Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 Detection With Nasopharyngeal Swabs.

Background: SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects have been proven contagious in the symptomatic, pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic phase. The identification of these patients is crucial in order to prevent virus circulation. No reliable data on the sensitivity of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are available because of the lack of a shared reference standard to identify SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. The aim of our study was to collect data on patients with a known diagnosis of COVID-19 who underwent serial testing to assess NPS sensitivity. Methods: The study was a multi-center, observational, retrospective clinical study with consecutive enrollment. We enrolled patients who met all of the following inclusion criteria: clinical recovery, documented SARS-CoV-2 infection (≥1 positive rRT-PCR result) and ≥1 positive NPS among the first two follow-up swabs. A positive NPS not preceded by a negative nasopharyngeal swab collected 24-48 h earlier was considered a true positive. A negative NPS followed by a positive NPS collected 24-48 h later was regarded as a false negative. The primary outcome was to define sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection with NPS. Results: Three hundred and ninety three NPS were evaluated in 233 patients; the sensitivity was 77% (95% CI, 73 to 81%). Sensitivity of the first follow-up NPS (n = 233) was 79% (95% CI, 73 to 84%) with no significant variations over time. We found no statistically significant differences in the sensitivity of the first follow-up NPS according to time since symptom onset, age, sex, number of comorbidities, and onset symptoms. Conclusions: NPS utility in the diagnostic algorithm of COVID-19 should be reconsidered.

Which heart rate variability index is an independent predictor of mortality in cirrhosis?

BACKGROUND: Liver cirrhosis is associated with reduced heart rate variability (HRV), which indicates impaired integrity of cardiovascular control in this patient population. There are several different indices for HRV quantification. The present study was designed to: 1) determine which of the HRV indices is best at predicting mortality in patients with cirrhosis; 2) verify if such ability to predict mortality is independent of the severity of hepatic failure. METHODS: Ten minutes electrocardiogram was recorded in 74 patients with cirrhosis. Heart rate fluctuations were quantified using statistical, geometrical and non-linear analysis. The patients were followed-up for 18months and information was collected on the occurrence of death/liver transplantation. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, 24 patients (32%) died or were transplanted for hepatic decompensation. Cox's regression analysis showed that SDNN (total HRV), cSDNN (corrected SDNN), SD1 (short-term HRV), SD2 (long-terms HRV) and spectral indices could predict survival in these patients. However, only SD2 and cSDNN were shown to be independent of MELD in predicting survival. The prognostic value of HRV indices was independent of age, gender, use of beta blockers, and the aetiology of liver disease. CONCLUSION: Two HRV indices were identified that could predict mortality in patients with cirrhosis, independently of MELD. These indices are potentially useful tools for survival prediction.

Prevalence, risk factors and outcomes of patients coming from the community with sepsis due to multidrug resistant bacteria.

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies showed an increasing prevalence of infections due to multi-drug resistant (MDR) bacteria in the community, specific data on sepsis are lacking. We aimed to assess prevalence, risk factors and outcomes of patients with sepsis due to MDR bacteria. METHODS: An observational, retrospective study was conducted on consecutive adult patients coming from the community and admitted to the Policlinico Hospital, Milan, Italy, with a diagnosis of sepsis between January 2011 and December 2015. Primary study outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Among 518 patients, at least one MDR bacteria was isolated in 88 (17%). ESBL+ Enterobacteriaceae were the most prevalent MDR bacteria (9.7%) followed by MRSA (3.9%). Independent risk factors for sepsis due to MDR bacteria were septic shock (OR: 2.2; p = 0.002) and hospitalization in the previous 90 days (OR: 2.3; p = 0.003). Independent risk factors for sepsis due to ESBL+ bacteria were hospitalization in the previous 90 days (OR: 2.1; p = 0.02) and stroke (OR: 2.1; p = 0.04). A significantly higher mortality was detected among patients with vs. without MDR bacteria (40.2% vs. 23.1% respectively, p = 0.001). Independent risk factors for mortality among patients with sepsis were coagulation dysfunction (OR: 3.2; p = 0.03), septic shock (OR: 3.2; p = 0.003), and isolation of a MDR bacteria (OR: 4.6; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In light of the prevalence and impact of MDR bacteria causing sepsis in patients coming from the community, physicians should consider ESBL coverage when starting an empiric antibiotic therapy in patients with specific risk factors, especially in the presence of septic shock.