A nomogram predicting severe COVID-19 based on a large study cohort from China

BackgroundThe use of accurate prediction tools and early intervention are important for addressing severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the prediction models for severe COVID-19 available to date are subject to various biases. This study aimed to construct a nomogram to provide accurate, personalized predictions of the risk of severe COVID-19.MethodsThis study was based on a large, multicenter retrospective derivation cohort and a validation cohort. The derivation cohort consisted of 496 patients from Jiangsu Province, China, between January 10, 2020, and March 15, 2020, and the validation cohort contained 105 patients from Huangshi, Hunan Province, China, between January 21, 2020, and February 29, 2020. A nomogram was developed with the selected predictors of severe COVID-19, which were identified by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. We evaluated the discrimination of the nomogram with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the calibration of the nomogram with calibration plots and Hosmer-Lemeshow tests.ResultsThree predictors, namely, age, lymphocyte count, and pulmonary opacity score, were selected to develop the nomogram. The nomogram exhibited good discrimination (AUC 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90–0.96 in the derivation cohort; AUC 0.85, 95% CI 0.76–0.93 in the validation cohort) and satisfactory agreement.ConclusionsThe nomogram was a reliable tool for assessing the probability of severe COVID-19 and may facilitate clinicians stratifying patients and providing early and optimal therapies.     

Single versus multiple doses of Tocilizumab in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A two-center,retrospective cohort study

PurposeTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the optimal tocilizumab dosing regimen.MethodsA two-center, retrospective cohort study, for COVID19 critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs). We included critically ill patients aged 18 years or older who received tocilizumab during ICU stay. Patients were divided into two groups based on the number of the received tocilizumab doses. The primary outcome was the in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:1 ratio) based on the selected criteria.ResultsA total of 298 patients were included in the study; 70.4% (210 patients) received a single dose of tocilizumab. After adjusting for possible confounders, the 30-day mortality (HR 0.79 95% CI 0.43–1.45 P = 0.44) and in-hospital mortality (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.46–1.49; P = 0.53) were not significantly different between the two groups. On the flip side, patients who received multiple doses had higher pneumonia odds than a single dose (OR 3.81; 95% CI 1.79–8.12 P = 0.0005).ConclusionRepeating tocilizumab doses were not associated with a mortality benefit in COVID-19 critically ill patients, but it was associated with higher odds of pneumonia compared to a single dose.     

Predicting 30 – Day outcomes in emergency department patients discharged with COVID-19

IntroductionDetermining disposition for COVID-19 patients can be difficult for emergency medicine clinicians. Previous studies have demonstrated risk factors which predict severe infection and mortality however little is known about which risk factors are associated with failure of outpatient management and subsequent admission for COVID-19 patients.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective observational chart review of patients who had a confirmed positive COVID-19 test collected during an ED visit between March 1, 2020 and October 11, 2020. Patients were divided into two groups based on presence or absence of a subsequent 30-day hospitalization. Clinical and demographic information were collected including chief complaint, triage vital signs and comorbid medical conditions.Results1038 patients were seen and discharged from a network ED with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. 94 patients (9.1%) were admitted to a hospital within 30 days of the index ED visit while 944 (90.9%) were not admitted to a network hospital within 30 days. Patients that were admitted were more likely to be older (aOR = 1.04 (95% CI 1.03–1.06)), hypoxic (aOR = 2.16 (95% CI 1.14–4.10)) and tachycardic (aOR = 2.13 (95% CI 1.34–3.38)) on initial ED presentation. Preexisting hypertension, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease and malignancy were all highly significant risk factors for 30-day hospital admission following initial ED discharge (p < 0.0001).ConclusionEmergency Department providers should consider age, chief complaint, vital signs and comorbid medical conditions when determining disposition for patients diagnosed with COVID-19.     

