Clinical and Personal Predictors of Helmet-CPAP Use and Failure in Patients Firstly Admitted to Regular Medical Wards with COVID-19-Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (hCPAP-f Study).

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19 is substantially different from ARDS caused by other diseases and its treatment is dissimilar and challenging. As many studies showed conflicting results regarding the use of Non-invasive ventilation in COVID-19-associated ARDS, no unquestionable indications by operational guidelines were reported. The aim of this study was to estimate the use and success rate of Helmet (h) Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) in COVID-19-associated ARDS in medical regular wards patients and describe the predictive risk factors for its use and failure. In our monocentric retrospective observational study, we included patients admitted for COVID-19 in medical regular wards. hCPAP was delivered when supplemental conventional or high-flow nasal oxygen failed to achieve respiratory targets. The primary outcomes were hCPAP use and failure rate (including the need to use Bilevel (BL) PAP or oro-tracheal intubation (OTI) and death during ventilation). The secondary outcome was the rate of in-hospital death and OTI. We computed a score derived from the factors independently associated with hCPAP failure. Out of 701 patients admitted with COVID-19 symptoms, 295 were diagnosed with ARDS caused by COVID-19 and treated with hCPAP. Factors associated with the need for hCPAP use were the PaO2/FiO2 ratio < 270, IL-6 serum levels over 46 pg/mL, AST > 33 U/L, and LDH > 570 U/L; age > 78 years and neuropsychiatric conditions were associated with lower use of hCPAP. Failure of hCPAP occurred in 125 patients and was associated with male sex, polypharmacotherapy (at least three medications), platelet count < 180 × 109/L, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio < 240. The computed hCPAP-f Score, ranging from 0 to 11.5 points, had an AUC of 0.74 in predicting hCPAP failure (significantly superior to Call Score), and 0.73 for the secondary outcome (non-inferior to IL-6 serum levels). In conclusion, hCPAP was widely used in patients with COVID-19 symptoms admitted to medical regular wards and developing ARDS, with a low OTI rate. A score computed combining male sex, multi-pharmacotherapy, low platelet count, and low PaO2/FiO2 was able to predict hCPAP failure in hospitalized patients with ARDS caused by COVID-19.

Early reduction of estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) predicts poor outcome in acutely ill hospitalized COVID-19 patients firstly admitted to medical regular wards (eGFR-COV19 study).

BACKGROUND: Analysis of autopsy tissues obtained from patients who died from COVID-19 showed kidney tropism for SARS-COV-2, with COVID-19-related renal dysfunction representing an overlooked problem even in patients lacking previous history of chronic kidney disease. This study aimed to corroborate in a substantial sample of consecutive acutely ill COVID-19 hospitalized patients the efficacy of estimated GFR (eGFR), assessed at hospital admission, to identify acute renal function derangement and the predictive role of its association with in-hospital death and need for mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed charts of 764 patients firstly admitted to regular medical wards (Division of Internal Medicine) for symptomatic COVID-19 between March 6th and May 30th, 2020 and between October 1st, 2020 and March 15th, 2021. eGFR values were calculated with the 2021 CKD-EPI formula and assessed at hospital admission and discharge. Baseline creatinine and GFR values were assessed by chart review of patients' medical records from hospital admittance data in the previous year. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, while ARDS development and need for non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were the secondary outcomes. RESULTS: SARS-COV-2 infection was diagnosed in 764 patients admitted with COVID-19 symptoms. A total of 682 patients (age range 23-100 years) were considered for statistical analysis, 310 needed mechanical ventilation and 137 died. An eGFR value <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 was found in 208 patients, 181 met KDIGO AKI criteria; eGFR values at hospital admission were significantly lower with respect to both hospital discharge and baseline values (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, an eGFR value <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 was significantly associated with in-hospital mortality (OR 2.6, 1.7-4.8, p = 0.003); no association was found with both ARDS and need for mechanical ventilation. eGFR was non-inferior to both IL-6 serum levels and CALL Score in predicting in-hospital death (AUC 0.71, 0.68-0.74, p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: eGFR calculated at hospital admission correlated well with COVID-19-related kidney injury and eGFR values < 60 mL/min/1,73 m2 were independently associated with in-hospital mortality, but not with both ARDS or need for mechanical ventilation.

