RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Although dementia has emerged as an important risk factor for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, results on COVID-19-related complications and mortality are not consistent. We examined the clinical presentations and outcomes of COVID-19 in a multicentre cohort of in-hospital patients, comparing those with and without dementia. METHODS: This retrospective observational study comprises COVID-19 laboratory-confirmed patients aged ≥ 60 years admitted to 38 hospitals from 19 cities in Brazil. Data were obtained from electronic hospital records. A propensity score analysis was used to match patients with and without dementia (up to 3:1) according to age, sex, comorbidities, year, and hospital of admission. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We also assessed admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), kidney replacement therapy (KRT), sepsis, nosocomial infection, and thromboembolic events. RESULTS: Among 1,556 patients included in the study, 405 (4.5%) had a diagnosis of dementia and 1,151 were matched controls. When compared to matched controls, patients with dementia had a lower frequency of dyspnoea, cough, myalgia, headache, ageusia, and anosmia; and higher frequency of fever and delirium. They also had a lower frequency of ICU admission (32.7% vs. 47.1%, p < 0.001) and shorter ICU length of stay (7 vs. 9 days, p < 0.026), and a lower frequency of sepsis (17% vs. 24%, p = 0.005), KRT (6.4% vs. 13%, p < 0.001), and IVM (4.6% vs. 9.8%, p = 0.002). There were no differences in hospital mortality between groups. CONCLUSION: Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 differ between older inpatients with and without dementia. We observed that dementia alone could not explain the higher short-term mortality following severe COVID-19. Therefore, clinicians should consider other risk factors such as acute morbidity severity and baseline frailty when evaluating the prognosis of older adults with dementia hospitalised with COVID-19.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Demencia , Sepsis , Humanos , Anciano , Brasil/epidemiología , Estudios de Cohortes , COVID-19/complicaciones , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/epidemiología , SARS-CoV-2 , Pacientes Internos , Demencia/diagnóstico , Demencia/epidemiología , Demencia/terapiaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Hypertension and diabetes mellitus (DM) are highly prevalent in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), and the proportion of patients with uncontrolled diseases is higher than in high-income countries. Innovative strategies are required to surpass barriers of low sources, distance and quality of health care. Our aim is to assess the uptake and effectiveness of the implementation of an integrated multidimensional strategy in the primary care setting, for the management of people with hypertension and diabetes mellitus in Brazil. METHODS: This scale up implementation study called Control of Hypertension and diAbetes in MINas Gerais (CHArMING) Project has mixed-methods, and comprehends 4 steps: (1) needs assessment, including a standardized structured questionnaire and focus groups with health care practitioners; (2) baseline period, 3 months before the implementation of the intervention; (3) cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a 12-months follow-up period; and (4) a qualitative study after the end of follow-up. The cluster RCT will randomize 35 centers to intervention (n = 18) or usual care (n = 17). Patients ≥18 years old, with diagnosis of hypertension and/or DM, of 5 Brazilian cities in a resource-constrained area will be enrolled. The intervention consists of a multifaceted strategy, with a multidisciplinary approach, including telehealth tools (decision support systems, short message service, telediagnosis), continued education with an approach to issues related to the care of people with hypertension and diabetes in primary care, including pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment and behavioral change. The project has actions focused on professionals and patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study consists of a multidimensional strategy with multidisciplinary approach using digital health to improve the control of hypertension and/or DM in the primary health care setting. We expect to provide the basis for implementing an innovative management program for hypertension and DM in Brazil, aiming to reduce the present and future burden of these diseases in Brazil and other LMICs. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. (NCT05660928).
