Characteristics and outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients during the first 28 days of the spring and autumn pandemic waves in Milan: An observational prospective study

Retrospective analysis of epidemiologic features and clinical course of COVID-19 patients and comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients

At our Pneumology Department, we dealt with three waves of COVID-19 pandemics. The purpose of this study is to compare patients' epidemiological and clinical characteristics across waves and to assess the effect of vaccination on clinical presentation, course, and prognosis. From March 2020 to March 2022, a retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare patient characteristics. Based on the time of hospital admission, data from 456 patients were collected and divided into three groups (IW, IIW, and IIIW). In addition, we looked at the link between vaccination and clinical presentation and hospitalization outcome. The average age and comorbidities of patients increased, as did the worsening of respiratory conditions at admission (PaO2/FiO2 median 207 in IW, 95.5 in IIW, and 99 in IIIW). Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was the primary respiratory support during the first wave, but an increase in the use of high flow nasal cannula and noninvasive ventilation was later observed, resulting in a higher hospital discharge rate and a lower intubation rate. Vaccinated patients had less severe COVID-19-related respiratory failure, a better clinical course, and a higher hospital discharge rate (71.4% in V-group vs 44.7% in NV-group, p<0.001). Patients' characteristics changed over the three waves, possibly due to virus mutations. The advancement of clinical and therapeutic management knowledge has contributed to a reduction in the severity of respiratory failure. The vaccination campaign improved the clinical course and reduced mortality.

Mortality reduction in older COVID-19-patients hospitalized in Spain during the second pandemic wave from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic followed a two-wave pattern in most countries. Hospital admission for COVID-19 in one wave or another could have affected mortality, especially among the older persons. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the admission of older patients during the different waves, before SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was available, was associated with a different mortality. We compared the mortality rates of patients hospitalized during 2020 before (first wave) and after (second wave) July 7, 2020, included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, a large, multicenter, retrospective cohort of patients admitted to 126 Spanish hospitals for COVID-19. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to control for changes in either the patient or disease profile. As of December 26, 2022, 22,494 patients had been included (17,784 from the first wave and 4710 from the second one). Overall mortality was 20.4% in the first wave and 17.2% in the second wave (risk difference (RD) - 3.2%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) - 4.4 to - 2.0). Only patients aged 70 and older (10,973 patients: 8571 in the first wave and 2386 in the second wave) had a significant reduction in mortality (RD - 7.6%; 95% CI - 9.7 to - 5.5) (unadjusted relative risk reduction: 21.6%). After adjusting for age, comorbidities, variables related to the severity of the disease, and treatment received, admission during the second wave remained a protective factor. In Spain, patients aged 70 years and older admitted during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had a significantly lower risk of mortality, except in severely dependent persons in need of corticosteroid treatment. This effect is independent of patient characteristics, disease severity, or treatment received. This suggests a protective effect of a better standard of care, greater clinical expertise, or a lesser degree of healthcare system overload.

Acute Improvements of Oxygenation with Cpap and Clinical Outcomes in Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Multicenter, Retrospective Study

It is not known if the degrees of improvement in oxygenation obtained by CPAP can predict clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. This was a retrospective study conducted on patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia treated with CPAP in three University hospitals in Milan, Italy, from March 2020 to March 2021. Arterial gas analysis was obtained before and 1 h after starting CPAP. CPAP failure included either death in the respiratory units while on CPAP or the need for intubation. Two hundred and eleven patients (mean age 64 years, 74% males) were included. Baseline median PaO2, PaO2/FiO2 ratio (P/F), and the alveolar-arterial (A-a) O2 gradient were 68 (57−83) mmHg, 129 (91−179) mmHg and 310 (177−559) mmHg, respectively. Forty-two (19.9%) patients died in the respiratory units and 51 (24.2%) were intubated. After starting CPAP, PaO2/FiO2 increased by 57 (12−113; p < 0.001) mmHg, and (A-a) O2 was reduced by 68 (−25−250; p < 0.001) mmHg. A substantial overlap of PaO2, P/F, and A-a gradient at baseline and during CPAP was observed in CPAP failures and successes; CPAP-associated improvements in oxygenation in both groups were similar. In conclusion, CPAP-associated improvements in oxygenation do not predict clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Recent Advance Analysis of Recovery in Hospitalized People with COVID-19: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 is a public health emergency all around the world. Severe illness occurred in about 14% of patients and 5% of patients developed critical illness, but the prognosis for these patients remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the prognosis in hospitalized adults with COVID-19.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, and COCHRANE databases were searched for studies published up to 28 June 2021 without language restrictions. Descriptors were related to "COVID-19" and "prognosis". Prospective inception cohort studies that assessed morbidity, mortality and recovery in hospitalized people over 18 years old with COVID-19 were included. Two independent reviewers selected eligible studies and extracted the available data. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and multiple organ failure (MOFS) were considered as outcomes for morbidity and discharge was considered for recovery. The Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool was used to assess risk of bias. Analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 2.2.064).

