Incidence and risk factors of COVID-19 associated pneumothorax.

BACKGROUND: Pneumothorax has been increasingly observed among patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia, specifically in those patients who develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In this study, we sought to determine the incidence and potential risk factors of pneumothorax in critically ill adults with COVID-19. METHOD: This retrospective cohort study included adult patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to one of the adult intensive care units of a tertiary, academic teaching hospital from May 2020 through May 2021. RESULTS: Among 334 COVID-19 cases requiring ICU admission, the incidence of pneumothorax was 10% (33 patients). Patients who experienced pneumothorax more frequently required vasopressor support (28/33 [84%] vs. 191/301 [63%] P = 0.04), were more likely to be proned (25/33 [75%] vs. 111/301 [36%], P<0.001), and the presence of pneumothorax was associated with prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation; 21 (1-97) versus 7 (1-79) days, p<0.001 as well as prolonged hospital length of stay (29 [9-133] vs. 15 [1-90] days, P<0.001), but mortality was not significantly different between groups. Importantly, when we performed a Cox proportional hazard ratio (HR) model of multivariate parameters, we found that administration of tocilizumab significantly increased the risk of developing pneumothorax (HR = 10.7; CI [3.6-32], P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Among 334 critically ill patients with COVID-19, the incidence of pneumothorax was 10%. Presence of pneumothorax was associated with prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation and length of hospital stay. Strikingly, receipt of tocilizumab was associated with an increased risk of developing pneumothorax.

Sepsis Hospitalizations With Versus Without Cancer: Epidemiology, Outcomes, and Trends in Nationwide Analysis From 2008 to 2017.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis and cancer continue to be one of the leading causes of death in the United States. Concomitantly, hospitalizations for sepsis with underlying cancer over the years have shown a decrease in mortality. However, large-scale contemporary data on mortality trends in sepsis hospitalizations with underlying malignancy are lacking. RESEARCH QUESTION: Are there any identifiable trends in patients hospitalized for sepsis with underlying malignancy versus without malignancy? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample database from 2008 to 2017 to identify sepsis hospitalizations with versus without cancer. Baseline variables and mortality trends were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Of the 19,160,734 sepsis hospitalizations identified between 2008 and 2017, 3,913,813 (20.4%) were associated with cancer and 15,246,921 (79.6%) did not have underlying malignancy. Compared with 2008 to 2009, the multivariable-adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of death was lower in 2016 to 2017 for both cancer (aOR: 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.57) and noncancer-associated (aOR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.53-0.57) sepsis hospitalizations. The nonsignificant interaction term (P=0.2239) revealed that the rate of decline in mortality did not differ between the 2 groups. Stratification of the mortality in sepsis hospitalizations by various age groups revealed that the odds of death associated with cancer were highest in the younger population (18 to 44 y) with an aOR: 3.40, 95% CI: 3.24-3.57. The aOR: showed a declining trend with increasing age until cancer-associated admissions had slightly lower odds of mortality than the noncancer group at age 85 years old and older (aOR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.91-0.95). CONCLUSION: In the 10-year study period, mortality in cancer and noncancer-associated sepsis hospitalizations has shown a declining trend. Furthermore, differences in mortality between the 2 groups decreased with increasing age.

Sarcoidosis and neuroendocrine tumours: case report and literature review.

Rare cases of co-existing sarcoidosis and carcinoid tumour have been previously reported in the literature. Both diseases may have vague and overlapping clinical presentations that can lead to delayed or missed diagnosis. To avoid this diagnostic pitfall, we discuss and compare the clinical presentations of all reported cases in the literature including our case. We also provide hypothesis to explain the relationship between the two diseases.

Antiphospholipid antibodies in COVID-19: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Many studies reported high prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) in patients with COVID-19 raising questions about its true prevalence and its clinical impact on the disease course. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis and a systematic review to examine the prevalence of aPL and its clinical impact in patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: 21 studies with a total of 1159 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19, the pooled prevalence rate of one or more aPL (IgM or IgG or IgA of anticardiolipin (aCL) or anti-ß2 glycoprotein (anti-ß2 GPI) or antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin, or lupus anticoagulant (LA)) was 46.8% (95% CI 36.1% to 57.8%). The most frequent type of aPL found was LA, with pooled prevalence rate of 50.7% (95% CI 34.8% to 66.5%). Critically ill patients with COVID-19 had significantly higher prevalence of aCL (IgM or IgG) (28.8% vs 7.10%, p<0.0001) and anti-ß2 GPI (IgM or IgG) (12.0% vs 5.8%, p<0.0001) as compared with non-critically ill patients. However, there was no association between aPL positivity and mean levels of C reactive protein (mean difference was 32 (95% CI -15 to 79), p=0.18), D-dimer (mean difference was 34 (95% CI -194 to 273), p=0.77), mortality (1.46 (95% CI 0.29 to 7.29), p=0.65), invasive ventilation (1.22 (95% CI 0.51 to 2.91), p=0.65) and venous thromboembolism (1.38 (95% CI 0.57 to 3.37), p=0.48). CONCLUSIONS: aPLs were detected in nearly half of patients with COVID-19, and higher prevalence of aPL was found in severe disease. However, there was no association between aPL positivity and disease outcomes including thrombosis, invasive ventilation and mortality. However, further studies are required to identify the clinical and pathological role of aPL in COVID-19.