Early Use of Remdesivir and Risk of Disease Progression in Hospitalized Patients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19

PurposePreliminary data suggest that remdesivir may influence the course of COVID-19 according to the duration of pre-admission symptoms. We aim to evaluate whether early use of remdesivir is associated with a reduced COVID-19 progression in a homogeneous cohort of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.MethodsThis prospective, observational study included patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated with remdesivir at the University Hospital of Pisa (Italy) from September 2020 to January 2021. According to national recommendations, remdesivir was prescribed in patients with pneumonia who required oxygen supplementation by nasal cannula or mask but without the need for high-flow nasal cannula, non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation and had symptoms from no more than 10 days. Patients who received early (≤5 days from onset of symptoms) versus late (>5 days from onset of symptoms) remdesivir were compared. The primary outcome was a composite of high-flow nasal cannula, non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation, or death. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors independently associated with the composite endpoint.FindingsAmong 312 consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who received remdesivir, 90 (28.8%) received early remdesivir, whereas 222 (71.2%) received late remdesivir. Twenty-nine patients (32.2%) in the early-remdesivir group versus 104 patients (46.8%) in the late-remdesivir group met the primary end point (P = 0.018). On multivariate analysis, a history of dyspnea at home (odds ratio = 2.53; 95% CI, 1.55–4.12; P < 0.001) was the strongest factor independently associated with the progression to severe COVID-19, whereas early-remdesivir use was a protective factor (odds ratio = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27–0.87; P = 0.015). The delayed admission to the hospital was associated with a delayed administration of remdesivir.ImplicationsThe early use of remdesivir (<5 days from symptoms onset) may reduce COVID-19 progression. The identification of patients who need early hospitalization and early remdesivir may provide clinical benefit in patients with COVID-19.     

Predictors of return visits to the emergency department among different age groups of older adults

ObjectiveTo identify predictors of 30-day emergency department (ED) return visits in patients age 65–79 years and age ≥ 80 years.MethodsThis was a cohort study of older adults who presented to the ED over a 1-year period. A mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to identify predictors for returning to the ED within 30 days. We stratified the cohort into those aged 65–79 years and aged ≥80 years. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. This study adhered to the STROBE reporting guidelines.ResultsA total of 21,460 ED visits representing 14,528 unique patients were included. The overall return rate was 15% (1998/13,300 visits) for age 65–79 years, and 16% (1306/8160 visits) for age ≥ 80 years. A history of congestive heart failure (CHF), dementia, or prior hospitalization within 2 years were associated with increased odds of returning in both age groups (for age 65–79: CHF aOR 1.36 [CI 1.16–1.59], dementia aOR 1.27 [CI 1.07–1.49], prior hospitalization aOR 1.36 [CI 1.19–1.56]; for age ≥ 80: CHF aOR 1.32 [CI 1.13–1.55], dementia aOR 1.22 [CI 1.04–1.42], and prior hospitalization aOR 1.27 [CI 1.09–1.47]). Being admitted from the ED was associated with decreased odds of returning to the ED within 30 days (aOR 0.72 [CI 0.64–0.80] for age 65–79 years and 0.72 [CI 0.63–0.82] for age ≥ 80).ConclusionAge alone was not an independent predictor of return visits. Prior hospitalization, dementia and CHF were predictors of 30-day ED return. The identification of predictors of return visits may help to optimize care transition in the ED.     

Caregivers' Willingness to Accept Expedited Vaccine Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-sectional Survey

