Differences in acoustic features of cough by pneumonia severity in patients with COVID-19: a cross-sectional study.

Background: Acute respiratory syndrome due to coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is characterised by heterogeneous levels of disease severity. It is not necessarily apparent whether a patient will develop severe disease or not. This cross-sectional study explores whether acoustic properties of the cough sound of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the illness caused by SARS-CoV-2, correlate with their disease and pneumonia severity, with the aim of identifying patients with severe disease. Methods: Voluntary cough sounds were recorded using a smartphone in 70 COVID-19 patients within the first 24 h of their hospital arrival, between April 2020 and May 2021. Based on gas exchange abnormalities, patients were classified as mild, moderate or severe. Time- and frequency-based variables were obtained from each cough effort and analysed using a linear mixed-effects modelling approach. Results: Records from 62 patients (37% female) were eligible for inclusion in the analysis, with mild, moderate and severe groups consisting of 31, 14 and 17 patients respectively. Five of the parameters examined were found to be significantly different in the cough of patients at different disease levels of severity, with a further two parameters found to be affected differently by the disease severity in men and women. Conclusions: We suggest that all these differences reflect the progressive pathophysiological alterations occurring in the respiratory system of COVID-19 patients, and potentially would provide an easy and cost-effective way to initially stratify patients, identifying those with more severe disease, and thereby most effectively allocate healthcare resources.

Incidence of pulmonary embolism in patients with non-invasive respiratory support during COVID-19 outbreak.

While the incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill patients is very high, in patients under non-invasive respiratory support (NIS) is still unknown. The specific incidence of thrombotic events in each of the clinical scenarios within the broad spectrum of severity of COVID-19, is not clearly established, and this has not allowed the implementation of thromboprophylaxis or anticoagulation for routine care in COVID-19. Patients admitted in a semi-critical unit treated initially with NIS, especially Continuous-Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP), were included in the study. The cumulative incidence of pulmonary embolism was analyzed and compared between patients with good response to NIS and patients with clinical deterioration that required orotracheal intubation. 93 patients were included and 16% required mechanical ventilation (MV) after the NIS. The crude cumulative incidence of the PE was 14% (95%, CI 8-22) for all group. In patients that required orotracheal intubation and MV, the cumulative incidence was significantly higher [33% (95%, CI 16-58)] compared to patients that continued with non-invasive support [11% (CI 5-18)] (Log-Rank, p = 0.013). Patients that required mechanical ventilation were at higher risk of PE for a HR of 4.3 (95%CI 1.2-16). In conclusion, cumulative incidence of PE is remarkably higher in critically patients with a potential impact in COVID-19 evolution. In this context, patients under NIS are a very high-risk group for developing PE without a clear strategy regarding thromboprophylaxis.