Search

Introduction: Neuroendocrine cells release Catestatin (CST) from Chromogranin A (CgA) to regulate stress responses. As regards COVID-19 patients (COVID+) requiring oxygen supply, to date nobody has studied CST as a potential mediator in the regulation of immunity. Patients & Methods: Admission plasma CST and CgA - its precursor - concentrations were measured (ELISA test) in 73 COVID+ and 27 controls. Relationships with demographics, comorbidities, disease severity and outcomes were analysed (Mann-Whitney, Spearman correlation tests, ROC curves). Results: Among COVID+, 49 required ICU-admission (COVID+ICU+) and 24 standard hospitalization (COVID+ICU-). Controls were either healthy staff (COVID-ICU-, n=11) or COVID-ICU+ patients (n=16). Median plasma CST were higher in COVID+ than in controls (1.6 [1.02; 3.79] vs 0.87 [0.59; 2.21] ng/mL, p<0.03), with no difference between COVID+ and COVID-ICU+. There was no difference between groups in either CgA or CST/CgA ratios, but these parameters were lower in healthy controls (p<0.01). CST did not correlate with either hypoxia- or usual inflammation-related parameters. In-hospital mortality was similar whether COVID+ or not, but COVID+ had longer oxygen support and more complications (p<0.03). CST concentrations and the CST/CgA ratio were associated with in-hospital mortality (p<0.01) in COVID+, whereas CgA was not. CgA correlated with care-related infections (p<0.001). Conclusion: Respiratory COVID patients release significant amounts of CST in the plasma making this protein widely available for the neural regulation of immunity. If confirmed prospectively, plasma CST will reliably help in predicting in-hospital mortality, whereas CgA will facilitate the detection of patients prone to care-related infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Patients with malignancies (solid tumors or hematological diseases) are at high risk of developing sepsis and are increasingly admitted to ICU due to their long-term prognosis improvement. The main objective of this study was to compare the short- and long-term prognoses of patients with and without cancer admitted to the ICU for septic shock. In-hospital and ICU mortality, as well as LOS, were not different in SSh patients with and without cancer, suggesting that malignancies should no longer be considered a barrier to ICU admission. Introduction: Cancer patients are at high risk of developing septic shock (SSh) and are increasingly admitted to ICU given their improved long-term prognosis. We, therefore, compared the prognosis of cancer and non-cancer patients with SSh. Methods: We conducted a monocentric, retrospective cohort study (2013–2019) on patients admitted to ICU for SSh. We compared the clinical characteristics and management and studied short- and long-term mortality with ICU and in-hospital mortality and 1-year survival according to cancer status. Results: We analyzed 239 ICU stays in 210 patients, 59.5% of whom were men (n = 125), with a median age of 66.5 (IQR 56.3–77.0). Of the 121 cancer patients (57.6% of all patients), 70 had solid tumors (33.3%), and 51 had hematological malignancies (24.3%). When comparing ICU stays of patients with versus without cancer (n = 148 vs. n = 91 stays, respectively), mortality reached 30.4% (n = 45) vs. 30.0% (n = 27) in the ICU (p = 0.95), and 41.6% (n = 59) vs. 35.6% (n = 32) in hospital (p = 0.36), respectively. ICU length of stay (LOS) was 5.0 (2.0–11.3) vs. 6.0 (3.0–15.0) days (p = 0.27), whereas in-hospital LOS was 25.5 (13.8–42.0) vs. 19.5 (10.8–41.0) days (p = 0.33). Upon multivariate analysis, renal replacement therapy (OR = 2.29, CI95%: 1.06–4.93, p = 0.03), disseminated intravascular coagulation (OR = 5.89, CI95%: 2.49–13.92, p < 0.01), and mechanical ventilation (OR = 7.85, CI95%: 2.90–21.20, p < 0.01) were associated with ICU mortality, whereas malignancy, hematological, or solid tumors were not (OR = 1.41, CI95%: 0.65–3.04; p = 0.38). Similarly, overall cancer status was not associated with in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.99, CI95%: 0.98–4.03, p = 0.06); however, solid cancers were associated with increased in-hospital mortality (OR = 2.52, CI95%: 1.12–5.67, p = 0.03). Lastly, mortality was not significantly different at 365-day follow-up between patients with and without cancer. Conclusions: In-hospital and ICU mortality, as well as LOS, were not different in SSh patients with and without cancer, suggesting that malignancies should no longer be considered a barrier to ICU admission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: For the past two years, healthcare systems worldwide have been battling the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Several studies tried to find predictive factors of mortality in COVID-19 patients. We aimed to research age as a predictive factor associated with in-hospital mortality in severe and critical SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: Between 1 March and 20 April 2020, we conducted a multicenter and retrospective study on a cohort of severe COVID-19 patients who were all hospitalized in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). We led our study in nine hospitals of northeast France, one of the pandemic's epicenters in Europe. Results: The median age of our study population was 66 years (58–72 years). Mortality was 24.6% (CI 95%: 20.6–29%) in the ICU and 26.5% (CI 95%: 22.3–31%) in the hospital. Non-survivors were significantly older (69 versus 64 years, p < 0.001) than the survivors. Although a history of cardio-vascular diseases was more frequent in the non-survivor group (p = 0.015), other underlying conditions and prior level of autonomy did not differ between the two groups. On multivariable analysis, age appeared to be an