ± 12.1 years). Breast cancer (72.6%) and anthracyclines (72.6%) were the most frequent cancer and treatment. Meantime to CTRCD was 8 months, with mean LVEF of 39.4 ± 9.2%. At diagnosis, 27.4% of the patients were asymptomatic. Cardiac-specific treatment was started in 66.4% of patients, with LVEF recovery-rate of 54.8%. Higher LVEF at the time of CTRCD, shorter time from cancer treatment to diagnosis of CTRCD, and younger age were the predictors of LVEF recovery. The hospitalization rate was 20.4% (8.8% linked to heart failure). Treatment with trastuzumab and lower LVEF at diagnosis of CTRCD were the predictors of mortality. Thirty point nine percent of patients died during the 26 months follow-up. The non-CV causes and cancer-related were more frequent than CV ones. Conclusions: Cardiac-specific treatment achieves LVEF recovery in more than half of the patients. LVEF at the diagnosis of CTRCD, age, and time from the cancer treatment initiation to CTRCD were the predictors of LVEF recovery. The CV-related deaths were less frequent than the non-CV ones. Trastuzumab treatment and LVEF at the time of CTRCD were the predictors of mortality.

Sepsis of Patients Infected by SARS-CoV-2: Real-World Experience From the International HOPE-COVID-19-Registry and Validation of HOPE Sepsis Score.

Background: Patients with sepsis with a concomitant coronavirus (COVID-19) infection are related to a high morbidity and mortality rate. We investigated a large cohort of patients with sepsis with a concomitant COVID-19, and we developed a risk score for the estimation of sepsis risk in COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a sub-analysis from the international Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation Registry for COVID-19 (HOPE-COVID-19-Registry, NCT04334291). Out of 5,837 patients with COVID-19, 624 patients were diagnosed with sepsis according to the Sepsis-3 International Consensus. Results: In multivariable analysis, the following risk factors were identified as independent predictors for developing sepsis: current smoking, tachypnoea (>22 breath per minute), hemoptysis, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) <92%, blood pressure (BP) (systolic BP <90 mmHg and diastolic BP <60 mmHg), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) <15, elevated procalcitonin (PCT), elevated troponin I (TnI), and elevated creatinine >1.5 mg/dl. By assigning odds ratio (OR) weighted points to these variables, the following three risk categories were defined to develop sepsis during admission: low-risk group (probability of sepsis 3.1-11.8%); intermediate-risk group (24.8-53.8%); and high-risk-group (58.3-100%). A score of 1 was assigned to current smoking, tachypnoea, decreased SpO2, decreased BP, decreased GCS, elevated PCT, TnI, and creatinine, whereas a score of 2 was assigned to hemoptysis. Conclusions: The HOPE Sepsis Score including nine parameters is useful in identifying high-risk COVID-19 patients to develop sepsis. Sepsis in COVID-19 is associated with a high mortality rate.

