Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundPulmonary embolism (PE) has been described in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) critically ill patients, but the evidence from more heterogeneous cohorts is limited.MethodsData were retrospectively obtained from consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to 13 Cardiology Units in Italy, from March 1st to April 9th, 2020, and followed until in-hospital death, discharge, or April 23rd, 2020. The association of baseline variables with computed tomography-confirmed PE was investigated by Cox hazards regression analysis. The relationship between d-dimer levels and PE incidence was evaluated using restricted cubic splines models.ResultsThe study included 689 patients (67.3 ± 13.2 year-old, 69.4% males), of whom 43.6% were non-invasively ventilated and 15.8% invasively. 52 (7.5%) had PE over 15 (9–24) days of follow-up. Compared with those without PE, these subjects had younger age, higher BMI, less often heart failure and chronic kidney disease, more severe cardio-pulmonary involvement, and higher admission d-dimer [4344 (1099–15,118) vs. 818.5 (417–1460) ng/mL, p < 0.001]. They also received more frequently darunavir/ritonavir, tocilizumab and ventilation support. Furthermore, they faced more bleeding episodes requiring transfusion (15.6% vs. 5.1%, p < 0.001) and non-significantly higher in-hospital mortality (34.6% vs. 22.9%, p = 0.06). In multivariate regression, only d-dimer was associated with PE (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.13–2.62; p = 0.01). The relation between d-dimer concentrations and PE incidence was linear, without inflection point. Only two subjects had a baseline d-dimer < 500 ng/mL.ConclusionsPE occurs in a sizable proportion of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The implications of bleeding events and the role of d-dimer in this population need to be clarified.Graphic abstract

Aims Myocardial injury (MI) in coronavirus disease‐19 (COVID‐19) is quite prevalent at admission and affects prognosis. Little is known about troponin trajectories and their prognostic role. We aimed to describe the early in‐hospital evolution of MI and its prognostic impact. Methods and results We performed an analysis from an Italian multicentre study enrolling COVID‐19 patients, hospitalized from 1 March to 9 April 2020. MI was defined as increased troponin level. The first troponin was tested within 24 h from admission, the second one between 24 and 48 h. Elevated troponin was defined as values above the 99th percentile of normal values. Patients were divided in four groups: normal, normal then elevated, elevated then normal, and elevated. The outcome was in‐hospital death. The study population included 197 patients; 41% had normal troponin at both evaluations, 44% had elevated troponin at both assessments, 8% had normal then elevated troponin, and 7% had elevated then normal troponin. During hospitalization, 49 (25%) patients died. Patients with incident MI, with persistent MI, and with MI only at admission had a higher risk of death compared with those with normal troponin at both evaluations (P < 0.001). At multivariable analysis, patients with normal troponin at admission and MI injury on Day 2 had the highest mortality risk (hazard ratio 3.78, 95% confidence interval 1.10–13.09, P = 0.035). Conclusions In patients admitted for COVID‐19, re‐test MI on Day 2 provides a prognostic value. A non‐negligible proportion of patients with incident MI on Day 2 is identified at high risk of death only by the second measurement.

Data concerning the combined prognostic role of natriuretic peptide (NP) and troponin in patients with COVID-19 are lacking. The aim of the study is to evaluate the combined prognostic value of NPs and troponin in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. From March 1, 2020 to April 9, 2020, consecutive patients with COVID-19 and available data on cardiac biomarkers at admission were recruited. Patients admitted for acute coronary syndrome were excluded. Troponin levels were defined as elevated when greater than the 99th percentile of normal values. NPs were considered elevated if above the limit for ruling in acute heart failure (HF). A total of 341 patients were included in this study, mean age 68 ± 13 years, 72% were men. During a median follow-up period of 14 days, 81 patients (24%) died. In the Cox regression analysis, patients with elevated both NPs and troponin levels had higher risk of death compared with those with normal levels of both (hazard ratio 2.94; 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 6.64; p = 0.009), and this remained significant after adjustment for age, gender, oxygen saturation, HF history, and chronic kidney disease. Interestingly, NPs provided risk stratification also in patients with normal troponin values (hazard ratio 2.86; 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 6.72; p = 0.016 with high NPs levels). These data show the combined prognostic role of troponin and NPs in COVID-19 patients. NPs value may be helpful in identifying patients with a worse prognosis among those with normal troponin values. Further, NPs’ cut-point used for diagnosis of acute HF has a predictive role in patients with COVID-19.

Background: Protease inhibitors have been considered as possible therapeutic agents for COVID-19 patients. Objectives: To describe the association between lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or darunavir/cobicistat (DRV/c) use and in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. Study Design: Multicenter observational study of COVID-19 patients admitted in 33 Italian hospitals. Medications, preexisting conditions, clinical measures, and outcomes were extracted from medical records. Patients were retrospectively divided in three groups, according to use of LPV/r, DRV/c or none of them. Primary outcome in a time-to event analysis was death. We used Cox proportional-hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting by multinomial propensity scores. Results: Out of 3,451 patients, 33.3% LPV/r and 13.9% received DRV/c. Patients receiving LPV/r or DRV/c were more likely younger, men, had higher C-reactive protein levels while less likely had hypertension, cardiovascular, pulmonary or kidney disease. After adjustment for propensity scores, LPV/r use was not associated with mortality (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), whereas treatment with DRV/c was associated with a higher death risk (HR = 1.89, 1.53 to 2.34, E-value = 2.43). This increased risk was more marked in women, in elderly, in patients with higher severity of COVID-19 and in patients receiving other COVID-19 drugs. Conclusions: In a large cohort of Italian patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in a real-life setting, the use of LPV/r treatment did not change death rate, while DRV/c was associated with increased mortality. Within the limits of an observational study, these data do not support the use of LPV/r or DRV/c in COVID-19 patients.