Effect of comorbidity on coronary reperfusion strategy and long-term mortality after acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Chronic comorbidity is a prognostic determinant in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This study was aimed at determining to what extent this effect is independent or derives from adoption of different therapeutic strategies. METHODS: Seven hundred forty patients with STEMI hospitalized within 12 hours of symptom onset were enrolled in a population-based registry, in a health district comprising 1 teaching hospital with and 5 district hospitals without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) facilities. Three categories of increasing chronic comorbidity score (CS-1, n = 259; CS-2, n = 235; CS-3, n = 246) were identified from age-adjusted associations of comorbidities with 1-year survival. RESULTS: Higher CS was associated with lower direct admission or transferal rates to hospital with PCI. Coronary reperfusion therapy (PCI in 91.5% of 470 cases) was adopted less frequently (P < .001) in CS-3 (41.9%) than CS-2 (69.4%) or CS-1 (78.8%). Compared with conservative therapy (n = 270), reperfusion therapy reduced 1-year mortality in the whole series not significantly (P = .816) in CS-1 but significantly in CS-2 (P = .012) and CS-3 (P = .001). This trend persisted after adjusting for age, Killip class, and acute myocardial infarction location (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.63 [95% CI 0.14-2.80], HR = 0.62 [95% CI 0.31-1.25], and HR = 0.47 [95% CI 0.26-0.86] in CS-1, CS-2, and CS-3, respectively). By hypothesizing an extension of coronary reperfusion therapy utilization rate in CS-2 and CS-3 to that in CS-1, from 21 (crude analysis) to 20 (adjusted analysis) deaths were classified as potentially avoidable. CONCLUSION: Increased mortality in patients with chronic comorbidity and STEMI derives, at least in part, from underutilization of coronary reperfusion therapy, and might be reduced with a more aggressive therapeutic approach.

Impact of diabetes on the current in-hospital management of heart failure. From the TEMISTOCLE study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the clinical profile, use of resources, management and outcome of a large population of diabetic patients with heart failure managed in a community setting. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional survey in the setting of acute hospital admissions for heart failure to 167 cardiology and 250 internal medicine departments between February 14 and 25, 2000. RESULTS: Among the 2127 consecutively admitted patients, 603 (28.4%) had a history of diabetes; they were significantly younger, had a lower rate of atrial fibrillation, and a more frequent ischemic etiology than non-diabetics. Just as non-diabetic patients, diabetics underwent invasive and non-invasive procedures in a low percentage of cases, even though slightly more frequently when managed by cardiologists. Diabetic patients were less frequently prescribed amiodarone and anticoagulants, and more frequently prescribed nitrates and antiplatelets. The all-cause in-hospital mortality rate was similar among diabetics and non-diabetics (5.3 vs 5.7%, p = NS). Adjusted analysis confirmed that diabetes is not independently associated with a worse outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In a community setting diabetes per se has only a slight impact on the management and outcome of patients with heart failure.

Current presentation and management of heart failure in cardiology and internal medicine hospital units: a tale of two worlds--the TEMISTOCLE study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose pf the current article is to describe the clinical profile, use of resources, management and outcome in a population of real-world inpatients with heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: With a prospective, cross-sectional survey on acute hospital admissions, we evaluated the overall and provider-related differences in patient characteristics, diagnostic work-up, treatment and inhospital outcome of 2127 patients with heart failure admitted to 167 cardiology departments and 250 internal medicine departments between February 14 and 25, 2000. Patients admitted to cardiology units were younger (56.3% >70 years vs 76.2%, P <.0001), had more severe symptoms (NYHA IV 35% vs 29%, P =.00014), and more often underwent evaluation of ventricular function (89.3% vs 54.8%, P <.0001) and coronary angiography (7.5% vs 0.9%, P <.0001) than those admitted to medical units. Moreover, they were more often prescribed beta-blockers (17.8% vs 8.7%, P <.0001). However, prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (78.7% vs 81.5%, P = not significant [NS]) and inhospital mortality (5.2% vs 5.9%, P = NS) were similar. A 6-month follow-up visit was performed in 56.4% of cases (68.2% of cardiology vs 49.4% of medicine patients, P <.0001); 6-month readmission (43.7% vs 45.4%, P = NS) and mortality (13.9% vs 16.7%, P = NS) rates were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure admitted to cardiology and internal medicine units represent 2 clearly different populations. In both groups, diagnostic procedures and evidence-based treatments, such as beta-blockers, appeared to be underused, and there was a lack of structured follow-up, as well as a poor 6-month prognosis.