Impact of New Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19. Results of the "ACO-VID" Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) on patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Multicenter and retrospective study that included subjects >55 years hospitalized with COVID-19 from March to October 2020 in Spanish hospitals. Patients were divided into 3 groups (no AF, new-onset AF, and preexisting AF) and followed-up to 90 days. RESULTS: A total of 668 patients were included, of whom 162 (24.3%) had no AF, 107 (16.0%) new-onset AF and 399 (59.7%) preexisting AF. Compared to patients without AF, those patients with new-onset AF were older and had more comorbidities, but without differences with preexisting AF. During hospitalization, in the univariate analysis, compared to patients without AF, major bleeding and cardiovascular mortality were more frequent in patients with new-onset AF (10.3% vs 0.6%; P < .001; 2.8% vs 0.6%; P = .025, respectively), with a trend toward more stroke (1.9% vs 0%; P = .085). Outcomes were similar between AF groups, but the length of stay was greater in preexisting AF patients. Among patients with new-onset AF taking reduced doses of anticoagulant treatment was associated with higher risks of stroke and major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 hospitalized patients, new-onset AF may be associated with worse outcomes, but influenced by the dose of anticoagulants.

Edoxaban Versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: During the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, management of anticoagulation therapy in hospitalized patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) was simplified to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) followed by oral anticoagulation, mainly owing to the risk of drug-drug interactions. However, not all oral anticoagulants carry the same risk. METHODS: Observational, retrospective, and multicenter study that consecutively included hospitalized patients with AF anticoagulated with LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation or edoxaban concomitantly with empirical COVID-19 therapy. Time-to-event (mortality, total bleeds, and admissions to ICU) curves, using an unadjusted Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression model adjusted for potential confounders were constructed. RESULTS: A total of 232 patients were included (80.3 ± 7.7 years, 50.0% men, CHA2DS2-VASc 4.1 ± 1.4; HAS-BLED 2.6 ± 1.0). During hospitalization, patients were taking azithromycin (98.7%), hydroxychloroquine (89.7%), and ritonavir/lopinavir (81.5%). The mean length of hospital stay was 14.6 ± 7.2 days, and total follow-up was 31.6 ± 13.4 days; 12.9% of patients required admission to ICU, 18.5% died, and 9.9% had a bleeding complication (34.8% major bleeding). Length of hospital stay was longer in patients taking LMWH (16.0 ± 7.7 vs 13.3 ± 6.5 days; P = .005), but mortality and total bleeds were similar in patients treated with edoxaban and those treated with LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality rates, arterial and venous thromboembolic complications, and bleeds did not significantly differ between AF patients receiving anticoagulation therapy with edoxaban or LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation. However, the duration of hospitalization was significantly lower with edoxaban. Edoxaban had a similar therapeutic profile to LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation and may provide additional benefits.

Impact of atrial fibrillation and anticoagulation on the risk of death, thromboembolic disease and bleeding in patients with COVID-19: the ACO-VID Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical profile, risk of complications and impact of anticoagulation in COVID-19 hospitalized patients, according to the presence of atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective, and observational study that consecutively included patients >55 years admitted with COVID-19 from March to October 2020. In AF patients, anticoagulation was chosen based on clinicians' judgment. Patients were followed-up for 90 days. RESULTS: A total of 646 patients were included, of whom 75.2% had AF. Overall, mean age was 75 ± 9.1 years and 62.4% were male. Patients with AF were older and had more comorbidities. The most common anticoagulants used during hospitalization in patients with AF were edoxaban (47.9%), low molecular weight heparin (27.0%), and dabigatran (11.7%) and among patients without AF, these numbers were 0%, 93.8% and 0%. Overall, during the study period (68 ± 3 days), 15.2% of patients died, 8.2% of patients presented a major bleeding and 0.9% had a stroke/systemic embolism. During hospitalization, patients with AF had a higher risk of major bleeding (11.3% vs 0.7%; p < .01), COVID-19-related deaths (18.0% vs 4.5%; p = .02), and all-cause deaths (20.6% vs 5.6%; p = .02). Age (HR 1.5; 95% CI 1.0-2.3) and elevated transaminases (HR 3.5; 95% CI 2.0-6.1) were independently associated with all-cause mortality. AF was independently associated with major bleeding (HR 2.2; 95% CI 1.1-5.3). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, patients with AF were older, had more comorbidities and had a higher risk of major bleeding. Age and elevated transaminases during hospitalization, but not AF nor anticoagulant treatment increased the risk of all-cause death.

