Pneumomediastinum in COVID-19: Risk factors and outcomes from a multicentre case-control study.

BACKGROUND: An increased incidence of pneumomediastinum has been observed among patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. The study aimed to identify risk factors for COVID-19-associated pneumomediastinum and investigate the impact of pneumomediastinum on clinical outcomes. METHODS: In this multicentre retrospective case-control study, we included consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and pneumomediastinum hospitalized from March 2020 to July 2020 at ten centres; then, we identified a similarly sized control group of consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia and respiratory failure who did not develop pneumomediastinum during the same period. Clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics, as well as respiratory support and outcomes, were collected and compared between the two groups. Risk factors of pneumomediastinum were assessed by multivariable logistic analysis. RESULTS: Overall 139 patients with pneumomediastinum and 153 without pneumomediastinum were analysed. Lung involvement ≥75 %, consolidations, body mass index (BMI) < 22 kg/m2, C-reactive protein (CRP) > 150 mg/L, D-dimer >3000 ng/mL FEUs, and smoking exposure >20 pack-year were all independently correlated with the occurrence of pneumomediastinum. Patients with pneumomediastinum had a longer hospital stay (mean ± SD 31.2 ± 20.2 days vs 19.6 ± 14.2, p < 0.001), higher intubation rate (73/139, 52.5 % vs 27/153, 17.6 %, p < 0.001), and in-hospital mortality (68/139, 48.9 % vs 36/153, 23.5 %, p < 0.001) compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive lung parenchyma involvement, consolidations, low BMI, high inflammatory markers, and tobacco exposure are associated with a greater risk of pneumomediastinum in COVID-19 pneumonia. This complication significantly worsens the outcomes.

Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection in a Healthy Healthcare Worker in Italy Confirmed by Whole-Genome Sequencing.

This study describes a case of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection confirmed by whole-genome sequencing in a healthy physician who had been working in a COVID-19 hospital in Italy since the beginning of the pandemic. Nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained from the patient at each presentation as part of routine surveillance. Nucleic acid amplification testing was performed on the two samples to confirm SARS-CoV-2 infection, and serological tests were used to detect SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Comparative genome analysis with whole-genome sequencing was performed on nasopharyngeal swabs collected during the two episodes of COVID-19. The first COVID-19 episode was in March 2020, and the second was in January 2021. Both SARS-CoV-2 infections presented with mild symptoms, and seroconversion for SARS-CoV-2 IgG was documented. Genomic analysis showed that the viral genome from the first infection belonged to the lineage B.1.1.74, while that from the second infection to the lineage B.1.177. Epidemiological, clinical, serological, and genomic analyses confirmed that the second episode of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the healthcare worker met the qualifications for "best evidence" for reinfection. Further studies are urgently needed to assess the frequency of such a worrisome occurrence, particularly in the light of the recent diffusion of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.

Titration effectiveness of two autoadjustable continuous positive airway pressure devices driven by different algorithms in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Nocturnal application of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the standard treatment for patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). Determination of the therapeutic pressure (CPAP titration) is usually performed by a technician in the sleep laboratory during attended polysomnography. One possible alternative to manual titration is automated titration. Indeed, during the last 15 years, devices have been developed that deliver autoadjustable CPAP (A-CPAP). The aim of the present study was to compare the titration effectiveness of two A-CPAP devices using different flow-based algorithms in patients with OSA. METHODS: This is a randomized study; 79 subjects underwent two consecutive unattended home A-CPAP titration nights with two different devices (Autoset Resmed; Remstar Auto Respironics); during the third and the fourth night, patients underwent portable monitoring in the sleep laboratory during fixed CPAP at the A-CPAP recommended pressure. RESULTS: Bland Altman plots showed good agreement between the recommended median and maximal pressure levels obtained with the two devices. A significant improvement was observed in all the sleep parameters by both A-CPAP machines to a similar degree. CONCLUSIONS: It was observed that the two A-CPAP devices using different algorithms are equally effective in initial titration of CPAP.

Home unattended portable monitoring and automatic CPAP titration in patients with high risk for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea is a disorder characterized by recurrent obstruction of the upper airways during sleep. The high prevalence of this disease led to proposed new strategies based on the home evaluation and management of patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare home unattended portable monitoring and automatic CPAP titration with attended in-laboratory analysis, in a sample of patients with high risk for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea. METHODS: We enrolled 131 subjects, who were randomly divided into 2 groups: the home group (n = 66) was diagnosed and titrated at home; the laboratory group (n = 65) was analyzed in the sleep laboratory of our hospital. Diagnostic evaluations were carried out with portable monitoring at home, and with polysomnography in the sleep laboratory. Titration of CPAP was performed with the same automatic CPAP device in both groups. RESULTS: At the end of the study, 13 (19%) subjects had dropped out of the home group, and 9 (14%) of the laboratory group (P = .50). There were no significant differences among groups in both baseline and with-CPAP values of apnea-hypopnea index, oxygen desaturation index, and total sleep time with SpO2 below 90%. In the home group, the therapeutic pressure values reached at the end of each unattended home titration night were similar. CONCLUSIONS: A home diagnosis and titration approach should be considered in a subset of patients with obstructive sleep apnea. A single unattended titration night is sufficient to determine the therapeutic pressure.