Prophylactic or therapeutic doses of heparins for COVID-19 infection? A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is a global outbreak. COVID-19 patients seem to have relevant coagulative abnormalities, even if they are not typical of disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC) of the kind seen in septicaemia. Therefore, anticoagulant therapy with heparins is increasing in interest for a clinical approach to these patients, particularly if older. Studies comparing if prophylactic doses are more effective than therapeutic ones are still missing. METHODS: Data were collected in the Geriatric Section of the Dolo Hospital, ULSS 3 "Serenissima", Venice from 31st March to 01st May 2020. Heparins (calciparin, fondaparinux, enoxaparine) were divided into prophylactic or therapeutic doses. People previously treated with oral anticoagulants were removed. Vital status was assessed using administrative data. Cox's regression analysis, adjusted for potential confounders, was used for assessing the strength of the association between heparins and mortality. The data were reported as hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: 81 older people (mean age 84.1 years; females = 61.9%) were included. No significant differences in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics emerged between people treated with prophylactic or therapeutic doses, including age, gender, X-rays findings or severity of disease. Therapeutic doses were not associated to a better survival rate (HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.47-2.60; p = 0.89), even after adjusting for 15 confounders related to mortality (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.30-2.71; p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Our paper indicates that in older people affected by COVID-19 there is no justification for using therapeutic doses instead of prophylactic ones, having a similar impact on mortality risk.

The influence of environmental factors on sleep quality in hospitalized medical patients.

INTRODUCTION: Sleep-wake disturbances are common in hospitalized patients but few studies have assessed them systematically. The aim of the present study was to assess sleep quality in a group of medical inpatients, in relation to environmental factors, and the switch to daylight-saving time. METHODS: Between March and April 2013, 118 consecutive inpatients were screened and 99 (76 ± 11 years; hospitalization: 8 ± 7 days) enrolled. They slept in double or quadruple rooms, facing South/South-East, and were qualified as sleeping near/far from the window. They underwent daily sleep assessment by standard questionnaires/diaries. Illuminance was measured by a luxmeter at each patient's eye-level, four times per day. Noise was measured at the same times by a phonometer. Information was recorded on room lighting, position of the rolling shutters and number/type of extra people in the room. RESULTS: Compliance with sleep-wake assessment was poor, with a range of completion of 2-59%, depending on the questionnaires. Reported sleep quality was sufficient and sleep timing dictated by hospital routine; 33% of the patients reported one/more sleepless nights. Illuminance was generally low, and rolling shutters half-way down for most of the 24 h. Patients who slept near the window were exposed to more light in the morning (i.e., 222 ± 72 vs. 174 ± 85 lux, p < 0.05 before the switch; 198 ± 72 vs. 141 ± 137 lux, p < 0.01 after the switch) and tended to sleep better (7.3 ± 1.8 vs. 5.8 ± 2.4 on a 1-10 scale, before the switch, p < 0.05; 7.7 ± 2.3 vs. 6.6 ± 1.8, n.s. after the switch). Noise levels were higher than recommended for care units but substantially comparable across times/room types. No significant differences were observed in sleep parameters before/after the switch. CONCLUSION: Medical wards appear to be noisy environments, in which limited attention is paid to light/dark hygiene. An association was observed between sleep quality and bed position/light exposure, which is worthy of further study.