Prognostic Value of a Laboratory Index of Frailty in Older Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: The COMEPA Study.

BACKGROUND: Several indexes based on clinical and laboratory tests to identify frailty and to predict mortality have been produced. Only two studies, mixing clinical and laboratory parameters were made about a frailty index made of laboratory tests (FI-Lab) and mortality in older patients hospitalized for COVID-19. The aim of this study was to explore the accuracy and precision of an FI-Lab constructed with some common bio-humoral tests and mortality in a cohort of patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: The FI-Lab was constructed using 40 different bio-humoral tests during the first four days of hospitalization, with a score from 0 to 1. The association between FI-Lab and mortality was assessed using a multivariate Cox's regression analysis, reported as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The accuracy of the FI-Lab was reported as area under the curve (AUC) and the precision with the C-Index. RESULTS: 376 patients (mean age: 65 years; 53.7% males) were initially included. During the follow-up period, 41 deceased. After adjusting for five different factors, an FI-Lab value >0.54, the median value of our cohort, was associated with a relative risk about five times greater than lower values. Modeling FI-LAB as a continous variable, each increase in 0.01 points was associated with an increased risk in mortality of 8.4% (HR=1.084; 95%CI: 1.039-2.044). The FI-Lab was highly accurate (AUC=0.91; 95%CI: 0.87-0.95) and precise (C-Index=0.81) in predicting death. CONCLUSIONS: A simple index based on common laboratory tests can be used to predict mortality among older people hospitalized for COVID-19.

Atrial fibrillation and mild cognitive impairment: what correlation?

AIM: Atrial fibrillation (AF), in addition to macroembolic complications, may also produce multiple cerebral ischemic areas due to microembolic phenomena and transient hypoperfusion, eventually leading to a progressive cognitive impairment and even to acclaimed vascular dementia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of cognitive impairment in patients with AF. The reported results concern data obtained at the moment of recruitment. METHODS: The authors studied 42 patients with a history of non valvular AF (paroxysmal, persistent, recurrent or permanent) and 40 homogenous controls in sinus rhythm without previous AF. All subjects underwent anamnesis, physical examination, biochemical and instrumental tests. To investigate the cognitive status, subjects underwent the following neuropsychological rating scales: Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR),Activity of Daily Living (ADL), Instrumental Activity of Daily Living (IADL) Global Deterioration Scale (GLDS), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and Hachinski Ischemic Score (HIS). RESULTS: AF Patients had worse scores versus controls at GLDS (P=0.0001), HIS (P=0.001), CDR (P=0.07) and GDS (P=0.07); no significant differences were found for MMSE even after correction for age and education. AF patients treated with warfarin showed better scores at CDR (P=0.04),GLDS (P=0.03) and GDS (P=0.007), compared to those in aspirin-treatment. Corrected MMSE scores did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified a slight cognitive impairment in the AF group; patients with paroxysmal, persistent or recurrent AF showed worse cognitive performances than permanent ones, suggesting a possible microembolic pathogenesis. Anticoagulation therapy could play a protective role, however more evidence is needed.