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Hipertensión , Humanos , Adolescente , Brasil/epidemiología , Hipertensión/tratamiento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiología , Diabetes Mellitus/terapia , Atención a la Salud , Atención Primaria de Salud/métodos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The assessment of clinical prognosis of pregnant COVID-19 patients at hospital presentation is challenging, due to physiological adaptations during pregnancy. Our aim was to assess the performance of the ABC2-SPH score to predict in-hospital mortality and mechanical ventilation support in pregnant patients with COVID-19, to assess the frequency of adverse pregnancy outcomes, and characteristics of pregnant women who died. METHODS: This multicenter cohort included consecutive pregnant patients with COVID-19 admitted to the participating hospitals, from April/2020 to March/2022. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and the composite outcome of mechanical ventilation support and in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints were pregnancy outcomes. The overall discrimination of the model was presented as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Overall performance was assessed using the Brier score. RESULTS: From 350 pregnant patients (median age 30 [interquartile range (25.2, 35.0)] years-old]), 11.1% had hypertensive disorders, 19.7% required mechanical ventilation support and 6.0% died. The AUROC for in-hospital mortality and for the composite outcome were 0.809 (95% IC: 0.641-0.944) and 0.704 (95% IC: 0.617-0.792), respectively, with good overall performance (Brier = 0.0384 and 0.1610, respectively). Calibration was good for the prediction of in-hospital mortality, but poor for the composite outcome. Women who died had a median age 4 years-old higher, higher frequency of hypertensive disorders (38.1% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.001) and obesity (28.6% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.025) than those who were discharged alive, and their newborns had lower birth weight (2000 vs. 2813, p = 0.001) and five-minute Apgar score (3.0 vs. 8.0, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The ABC2-SPH score had good overall performance for in-hospital mortality and the composite outcome mechanical ventilation and in-hospital mortality. Calibration was good for the prediction of in-hospital mortality, but it was poor for the composite outcome. Therefore, the score may be useful to predict in-hospital mortality in pregnant patients with COVID-19, in addition to clinical judgment. Newborns from women who died had lower birth weight and Apgar score than those who were discharged alive.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Respiración Artificial , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Recién Nacido , Embarazo , Peso al Nacer , Brasil/epidemiología , COVID-19/mortalidad , COVID-19/terapia , Hipertensión Inducida en el Embarazo , Pronóstico , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury has been described as a common complication in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, which may lead to the need for kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in its most severe forms. Our group developed and validated the MMCD score in Brazilian COVID-19 patients to predict KRT, which showed excellent performance using data from 2020. This study aimed to validate the MMCD score in a large cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in a different pandemic phase and assess its performance to predict in-hospital mortality. METHODS: This study is part of the "Brazilian COVID-19 Registry", a retrospective observational cohort of consecutive patients hospitalized for laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in 25 Brazilian hospitals between March 2021 and August 2022. The primary outcome was KRT during hospitalization and the secondary was in-hospital mortality. We also searched literature for other prediction models for KRT, to assess the results in our database. Performance was assessed using area under the receiving operator characteristic curve (AUROC) and the Brier score. RESULTS: A total of 9422 patients were included, 53.8% were men, with a median age of 59 (IQR 48-70) years old. The incidence of KRT was 8.8% and in-hospital mortality was 18.1%. The MMCD score had excellent discrimination and overall performance to predict KRT (AUROC: 0.916 [95% CI 0.909-0.924]; Brier score = 0.057). Despite the excellent discrimination and overall performance (AUROC: 0.922 [95% CI 0.914-0.929]; Brier score = 0.100), the calibration was not satisfactory concerning in-hospital mortality. A random forest model was applied in the database, with inferior performance to predict KRT requirement (AUROC: 0.71 [95% CI 0.69-0.73]). CONCLUSION: The MMCD score is not appropriate for in-hospital mortality but demonstrates an excellent predictive ability to predict KRT in COVID-19 patients. The instrument is low cost, objective, fast and accurate, and can contribute to supporting clinical decisions in the efficient allocation of assistance resources in patients with COVID-19.