PurposeThis study determined the predictors of caregivers' willingness to accept an accelerated regulatory process for the development of vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsAn international cross-sectional survey was administered to 2557 caregivers of children in 17 pediatric emergency departments (EDs) across 6 countries from March 26, 2020, to June 30, 2020. Caregivers were asked to select 1 of 4 choices with which they most agreed regarding a proposed COVID-19 vaccine–approval process, in addition to questions regarding demographic characteristics, the ED visit, and attitudes about COVID-19. Univariate analyses were conducted using the Mann–Whitney U test for comparing non–normally distributed continuous variables, an independent t test for comparing normally distributed continuous variables, and a χ² or Fisher exact test for categorical variables. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used for determining independent factors associated with caregivers' willingness to accept abridged development of a COVID-19 vaccine. A P value of <0.05 was considered significant.FindingsAlmost half (1101/2557; 43%) of caregivers reported that they were willing to accept less rigorous testing and postresearch approval of a new COVID-19 vaccine. Independent factors associated with caregivers' willingness to accept expedited COVID-19 vaccine research included having children who were up to date on the vaccination schedule (odds ratio [OR] = 1.72; 95% CI, 1.29–2.31), caregivers' concern about having had COVID-19 themselves at the time of survey completion in the ED (OR = 1.1; 95% CI, 1.05–1.16), and caregivers' intent to have their children vaccinated against COVID-19 if a vaccine were to become available (OR = 1.84; 95% CI, 1.54–2.21). Compared with fathers, mothers completing the survey were less likely to approve of changes in the vaccine-development process (OR = 0.641; 95% CI, 0.529–0.775).ImplicationsLess than half of caregivers in this worldwide sample were willing to accept abbreviated COVID-19 vaccine testing. As a part of an effort to increase acceptance and uptake of a new vaccine, especially in order to protect children, public health strategies and individual providers should understand caregivers' attitudes toward the approval of a vaccine and consult them appropriately.     

Lung Ultrasound vs. Chest X-Ray Study for the Radiographic Diagnosis of COVID-19 Pneumonia in a High-Prevalence Population

BackgroundThe viral illness severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), more commonly known as Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), has become a global pandemic, infecting over 100 million individuals worldwide.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to compare the test characteristics of point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) with chest x-ray study (CXR) at radiographically detecting COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsThis was a single-center, prospective, observational study at an urban university hospital with > 105,000 patient visits annually. Patients ≥ 18 years old, who presented to the Emergency Department with predefined signs and symptoms of COVID-19, were eligible for enrollment. Each patient received an LUS using a portable, handheld ultrasound followed by a single-view, portable anteroposterior CXR. Patients with an abnormal LUS or CXR underwent a non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan (NCCT). The primary outcome was the radiographic diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia on NCCT.ResultsOne hundred ten patients underwent LUS, CXR, and NCCT; 99 LUS and 73 CXRs were interpreted as positive; 81 NCCTs were interpreted as positive, providing a prevalence of COVID-19 pneumonia of 75% (95% confidence interval [CI] 66–83.2) in our study population. LUS sensitivity was 97.6% (95% CI 91.6–99.7) vs. 69.9% (95% CI 58.8–79.5) for CXR. LUS specificity was 33.3% (95% CI 16.5–54) vs. 44.4% (95% CI 25.5–64.7) for CXR. LUS positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 81.8% (95% CI 72.8–88.9) and 81.8% (95% CI 48.2–97.7), respectively, vs. 79.5% (95% CI 68.4–88), and 32.4% (95% CI 18–49.8), respectively, for CXR.ConclusionLUS was more sensitive than CXR at radiographically identifying COVID-19 pneumonia.     

Prospective validation of the bedside sonographic acute cholecystitis score in emergency department patients

BackgroundAcute cholecystitis can be difficult to diagnose in the emergency department (ED); no single finding can rule in or rule out the disease. A prediction score for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis for use at the bedside would be of great value to expedite the management of patients presenting with possible acute cholecystitis. The 2013 Tokyo Guidelines is a validated method for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis but its prognostic capability is limited. The purpose of this study was to prospectively validate the Bedside Sonographic Acute Cholecystitis (SAC) Score utilizing a combination of only historical symptoms, physical exam signs, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) findings for the prediction of the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis in ED patients.MethodThis was a prospective observational validation study of the Bedside SAC Score. The study was conducted at two tertiary referral academic centers in Boston, Massachusetts. From April 2016 to March 2019, adult patients (≥18 years old) with suspected acute cholecystitis were enrolled via convenience sampling and underwent a physical exam and a focused biliary POCUS in the ED. Three symptoms and signs (post-prandial symptoms, RUQ tenderness, and Murphy's sign) and two sonographic findings (gallbladder wall thickening and the presence of gallstones) were combined to calculate the Bedside Sonographic Acute Cholecystitis (SAC) Score. The final diagnosis of acute cholecystitis was determined from chart review or patient follow-up up to 30 days after the initial assessment. In patients who underwent operative intervention, surgical pathology was used to confirm the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the Bedside SAC Score were calculated for various cut off points.Results153 patients were included in the analysis. Using a previously defined cutoff of ≥ 4, the Bedside SAC Score had a sensitivity of 88.9% (95% CI 73.9%–96.9%), and a specificity of 67.5% (95% CI 58.2%–75.9%). A Bedside SAC Score of < 2 had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 90.3%–100%) and specificity of 35% (95% CI 26.5%–44.4%). A Bedside SAC Score of ≥ 7 had a sensitivity of 44.4% (95% CI 27.9%–61.9%) and specificity of 95.7% (95% CI 90.3%–98.6%).ConclusionA bedside prediction score for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis would have great utility in the ED. The Bedside SAC Score would be most helpful as a rule out for patients with a low Bedside SAC Score < 2 (sensitivity of 100%) or as a rule in for patients with a high Bedside SAC Score ≥ 7 (specificity of 95.7%). Prospective validation with a larger study is required.     