Burden and impact of arrhythmias in asthma-related hospitalizations: Insight from the national inpatient sample.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to analyze the burden and impact of cardiac arrhythmias in adult patients hospitalized with asthma exacerbation using the nationwide inpatient database. METHODS: We used the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2010-2014) to identify arrhythmias in asthma-related hospitalization and its impact on inpatient mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and hospitalization charges. We also used multivariable analysis to identify predictors of in-hospital arrhythmia and mortality. RESULTS: We identified 12,988,129 patients hospitalized with primary diagnosis of asthma; among them, 2,014,459(16%) patients had cardiac arrhythmia. The most frequent arrhythmia identified is atrial fibrillation (AFib) (8.95%). The AFib and non-AFib arrhythmia group had higher mortality (3.40% & 2.22% vs 0.74%), mean length of stay (LOS) (5.9 & 5.4 vs 4.2 days), and hospital charges ($53,172 & $51,105 vs $34,585) as compared to the non-arrhythmia group (P < .005). Predictors of arrhythmia in asthma-related hospitalization were history of PCI or CABG, valvular heart disease, congestive heart failure (CHF), and acute respiratory failure. Predictors of higher mortality in arrhythmia group were acute respiratory failure, sepsis, and acute myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: Around 16% of adult patients hospitalized with asthma exacerbation experience arrythmia (mostly AFib 8.95%). The presence of arrhythmias was associated with higher in-hospital mortality, LOS, and hospital charges in hospitalized asthmatics.

Forty-One-Year-Old Man with Pulmonary Embolism 5 Months After COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Hypercoagulation is one of the striking features of COVID-19. Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are at high risk for venous thromboembolism. However, it is unknown if the risk for venous thromboembolism persists after discharge. CASE SUMMARY: We report a case with pulmonary embolism 5 months after COVID-19. No risk factors for venous thrombosis have been identified. CONCLUSION: In COVID-19 related hospitalization, large studies are needed to identify the risk of venous thromboembolism after discharge.

Platelets and renal failure in the SARS-CoV-2 syndrome.

The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is a highly transmittable viral infection caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). SARS-CoV-2 utilizes metallocarboxyl peptidase angiotensin receptor (ACE) 2 to gain entry into human cells. Activation of several proteases facilitates the interaction of viral spike proteins (S1) and ACE2 receptor. This leads to cleavage of host ACE2 receptors. ACE2 activity counterbalances the angiotensin II effect, its loss may lead to elevated angiotensin II levels with modulation of platelet function, size and activity. COVID-19 disease encompasses a spectrum of systemic involvement far beyond respiratory failure alone. Several features of this disease, including the etiology of acute kidney injury (AKI) and the hypercoagulable state, remain poorly understood. Here, we show that there is a high incidence of AKI (81%) in the critically ill adults with COVID-19 in the setting of elevated D-dimer, elevated ferritin, C reactive protein (CRP) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels. Strikingly, there were unique features of platelets in these patients, including larger, more granular platelets and a higher mean platelet volume (MPV). There was a significant correlation between measured D-dimer levels and MVP; but a negative correlation between MPV and glomerular filtration rates (GFR) in critically ill cohort. Our data suggest that activated platelets may play a role in renal failure and possibly hypercoagulability status in COVID19 patients.

Clinical deterioration during neutropenia recovery after G-CSF therapy in patient with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) induce neutrophils proliferation and cytokines production. It has often been used to treat neutropenia without solid evidence of efficacy. It has been demonstrated that respiratory distress is associated with neutropenia recovery but not with G-CSFs. In general, G-CSFs are known to be safe and well tolerated in most clinical settings. However, the safety of G-CSFs in an overwhelming inflammatory disease like coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is largely unknown. CASE SUMMARY: We report a case with COVID-19 and neutropenia who rapidly deteriorated after administration of G-CSF. CONCLUSION: We observed a faster neutropenia recovery than previously known after administration of G-CSF in our case and in three similar cases previously reported in literature. This rapid neutropenia recovery and the robust inflammatory response in COVID-19 raise concerns about G-CSF safety in patients with COVID-19.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Immunocompromised Organ Transplant Recipients: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an ongoing pandemic caused by a novel coronavirus called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Our understanding of this new disease continues to grow. The impact of the disease on immunocompromised transplant recipients is largely unknown. We present a case of a solid organ transplant recipient on immunosuppressive therapy who successfully recovered from COVID-19 infection. We also review 10 similar cases found in the literature and describe the clinical course and management, including immunosuppressive therapy.