Prevalence and 30-Day Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Covid-19 and Prior Lung Diseases.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with pre-existing respiratory diseases in the setting of COVID-19 may have a greater risk of severe complications and even death. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter, cohort study with 5847 COVID-19 patients admitted to hospitals. Patients were separated in two groups, with/without previous lung disease. Evaluation of factors associated with survival and secondary composite end-point such as ICU admission and respiratory support, were explored. RESULTS: 1,271 patients (22%) had a previous lung disease, mostly COPD. All-cause mortality occurred in 376 patients with lung disease (29.5%) and in 819 patients without (17.9%) (p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier curves showed that patients with lung diseases had a worse 30-day survival (HR = 1.78; 95%C.I. 1.58-2.01; p < 0.001) and COPD had almost 40% mortality. Multivariable Cox regression showed that prior lung disease remained a risk factor for mortality (HR, 1.21; 95%C.I. 1.02-1.44; p = 0.02). Variables independently associated with all-cause mortality risk in patients with lung diseases were oxygen saturation less than 92% on admission (HR, 4.35; 95% CI 3.08-6.15) and elevated D-dimer (HR, 1.84; 95% CI 1.27-2.67). Age younger than 60 years (HR 0.37; 95% CI 0.21-0.65) was associated with decreased risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: Previous lung disease is a risk factor for mortality in patients with COVID-19. Older age, male gender, home oxygen therapy, and respiratory failure on admission were associated with an increased mortality. Efforts must be done to identify respiratory patients to set measures to improve their clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCCIÓN: Los pacientes con enfermedades respiratorias preexistentes pueden tener en el contexto de la covid-19 un mayor riesgo de complicaciones graves e incluso de muerte. MÉTODOS: Estudio de cohortes multicéntrico y retrospectivo de 5.847 pacientes con covid-19 ingresados en hospitales. Los pacientes se separaron en 2 grupos, sin y con enfermedad pulmonar previa. Se evaluaron factores asociados con la supervivencia y criterios combinados de valoración secundarios, como el ingreso en la UCI y la necesidad de asistencia respiratoria. RESULTADOS: Mil doscientos setenta y un (1.271) pacientes (22%) tenían una enfermedad pulmonar previa, principalmente EPOC. La mortalidad por todas las causas ocurrió en 376 pacientes con enfermedad pulmonar (29,5%) y en 819 pacientes sin enfermedad pulmonar (17,9%; p < 0,001). Las curvas de Kaplan-Meier mostraron que los pacientes con enfermedades pulmonares tenían una peor supervivencia a los 30 días (HR: 1,78; IC del 95%: 1,58-2,01; p < 0,001) y la EPOC tenía una mortalidad de casi el 40%. La regresión de Cox multivariante mostró que la enfermedad pulmonar previa seguía siendo un factor de riesgo de mortalidad (HR: 1,21; IC del 95%: 1,02-1,44; p = 0,02). Las variables asociadas de forma independiente con el riesgo de muerte por todas las causas en pacientes con enfermedades pulmonares fueron la saturación de oxígeno inferior al 92% al ingreso (HR: 4,35; IC del 95%: 3,08-6,15) y el dímero D elevado (HR: 1,84; IC del 95%: 1,27-2,67). La edad menor de 60 años (HR: 0,37; IC del 95%: 0,21-0,65) se asoció con una disminución del riesgo de muerte. CONCLUSIONES: La enfermedad pulmonar previa es un factor de riesgo de muerte en pacientes con covid-19. La edad avanzada, el sexo masculino, la oxigenoterapia domiciliaria y la insuficiencia respiratoria al ingreso se asociaron con un aumento de la mortalidad. Se deben realizar esfuerzos para identificar a los pacientes respiratorios y establecer medidas para mejorar sus resultados clínicos.

COVID-19 and the impact of arterial hypertension-An analysis of the international HOPE COVID-19 Registry (Italy-Spain-Germany).

BACKGROUND: A systematic analysis of concomitant arterial hypertension in COVID-19 patients and the impact of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have not been studied in a large multicentre cohort yet. We conducted a subanalysis from the international HOPE Registry (https://hopeprojectmd.com, NCT04334291) comparing COVID-19 in presence and absence of arterial hypertension. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Out of 5837 COVID-19 patients, 2850 (48.8%) patients had the diagnosis arterial hypertension. 1978/2813 (70.3%) patients were already treated with ACEI or ARBs. The clinical outcome of the present subanalysis included all-cause mortality over 40 days of follow-up. RESULTS: Patients with arterial hypertension suffered significantly more from different complications including respiratory insufficiency (60.8% vs 39.5%), heart failure (9.9% vs 3.1%), acute kidney injury (25.3% vs 7.3%), pneumonia (90.6% vs 86%), sepsis (14.7% vs 7.5%), and bleeding events (3.6% vs 1.6%). The mortality rate was 29.6% in patients with concomitant arterial hypertension and 11.3% without arterial hypertension (P < .001). Invasive and non-invasive respiratory supports were significantly more required in presence of arterial hypertension as compared without it. In the multivariate cox regression analysis, while age≥65, benzodiazepine, antidepressant at admission, elevated LDH or creatinine, respiratory insufficiency and sepsis might be a positive independent predictors of mortality, antiviral drugs, interferon treatment, ACEI or ARBs at discharge or oral anticoagulation at discharge might be an independent negative predictor of the mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rate and in-hospital complications might be increased in COVID-19 patients with a concomitant history of arterial hypertension. The history of ACEI or ARBs treatments does not seem to impact the outcome of these patients.

Impact of smoking on COVID-19 outcomes: a HOPE Registry subanalysis.