Risk factors associated with hospital admission in COVID-19 patients initially admitted to an observation unit

BackgroundNo set guidelines to guide disposition decisions from the emergency department (ED) in patients with COVID-19 exist. Our goal was to determine characteristics that identify patients at high risk for adverse outcomes who may need admission to the hospital instead of an observation unit.MethodsWe retrospectively enrolled 116 adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to an ED observation unit. We included patients with bilateral infiltrates on chest imaging, COVID-19 testing performed, and/or COVID-19 suspected as the primary diagnosis. The primary outcome was hospital admission. We assessed risk factors associated with this outcome using univariate and multivariable logistic regression.ResultsOf 116 patients, 33 or 28% (95% confidence interval [CI] 20–37%) required admission from the observation unit. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, we found that hypoxia defined as room-air oxygen saturation < 95% (OR 3.11, CI 1.23–7.88) and bilateral infiltrates on chest radiography (OR 5.57, CI 1.66–18.96) were independently associated with hospital admission, after adjusting for age. Two three-factor composite predictor models, age > 48 years, bilateral infiltrates, hypoxia, and Hispanic race, bilateral infiltrates, hypoxia yield an OR for admission of 4.99 (CI 1.50–16.65) with an AUC of 0.59 (CI 0.51–0.67) and 6.78 (CI 2.11–21.85) with an AUC of 0.62 (CI 0.54–0.71), respectively.ConclusionsOver 1/4 of suspected COVID-19 patients admitted to an ED observation unit ultimately required admission to the hospital. Risk factors associated with admission include hypoxia, bilateral infiltrates on chest radiography, or the combination of these two factors plus either age > 48 years or Hispanic race.     

Risk Stratification for Cardiac Complications in Patients Hospitalized for Community-Acquired Pneumonia

ObjectiveTo derive and validate a clinical rule that stratifies the risk of cardiac complications in patients hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and compare its performance to the pneumonia severity index (PSI) score.Patients and MethodsTwo cohorts of patients hospitalized for CAP were selected for the study. We used regression techniques in the derivation cohort (1343 patients enrolled in the Pneumonia Patient Outcomes Research Team study between October 1991 and March 1994) to generate a prediction rule that we validated in the validation cohort (608 patients enrolled in the Dissemination of Guidelines for Length of Stay study between February 1998 and March 1999). Discrimination and reclassification analyses compared its performance against the PSI score.ResultsA prediction model for cardiac complications in the derivation cohort included age, 3 preexisting conditions, 2 vital signs, and 7 common laboratory or radiographic parameters. Discrimination (C statistic, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.78-0.84) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, χ²=13.0; P=.11) were good. We derived a point score system from this model that when applied to the validation cohort also had good discrimination (C statistic, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.83) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow, χ²=9.0; P=.34). On the basis of this score, we defined 4 categories of incremental risk of cardiac complications. The incidence of cardiac complications across risk categories increased linearly (from lowest to highest) in both the derivation (3.0%, 17.8%, 35.2%, and 72.2%) and validation (5.0%, 8.2%, 28.3%, and 48.9%) cohorts (Cochran-Armitage linear trend test, P<.01). The new score outperformed the PSI score in predicting cardiac complications in the validation cohort (C statistic, 0.78 vs 0.74; P=.03; proportion of patients correctly reclassified by the new score, 44%).ConclusionWe derived and validated a clinical rule that accurately stratifies the risk of cardiac complications in patients hospitalized for CAP.     

