Search

BackgroundAn established objective and standardized reporting of clinical severity and disease progression in COVID-19 is still not established. We validated and compared the usefulness of two classification systems reported earlier-a severity grading proposed by Siddiqi and a system from the National Australian COVID-19 guideline. Both had not been validated externally and were now tested for their ability to predict complications.MethodsIn this retrospective, single-centre observational study, patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 across all severity stages were enrolled. The clinical severity was graded at admission and during hospitalization. Multivariate Cox regression was used to identify independent risk factors for mortality, a composite primary (mortality, incident acute respiratory distress syndrome, incident mechanical ventilation), a secondary endpoint (mortality, incident acute myocardial injury, incident venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism or stroke) and progression of severity grades.ResultsOf 109 patients 17 died, 31 and 48 developed the primary and secondary endpoint, respectively. Worsening of the severity grade by at least one stage occurred in 27 and 28 patients, respectively. Siddiqi and Australian classification were identified as independent predictors for the primary endpoint (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 2.30, pConclusionsStandardized and objective severity grading is useful to unequivocally stratify patients presenting with COVID-19 for their individual risk of complications.

AimsElevated levels of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hsTnT) are associated with adverse outcomes in numerous patient populations. Their value in prediction of stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is in debate.MethodsThe study population included 2898 consecutive patients presenting with AF to the emergency department of the Department of Cardiology, Heidelberg University Hospital. Associations between hsTnT and stroke risk were assessed using multivariable Cox regression.ResultsElevated hsTnT levels (>14 ng/L) were associated with increased risk of stroke. Even after adjustment for various risk factors, elevated hsTnT remained independently associated with stroke risk in patients with AF, adjusted hazard ratio 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.26-4.36] (P = 0.007). These results were consistent across important subgroups (age, renal function, ejection fraction, CHA2DS2-VASc score and main admission diagnosis). For hsTnT, area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.659 [95% CI: 0.575-0.742], compared to 0.610 [95% CI: 0.526-0.694] for the CHA2DS2-VASc score. Inclusion of hsTnT in the multivariable model for stroke risk prediction consisting of all variables of the CHA2DS2-VASc score was associated with a significant improvement of its discriminatory power.ConclusionElevated hsTnT levels are significantly associated with higher risk of stroke and provide prognostic information independent of CHA2DS2-VASc score variables. Measurement of hsTnT may improve prediction of stroke risk in patients presenting to an emergency department with AF as compared to risk stratification based only on clinical variables.