BACKGROUND: Smoking has been associated with poorer outcomes in relation to COVID-19. Smokers have higher risk of mortality and have a more severe clinical course. There is paucity of data available on this issue, and a definitive link between smoking and COVID-19 prognosis has yet to be established. METHODS: We included 5224 patients with COVID-19 with an available smoking history in a multicentre international registry Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19 (NCT04334291). Patients were included following an in-hospital admission with a COVID-19 diagnosis. We analysed the outcomes of patients with a current or prior history of smoking compared with the non-smoking group. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital death. RESULTS: Finally, 5224 patients with COVID-19 with available smoking status were analysed. A total of 3983 (67.9%) patients were non-smokers, 934 (15.9%) were former smokers and 307 (5.2%) were active smokers. The median age was 66 years (IQR 52.0-77.0) and 58.6% were male. The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension (48.5%) and dyslipidaemia (33.0%). A relevant lung disease was present in 19.4%. In-hospital complications such sepsis (23.6%) and embolic events (4.3%) occurred more frequently in the smoker group (p<0.001 for both). All cause-death was higher among smokers (active or former smokers) compared with non-smokers (27.6 vs 18.4%, p<0.001). Following a multivariate analysis, current smoking was considered as an independent predictor of mortality (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.82, p=0.017) and a combined endpoint of severe disease (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.43, p=0.006). CONCLUSION: Smoking has a negative prognostic impact on patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

Gender Differences in the Presentation and Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

Gender-related differences in COVID-19 clinical presentation, disease progression, and mortality have not been adequately explored. We analyzed the clinical profile, presentation, treatments, and outcomes of patients according to gender in the HOPE-COVID-19 International Registry. Among 2,798 enrolled patients, 1,111 were women (39.7%). Male patients had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and more comorbidities at baseline. After propensity score matching, 876 men and 876 women were selected. Male patients more often reported fever, whereas female patients more often reported vomiting, diarrhea, and hyposmia/anosmia. Laboratory tests in men presented alterations consistent with a more severe COVID-19 infection (eg, significantly higher C-reactive protein, troponin, transaminases, lymphocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, and ferritin). Systemic inflammatory response syndrome, bilateral pneumonia, respiratory insufficiency, and renal failure were significantly more frequent in men. Men more often required pronation, corticosteroids, and tocilizumab administration. A significantly higher 30-day mortality was observed in men vs women (23.4% vs 19.2%; P = .039). Trial Numbers: NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors effect before and during hospitalization in COVID-19 outcomes: Final analysis of the international HOPE COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19) registry.

BACKGROUND: The use of Renin-Angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been questioned because both share a target receptor site. METHODS: HOPE-COVID-19 (NCT04334291) is an international investigator-initiated registry. Patients are eligible when discharged after an in-hospital stay with COVID-19, dead or alive. Here, we analyze the impact of previous and continued in-hospital treatment with RASi in all-cause mortality and the development of in-stay complications. RESULTS: We included 6503 patients, over 18 years, from Spain and Italy with data on their RASi status. Of those, 36.8% were receiving any RASi before admission. RASi patients were older, more frequently male, with more comorbidities and frailer. Their probability of death and ICU admission was higher. However, after adjustment, these differences disappeared. Regarding RASi in-hospital use, those who continued the treatment were younger, with balanced comorbidities but with less severe COVID19. Raw mortality and secondary events were less frequent in RASi. After adjustment, patients receiving RASi still presented significantly better outcomes, with less mortality, ICU admissions, respiratory insufficiency, need for mechanical ventilation or prone, sepsis, SIRS and renal failure (p<0.05 for all). However, we did not find differences regarding the hospital use of RASi and the development of heart failure. CONCLUSION: RASi historic use, at admission, is not related to an adjusted worse prognosis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, although it points out a high-risk population. In this setting, the in-hospital prescription of RASi is associated with improved survival and fewer short-term complications.

Anticoagulation Therapy in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Results From a Multicenter International Prospective Registry (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for Corona Virus Disease 2019 [HOPE-COVID19]).

