Mortality reduction in older COVID-19-patients hospitalized in Spain during the second pandemic wave from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic followed a two-wave pattern in most countries. Hospital admission for COVID-19 in one wave or another could have affected mortality, especially among the older persons. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the admission of older patients during the different waves, before SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was available, was associated with a different mortality. We compared the mortality rates of patients hospitalized during 2020 before (first wave) and after (second wave) July 7, 2020, included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, a large, multicenter, retrospective cohort of patients admitted to 126 Spanish hospitals for COVID-19. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to control for changes in either the patient or disease profile. As of December 26, 2022, 22,494 patients had been included (17,784 from the first wave and 4710 from the second one). Overall mortality was 20.4% in the first wave and 17.2% in the second wave (risk difference (RD) - 3.2%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) - 4.4 to - 2.0). Only patients aged 70 and older (10,973 patients: 8571 in the first wave and 2386 in the second wave) had a significant reduction in mortality (RD - 7.6%; 95% CI - 9.7 to - 5.5) (unadjusted relative risk reduction: 21.6%). After adjusting for age, comorbidities, variables related to the severity of the disease, and treatment received, admission during the second wave remained a protective factor. In Spain, patients aged 70 years and older admitted during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had a significantly lower risk of mortality, except in severely dependent persons in need of corticosteroid treatment. This effect is independent of patient characteristics, disease severity, or treatment received. This suggests a protective effect of a better standard of care, greater clinical expertise, or a lesser degree of healthcare system overload.

The Prognostic Value of Eosinophil Recovery in COVID-19: A Multicentre, Retrospective Cohort Study on Patients Hospitalised in Spanish Hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: A decrease in blood cell counts, especially lymphocytes and eosinophils, has been described in patients with serious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but there is no knowledge of their potential role of the recovery in these patients' prognosis. This article aims to analyse the effect of blood cell depletion and blood cell recovery on mortality due to COVID-19. DESIGN: This work was a retrospective, multicentre cohort study of 9644 hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19 from the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine's SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. SETTING: This study examined patients hospitalised in 147 hospitals throughout Spain. PARTICIPANTS: This work analysed 9644 patients (57.12% male) out of a cohort of 12,826 patients ≥18 years of age hospitalised with COVID-19 in Spain included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry as of 29 May 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure of this work is the effect of blood cell depletion and blood cell recovery on mortality due to COVID-19. Univariate analysis was performed to determine possible predictors of death, and then multivariate analysis was carried out to control for potential confounders. RESULTS: An increase in the eosinophil count on the seventh day of hospitalisation was associated with a better prognosis, including lower mortality rates (5.2% vs. 22.6% in non-recoverers, OR 0.234; 95% CI, 0.154 to 0.354) and lower complication rates, especially regarding the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (8% vs. 20.1%, p = 0.000) and ICU admission (5.4% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.000). Lymphocyte recovery was found to have no effect on prognosis. Treatment with inhaled or systemic glucocorticoids was not found to be a confounding factor. CONCLUSION: Eosinophil recovery in patients with COVID-19 who required hospitalisation had an independent prognostic value for all-cause mortality and a milder course.

Palliative Sedation in Patients Hospitalized in Internal Medicine Departments.

CONTEXT: Palliative sedation is used to relieve end-of-life refractory symptoms. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the use of palliative sedation in patients who die in internal medicine departments. METHODS: An observational, cross-sectional, retrospective, and multicenter clinical audit study was conducted in 145 hospitals in Spain and Argentina. Each hospital included the first 10 patients who died in the internal medicine department, starting on December 1, 2015. RESULTS: We included 1447 patients, and palliative sedation was administered to 701 patients (48.4%). Having a terminal illness (odds ratio [OR] 2.469, 95% CI 1.971-3.093, P < 0.001) and the length of hospital stay (OR 1.011, 95% CI 1.002-1.021, P = 0.017) were independently associated with the use of palliative sedation. Consent was granted by the families of 582 (83%) patients. The most common refractory symptom was dyspnea, and the most commonly used drugs for sedation were midazolam (77%) and morphine (89.7%). An induction dose was administered in 25.7% of the patients. Rescue doses were scheduled for 70% of the patients, and hydration was maintained in 49.5%. Pain was more common in patients with cancer, whereas dyspnea was more common in those without cancer. Rescue doses were used more often for the patients with cancer (77.8% vs. 67.7%, P = 0.015). Monitoring the palliative sedation with a scale was more frequent in the patients with cancer (23.7% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Palliative sedation is used more often for terminal patients. There are differences in the administration of palliative sedation between patients with and without cancer.