RESULTS

We included 30 inception cohort studies investigating 13,717 people hospitalized with COVID-19 from different countries. The mean (SD) age was 60.90 (21.87) years, and there was high proportion of males (76.19%) and people with comorbidities (e.g., 49.44% with hypertension and 29.75% with diabetes). Findings suggested a high occurrence of morbidity, mainly related to ARDS. Morbidity rates varied across studies from 19% to 36% in hospital wards, and from 13% to 90% in Intensive Care Units-ICU. Mortality rates ranged from 4% to 38% in hospital wards and from 8% to 51% in ICU. Recovery rates ranged up to 94% and 65% in hospital wards and ICU, respectively. The included studies had high risk of bias in the confounding domain.

CONCLUSIONS

The prognosis of people hospitalized with COVID-19 is an issue for the public health system worldwide, with high morbidity and mortality rates, mainly in ICU and for patients with comorbidities. Its prognosis emphasizes the need for appropriate prevention and management strategies.

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Elderly Patients with Severe COVID-19 Related Respiratory Failure

The elderly population represents a high percentage of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia and severe respiratory failure, for whom CPAP may be a treatment option. The aim of this study was to describe the CPAP support modalities and to explore factors associated with CPAP failure. In this retrospective study, 110 consecutive patients aged ≥ 75 years were enrolled. Median frailty score, baseline partial arterial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (P/F), and respiratory rate (RR) were 5, 108, and 30 cycles/min, respectively. Of the 110 patients that began CPAP treatment, 17 patients died within 72 h from baseline, while in 2 patients, CPAP was withdrawn for clinical improvement. Thus, of the 91 patients still on CPAP at day 3, 67% of them needed continuous CPAP delivery. Patients with RR ≥ 30 and with frailty score ≥ 5 had an odds ratio of continuous CPAP needing of 3 and 4, respectively. Patients unable to tolerate CPAP-free periods demonstrated higher mortality risk as compared to those able to tolerate intermittent CPAP (OR: 6.04, 95% CI 2.38−16.46, p < 0.001). The overall in-hospital mortality was 63.6%. Delirium occurred in 59.1%, with a mortality rate in this subgroup of 83.1%. In a time-varying Cox model, the hazard ratio of death was 2.9 in patients with baseline RR ≥ 30 cycle/min, 2.4 in those with baseline P/F < 100. In the same model, the hazard ratio of death was 20 in patients with delirium and a frailty score < 5 and 8.8 in those without delirium and with frailty ≥ 5, indicating a competitive effect between these two variables on the death risk. Conclusions: Respiratory impairment, frailty, and delirium predict treatment failure, with the latter two factors demonstrating a competitive effect on mortality risk. CPAP support may represent a feasible therapeutic option in elderly patients, although chances of a therapeutic benefit are markedly reduced in case of severe respiratory impairment, very frail baseline condition or delirium occurrence.