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Masculino , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Femenino , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Estudios Retrospectivos , Terapia de Reemplazo RenalRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is frequently associated with COVID-19, and the need for kidney replacement therapy (KRT) is considered an indicator of disease severity. This study aimed to develop a prognostic score for predicting the need for KRT in hospitalised COVID-19 patients, and to assess the incidence of AKI and KRT requirement. METHODS: This study is part of a multicentre cohort, the Brazilian COVID-19 Registry. A total of 5212 adult COVID-19 patients were included between March/2020 and September/2020. Variable selection was performed using generalised additive models (GAM), and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was used for score derivation. Accuracy was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). RESULTS: The median age of the model-derivation cohort was 59 (IQR 47-70) years, 54.5% were men, 34.3% required ICU admission, 20.9% evolved with AKI, 9.3% required KRT, and 15.1% died during hospitalisation. The temporal validation cohort had similar age, sex, ICU admission, AKI, required KRT distribution and in-hospital mortality. The geographic validation cohort had similar age and sex; however, this cohort had higher rates of ICU admission, AKI, need for KRT and in-hospital mortality. Four predictors of the need for KRT were identified using GAM: need for mechanical ventilation, male sex, higher creatinine at hospital presentation and diabetes. The MMCD score had excellent discrimination in derivation (AUROC 0.929, 95% CI 0.918-0.939) and validation (temporal AUROC 0.927, 95% CI 0.911-0.941; geographic AUROC 0.819, 95% CI 0.792-0.845) cohorts and good overall performance (Brier score: 0.057, 0.056 and 0.122, respectively). The score is implemented in a freely available online risk calculator ( https://www.mmcdscore.com/ ). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the MMCD score to predict the need for KRT may assist healthcare workers in identifying hospitalised COVID-19 patients who may require more intensive monitoring, and can be useful for resource allocation.
Asunto(s)
Lesión Renal Aguda , COVID-19 , Lesión Renal Aguda/diagnóstico , Lesión Renal Aguda/epidemiología , Lesión Renal Aguda/terapia , Adulto , Anciano , COVID-19/terapia , Dextranos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Mitomicina , Curva ROC , Terapia de Reemplazo Renal/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The low levels of control of hypertension and diabetes mellitus are a challenge that requires innovative strategies to surpass barriers of low sources, distance, and quality of health care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop a clinical decision support system (CDSS) for diabetes and hypertension management in primary care, to implement it in a resource-constrained region, and to evaluate its usability and health care practitioner satisfaction. METHODS: This mixed methods study is a substudy of HealthRise Brazil Project, a multinational study designed to implement pilot programs to improve screening, diagnosis, management, and control of hypertension and diabetes among underserved communities. Following the identification of gaps in usual care, a team of clinicians established the software functional requirements. Recommendations from evidence-based guidelines were reviewed and organized into a decision algorithm, which bases the CDSS reminders and suggestions. Following pretesting and expert panel assessment, pilot testing was conducted in a quasi-experimental study, which included 34 primary care units of 10 municipalities in a resource-constrained area in Brazil. A Likert-scale questionnaire evaluating perceived feasibility, usability, and utility of the application and professionals' satisfaction was applied after 6 months. In the end-line assessment, 2 focus groups with primary care physicians and nurses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 159 reminders and suggestions were created and implemented for the CDSS. At the 6-month assessment, there were 1939 patients registered in the application database and 2160 consultations were performed by primary care teams. Of the 96 health care professionals who were invited for the usability assessment, 26% (25/96) were physicians, 46% (44/96) were nurses, and 28% (27/96) were other health professionals. The questionnaire included 24 items on impressions of feasibility, usability, utility, and satisfaction, and presented global Cronbach α of .93. As for feasibility, all professionals agreed (median scores of 4 or 5) that the application could be used in primary care settings and it could be easily incorporated in work routines, but physicians claimed that the application might have caused significant delays in daily routines. As for usability, overall evaluation was good and it was claimed that the application was easy to understand and use. All professionals agreed that the application was useful (score 4 or 5) to promote prevention, assist treatment, and might improve patient care, and they were overall satisfied with the application (median scores between 4 and 5). In the end-line assessment, there were 4211 patients (94.82% [3993/4211] with hypertension and 24.41% [1028/4211] with diabetes) registered in the application's database and 7960 consultations were performed by primary health care teams. The 17 participants of the focus groups were consistent to affirm they were very satisfied with the CDSS. CONCLUSIONS: The CDSS was applicable in the context of primary health care settings in low-income regions, with good user satisfaction and potential to improve adherence to evidence-based practices.