Clinical and Cancer-Related Predictors for Venous Thromboembolism in Cancer Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department

BackgroundThe accurate detection of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) can avoid unnecessary diagnostic imaging or laboratory tests.ObjectiveWe sought to determine clinical and cancer-related risk factors of VTE that can be used as predictors for oncology patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected VTE.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed all consecutive patients who presented with suspicion of VTE to The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center ED between January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2013. Logistic regression models were used to identify risk factors that were associated with VTE. The ability of these factors to predict VTE was externally validated using a second cohort of patients who presented to King Hussein Cancer Center ED between January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2016.ResultsCancer-related covariates associated with the occurrence of VTE were high-risk cancer type (odds ratio [OR] 3.64 [95% confidence interval {CI} 2.37–5.60], p < 0.001), presentation within 6 months of the cancer diagnosis (OR 1.92 [95% CI 1.62–2.28], p < 0.001), active cancer (OR 1.35 [95% CI 1.10–1.65], p = 0.003), advanced stage (OR 1.40 [95% CI 1.01–1.94], p = 0.044), and the presence of brain metastasis (OR 1.73 [95% CI 1.32–2.27], p < 0.001). When combined, these factors along with other clinical factors showed high prediction performance for VTE in the external validation cohort.ConclusionsCancer risk group, presentation within 6 months of cancer diagnosis, active and advanced cancer, and the presence of brain metastases along with other related clinical factors can be used to predict VTE in patients with cancer presenting to the ED.     

Elevated D-dimer levels on admission are associated with severity and increased risk of mortality in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the correlation of D-dimer levels measured on admission with disease severity and the risk of death in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia.Materials and methodsWe performed a comprehensive literature search from several databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed in abstracting data and assessing validity. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS). D-dimer levels were pooled and compared between severe/non-severe and surviving/non-surviving patient groups. Weighted mean difference (WMD), risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were analyzed.ResultsThirty-nine studies reported on D-dimer levels in 5750 non-severe and 2063 severe patients and 16 studies reported on D-dimer levels in 2783 surviving and 697 non-surviving cases. D-dimer levels were significantly higher in patients with severe clinical status (WMD: 0.45 mg/L, 95% CI: 0.34–0.56; p < 0.0001). Non-surviving patients had significantly higher D-dimer levels compared to surviving patients (WMD: 5.32 mg/L, 95% CI: 3.90–6.73; p < 0.0001). D-dimer levels above the upper limit of normal (ULN) was associated with higher risk of severity (RR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.25–2.00; p < 0.0001) and mortality (RR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.40–2.37; p < 0.0001).ConclusionIncreased levels of D-dimer levels measured on admission are significantly correlated with the severity of COVID-19 pneumonia and may predict mortality in hospitalized patients.     

Validation of the Elderly Risk Assessment Index in the Emergency Department

ObjectivesThe Elderly Risk Assessment (ERA) score is a validated index for primary care patients that predict hospitalizations, mortality, and Emergency Department (ED) visits. The score incorporates age, prior hospital days, marital status, and comorbidities. Our aim was to validate the ERA score in ED patients.MethodsObservational cohort study of patients age ≥ 60 presenting to an academic ED over a 1-year period. Regression analyses were performed for associations with outcomes (hospitalization, return visits and death). Medians, interquartile range (IQR), odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.ResultsThe cohort included 27,397 visits among 18,607 patients. Median age 74 years (66–82), 48% were female and 59% were married. Patients from 54% of visits were admitted to the hospital, 16% returned to the ED within 30 days, and 18% died within one year. Higher ERA scores were associated with: hospital admission (score 10 [4–16] vs 5 [1–11], p < 0.0001), return visits (11 [5–17] vs 7 [2–13], p < 0.0001); and death within one year (14 [7–20] vs 6 [2–13], p < 0.0001). Patients with ERA score ≥ 16 were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, OR 2.14 (2.02–2.28, p < 0.0001), return within 30 days OR 1.99 (1.85–2.14), and to die within a year, OR 2.69 (2.54–2.85).ConclusionThe ERA score can be automatically calculated within the electronic health record and helps identify patients at increased risk of death, hospitalization and return ED visits. The ERA score can be applied to ED patients, and may help prognosticate the need for advanced care planning.     