Changes in laboratory value improvement and mortality rates over the course of the pandemic: an international retrospective cohort study of hospitalised patients infected with SARS-CoV-2

OBJECTIVE

To assess changes in international mortality rates and laboratory recovery rates during hospitalisation for patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 between the first wave (1 March to 30 June 2020) and the second wave (1 July 2020 to 31 January 2021) of the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

This is a retrospective cohort study of 83 178 hospitalised patients admitted between 7 days before or 14 days after PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within the Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by Electronic Health Record, an international multihealthcare system collaborative of 288 hospitals in the USA and Europe. The laboratory recovery rates and mortality rates over time were compared between the two waves of the pandemic.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality rate within 28 days after hospitalisation stratified by predicted low, medium and high mortality risk at baseline. The secondary outcome was the average rate of change in laboratory values during the first week of hospitalisation.

RESULTS

Baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index and laboratory values at admission were not significantly different between the first and second waves. The improvement in laboratory values over time was faster in the second wave compared with the first. The average C reactive protein rate of change was -4.72 mg/dL vs -4.14 mg/dL per day (p=0.05). The mortality rates within each risk category significantly decreased over time, with the most substantial decrease in the high-risk group (42.3% in March-April 2020 vs 30.8% in November 2020 to January 2021, p<0.001) and a moderate decrease in the intermediate-risk group (21.5% in March-April 2020 vs 14.3% in November 2020 to January 2021, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Admission profiles of patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection did not differ greatly between the first and second waves of the pandemic, but there were notable differences in laboratory improvement rates during hospitalisation. Mortality risks among patients with similar risk profiles decreased over the course of the pandemic. The improvement in laboratory values and mortality risk was consistent across multiple countries.

Treatments, resource utilization, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients presenting to emergency departments across pandemic waves: an observational study by the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN)

BACKGROUND

Treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) evolved between pandemic waves. Our objective was to compare treatments, acute care utilization, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients presenting to emergency departments (ED) across pandemic waves.

METHODS

This observational study enrolled consecutive eligible COVID-19 patients presenting to 46 EDs participating in the Canadian COVID-19 ED Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) between March 1 and December 31, 2020. We collected data by retrospective chart review. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included treatments, hospital and ICU admissions, ED revisits and readmissions. Logistic regression modeling assessed the impact of pandemic wave on outcomes.

RESULTS

We enrolled 9,967 patients in 8 provinces, 3,336 from the first and 6,631 from the second wave. Patients in the second wave were younger, fewer met criteria for severe COVID-19, and more were discharged from the ED. Adjusted for patient characteristics and disease severity, steroid use increased (odds ratio [OR] 7.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.2-8.9), and invasive mechanical ventilation decreased (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.4-0.7) in the second wave compared to the first. After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics and disease severity, the odds of hospitalization (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-0.8) and critical care admission (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-0.9) decreased, while mortality remained unchanged (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.5-1.1).

INTERPRETATION

In patients presenting to cute care facilities, we observed rapid uptake of evidence-based therapies and less use of experimental therapies in the second wave. We observed increased rates of ED discharges and lower hospital and critical care resource use over time. Substantial reductions in mechanical ventilation were not associated with increasing mortality. Advances in treatment strategies created health system efficiencies without compromising patient outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04702945.

Experiences of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic amongst Australian healthcare workers: from stressors to protective factors

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has critically challenged healthcare systems globally. Examining the experiences of healthcare workers (HCWs) is important for optimizing ongoing and future pandemic responses.

OBJECTIVES

In-depth exploration of Australian HCWs' experiences of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, with a focus on reported stressors vis-à-vis protective factors.

METHODS

Individual interviews were performed with 63 HCWs in Australia. A range of professional streams and operational staff were included. Thematic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis identified stressors centred on paucity of, or changing, evidence, leading to absence of, or mistrust in, guidelines; unprecedented alterations to the autonomy and sense of control of clinicians; and deficiencies in communication and support. Key protective factors included: the development of clear guidance from respected clinical leaders or recognized clinical bodies, interpersonal support, and strong teamwork, leadership, and a sense of organizational preparedness.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insights into the key organizational sources of emotional stress for HCWs within pandemic responses and describes experiences of protective factors. HCWs experiencing unprecedented uncertainty, fear, and rapid change, rely on clear communication, strong leadership, guidelines endorsed by recognized expert groups or individuals, and have increased reliance on interpersonal support. Structured strategies for leadership and communication at team, service group and organizational levels, provision of psychological support, and consideration of the potential negative effects of centralizing control, would assist in ameliorating the extreme pressures of working within a pandemic environment.