Asunto(s)
Sistemas de Apoyo a Decisiones Clínicas/normas , Diabetes Mellitus/terapia , Hipertensión/terapia , Adulto , Brasil , Análisis de Datos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Proyectos Piloto , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To develop a mortality risk score for COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU), and to compare it with other existing scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective observational study included consecutive adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to ICUs of 18 hospitals from nine Brazilian cities, from September 2021 to July 2022. Potential predictors were selected based on the literature review. Generalized Additive Models were used to examine outcomes and predictors. LASSO regression was used to derive the mortality score. RESULTS: From 558 patients, median age was 69 years (IQR 58-78), 56.3 % were men, 19.7 % required mechanical ventilation (MV), and 44.8 % died. The final model comprised six variables: age, pO2/FiO2, respiratory function (respiratory rate or if in MV), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and obesity. The AB2CO had an AUROC of 0.781 (95 % CI 0.744 to 0.819), good overall performance (Brier score = 0.191) and an excellent calibration (slope = 1.063, intercept = 0.015, p-value = 0.834). The model was compared with other scores and displayed better discrimination ability than the majority of them. CONCLUSIONS: The AB2CO score is a fast and easy tool to be used upon ICU admission.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Respiración Artificial , Humanos , Masculino , COVID-19/epidemiología , Anciano , Estudios Retrospectivos , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/estadística & datos numéricos , Respiración Artificial/estadística & datos numéricos , Brasil/epidemiología , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/fisiopatología , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/terapia , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Obesidad/complicaciones , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de EdadRESUMEN
Context: COVID-19 induces complex distress across physical, psychological, and social realms and palliative care (PC) has the potential to mitigate this suffering significantly. Objectives: To describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with an indication of PC, compared to patients who had no indication, in different pandemic waves. Methods: This retrospective multicenter observational cohort included patients from 40 hospitals, admitted from March 2020 to August 2022. Patients who had an indication of palliative care (PC) described in their medical records were included in the palliative care group (PCG), while those who had no such indication in their medical records were allocated to the non-palliative care group (NPCG). Results: Out of 21,158 patients, only 6.7% had indication for PC registered in their medical records. The PCG was older, had a higher frequency of comorbidities, exhibited higher frailty, and had a higher prevalence of clinical complications and mortality (81.4% vs. 17.7%, p < 0.001), when compared to the NPCG. Regarding artificial life support, the PCG had a higher frequency of dialysis (20.4% vs. 10.1%, p < 0.001), invasive mechanical ventilation (48.2% vs. 26.0%, p < 0.001) and admission to the intensive care unit (53.6% vs. 35.4%, p < 0.001). These differences were consistent across all three waves. Conclusion: A low proportion of patients received PC. Patients in PCG were more fragile, had more clinical complications, and had a higher mortality. On the contrary to our expectations, they received more artificial life support in all three waves. Taken together, these findings suggest that decisions regarding PC indication were made too late, within a context of end-of-life and therapeutic failure.
RESUMEN
Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), especially those on dialysis or who have received a kidney transplant (KT), are considered more vulnerable to severe COVID-19. This susceptibility is attributed to advanced age, a higher frequency of comorbidities, and the chronic immunosuppressed state, which may exacerbate their susceptibility to severe outcomes. Therefore, our study aimed to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 in KT patients with those on chronic dialysis and non-CKD patients in a propensity score-matched cohort study. This multicentric retrospective cohort included adult COVID-19 laboratory-confirmed patients admitted from March/2020 to July/2022, from 43 Brazilian hospitals. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Propensity score analysis matched KT recipients with controls - patients on chronic dialysis and those without CKD (within 0.25 standard deviations of the logit of the propensity score) - according to age, sex, number of comorbidities, and admission year. This study included 555 patients: 163 KT, 146 on chronic dialysis, and 249 non-CKD patients (median age 57 years, 55.2% women). With regards to clinical outcomes, chronic dialysis patients had a higher prevalence of acute heart failure, compared to KT recipients, furthermore, both groups presented high in-hospital mortality, 34.0 and 28.1%, for KT and chronic dialysis patients, respectively. When comparing KT and non-CKD patients, the first group had a higher incidence of in-hospital dialysis (26.4% vs. 8.8%, p < 0.001), septic shock (24.1% vs. 12.0%, p = 0.002), and mortality (32.5% vs. 23.3%, p = 0.039), in addition to longer time spent in the intensive care unit (ICU). In this study, chronic dialysis patients presented a higher prevalence of acute heart failure, compared to KT recipients, whereas KT patients had a higher frequency of complications than those without CKD, including septic shock, dialysis during hospitalization, and in-hospital mortality as well as longer time spent in the ICU.
