Project description:BackgroundThe long-term cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of COVID-19 have not been fully explored.MethodsThis was an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study conducted between February and December 2020. Consecutive patients ≥18 years who underwent a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV2 were included. Patients were classified into two cohorts depending on the nasopharyngeal swab result and clinical status: confirmed COVID-19 (positive RT-PCR) and control (without suggestive symptoms and negative RT-PCR). Data were obtained from electronic records, and clinical follow-up was performed at 1-year. The primary outcome was CV death at 1-year. Secondary outcomes included arterial thrombotic events (ATE), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and serious cardiac arrhythmias. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated events. A Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for all baseline characteristics was used for comparing outcomes between groups. A prespecified landmark analysis was performed to assess events during the post-acute phase (31-365 days).ResultsA total of 4,427 patients were included: 3,578 (80.8%) in the COVID-19 and 849 (19.2%) control cohorts. At one year, there were no significant differences in the primary endpoint of CV death between the COVID-19 and control cohorts (1.4% vs. 0.8%; HRadj 1.28 [0.56-2.91]; p = 0.555), but there was a higher risk of all-cause death (17.8% vs. 4.0%; HRadj 2.82 [1.99-4.0]; p = 0.001). COVID-19 cohort had higher rates of ATE (2.5% vs. 0.8%, HRadj 2.26 [1.02-4.99]; p = 0.044), VTE (3.7% vs. 0.4%, HRadj 9.33 [2.93-29.70]; p = 0.001), and serious cardiac arrhythmias (2.5% vs. 0.6%, HRadj 3.37 [1.35-8.46]; p = 0.010). During the post-acute phase, there were no significant differences in CV death (0.6% vs. 0.7%; HRadj 0.67 [0.25-1.80]; p = 0.425), but there was a higher risk of deep vein thrombosis (0.6% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.028). Re-hospitalization rate was lower in the COVID-19 cohort compared to the control cohort (13.9% vs. 20.6%; p = 0.001).ConclusionsAt 1-year, patients with COVID-19 experienced an increased risk of all-cause death and adverse CV events, including ATE, VTE, and serious cardiac arrhythmias, but not CV death.Study registrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT04359927.

Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) became the deadliest pandemic of the new millennium. One year after it became a pandemic, the current COVID-19 situation in Brazil is an example of how the impacts of a pandemic are beyond health outcomes and how health, social, and political actions are intertwined.ObjectivesWe aimed to provide an overview of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil, from a social and political point of view, and to discuss the perspectives from now on.MethodsThis is a narrative review using official, scientific (PubMed, Medline, and SciELO databases) and publicly available data. Press articles were also used that contain important information not found in these databases.FindingsWe address the impacts of COVID-19 in different regions of Brazil, on indigenous populations, health care workers, and how internal social contrasts impacted the pandemics advance across the country. We also discuss key points that culminated in the countrys failed management of the COVID-19 spread, such as poor management of the public health care system, disparities between public and private health care infrastructure, lack of mass testing and viral spread tracking, lack of preparedness and planning to implement strict isolation and social distancing measures, and, most importantly, political instability, a deteriorating Health Ministry and sabotaging attitudes of the countrys president, including anti-scientific actions, underplaying COVID-19 severity, spreading and powering fake news about the pandemic, promoting knowingly inefficient medications for COVID-19 treatment, and interference in collective health policies, including the countrys vaccination plan.ConclusionsAfter one year of COVID-19 and a disastrous management of the disease, Brazil has more than 11 million cases, 270,000 deaths, and the highest number of daily deaths due to COVID-19 in the world, most of which could have been avoided and can be credited to negligence of municipal, state, and federal authorities, especially President Jair Messias Bolsonaro. Unfortunately, the country is an example of what not to do in a pandemic setting.Key pointsOne year after COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, Brazil had the second higher number of cases and deaths, and the highest number of daily deaths due to the disease. Lack of massive testing, non-stringent and ineffective collective health policies, poor management of the public health care system, and political instability were the main drivers of the countrys flawed management of the COVID-19 advancement. Anti-science and sabotaging actions by government had a pivotal role in the countrys current situation. Brazil has a large territory and is marked by social contrasts among different regions and states, which showed contrasting data regarding the impact caused by COVID-19. COVID-19 databases and data sharing are important to provide an overview of epidemiological aspects of the disease; however, Brazil lacks standardization in these datasets.