Non-invasive respiratory support in the management of acute COVID-19 pneumonia: considerations for clinical practice and priorities for research

Non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) has increasingly been used in the management of COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure, but questions remain about the utility, safety, and outcome benefit of NIRS strategies. We identified two randomised controlled trials and 83 observational studies, compromising 13 931 patients, that examined the effects of NIRS modalities-high-flow nasal oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure, and bilevel positive airway pressure-on patients with COVID-19. Of 5120 patients who were candidates for full treatment escalation, 1880 (37%) progressed to invasive mechanical ventilation and 3658 of 4669 (78%) survived to study end. Survival was 30% among the 1050 patients for whom NIRS was the stated ceiling of treatment. The two randomised controlled trials indicate superiority of non-invasive ventilation over high-flow nasal oxygen in reducing the need for intubation. Reported complication rates were low. Overall, the studies indicate that NIRS in patients with COVID-19 is safe, improves resource utilisation, and might be associated with better outcomes. To guide clinical decision making, prospective, randomised studies are needed to address timing of intervention, optimal use of NIRS modalities-alone or in combination-and validation of tools such as oxygenation indices, response to a trial of NIRS, and inflammatory markers as predictors of treatment success.

Liver Injury in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: Possible Role of Therapy

Patients with COVID-19 show a high prevalence of liver injury. The pattern of this liver damage is still not fully understood. Different etiopathogenetic factors may concur; from a direct cytopathic effect, once the virus binds to the ACE-2 receptors, to the immune-mediated collateral damage, due to cytokine storm. The presence of pre-existing chronic liver disease is a contributing factor for acute organ damage during SARS-CoV2 infection. Last but not least, treatments probably play a role, also, in determining hepatotoxicity: many of the drugs we have used or are still using to treat COVID-19, combined with non-invasive ventilation, are known to sometimes determine acute liver injury. Although liver damage associated with COVID-19 is often transient and can resolve without any special treatment, it is important to understand the underlying mechanisms, particularly to better treat its more severe forms.

Predictors of Helmet CPAP Failure in COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Prospective, Multicenter, and Observational Cohort Study

Background

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) can be beneficial in acute respiratory failure (ARF) due to coronavirus (COVID-19) pneumonia, but delaying endotracheal intubation (ETI) in nonresponders may increase mortality. We aimed at investigating the performance of composite respiratory indexes as possible predictors of CPAP failure in ARF due to COVID-19.

Methods

This was a multicenter, prospective, observational, and cohort study conducted in the respiratory units of three University hospitals in Milan and in a secondary care hospital in Codogno (Italy), on consecutive adult patients with ARF due to COVID-19 pneumonia that underwent CPAP between March 2020 and March 2021. ETI transfer to the intensive care unit or death is defined CPAP failure. Predictors of CPAP failure were assessed before T0 and 1 hour after T1 CPAP initiation and included mROX index (ratio of PaO2/FiO2 to respiratory rate), alveolar-to-arterial (A-a) O2 gradient, and the HACOR (heart rate, acidosis, consciousness, oxygenation, and respiratory rate) score.

Results

Three hundred and fifty four patients (mean age 64 years, 73% males) were included in the study; 136 (38.4%) satisfied criteria for CPAP failure. A-a O2 gradient, mROX, and HACOR scores were worse in patients who failed CPAP, both at T0 and T1 (p < 0.001 for all parameters). The HACOR score was associated with CPAP failure (odds ratio-OR-for every unit increase in HACOR = 1.361; 95%CI: 1.103-1.680; p=0.004; AUROC = 0.742; p < 0.001). CPAP failure was best predicted by a threshold of 4.50 (sensitivity = 53% and specificity = 87%).

Conclusions

The HACOR score may be a reliable and early predictor of CPAP failure in patients treated for ARF in COVID-19 pneumonia.