RESUMEN
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1130218.].
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the results of a program that offered access to HbA1c POC tests for the glycemic control of patients with diabetes in small and poor municipalities of Minas Gerais, Brazil. METHODS: Using a before and after study, we compared four groups: patients submitted to (i) POC tests; (ii) conventional tests; (iii) both tests; and (iv) neither test. The analysis considered three periods: before the program; before the pandemic; and during the pandemic. A cost comparison was conducted under the societal perspective and a cost-parity model was designed. RESULTS: 1349 patients previously diagnosed with diabetes were included in the analysis. The rate of consultations and the rate of HbA1c testing were significantly different between all periods and groups. Group iii had a much higher consultation and testing rate. The costs were around 89.45 PPP-USD for POC tests and between 32.44 and 54.66 PPP-USD for conventional tests. Cost-parity analysis suggests that the technology would be acceptable if the annual number of tests was between 247 and 771. CONCLUSION: Using POC devices improved access to HbA1c testing but not glycemic control. Even in small towns, the number of tests necessary to achieve cost-parity is low enough to enable their incorporation into the public health system.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Humanos , Hemoglobina Glucada , Diabetes Mellitus/diagnóstico , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiología , Diabetes Mellitus/terapia , Sistemas de Atención de Punto , Pruebas en el Punto de Atención , Costos y Análisis de Costo , PobrezaRESUMEN
Objectives: To assess the ABC2-SPH score in predicting COVID-19 in-hospital mortality, during intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and to compare its performance with other scores (SOFA, SAPS-3, NEWS2, 4C Mortality Score, SOARS, CURB-65, modified CHA2DS2-VASc, and a novel severity score). Materials and methods: Consecutive patients (≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to ICUs of 25 hospitals, located in 17 Brazilian cities, from October 2020 to March 2022, were included. Overall performance of the scores was evaluated using the Brier score. ABC2-SPH was used as the reference score, and comparisons between ABC2-SPH and the other scores were performed by using the Bonferroni method of correction. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: ABC2-SPH had an area under the curve of 0.716 (95% CI 0.693-0.738), significantly higher than CURB-65, SOFA, NEWS2, SOARS, and modified CHA2DS2-VASc scores. There was no statistically significant difference between ABC2-SPH and SAPS-3, 4C Mortality Score, and the novel severity score. Conclusion: ABC2-SPH was superior to other risk scores, but it still did not demonstrate an excellent predictive ability for mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Our results indicate the need to develop a new score, for this subset of patients.
