Is it possible to get COVID infection 3 times? Case report

Rare cases of suspected COVID-19 reactivation have been reported. Reactivation is defined by two positive real-time RT-PCR results for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, with an interval equal to or greater than 90 days between two episodes of COVID-19. A nurse, started with COVID-19 symptoms in July 2020 and a RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 confirmed the diagnosis. In November 2020, more than 4 months later, she developed a new episode of COVID-19 confirmed by a second RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2. The patient received a first dose of CoronaVac ­ (Sinovac/Butantan) in January 2021 and a second dose in February 2021, but 30 days after a third episode was confirmed. Contrary to what happens with many infectious diseases which generate antibodies and protect people from future episodes, this aspect is still not clear in relation to COVID-19. In addition to vaccination, the use of Personal Protective Equipment is essential for healthcare workers.

Impact of hydronephrosis and kidney function on survival in newly diagnosed advanced cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of hydronephrosis and kidney function in newly diagnosed advanced cervical cancer patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of newly diagnosed cervical cancer stage IIIB to IVB was conducted in a tertiary hospital in Brazil. Data from clinical records between 2014 and 2018 were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 285 women with advanced cervical cancer and no previous cancer treatment were included. 108 (37.9%) patients were diagnosed with hydronephrosis (HN) before or during the first treatment, 49 (17.2%) patients underwent ureteral obstruction relief, and emergency hemodialysis was performed in 17 patients due to uremia. The median overall survival (mOS) was 46.9 months for non-HN, 19.2 months for unilateral-HN, and 10.0 months for bilateral-HN (non-HN vs HN-groups, p = 0.0001). Patients with eGFR >= 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, before or during the first cancer treatment, had mOS of 46.9 months, 23.5 months, and 11.1 months for non-HN, unilateral-HN and bilateral-HN, respectively (non-HN vs bilateral-HN, p = 0.002). Patients with eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 had mOS 23.4 months, 19.2 months, and 10.0 months for non-HN, unilateral-HN and bilateral-HN, respectively (non-HN vs bilateral-HN, p = 0.003). In the HN group, mOS was 11.2 months among those who underwent urinary diversion and 15.6 months among those who did not; p = 0.2. On multivariate analysis, cancer treatment, FIGO stage, and HN were prognostic factors for OS; however eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 does not appear to be associated with worse survival by itself (p = 0.7). CONCLUSION: HN seems to have a negative effect on survival of patients with cervical cancer even after adjustment for FIGO stage and cancer treatment. The mOS does not appear to be worse in patients with HN who required urinary diversion compared to those who did not.

Heart failure secondary to myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 reinfection: a case report.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac involvement in COVID-19 can range from mild damage to severe myocarditis. The precise mechanism by which COVID-19 causes myocardial injury is still unknown. Myocarditis following administration of COVID-19 vaccines, especially those based on mRNA, has also been described. However, no reports of heart failure following reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 in patients immunized with an inactivated vaccine have been identified. CASE DESCRIPTION: The patient was a 47-year-old male construction worker of African descent, with type II diabetes and a history of infection by SARS-CoV-2 in December 2020 and May 2021, confirmed by RT-PCR. He received two doses of an inactivated vaccine against COVID-19. Between the two COVID-19 episodes with positive RT-PCR, he had two episodes of bacterial lung infection. After the second episode of SARS-CoV-2 infection, he was diagnosed with severe heart failure as a sequela of myocarditis. CONCLUSION: It is essential to perform a thorough follow-up after infection with SARS-CoV-2 since, even with proper immunization, it is possible that the patient was reinfected and suffered severe cardiac sequelae as a consequence. The hypothesis of an etiology associated with the use of an inactivated vaccine against COVID-19, with a potential immune enhancement mechanism following reinfection with SARS-CoV-2, cannot be rejected.

Reduction in COVID-19 prevalence in healthcare workers in a university hospital in southern Brazil after the start of vaccination.

INTRODUCTION: The quick spread of SARS-CoV-2 led to the development of vaccines that are capable of reducing infection and the number of more severe COVID-19 cases. AIM: To assess COVID-19 prevalence among healthcare workers (HCWs) after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study on the prevalence of COVID-19 diagnosis among 7523 HCWs vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 with CoronaVac and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in a university hospital, in southern Brazil, between January 18 and March 18, 2021.The variables evaluated were: sex, age, work area, role, source of infection, previous diagnosis of COVID-19, date of vaccine administration, type of vaccine, and need for hospitalization. The statistical analysis used Poisson regression and Fisher's exact test with SPSS software version 25, and a level of significance set at 5%. RESULTS: 813 vaccinated HCWs showed symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, of whom 35.4% (288) had a detectable result after undergoing RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2. There was a reduction of 62% in new cases of COVID-19 among HCWs in the institution 7 weeks after the start of vaccine rollout. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the vaccines used by the institution reduced the number of COVID-19 cases among healthcare workers, demonstrating the effectiveness of the vaccines.

Analysis of Risk Scores to Predict Mortality in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery for Endocarditis. / Análise de Escores de Risco para Predição de Mortalidade em Pacientes Submetidos à Cirurgia Cardíaca por Endocardite.

BACKGROUND: Risk scores are available for use in daily clinical practice, but knowing which one to choose is still fraught with uncertainty. OBJECTIVES: To assess the logistic EuroSCORE, EuroSCORE II, and the infective endocarditis (IE)-specific scores STS-IE, PALSUSE, AEPEI, EndoSCORE and RISK-E, as predictors of hospital mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery for active IE at a tertiary teaching hospital in Southern Brazil. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including all patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent cardiac surgery for active IE at the study facility from 2007-2016. The scores were assessed by calibration evaluation (observed/expected [O/E] mortality ratio) and discrimination (area under the ROC curve [AUC]). Comparison of AUC was performed by the DeLong test. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were included. Overall hospital mortality was 29.0% (95%CI: 20.4-37.6%). The best O/E mortality ratio was achieved by the PALSUSE score (1.01, 95%CI: 0.70-1.42), followed by the logistic EuroSCORE (1.3, 95%CI: 0.92-1.87). The logistic EuroSCORE had the highest discriminatory power (AUC 0.77), which was significantly superior to EuroSCORE II (p = 0.03), STS-IE (p = 0.03), PALSUSE (p = 0.03), AEPEI (p = 0.03), and RISK-E (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the availability of recent IE-specific scores, and considering the trade-off between the indexes, the logistic EuroSCORE seemed to be the best predictor of mortality risk in our cohort, taking calibration (O/E mortality ratio: 1.3) and discrimination (AUC 0.77) into account. Local validation of IE-specific scores is needed to better assess preoperative surgical risk. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 114(3):518-524).

FUNDAMENTO: Escores de risco estão disponíveis para uso na prática clínica diária, mas saber qual deles escolher é ainda incerto. OBJETIVOS: Avaliar o EuroSCORE logístico, o EuroSCORE II e os escores específicos para endocardite infecciosa STS-IE, PALSUSE, AEPEI, EndoSCORE e RISK-E na predição de mortalidade hospitalar de pacientes submetidos à cirurgia cardíaca por endocardite ativa em um hospital terciário de ensino do sul do Brasil. MÉTODOS: Estudo de coorte retrospectivo incluindo todos os pacientes com idade ≥ 18 anos submetidos à cirurgia cardíaca por endocardite ativa no centro do estudo entre 2007 e 2016. Foram realizadas análises de calibração (razão de mortalidade observada/esperada, O/E) e de discriminação (área sob a curva ROC, ASC), sendo a comparação das ASC realizada pelo teste de DeLong. P < 0,05 foi considerado estatisticamente significativo. RESULTADOS: Foram incluídos 107 pacientes, sendo a mortalidade hospitalar de 29,0% (IC95%: 20.4-37.6%). A melhor razão de mortalidade O/E foi obtida pelo escore PALSUSE (1,01, IC95%: 0,70-1,42), seguido pelo EuroSCORE logístico (1,3, IC95%: 0,92-1,87). O EuroSCORE logístico apresentou o maior poder discriminatório (ASC 0,77), significativamente superior ao EuroSCORE II (p = 0,03), STS-IE (p = 0,03), PALSUSE (p = 0,03), AEPEI (p = 0,03) e RISK-E (p = 0,02). CONCLUSÕES: Apesar da disponibilidade dos recentes escores específicos, o EuroSCORE logístico foi o melhor preditor de mortalidade em nossa coorte, considerando-se análise de calibração (mortalidade O/E: 1,3) e de discriminação (ASC 0,77). A validação local dos escores específicos é necessária para uma melhor avaliação do risco cirúrgico. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 114(3):518-524).