interesting predictive factor of in-hospital mortality. Thus, age ranges of 65 to 74 years (OR = 2.962, CI 95%: 1.231–7.132, p = 0.015) were predictive of mortality, whereas the group of patients aged over 75 years was not (OR = 3.084, CI 95%: 0.952–9.992, p = 0.06). Similarly, all comorbidities except for immunodeficiency (OR = 4.207, CI 95%: 1.006–17.586, p = 0.049) were not predictive of mortality. Finally, survival follow-up was obtained for the study population. Conclusion: Age appears to be a relevant predictive factor of in-hospital mortality in cases of severe or critical SARS-CoV-2 infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Introduction: The neutrophil-to lymphocyte ratio is valued as a predictive marker in several inflammatory diseases. For example, an increasing NLR is a risk factor of mortality in sepsis. It also appears to be helpful in other settings such as cancer. The aim of our work was to study the prognostic value of NLR for disease severity and mortality in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 upon their admission to the Emergency Department (ED) and its early variation (ΔNLR) in the first 24 h of management (H-24). (2) Methods: Between 1 March and 30 April 2020, we conducted a multicenter and retrospective cohort study of patients with moderate or severe coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), who were all hospitalized after presenting to the ED. (3) Results: A total of 1035 patients were included in our study. Factors associated with infection severity were C-reactive protein level (OR: 1.007, CI 95%: [1.005–1.010], p < 0.001), NLR at H-24 (OR: 1.117, CI 95%: [1.060–1.176], p < 0.001), and ΔNLR (OR: 1.877, CI 95%: [1.160–3.036], p: 0.01). The best threshold of ΔNLR to predict the severity of infection was 0.222 (sensitivity 56.1%, specificity 68.3%). In multivariate analysis, the only biochemical factor significantly associated with mortality was again ΔNLR (OR: 2.142, CI 95%: ([1.132–4.056], p: 0.019). The best threshold of ΔNLR to predict mortality was 0.411 (sensitivity 53.3%; specificity 67.3%). (4) Conclusion: The NLR and its early variation (ΔNLR) could help physicians predict both severity and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, hence contributing to optimized patient management (accurate triage and treatment). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Healthcare systems worldwide have been battling the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Eosinophils are multifunctional leukocytes implicated in the pathogenesis of several inflammatory processes including viral infections. We focus our study on the prognostic value of eosinopenia as a marker of disease severity and mortality in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Between 1 March and 30 April 2020, we conducted a multicenter and retrospective study on a cohort of COVID-19 patients (moderate or severe disease) who were hospitalized after presenting to the emergency department (ED). We led our study in six major hospitals of northeast France, one of the outbreak's epicenters in Europe. Results: We have collected data from 1035 patients, with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. More than three quarters of them (76.2%) presented a moderate form of the disease, while the remaining quarter (23.8%) presented a severe form requiring admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Mean circulating eosinophils rate, at admission, varied according to disease severity (p < 0.001), yet it did not differ between survivors and non-survivors (p = 0.306). Extreme eosinopenia (=0/mm3) was predictive of severity (aOR = 1.77, p = 0.009); however, it was not predictive of mortality (aOR = 0.892, p = 0.696). The areas under the Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve were, respectively, 58.5% (CI95%: 55.3–61.7%) and 51.4% (CI95%: 46.8–56.1%) for the ability of circulating eosinophil rates to predict disease severity and mortality. Conclusion: Eosinopenia is very common and often profound in cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Eosinopenia was not a useful predictor of mortality; however, undetectable eosinophils (=0/mm3) were predictive of disease severity during the initial ED management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Infective endocarditis (IE) remains a severe disease with a high mortality rate. Therefore, guidelines encourage the setup of a multidisciplinary group in reference centers. The present study evaluated the impact of this "Endocarditis Team" (ET). Methods We conducted a monocentric observational study at Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France, between 2012 and 2017. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Secondary end points were 6-month and 1-year mortality, surgery rate, time to surgical procedure, duration of effective antibiotic therapy, length of in-hospital stay, and sequelae. We also assessed predictors of in-hospital mortality. Results We analyzed 391 episodes of IE. In the post-ET period, there was a nonsignificant decrease in in-hospital mortality (20.3% vs 14.7%, respectively; P =.27) and sequelae, along with a significant reduction in time to surgery (16.4 vs 10.3 days, respectively; P =.049), duration of antibiotic therapy (55.2 vs 47.2 days, respectively; P <.001), and length of in-hospital stay (40.6 vs 31.9 days, respectively; P <.01). In a multivariate analysis, the post-ET period was positively associated with survival (odds ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.20–0.96; P =.048). Conclusions This multidisciplinary approach exerted a positive impact on the management of IE and should be considered in all hospitals managing IE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]