RESUMEN
Background: Predicting the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is important for the allocation of human and technological resources, improvement of surveillance, and use of effective therapeutic measures. This study aimed (i) to assess whether the ABC2-SPH score is able to predict the receipt of IMV in COVID-19 patients; (ii) to compare its performance with other existing scores; (iii) to perform score recalibration, and to assess whether recalibration improved prediction. Methods: Retrospective observational cohort, which included adult laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted in 32 hospitals, from 14 Brazilian cities. This study was conducted in two stages: (i) for the assessment of the ABC2-SPH score and comparison with other available scores, patients hospitalized from July 31, 2020, to March 31, 2022, were included; (ii) for ABC2-SPH score recalibration and also comparison with other existing scores, patients admitted from January 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022, were enrolled. For both steps, the area under the receiving operator characteristic score (AUROC) was calculated for all scores, while a calibration plot was assessed only for the ABC2-SPH score. Comparisons between ABC2-SPH and the other scores followed the Delong Test recommendations. Logistic recalibration methods were used to improve results and adapt to the studied sample. Results: Overall, 9,350 patients were included in the study, the median age was 58.5 (IQR 47.0-69.0) years old, and 45.4% were women. Of those, 33.5% were admitted to the ICU, 25.2% received IMV, and 17.8% died. The ABC2-SPH score showed a significantly greater discriminatory capacity, than the CURB-65, STSS, and SUM scores, with potentialized results when we consider only patients younger than 80 years old (AUROC 0.714 [95% CI 0.698-0.731]). Thus, after the ABC2-SPH score recalibration, we observed improvements in calibration (slope = 1.135, intercept = 0.242) and overall performance (Brier score = 0.127). Conclusion: The ABC2-SPHr risk score demonstrated a good performance to predict the need for mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 hospitalized patients under 80 years of age.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To analyze the clinical characteristics and outcomes of admitted patients with the hospital- versus community-manifested COVID-19 and to evaluate the risk factors related to mortality in the first population. METHODS: This retrospective cohort included consecutive adult patients with COVID-19, hospitalized between March and September 2020. The demographic data, clinical characteristics, and outcomes were extracted from medical records. Patients with hospital-manifested COVID-19 (study group) and those with community-manifested COVID-19 (control group) were matched by the propensity score model. Logistic regression models were used to verify the risk factors for mortality in the study group. RESULTS: Among 7,710 hospitalized patients who had COVID-19, 7.2% developed symptoms while admitted for other reasons. Patients with hospital-manifested COVID-19 had a higher prevalence of cancer (19.2% vs 10.8%) and alcoholism (8.8% vs 2.8%) than patients with community-manifested COVID-19 and also had a higher rate of intensive care unit requirement (45.1% vs 35.2%), sepsis (23.8% vs 14.5%), and death (35.8% vs 22.5%) (P <0.05 for all). The factors independently associated with increased mortality in the study group were increasing age, male sex, number of comorbidities, and cancer. CONCLUSION: Hospital-manifested COVID-19 was associated with increased mortality. Increasing age, male sex, number of comorbidities, and cancer were independent predictors of mortality among those with hospital-manifested COVID-19 disease.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , Masculino , COVID-19/epidemiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Hospitalización , Comorbilidad , Factores de Riesgo , Hospitales , Mortalidad HospitalariaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 are important aspects of the disease's pathogenesis and prognosis. Evidence on the prognostic role of troponin and myocardial injury in Latin American hospitalized COVID-19 patients is still scarce. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate myocardial injury as independent predictor of in-hospital mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation support in hospitalized patients, from the Brazilian COVID-19 Registry. METHODS: This cohort study is a substudy of the Brazilian COVID-19 Registry, conducted in 31 Brazilian hospitals of 17 cities, March-September 2020. Primary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation support. Models for the primary outcomes were estimated by Poisson regression with robust variance, with statistical significance of p<0.05. RESULTS: Of 2,925 patients (median age of 60 years [48-71], 57.1% men), 27.3% presented myocardial injury. The proportion of patients with comorbidities was higher among patients with cardiac injury (median 2 [1-2] vs. 1 [0-2]). Patients with myocardial injury had higher median levels of brain natriuretic peptide, lactate dehydrogenase, creatine phosphokinase, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, and C-reactive protein than patients without myocardial injury. As independent predictors, C-reactive protein and platelet counts were related to the risk of death, and neutrophils and platelet counts were related to the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation support. Patients with high troponin levels presented a higher risk of death (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.60-2.58) and invasive mechanical ventilation support (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.57-2.23), when compared to those with normal troponin levels. CONCLUSION: Cardiac injury was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation support in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