Análise de Escores de Risco para Predição de Mortalidade em Pacientes Submetidos à Cirurgia Cardíaca por Endocardite / Analysis of Risk Scores to Predict Mortality in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery for Endocarditis

Resumo Fundamento Escores de risco estão disponíveis para uso na prática clínica diária, mas saber qual deles escolher é ainda incerto. Objetivos Avaliar o EuroSCORE logístico, o EuroSCORE II e os escores específicos para endocardite infecciosa STS-IE, PALSUSE, AEPEI, EndoSCORE e RISK-E na predição de mortalidade hospitalar de pacientes submetidos à cirurgia cardíaca por endocardite ativa em um hospital terciário de ensino do sul do Brasil. Métodos Estudo de coorte retrospectivo incluindo todos os pacientes com idade ≥ 18 anos submetidos à cirurgia cardíaca por endocardite ativa no centro do estudo entre 2007 e 2016. Foram realizadas análises de calibração (razão de mortalidade observada/esperada, O/E) e de discriminação (área sob a curva ROC, ASC), sendo a comparação das ASC realizada pelo teste de DeLong. P < 0,05 foi considerado estatisticamente significativo Resultados Foram incluídos 107 pacientes, sendo a mortalidade hospitalar de 29,0% (IC95%: 20.4-37.6%). A melhor razão de mortalidade O/E foi obtida pelo escore PALSUSE (1,01, IC95%: 0,70-1,42), seguido pelo EuroSCORE logístico (1,3, IC95%: 0,92-1,87). O EuroSCORE logístico apresentou o maior poder discriminatório (ASC 0,77), significativamente superior ao EuroSCORE II (p = 0,03), STS-IE (p = 0,03), PALSUSE (p = 0,03), AEPEI (p = 0,03) e RISK-E (p = 0,02). Conclusões Apesar da disponibilidade dos recentes escores específicos, o EuroSCORE logístico foi o melhor preditor de mortalidade em nossa coorte, considerando-se análise de calibração (mortalidade O/E: 1,3) e de discriminação (ASC 0,77). A validação local dos escores específicos é necessária para uma melhor avaliação do risco cirúrgico. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 114(3):518-524)

Abstract Background Risk scores are available for use in daily clinical practice, but knowing which one to choose is still fraught with uncertainty. Objectives To assess the logistic EuroSCORE, EuroSCORE II, and the infective endocarditis (IE)-specific scores STS-IE, PALSUSE, AEPEI, EndoSCORE and RISK-E, as predictors of hospital mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery for active IE at a tertiary teaching hospital in Southern Brazil. Methods Retrospective cohort study including all patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent cardiac surgery for active IE at the study facility from 2007-2016. The scores were assessed by calibration evaluation (observed/expected [O/E] mortality ratio) and discrimination (area under the ROC curve [AUC]). Comparison of AUC was performed by the DeLong test. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 107 patients were included. Overall hospital mortality was 29.0% (95%CI: 20.4-37.6%). The best O/E mortality ratio was achieved by the PALSUSE score (1.01, 95%CI: 0.70-1.42), followed by the logistic EuroSCORE (1.3, 95%CI: 0.92-1.87). The logistic EuroSCORE had the highest discriminatory power (AUC 0.77), which was significantly superior to EuroSCORE II (p = 0.03), STS-IE (p = 0.03), PALSUSE (p = 0.03), AEPEI (p = 0.03), and RISK-E (p = 0.02). Conclusions Despite the availability of recent IE-specific scores, and considering the trade-off between the indexes, the logistic EuroSCORE seemed to be the best predictor of mortality risk in our cohort, taking calibration (O/E mortality ratio: 1.3) and discrimination (AUC 0.77) into account. Local validation of IE-specific scores is needed to better assess preoperative surgical risk. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 114(3):518-524)