RESUMEN
Background: Vaccination is vital for achieving population immunity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, but vaccination hesitancy presents a threat to achieving widespread immunity. Vaccine acceptance in chronic potentially immunosuppressed patients is largely unclear, especially in patients with asthma. The aim of this study was to investigate the vaccination experience in people with severe asthma. Methods: Questionnaires about vaccination beliefs (including the Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) scale, a measure of vaccination hesitancy-related beliefs), vaccination side-effects, asthma control and overall safety perceptions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination were sent to patients with severe asthma in 12 European countries between May and June 2021. Results: 660 participants returned completed questionnaires (87.4% response rate). Of these, 88% stated that they had been, or intended to be, vaccinated, 9.5% were undecided/hesitant and 3% had refused vaccination. Patients who hesitated or refused vaccination had more negative beliefs towards vaccination. Most patients reported mild (48.2%) or no side-effects (43.8%). Patients reporting severe side-effects (5.7%) had more negative beliefs. Most patients (88.8%) reported no change in asthma symptoms after vaccination, while 2.4% reported an improvement, 5.3% a slight deterioration and 1.2% a considerable deterioration. Almost all vaccinated (98%) patients would recommend vaccination to other severe asthma patients. Conclusions: Uptake of vaccination in patients with severe asthma in Europe was high, with a small minority refusing vaccination. Beliefs predicted vaccination behaviour and side-effects. Vaccination had little impact on asthma control. Our findings in people with severe asthma support the broad message that COVID-19 vaccination is safe and well tolerated.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been a pandemic since 2020, and depending on the SARS-CoV-2 mutation, different pandemic waves have been observed. The aim of this study was to compare the baseline characteristics of patients in two phases of the pandemic and evaluate possible predictors of mortality. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter observational study that included patients with COVID-19 in 4 different centers in Greece. Patients were divided into two groups depending on the period during which they were infected during the Delta and Omicron variant predominance. RESULTS: A total of 979 patients (433 Delta, 546 Omicron) were included in the study (median age 67 years (54, 81); 452 [46.2%] female). Compared to the Omicron period, the patients during the Delta period were younger (median age [IQR] 65 [51, 77] vs. 70 [55, 83] years, p < 0.001) and required a longer duration of hospitalization (8 [6, 13] vs. 7 [5, 12] days, p = 0.001), had higher procalcitonin levels (ng/mL): 0.08 [0.05, 0.17] vs. 0.06 [0.02, 0.16], p = 0.005, ferritin levels (ng/mL): 301 [159, 644] vs. 239 [128, 473], p = 0.002, C- reactive protein levels (mg/L): 40.4 [16.7, 98.5] vs. 31.8 [11.9, 81.7], p = 0.003, and lactate dehydrogenase levels (U/L): 277 [221, 375] vs. 255 [205, 329], p < 0.001. The Charlson Comorbidity Index was lower (3 [0, 5] vs. 4 [1, 6], p < 0.001), and the extent of disease on computed tomography (CT) was greater during the Delta wave (p < 0.001). No evidence of a difference in risk of death or admission to the intensive care unit was found between the two groups. Age, cardiovascular events, acute kidney injury during hospitalization, extent of disease on chest CT, D-dimer, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio values were identified as independent predictors of mortality for patients in the Delta period. Cardiovascular events and acute liver injury during hospitalization and the PaO2/FiO2 ratio on admission were identified as independent predictors of mortality for patients in the Omicron period. CONCLUSIONS: In the Omicron wave, patients were older with a higher number of comorbidities, but patients with the Delta variant had more severe disease and a longer duration of hospitalization.
RESUMEN
Management of a "difficult airway" remains one of the most relevant and challenging tasks for anesthesiologists and pulmonary physicians. Several conditions, such as inflammation, trauma, tumor, and immunologic and metabolic diseases, are considered responsible for the difficult intubation of a critically ill patient. In this case report we present the case of a 46-year-old male with postintubation tracheal stenosis. We will focus on the method of intubation used, since the patient had a "difficult airway" and had to be intubated immediately because he was in a life-threatening situation. Although technology is of utter importance, clinical examination and history-taking remain invaluable for the appropriate evaluation of the critically ill patient in everyday medical life. Every physician who will be required to perform intubation has to be familiar with the evaluation of the difficult airway and, in the event of the unanticipated difficult airway, to be able to use a wide variety of tools and techniques to avoid complications and fatality.