Search

Background: Lung damage leading to gas-exchange deficit and sepsis leading to systemic hypoperfusion are well-known features of severe pneumonia. Although frequently described in COVID-19, their prognostic impact in COVID-19-related pneumonia versus COVID-19-unrelated pneumonia has never been compared. This study assesses fundamental gas-exchange and hemodynamic parameters and explores their prognostic impact in COVID-19 pneumonia and non-COVID-19 pneumonia., Methods: We prospectively evaluated arterial pO2/FiO2, alveolar to arterial O2 gradient, shock index, and serum lactate in 126 COVID-19 pneumonia patients, aged 18-65, presenting to the emergency department with acute, non-hypercapnic respiratory failure. As a control group we identified 1:1 age-, sex-, and pO2/FiO2-matched COVID-19-urelated pneumonia patients. Univariate and multivariable predictors of 30-day survival were identified in both groups., Results: COVID-19 patients showed lower arterial serum lactate concentration (P<0.001) and shock index (P<0.001) values as compared to non-COVID-19 patients. While we did not observe differences in lactate concentration or in shock index values in deceased vs. surviving COVID-19 patients (P=0.7 and P=0.6, respectively), non-COVID-19 deceased patients showed significantly higher lactate and shock index than non-COVID-19 survivors (P<0.001 and P=0.03). The pO2/FiO2 was the most powerful determinant of survival by Cox regression multivariate analysis in COVID-19 patients (P=0.006), while it was lactate in non-COVID-19 patients (P=0.001)., Conclusions: As compared to COVID19-unrelated pneumonia, COVID-19 pneumonia outcome seems more strictly correlated to the extent of lung damage, rather than to the systemic circulatory and metabolic derangements typical of sepsis.

Background: Periodic surges of COVID-19 patients seeking care in the hospital environment overwhelm systems reduce the availability of resources for treatment of non-COVID-19 cases (Zheng et al. in J Hosp Infect 106:325-329, 2020). Hospital flow and resource management could be greatly enhanced by differentiating patients who are likely at risk of adverse clinical outcomes from those who could safely be discharged after evaluation and managed outside of the hospital setting (Sun et al. in J Infect Dis 223:38-46, 2021). Herein, we propose a prognostic score named PEGALUS (Predictivity of Elderly age, arterial blood Gas Analysis and Lung UltraSound) that could potentially help clinicians properly and rapidly choose the appropriate allocation of COVID-19 patients admitted to the emergency department (ED)., Methods: This observational prospective study enrolled COVID-19 patients who were admitted to the ED of IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital (HSR)., Results: 230 COVID-19 patients were enrolled and 30-day follow-up data was collected. Composite outcome was death or need for oro-tracheal intubation (OTI). 50 patients (21.5%) reached the outcome during the observational period. In multivariate Cox analysis, age, PO 2 /FiO 2 ratio, pCO 2 , duration of symptoms, and lung ultrasound evaluation were significantly associated with the adverse outcome. We obtained a new scorecard (PEGALUS) according to the hazard ratio of the identified predictors. PEGALUS score performed well in predicting the composite outcome (AUC 0.866, 95% IC 0.812-0.921; p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier showed that a PEGALUS score < 7 was associated with a good 30-day prognosis (survival rate 97.5%), compared to a PEGALUS score of 7-11 (survival rate 85.9%; p log-rank 0.009) and PEGALUS score > 11 (survival rate 49.3%; p log-rank < 0.001)., Conclusions: PEGALUS score performed at the admission can predict adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. The systematic application of this score might permit a more accurate and rapid treatment allocation in this setting., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Società Italiana di Medicina Interna (SIMI).)

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-related disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease characterized by systemic inflammation, which might enhance baseline thrombotic risk, especially in hospitalized patients. Little is, however, known about predictors of thrombotic complications in patients with COVID-19., Methods: We prospectively followed up 180 hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Demographics, clinical and laboratory features at presentation and past medical history were tested as predictors of the first thrombotic complication through multivariate Cox regression analysis and a categorical score generated based on the results., Results: Sixty-four thromboses were recorded in 54 patients, of whom seven with thrombosis on admission and 47 with thrombosis during hospitalization. Patients with thrombosis were mainly Caucasian and diabetic, had marked baseline signs of inflammation and organ damage, lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio, higher D-dimer levels and history of major hemorrhages. The latter three variables were independently associated to thrombotic complications and concurred to a 0-5 score, which accounted for 80% of the total sample variability. Patients with three or more points of the newly generated score were at higher risk for thrombotic complications (HR=4.9, P<0.001). Patients with thrombotic complications were more likely to be admitted to intensive care and/or to die (HR=1.9, P=0.036). Five of 180 patients were diagnosed with disseminated intravascular coagulation and three of them died. Eleven minor and no major bleeding events were observed., Conclusions: Patients with COVID-19 are at increased risk for thrombosis and might be stratified on admission based on lower Pao2/FiO2 ratio, higher D-dimer levels and history of major hemorrhages.

Purpose: Individuals with diabetes/stress hyperglycemia carry an increased risk for adverse clinical outcome in case of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether this risk is, at least in part, modulated by an increase of thromboembolic complications., Methods: We prospectively followed 180 hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the Internal Medicine Units of San Raffaele Hospital. Data from 11 out of 180 patients were considered incomplete and excluded from the analysis. We analysed inflammation, tissue damage biomarkers, hemostatic parameters, thrombotic events (TEs) and clinical outcome according to the presence of diabetes/stress hyperglycemia., Results: Among 169 patients, 51 (30.2%) had diabetes/stress hyperglycemia. Diabetes/stress hyperglycemia and fasting blood glucose (FBG) were associated with increased inflammation and tissue damage circulating markers, higher D-dimer levels, increased prothrombin time and lower antithrombin III activity. Forty-eight venous and 10 arterial TEs were identified in 49 (29%) patients. Diabetes/stress hyperglycemia (HR 2.71, p = 0.001), fasting blood glucose (HR 4.32, p < 0.001) and glucose variability (HR 1.6, p < 0.009) were all associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic complication. TEs significantly increased the risk for an adverse clinical outcome only in the presence of diabetes/stress hyperglycemia (HR 3.05, p = 0.010) or fasting blood glucose ≥7 mmol/L (HR 3.07, p = 0.015)., Conclusions: Thromboembolism risk is higher among patients with diabetes/stress hyperglycemia and COVID-19 pneumonia and is associated to poor clinical outcome. In case of SARS-Cov-2 infection patients with diabetes/stress hyperglycemia could be considered for a more intensive prophylactic anticoagulation regimen., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose in relation to the topic of this manuscript. The authors declare that there are no relationships or activities that might bias, or be perceived to bias, their work. This work was funded by Program Project COVID-19 OSR-UniSR and COVID-2020-12371617Ministero della Salute., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Trust is fundamental for the stability of human society. A large part of the experimental literature relies on the Trust Game as the workhorse to measure individual differences in trust and trustworthiness. In this review we highlight the difficulties and limitations of this popular paradigm, as well as the relations to alternative instruments ranging from survey measures to neurochemical manipulations and neuroimaging.