FUNDAMENTO: As complicações cardiovasculares da COVID-19 são aspectos importantes da patogênese e do prognóstico da doença. Evidências do papel prognóstico da troponina e da lesão miocárdica em pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 na América Latina são ainda escassos. OBJETIVOS: Avaliar a lesão miocárdica como preditor independente de mortalidade hospitalar e suporte ventilatório mecânico em pacientes hospitalizados, do registro brasileiro de COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Este estudo coorte é um subestudo do registro brasileiro de COVID-19, conduzido em 31 hospitais brasileiros de 17 cidades, de março a setembro de 2020. Os desfechos primários incluíram mortalidade hospitalar e suporte ventilatório mecânico invasivo. Os modelos para os desfechos primários foram estimados por regressão de Poisson com variância robusta, com significância estatística de p<0,05. RESULTADOS: Dos 2925 pacientes [idade mediana de 60 anos (48-71), 57,1%], 27,3% apresentaram lesão miocárdica. A proporção de pacientes com comorbidades foi maior nos pacientes com lesão miocárdica [mediana 2 (1-2) vs. 1 (0-20)]. Os pacientes com lesão miocárdica apresentaram maiores valores medianos de peptídeo natriurético cerebral, lactato desidrogenase, creatina fosfoquinase, N-terminal do pró-peptídeo natriurético tipo B e proteína C reativa em comparação a pacientes sem lesão miocárdica. Como fatores independentes, proteína C reativa e contagem de plaquetas foram relacionados com o risco de morte, e neutrófilos e contagem de plaquetas foram relacionados ao risco de suporte ventilatório mecânico invasivo. Os pacientes com níveis elevados de troponina apresentaram um maior risco de morte (RR 2,03, IC95% 1,60-2,58) e suporte ventilatório mecânico (RR 1,87;IC95% 1,57-2,23), em comparação àqueles com níveis de troponina normais. CONCLUSÃO: Lesão cardíaca foi um preditor independente de mortalidade hospitalar e necessidade de suporte ventilatório mecânico em pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Lesiones Cardíacas , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Brasil/epidemiología , Proteína C-Reactiva , Estudios de Cohortes , Pronóstico , AncianoRESUMEN
The majority of early prediction scores and methods to predict COVID-19 mortality are bound by methodological flaws and technological limitations (e.g., the use of a single prediction model). Our aim is to provide a thorough comparative study that tackles those methodological issues, considering multiple techniques to build mortality prediction models, including modern machine learning (neural) algorithms and traditional statistical techniques, as well as meta-learning (ensemble) approaches. This study used a dataset from a multicenter cohort of 10,897 adult Brazilian COVID-19 patients, admitted from March/2020 to November/2021, including patients [median age 60 (interquartile range 48-71), 46% women]. We also proposed new original population-based meta-features that have not been devised in the literature. Stacking has shown to achieve the best results reported in the literature for the death prediction task, improving over previous state-of-the-art by more than 46% in Recall for predicting death, with AUROC 0.826 and MacroF1 of 65.4%. The newly proposed meta-features were highly discriminative of death, but fell short in producing large improvements in final prediction performance, demonstrating that we are possibly on the limits of the prediction capabilities that can be achieved with the current set of ML techniques and (meta-)features. Finally, we investigated how the trained models perform on different hospitals, showing that there are indeed large differences in classifier performance between different hospitals, further making the case that errors are produced by factors that cannot be modeled with the current predictors.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Masculino , Brasil , Hospitales , Hospitalización , Aprendizaje AutomáticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic reduced health service access by patients with chronic diseases. The discontinuity of care is a cause of great concern, mainly in vulnerable regions. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with hypertension and diabetes mellitus (DM) regarding the frequency of consultations and whether their disease was kept under control. The study also aimed to develop and implement a digital solution to improve monitoring at home. METHODS: This is a multimethodological study. A quasiexperimental evaluation assessed the impact of the pandemic on the frequency of consultations and control of patients with hypertension and DM in 34 primary health care centers in 10 municipalities. Then, an implementation study developed an app with a decision support system (DSS) for community health workers (CHWs) to identify and address at-risk patients with uncontrolled hypertension or DM. An expert panel assessment evaluated feasibility, usability, and utility of the software. RESULTS: Of 5070 patients, 4810 (94.87%) had hypertension, 1371 (27.04%) had DM, and 1111 (21.91%) had both diseases. There was a significant reduction in the weekly number of consultations (107, IQR 60.0-153.0 before vs 20.0, IQR 7.0-29.0 after social restriction; P<.001). Only 15.23% (772/5070) of all patients returned for a consultation during the pandemic. Individuals with hypertension had lower systolic (120.0, IQR 120.0-140.0 mm Hg) and diastolic (80.0, IQR 80.0-80.0 mm Hg) blood pressure than those who did not return (130.0, IQR 120.0-140.0 mm Hg and 80.0, IQR 80.0-90.0 mm Hg, respectively; P<.001). Also, those who returned had a higher proportion of controlled hypertension (64.3% vs 52.8%). For DM, there were no differences in glycohemoglobin levels. Concerning the DSS, the experts agreed that the CHWs can easily incorporate it into their routines and the app can identify patients at risk and improve treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic caused a significant drop in the number of consultations for patients with hypertension and DM in primary care. A DSS for CHW has proved to be feasible, useful, and easily incorporated into their routines.