A novel predictive tool for prognosis in elderly patients with urinary tract infection: Modified PRACTICE

PurposeWe evaluated whether combining the serum albumin level and the Prediction Rule for Admission policy in Complicated urinary Tract InfeCtion LEiden (PRACTICE) class could be a prognostic predictor in elderly patients with urinary tract infection (UTI).MethodsWe retrospectively included adult patients (age ≥ 65 years) with UTI who were hospitalized in the emergency department (ED) between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018. We graded the serum albumin level and classified the PRACTICE score; the modified PRACTICE was defined as the sum of the albumin level grade and the PRACTICE class. We comparatively assessed the predictive value for in-hospital mortality and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) in survivor and non-survivor groups.ResultsIn total, the study analysis included 1159 patients, and in-hospital mortality was 3.4% (n = 39). The modified PRACTICE score (4.0 [1.4] vs 6.1 [1.2], p < 0.001) was significantly increased in the non-survivor group. The area under the curve value of factors associated with in-hospital mortality were the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) 0.57 (95% CI 0.54–0.60), albumin 0.83 (95% CI 0.81–0.85), PRACTICE 0.71 (95% CI 0.69–0.74), and the modified PRACTICE 0.86 (95% CI 0.84–0.88). Factors associated with ICU admission were MEWS 0.65 (95% CI 0.62–0.68), albumin 0.66 (95% CI 0.64–0.69), PRACTICE 0.66 (95% CI 0.63–0.68), and the modified PRACTICE 0.72 (95% CI 0.69–0.74).ConclusionThe modified PRACTICE score can be a useful prognostic predictor in elderly patients with UTI.     

The effect of the severity COVID-19 infection on electrocardiography

ObjectiveAcute myocardial damage is detected in a significant portion of patients with coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) infection, with a reported prevalence of 7–28%. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between electrocardiographic findings and the indicators of the severity of COVID-19 detected on electrocardiography (ECG).MethodsA total of 219 patients that were hospitalized due to COVID-19 between April 15 and May 5, 2020 were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into two groups according to the severity of COVID-19 infection: severe (n = 95) and non-severe (n = 124). ECG findings at the time of admission were recorded for each patient. Clinical characteristics and laboratory findings were retrieved from electronic medical records.ResultsMean age was 65.2 ± 13.8 years in the severe group and was 57.9 ± 16.0 years in the non-severe group. ST depression (28% vs. 14%), T-wave inversion (29% vs. 16%), ST-T changes (36% vs. 21%), and the presence of fragmented QRS (fQRS) (17% vs. 7%) were more frequent in the severe group compared to the non-severe group. Multivariate analysis revealed that hypertension (odds ratio [OR]: 2.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.03–5.67; p = 0.041), the severity of COVID-19 infection (OR: 1.87, 95% CI: 1.09–2.65; p = 0.026), presence of cardiac injury (OR: 3.32, 95% CI: 1.45–7.60; p = 0.004), and d-dimer (OR: 3.60, 95% CI: 1.29–10.06; p = 0.014) were independent predictors of ST-T changes on ECG.ConclusionST depression, T-wave inversion, ST-T changes, and the presence of fQRS on admission ECG are closely associated with the severity of COVID-19 infection.     