Project description:ImportancePostintensive care syndrome has a strong impact on coronavirus disease 2019 survivors.ObjectivesAssess the 1-year prevalence of postintensive care syndrome after coronavirus disease 2019.Design setting and participantsThis was a single-center prospective cohort using questionnaires and telephone calls from 4 months to 1 year after ICU discharge. Patients who were treated for coronavirus disease 2019-related acute respiratory distress between March 19, 2020, and April 30, 2020, participated.Main outcomes and measuresPostintensive care syndrome was evaluated according to physical, mental, and cognitive domains. We surveyed the 8-item standardized Short Form questionnaire for assessing physical postintensive care syndrome; the Impact of Event Scale-Revised and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for assessing mental postintensive care syndrome; and Short-Memory Questionnaire for assessing cognitive postintensive care syndrome. The primary outcome was postintensive care syndrome occurrence of any domain at 1 year. Furthermore, the co-occurrence of the three postintensive care syndrome domains was assessed.ResultsEighteen patients consented to the study and completed the survey. The median age was 57.5 years, and 78% of the patients were male. Median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II score was 18. During ICU stay, 78% received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 83% received systemic steroid administration. Early mobilization was implemented in 61%. Delirium occurred in 44%. The median days of ICU and hospital stay were 6 and 23.5, respectively. Overall postintensive care syndrome occurrence was 67%. Physical, mental, and cognitive postintensive care syndrome occurred in 56%, 50%, and 33% of patients, respectively. The co-occurrence of all three domains of postintensive care syndrome was 28%. Age and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II scores were higher, and systemic steroids were more commonly used in the postintensive care syndrome groups compared with the nonpostintensive care syndrome groups. Chronic symptoms were more common in the postintensive care syndrome groups than the nonpostintensive care syndrome groups.Conclusions and relevancePatients who suffered critical illness from coronavirus disease 2019 had a high frequency of postintensive care syndrome after 1 year. Long-term follow-up and care should be continuously offered.

Project description:To prospectively describe 1-year outcomes, with a focus on functional outcome, cognitive outcome, and the burden of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder, in coronavirus disease 2019 patients managed with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.DesignProspective case series.SettingTertiary extracorporeal membrane oxygenation center in the United States.PatientsAdult coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients managed with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation March 1, 2020, to July 31, 2020.InterventionsBaseline variables, treatment measures, and short-term outcomes were obtained from the medical record. Survivors were interviewed by telephone, a year following the index intensive care admission. Functional outcome was assessed using the modified Rankin Scale and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2.0. Cognitive status was assessed with the 5-minute Montreal Cognitive Assessment. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale was used to screen for anxiety and depression. Screening for post-traumatic stress disorder was performed with the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist 5 instrument.Measurements and main resultsTwenty-three patients were managed with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, 14 (61%) survived to hospital discharge. Thirteen (57%) were alive at 1 year. One patient was dependent on mechanical ventilation, another intermittently required supplemental oxygen at 1 year. The median modified Rankin Scale score was 2 (interquartile range, 1-2), median World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2.0 impairment score was 21% (interquartile range, 6-42%). Six of 12 previously employed individuals (50%) had returned to work, and 10 of 12 (83%) were entirely independent in activities of daily living. The median Montreal Cognitive Assessment score was 14 (interquartile range, 13-14). Of 10 patients assessed with Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, 4 (40%) screened positive for depression and 6 (60%) for anxiety. Four of 10 (40%) screened positive for post-traumatic stress disorder.ConclusionsFunctional impairment was common a year following the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in coronavirus disease 2019, although the majority achieved independence in daily living and about half returned to work. Long-term anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder were common, but cognitive impairment was not.

Dataset Information

Nosocomial influenza in patients with cancer before the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era and one year after the pandemic: Can we do any better in hospitals?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets