Electrolyte disturbances in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection: An observational study.

There are multiple mechanisms by which The Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) infection can cause electrolyte abnormalities, which may not be the case for bacterial causes of pneumonia. This study aimed to assess the differences in electrolyte levels between patients suffering from COVID-19 and bacterial pneumonia. This is an original, retrospective study. Two cohorts of hospitalized patients were included, 1 suffering from COVID-19 and the other from bacterial pneumonia. Their day 1 and day 3 levels of sodium, potassium, magnesium, and phosphorus, as well as their outcomes, were extracted from the charts. Statistical analysis was subsequently performed. Mean admission levels of sodium, potassium, phosphorus, and magnesium were 135.64 ±â€…6.13, 4.38 ±â€…0.69, 3.53 ±â€…0.69, and 2.03 ±â€…0.51, respectively. The mean day 3 levels of these electrolytes were 138.3 ±â€…5.06, 4.18 ±â€…0.59, 3.578 ±â€…0.59, and 2.11 ±â€…0.64, respectively. Patients suffering from bacterial pneumonia were significantly older (N = 219, mean = 64.88 ±â€…15.99) than patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (N = 240, mean = 57.63 ±â€…17.87). Bacterial pneumonia group had significantly higher serum potassium (N = 211, mean = 4.51 ±â€…0.76), and magnesium (N = 115, mean = 2.12 ±â€…0.60) levels compared to COVID-19 group (N = 227, mean = 4.254 ±â€…0.60 for potassium and N = 118, mean = 1.933 ±â€…0.38 for magnesium). Only magnesium was significantly higher among day 3 electrolytes in the bacterial pneumonia group. No significant association between electrolyte levels and outcomes was seen. We found that COVID-19 patients had lower potassium and magnesium levels on admission, possibly due to the effect of COVID-19 on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system as well as patient characteristics and management. We did not find enough evidence to recommend using electrolyte levels as a determinator of prognosis, but more research is needed.

Attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination among urogynecology patients.

Objective: Urogynecology patients skew older and often require intimate exams to treat non-life-threatening conditions, thus making care particularly susceptible to the effects of COVID-19. We aim to understand COVID-19 vaccination attitudes amongst urogynecology patients during the pandemic, which has adversely affected healthcare delivery, to identify measures that can be undertaken to improve care going forward. Study design: Cross-sectional surveys of urogynecology patients were conducted in three different states (Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) between March and August 2021. Demographics, vaccination status, and COVID-19 attitudes were analyzed. Chi-square tests investigated group differences between vaccine-hesitant and unhesitant subjects. Results: Out of 158 surveys, eighty-three percent of respondents were vaccinated or planning to get vaccinated. Older age and regular flu vaccination predicted COVID-19 vaccination. Ninety-three percent of subjects were comfortable attending in-person visits. However, vaccine-hesitant individuals were less comfortable attending in-person and were significantly less likely to be comforted by clinic interventions, such as masking. Hesitant and unhesitant groups trusted doctors or medical professionals most for their source of COVID-19 information. Conclusions: Urogynecology patients mirror the general older population's COVID-19 vaccination attitudes, with distinct differences between hesitant and unhesitant groups. Vaccine-hesitant subjects appear less comfortable coming to in-person visits and less comforted by possible interventions, posing a difficult obstacle for clinics to overcome. High levels of patient trust suggest healthcare providers can play a crucial role in encouraging COVID-19 vaccination and combating misinformation.