Inflammatory and hematologic markers as predictors of severe outcomes in COVID-19 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundLaboratory testing is commonly performed in patients with COVID-19. Each of the laboratory parameters has potential value for risk stratification and prediction of COVID-19 outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the difference between these parameters in severe and nonsevere disease and to provide the optimal cutoff value for predicting severe disease.MethodWe performed a systematic literature search through electronic databases. The variables of interest were serum procalcitonin, albumin, C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels in each group of severity outcomes from COVID-19.ResultsThere were a total of 4848 patients from 23 studies. Our meta-analysis suggest that patients with severe COVID-19 infections have higher procalcitonin, (mean difference 0.07; 95% CI 0.05–0.10; p < 0.00001), CRP (mean difference 36.88; 95% CI 29.10–44.65; p < 0.00001), D-Dimer (mean difference 0.43; 95% CI 0.31–0.56; p < 0.00001), and LDH (mean difference 102.79; 95% CI 79.10–126.49; p < 0.00001) but lower levels of albumin (mean difference −4.58; 95% CI −5.76 to −3.39; p < 0.00001) than those with nonsevere COVID-19 infections. The cutoff values for the parameters were 0.065 ng/mL for procalcitonin, 38.85 g/L for albumin, 33.55 mg/L for CRP, 0.635 μ/L for D-dimer, and 263.5 U/L for LDH, each with high sensitivity and specificity.ConclusionThis meta-analysis suggests elevated procalcitonin, CRP, D-dimer, and LDH and decreased albumin can be used for predicting severe outcomes in COVID-19.     

The role of Chinese medicine in COVID-19 pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionChinese medicine (CM) has been used to treat Novel Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia in China. This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of CM in the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving CM in the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia were identified from Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Database, Wanfang Database and VIP Information Database. The methodological quality of trials was evaluated with Cochrane Hanadbook criteria, and the Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 7 valid studies involving 681 patients were included. The meta-analysis exhibited in comparison to conventional treatment, CM combined with conventional treatment significantly improved clinical efficacy (RR = 1.21, 95% CI [1.08,1.36]), and significantly increased viral nucleic acid negative conversion rate (RR = 1.49, 95% CI [1.13,1.97]). CM also prominently reduced pulmonary inflammation (RR = 1.27, 95% CI [1.12,1.44]), and improved host immune function (WBC, MD = 0.92, 95% CI [0.07,1.76]; LYM, MD = 0.33, 95% CI [0.08,0.57]; LYM%, MD = 2.90, 95% CI [2.09,3.71]; CRP, MD = −12.66, 95% CI [−24.40, −0.92]). Meanwhile, CM did not increase the incidence of adverse reactions (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [0.39,3.52]).ConclusionAccording to the allocated data, CM has demonstrated clinical efficacy and safety on COVID-19 pneumonia, which need to be confirmed by high quality, multiple-center, large sample randomized controlled trials.     

Utility of the blood urea nitrogen to serum albumin ratio as a prognostic factor of mortality in aspiration pneumonia patients

PurposeThis study aimed to determine whether the blood urea nitrogen to serum albumin (B/A) ratio is a useful prognostic factor of mortality in patients with aspiration pneumonia.MethodsThe study included patients with aspiration pneumonia who had been admitted to our hospital via the emergency department (ED) between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018. The 28-day mortality after the ED visits was the primary end point of this study. The data of the survivors and non-survivors were compared.ResultsA final diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia was made for 443 patients during the study period. Significant differences were observed in age, respiratory rate, albumin levels, total protein levels, blood urea nitrogen levels, C-reactive protein levels, glucose, and Charlson comorbidity index scores between the survivor and non-survivor groups. Moreover, the B/A ratio was significantly higher in the non-survivor group than that in the survivor group.The area under the curve for the B/A ratio was 0.70 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65–0.74], 0.71 for the PSI (95% CI 0.67–0.76), 0.64 for CURB-65 (95% CI 0.60–0.69), and 0.65 for albumin (95% CI 0.60–0.70) on the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting mortality within 28 days of the ED visit. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that the B/A ratio (>7, OR 3.40, 95% CI 1.87–6.21, P < 0.001) was associated with mortality within 28 days of the ED visit.ConclusionThe B/A ratio is a simple and potentially useful prognostic factor of mortality in aspiration pneumonia patients.