OBJECTIVES: No standard therapy, including anticoagulation regimens, is currently recommended for coronavirus disease 2019. Aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of anticoagulation in coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalized patients and its impact on survival. DESIGN: Multicenter international prospective registry (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for Corona Virus Disease 2019). SETTING: Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019. PATIENTS: Five thousand eight hundred thirty-eight consecutive coronavirus disease 2019 patients. INTERVENTIONS: Anticoagulation therapy, including prophylactic and therapeutic regimens, was obtained for each patient. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Five thousand four hundred eighty patients (94%) did not receive any anticoagulation before hospitalization. Two-thousand six-hundred one patients (44%) during hospitalization received anticoagulation therapy and it was not associated with better survival rate (81% vs 81%; p = 0.94) but with higher risk of bleeding (2.7% vs 1.8%; p = 0.03). Among patients admitted with respiratory failure (49%, n = 2,859, including 391 and 583 patients requiring invasive and noninvasive ventilation, respectively), anticoagulation started during hospitalization was associated with lower mortality rates (32% vs 42%; p < 0.01) and nonsignificant higher risk of bleeding (3.4% vs 2.7%; p = 0.3). Anticoagulation therapy was associated with lower mortality rates in patients treated with invasive ventilation (53% vs 64%; p = 0.05) without increased rates of bleeding (9% vs 8%; p = 0.88) but not in those with noninvasive ventilation (35% vs 38%; p = 0.40). At multivariate Cox' analysis mortality relative risk with anticoagulation was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.49-0.67) in patients admitted with respiratory failure, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.49-0.67) in those requiring invasive ventilation, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.51-1.01) in noninvasive ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation therapy in general population with coronavirus disease 2019 was not associated with better survival rates but with higher bleeding risk. Better results were observed in patients admitted with respiratory failure and requiring invasive ventilation.

Prevalence and 30-Day Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Covid-19 and Prior Lung Diseases / Prevalencia y mortalidad a 30 días en pacientes hospitalizados por COVID-19 y enfermedades pulmonares previas

INTRODUCTION: Patients with pre-existing respiratory diseases in the setting of COVID-19 may have a greater risk of severe complications and even death. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter, cohort study with 5847 COVID-19 patients admitted to hospitals. Patients were separated in two groups, with/without previous lung disease. Evaluation of factors associated with survival and secondary composite end-point such as ICU admission and respiratory support, were explored. RESULTS: 1,271 patients (22%) had a previous lung disease, mostly COPD. All-cause mortality occurred in 376 patients with lung disease (29.5%) and in 819 patients without (17.9%) (p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier curves showed that patients with lung diseases had a worse 30-day survival (HR = 1.78; 95%C.I. 1.58-2.01; p < 0.001) and COPD had almost 40% mortality. Multivariable Cox regression showed that prior lung disease remained a risk factor for mortality (HR, 1.21; 95%C.I. 1.02-1.44; p = 0.02). Variables independently associated with all-cause mortality risk in patients with lung diseases were oxygen saturation less than 92% on admission (HR, 4.35; 95% CI 3.08-6.15) and elevated D-dimer (HR, 1.84; 95% CI 1.27-2.67). Age younger than 60 years (HR 0.37; 95% CI 0.21-0.65) was associated with decreased risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: Previous lung disease is a risk factor for mortality in patients with COVID-19. Older age, male gender, home oxygen therapy, and respiratory failure on admission were associated with an increased mortality. Efforts must be done to identify respiratory patients to set measures to improve their clinical outcomes