Eficacia y tolerabilidad del levetiracetam administrado por sonda nasogástrica en el tratamiento de crisis convulsivas de pacientes en cuidados críticos. Servicio de Neurología, hospital Dr. Abel Gilbert Pontón, Guayaquil, Ecuador / Efficacy and tolerability of levetiracetam administered through nasogastric tube in the treatment of convulsive crises in patients in critical care. Neurology Services, Dr. Abel Gilbert Pontón hospital, Guayaquil, Ecuador

Objetivo: determinar la eficacia y tolerabilidad del levetiracetam administrado por sonda nasogástrica como monoterapia en pacientes neurológicos en cuidados críticos. Metodología: se trató de un estudio comparativo, retrospectivo, realizado en elservicio de Neurología del hospital “Dr. Abel Gilbert Pontón”, Guayaquil-Ecuador, desde enero 2010 a enero 2011, en el cual se incluyeron 107 pacientes admitidos en las áreas de cuidados críticos con crisis convulsivas de reciente inicio. La instauración del tratamiento anticonvulsivo fue posterior a la valoración del neurólogo, y sin cambio de medicación durante su ingreso. Lasprincipales medidas de resultado fueron: recurrencia de crisis a las 24, 48 y 72 horas posteriores al inicio de la administración del anticonvulsivante y los efectos adversos registrados durante su estancia hospitalaria. Resultados: la recurrencia de las crisis a las 24horas, fue significativamente menor en el grupo con levetiracetam que en los grupos con difenilhidantoína (RRR= 56.5 por ciento,p=0.007), carbamazepina (RRR= 65.7 por ciento, p=0.005), ácido valproico (RRR= 70 por ciento, p=0.04) y oxcarbazepina (RRR= 61.4 por ciento, p=0.03). De la misma forma a las 48horas en relación con la difenilhidantoína (RRR= 77.1 por ciento, p=0.0004) y la carbamazepina (RRR= 80 por ciento, p=0.002). El 20 por ciento de los pacientes tratados con levetiracetam presentó efectos adversos neurológicos, principalmente irritabilidad y somnolencia.Conclusiones: el levetiracetam es más eficaz que el resto de anticonvulsivantes, en especial de los clásicos, y presentaademás menos efectos adversos.

Aim: to determine the efficacy and tolerability of the levetiracetam administered through nasogastric tube as monotherapy for neurologic patients in critical care. Methodology: it was a comparative, retrospective research, held at the Neurology Department of the “Dr. Abel Gilbert Pontón” Hospital, Guayaquil-Ecuador from January 2010 to January 2011. 107 patients admitted to criticalcare areas with new onset convulsions were included. The introduction of the anticonvulsant therapy was subsequent tothe valuation of the neurologist, and without any change in medication during its beginning. Result: the recurrent crises within 24 hours were significantly lower in the levetiracetam group than in groups with diphenylhydantoin (RRR= 56.5 percent, p=0.007), carbamazepine (RRR= 65.7 percent, p = 0,005), valproic acid (RRR= 70 percent, p = 0.04) and oxcarbazepine (RRR= 61.4 percent, p = 0.03). In the same manner within 48 hours in relation with diphenhylhydantoin (RRR= 77.1, p=0.0004) and the carbamazepine (RRR= 80 percent, p=0.002).20 percent of the levetiracetam-treated patients showed adverse neurological effects, mainly irritability and drowsiness. Conclusions: the levetiracetam is more effective than the other anticonvulsant, especially the classic ones, and also shows fewer side effects.