RESUMEN
Introduction: Neurological manifestations have been associated with a poorer prognosis in COVID-19. However, data regarding their incidence according to sex and age groups is still lacking. Methods: This retrospective multicentric cohort collected data from 39 Brazilian hospitals from 17 cities, from adult COVID-19 admitted from March 2020 to January 2022. Neurological manifestations presented at hospital admission were assessed according to incidence by sex and age group. Results: From 13,603 COVID-19 patients, median age was 60 years old and 53.0% were men. Women were more likely to present with headaches (22.4% vs. 17.7%, p < 0.001; OR 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-1.52) than men and also presented a lower risk of having seizures (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.94). Although delirium was more frequent in women (6.6% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.020), sex was not associated with delirium in the multivariable logistc regresssion analysis. Delirium, syncope and coma increased with age (1.5% [18-39 years] vs. 22.4% [80 years or over], p < 0.001, OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.06-1.07; 0.7% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.002, OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02; 0.2% vs. 1.3% p < 0.001, OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06), while, headache (26.5% vs. 7.1%, OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.98-0.99), anosmia (11.4% vs. 3.3%, OR 0.99, 95% CI] 0.98-0.99 and ageusia (13.1% vs. 3.5%, OR 0.99, CI 0.98-0.99) decreased (p < 0.001 for all). Conclusion: Older COVID-19 patients were more likely to present delirium, syncope and coma, while the incidence of anosmia, ageusia and headaches decreased with age. Women were more likely to present headache, and less likely to present seizures.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Scientific data regarding the prevalence of COVID-19 neurological manifestations and prognosis in Latin America countries is still lacking. Therefore, the study aims to understand neurological manifestations of SARS-CoV 2 infection and outcomes in the Brazilian population. METHODS: This study is part of the Brazilian COVID-19 Registry, a multicentric cohort, including data from 37 hospitals. For the present analysis, patients were grouped according to the presence of reported symptoms (i.e., headache; anosmia and ageusia; syncope and dizziness) vs. clinically-diagnosed neurological manifestations (clinically-defined neurological syndrome: neurological signs or diagnoses captured by clinical evaluation) and matched with patients without neurological manifestations by age, sex, number of comorbidities, hospital of admission, and whether or not patients had underlying neurological disease. RESULTS: From 6,635 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, 30.8% presented reported neurological manifestations, 10.3% were diagnosed with a neurological syndrome and 60.1% did not show any neurological manifestations. In patients with reported symptoms, the most common ones were headache (20.7%), ageusia (11.1%) and anosmia (8.0%). In patients with neurological syndromes, acute encephalopathy was the most common diagnosis (9.7%). In the matched analysis, patients with neurological syndromes presented more cases of septic shock (17.0 vs. 13.0%, p = 0.045), intensive care unit admission (45.3 vs. 38.9%, p = 0.023), and mortality (38.7 vs. 32.6%, p = 0.026; and 39.2 vs. 30.3%, p < 0.001) when compared to controls. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 in-hospital patients with clinically defined neurological syndromes presented a higher incidence of septic shock, ICU admission and death when compared to controls.