INTRODUCCIÓN: Los pacientes con enfermedades respiratorias preexistentes pueden tener en el contexto de la covid-19 un mayor riesgo de complicaciones graves e incluso de muerte. MÉTODOS: Estudio de cohortes multicéntrico y retrospectivo de 5.847 pacientes con covid-19 ingresados en hospitales. Los pacientes se separaron en 2 grupos, sin y con enfermedad pulmonar previa. Se evaluaron factores asociados con la supervivencia y criterios combinados de valoración secundarios, como el ingreso en la UCI y la necesidad de asistencia respiratoria. RESULTADOS: Mil doscientos setenta y un (1.271) pacientes (22%) tenían una enfermedad pulmonar previa, principalmente EPOC. La mortalidad por todas las causas ocurrió en 376 pacientes con enfermedad pulmonar (29,5%) y en 819 pacientes sin enfermedad pulmonar (17,9%; p < 0,001). Las curvas de Kaplan-Meier mostraron que los pacientes con enfermedades pulmonares tenían una peor supervivencia a los 30 días (HR: 1,78; IC del 95%: 1,58-2,01; p < 0,001) y la EPOC tenía una mortalidad de casi el 40%. La regresión de Cox multivariante mostró que la enfermedad pulmonar previa seguía siendo un factor de riesgo de mortalidad (HR: 1,21; IC del 95%: 1,02-1,44; p = 0,02). Las variables asociadas de forma independiente con el riesgo de muerte por todas las causas en pacientes con enfermedades pulmonares fueron la saturación de oxígeno inferior al 92% al ingreso (HR: 4,35; IC del 95%: 3,08-6,15) y el dímero D elevado (HR: 1,84; IC del 95%: 1,27-2,67). La edad menor de 60 años (HR: 0,37; IC del 95%: 0,21-0,65) se asoció con una disminución del riesgo de muerte. CONCLUSIONES: La enfermedad pulmonar previa es un factor de riesgo de muerte en pacientes con covid-19. La edad avanzada, el sexo masculino, la oxigenoterapia domiciliaria y la insuficiencia respiratoria al ingreso se asociaron con un aumento de la mortalidad. Se deben realizar esfuerzos para identificar a los pacientes respiratorios y establecer medidas para mejorar sus resultados clínicos

Non-invasive ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 acute respiratory failure: a subanalysis from the HOPE COVID-19 registry.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has seriously challenged worldwide healthcare systems and limited intensive care facilities, leading to physicians considering the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for managing SARS-CoV-2-related acute respiratory failure (ARF). METHODS: We conducted an interim analysis of the international, multicentre HOPE COVID-19 registry including patients admitted for a confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection until 18 April 2020. Those treated with NIV were considered. The primary endpoint was a composite of death or need for intubation. The components of the composite endpoint were the secondary outcomes. Unadjusted and adjusted predictors of the primary endpoint within those initially treated with NIV were investigated. RESULTS: 1933 patients who were included in the registry during the study period had data on oxygen support type. Among them, 390 patients (20%) were treated with NIV. Compared with those receiving other non-invasive oxygen strategy, patients receiving NIV showed significantly worse clinical and laboratory signs of ARF at presentation. Of the 390 patients treated with NIV, 173 patients (44.4%) met the composite endpoint. In-hospital death was the main determinant (147, 37.7%), while 62 patients (15.9%) needed invasive ventilation. Those requiring invasive ventilation had the lowest survival rate (41.9%). After adjustment, age (adjusted OR (adj(OR)) for 5-year increase: 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.63, p<0.001), hypertension (adj(OR) 2.95, 95% CI 1.14 to 7.61, p=0.03), room air O2 saturation <92% at presentation (adj(OR) 3.05, 95% CI 1.28 to 7.28, p=0.01), lymphocytopenia (adj(OR) 3.55, 95% CI 1.16 to 10.85, p=0.03) and in-hospital use of antibiotic therapy (adj(OR) 4.91, 95% CI 1.69 to 14.26, p=0.003) were independently associated with the composite endpoint. CONCLUSION: NIV was used in a significant proportion of patients within our cohort, and more than half of these patients survived without the need for intubation. NIV may represent a viable strategy particularly in case of overcrowded and limited intensive care resources, but prompt identification of failure is mandatory to avoid harm. Further studies are required to better clarify our hypothesis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

Does there exist an obesity paradox in COVID-19? Insights of the international HOPE-COVID-19-registry.

