Search

To describe epidemiological and clinical features of patients confirmed as having SARS-CoV-2 infection and managed in isolation at home. We performed a multicenter retrospective study enrolling all SARS-CoV-2-positive adults evaluated from 28 February to 31 May 2020 at one of nine COVID-19 Units in southern Italy: we included patients receiving care at home and those admitted to hospital. We defined patients with not-severe disease if they were asymptomatic or experienced a mild infection that did not need oxygen (O2) therapy and those with a severe infection if hospitalized and required O2 therapy. We enrolled 415 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: 77 were managed in isolation at home, 338 required hospital management. The 77 patients in home isolation were less frequently male than hospitalized patients (55% vs. 64%; < 0.01) and were younger (median age 45 years (IQR:19) vs 62 (IQR 22); p < 0.01), had a lower Charlson comorbidity index (median 0 (IQR2) vs 6 (IQR 3); p < 0.01), and included fewer subjects with an underlying chronic disease (36% vs 59%; p < 0.01). According to a binomial logistic regression analysis, a younger age (OR: 0.96 (95% IC: 0.94–0.98), p < 0.01) and a low Charlson comorbidity index (OR: 0.66 (95% IC: 0.54 –0.83); p < 0.01) were independent factors associated with at-home management. The identification of subjects with SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be managed in home isolation is useful in clinical practice. A younger age and no comorbidities were identified as factors independently associated with home management.

BackgroundThe aim of the study was to compare coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity presentation between oncologic and non-oncologic patients and to evaluate the impact of cancer type and stage on COVID-19 course.MethodsWe performed a multicentre, retrospective study involving 13 COVID-19 Units in Campania region from February to May 2020. We defined as severe COVID-19 presentation the cases that required mechanical ventilation and/or admission to Intensive Care Units (ICU) and/or in case of death.ResultsWe enrolled 371 COVID-19 patients, of whom 34 (9.2%) had a history or a diagnosis of cancer (24 solid, 6 onco-hematological). Oncologic patients were older (pConclusionsSince the higher risk of severe evolution of COVID-19, cancer patients, especially those with an active malignancy, should be candidates for early evaluation of symptoms and early treatment for COVID-19.

Highlights • Helmet CPAP is effective to treat mild and moderate ARDS secondary to SARS COV 2. • Lung recruitment is not the only pathological mechanism responsible of CPAP effect. • Patients that improve PaO2/FiO2 ratio after one hour of CPAP have a lower mortality, Background During the COVID-19 outbreak, a very high number of infected patients developed pneumonia and many of them complicated with acute respiratory distress syndrome. The optimal management of respiratory failure and the role of lung ultrasound imaging in the evaluation of efficacy of treatment are unknown. Methods In March 2020 we treated 18 patients with mild and moderate ARDS secondary to SARS-CoV-2 with non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure therapy (NI-CPAP). All patients underwent lung ultrasound imaging to verify the entity of lung recruitment after NI-CPAP initiation. Results After one hour of treatment we observed a significant improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio in 10 patients. Notably, only 50% of them reached an effective improvement in lung aeration detectable with lung ultrasound. In the other 50% or patients the improvement in PaO2/FiO2 might be related to blood redistribution and reverse of hypoxic vasoconstriction. Conclusion NI- CPAP is a valid therapeutic option in mild and moderate ARDS secondary SARS-CoV-2. Lung recruitment detected by means of lung ultrasound is a relevant but not the exclusive mechanism that underlies the therapeutic efficacy of NI-CPAP in this clinical setting.

Pleural or abdominal effusions are frequent findings in ICU and Internal Medicine patients. Diagnostic gold standard to distinguish between transudate and exudate is represented by “Light’s Criteria,” but, unfortunately, the chemical–physical examination for their calculation is not a rapid test. Pursuing an acid–base assessment of the fluid by a blood-gas analyzer, an increase of lactate beyond the normal serum range is reported in the exudative effusions. The advantages of this test are that it is a very fast bed-side test, executable directly by the physician. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the increase in lactate in pleural and abdominal effusions might be used as a criterion for the differential diagnosis of the nature of the fluid. Sixty-nine patients with pleural or abdominal effusions and clinical indication for thoracentesis or paracentesis were enrolled. Acid–base assessment with lactate, total protein, and LDH dosage on the serum, and acid–base assessment with lactate, total protein, and LDH dosage, cytology, and bacterial culture on the fluid were performed to each patient. Fluid–blood lactate difference (ΔLacFB) and fluid–blood lactate ratio (LacFB ratio) were calculated. A statistical analysis was carried out for fluid lactate (LacF), ΔLacFB, and LacFB ratio, performing ROC curves to find the cut-off values with best sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp) predicting an exudate diagnosis: LacF: cut-off value: 2.4mmol/L; AU-ROC 0.854 95% CI 0.756–0.952; Sn 0.77; Sp 0.84. ΔLacFB: cut-off value: 0.95mmol/L; Au-ROC 0.876 95% CI 0.785–0.966; Sn 0.80; Sp 0.92. LacFB ratio: cut-off value: 2mmol/L; Au-ROC 0.730 95% CI 0.609–0.851; Sn 0.74; Sp 0.65. Lactate dosage by blood-gas analyzer on pleural and abdominal effusions seems to be a promising tool to predict a diagnosis of exudate.