BACKGROUND: Obesity has been described as a protective factor in cardiovascular and other diseases being expressed as 'obesity paradox'. However, the impact of obesity on clinical outcomes including mortality in COVID-19 has been poorly systematically investigated until now. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes among COVID-19 patients divided into three groups according to the body mass index (BMI). METHODS: We retrospectively collected data up to May 31st, 2020. 3635 patients were divided into three groups of BMI (<25 kg/m2; n = 1110, 25-30 kg/m2; n = 1464, and >30 kg/m2; n = 1061). Demographic, in-hospital complications, and predictors for mortality, respiratory insufficiency, and sepsis were analyzed. RESULTS: The rate of respiratory insufficiency was more recorded in BMI 25-30 kg/m2 as compared to BMI < 25 kg/m2 (22.8% vs. 41.8%; p < 0.001), and in BMI > 30 kg/m2 than BMI < 25 kg/m2, respectively (22.8% vs. 35.4%; p < 0.001). Sepsis was more observed in BMI 25-30 kg/m2 and BMI > 30 kg/m2 as compared to BMI < 25 kg/m2, respectively (25.1% vs. 42.5%; p = 0.02) and (25.1% vs. 32.5%; p = 0.006). The mortality rate was higher in BMI 25-30 kg/m2 and BMI > 30 kg/m2 as compared to BMI < 25 kg/m2, respectively (27.2% vs. 39.2%; p = 0.31) (27.2% vs. 33.5%; p = 0.004). In the Cox multivariate analysis for mortality, BMI < 25 kg/m2 and BMI > 30 kg/m2 did not impact the mortality rate (HR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.889-1.508; p = 0.27) (HR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.893-1.479; p = 0.27). In multivariate logistic regression analyses for respiratory insufficiency and sepsis, BMI < 25 kg/m2 is determined as an independent predictor for reduction of respiratory insufficiency (OR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.538-1.004; p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: HOPE COVID-19-Registry revealed no evidence of obesity paradox in patients with COVID-19. However, Obesity was associated with a higher rate of respiratory insufficiency and sepsis but was not determined as an independent predictor for a high mortality.

Clinical presentation, therapeutic approach, and outcome of young patients admitted for COVID-19, with respect to the elderly counterpart.

There is limited information on the presenting characteristics, prognosis, and therapeutic approaches of young patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We sought to investigate the baseline characteristics, in-hospital treatment, and outcomes of a wide cohort < 65 years admitted for COVID-19. Using the international multicenter HOPE-COVID-19 registry, we evaluated the baseline characteristics, clinical presentation, therapeutic approach, and prognosis of patients < 65 years discharged (deceased or alive) after hospital admission for COVID-19, also compared with the elderly counterpart. Of the included 5746 patients, 2676 were < 65 and 3070 ≥ 65 years. All risk factors and several parameters suggestive of worse clinical presentation augmented through increasing age classes. In-hospital mortality rates were 6.8% and 32.1% in the younger and older cohort, respectively (p < 0.001). Among young patients, mortality, access to ICU and treatment with IMVwere positively correlated with age. Contrariwise, over 65 years of age this trend was broken so that only the association between age and mortality was persistent, while the rates of access to ICU and IMV started to decline. Younger patients also recognized specific predictors of case fatality, such as obesity and gender. Age negatively impacts on mortality, access to ICU and treatment with IMV in patients < 65 years. In elderly patients only case fatality rate keeps augmenting in a stepwise manner through increasing age categories, while therapeutic approaches become more conservative. Besides age, obesity, gender, history of cancer, and severe dyspnea, tachypnea, chest X-ray bilateral abnormalities, abnormal level of creatinine and leucocyte among admission parameters seem to play a central role in the outcome of patients younger than 65 years.

Underlying heart diseases and acute COVID-19 outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The presence of any underlying heart condition could influence outcomes during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: The registry HOPE-COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19, NCT04334291) is an international ambispective study, enrolling COVID-19 patients discharged from hospital, dead or alive. RESULTS: HOPE enrolled 2798 patients from 35 centers in 7 countries. Median age was 67 years (IQR: 53.0-78.0), and most were male (59.5%). A relevant heart disease was present in 682 (24%) cases. These were older, more frequently male, with higher overall burden of cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, smoking habit, obesity) and other comorbidities such renal failure, lung, cerebrovascular disease and oncologic antecedents (p < 0.01, for all). The heart cohort received more corticoids (28.9% vs. 20.4%, p < 0.001), antibiotics, but less hydroxychloroquine, antivirals or tocilizumab. Considering the epidemiologic profile, a previous heart condition was independently related with shortterm mortality in the Cox multivariate analysis (1.62; 95% CI 1.29-2.03; p < 0.001). Moreover, heart patients needed more respiratory, circulatory support, and presented more in-hospital events, such heart failure, renal failure, respiratory insufficiency, sepsis, systemic infammatory response syndrome and clinically relevant bleedings (all, p < 0.001), and mortality (39.7% vs. 15.5%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An underlying heart disease is an adverse prognostic factor for patients suffering COVID-19. Its presence could be related with different clinical drug management and would benefit from maintaining treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers during in-hospital stay.