COVID-19 pneumonia: pathophysiology and management

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia is an evolving disease. We will focus on the development of its pathophysiologic characteristics over time, and how these time-related changes determine modifications in treatment. In the emergency department: the peculiar characteristic is the coexistence, in a significant fraction of patients, of severe hypoxaemia, near-normal lung computed tomography imaging, lung gas volume and respiratory mechanics. Despite high respiratory drive, dyspnoea and respiratory rate are often normal. The underlying mechanism is primarily altered lung perfusion. The anatomical prerequisites for PEEP (positive end-expiratory pressure) to work (lung oedema, atelectasis, and therefore recruitability) are lacking. In the high-dependency unit: the disease starts to worsen either because of its natural evolution or additional patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI). Oedema and atelectasis may develop, increasing recruitability. Noninvasive supports are indicated if they result in a reversal of hypoxaemia and a decreased inspiratory effort. Otherwise, mechanical ventilation should be considered to avert P-SILI. In the intensive care unit: the primary characteristic of the advance of unresolved COVID-19 disease is a progressive shift from oedema or atelectasis to less reversible structural lung alterations to lung fibrosis. These later characteristics are associated with notable impairment of respiratory mechanics, increased arterial carbon dioxide tension (P_aCO2), decreased recruitability and lack of response to PEEP and prone positioning.

COVID-19 pneumonia cannot be correctly described, analysed and treated if the time-factor is not taken into accounthttps://bit.ly/3AOKxc4

Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Immunostimulation in Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia

Background: The effects of immunomodulators in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia are still unknown. We investigated the cellular inflammatory and molecular changes in response to standard-of-care + pidotimod (PDT) and explored the possible association with blood biomarkers of disease severity. Methods: Clinical characteristics and outcomes, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), plasma and cell supernatant chemokines, and gene expression patterns after SARS-CoV-2 and influenza (FLU) virus in vitro stimulation were assessed in 16 patients with mild-moderate COVID-19 pneumonia, treated with standard of care and PDT 800 mg twice daily (PDT group), and measured at admission, 7 (T1), and 12 (T2) days after therapy initiation. Clinical outcomes and NLR were compared with age-matched historical controls not exposed to PDT. Results: Hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, and intubation rate did not differ between groups. At T1, NLR was 2.9 (1.7–4.6) in the PDT group and 5.5 (3.4–7.1) in controls (p = 0.037). In the PDT group, eotaxin and IL-4 plasma concentrations progressively increased (p < 0.05). Upon SARS-CoV-2 and FLU-specific stimulation, IFN-γ was upregulated (p < 0.05), while at genetic transcription level, Pathogen Recognition Receptors (TRLs) were upregulated, especially in FLU-stimulated conditions. Conclusions: Immunomodulation exerted by PDT and systemic corticosteroids may foster a restoration in the innate response to the viral infection. These results should be confirmed in larger RCTs.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 as Cause of Viral Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Coronavirus disease 2019 is a heterogeneous disease most frequently causing respiratory tract infection, which can induce respiratory failure and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in its severe forms. The prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019-related sepsis is still unclear; we aimed to describe this in a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases were searched based on a prespecified protocol (International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews: CRD42020202018).

STUDY SELECTION

Studies reporting on patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 diagnosed with sepsis according to sepsis-3 or according to the presence of infection-related organ dysfunctions necessitating organ support/replacement were included in the analysis. The primary end point was prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019-related sepsis among adults hospitalized in the ICU and the general ward. Among secondary end points were the need for ICU admission among patients initially hospitalized in the general ward and the prevalence of new onset of organ dysfunction in the ICU. Outcomes were expressed as proportions with respective 95% CI.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently screened and reviewed existing literature and assessed study quality with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Methodological index for nonrandomized studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 3,825 articles, 151 were analyzed, only five of which directly reported sepsis prevalence. Noting the high heterogeneity observed, coronavirus disease 2019-related sepsis prevalence was 77.9% (95% CI, 75.9-79.8; I2 = 91%; 57 studies) in the ICU, and 33.3% (95% CI, 30.3-36.4; I2 = 99%; 86 studies) in the general ward. ICU admission was required for 17.7% (95% CI, 12.9-23.6; I2 = 100%) of ward patients. Acute respiratory distress syndrome was the most common organ dysfunction in the ICU (87.5%; 95% CI, 83.3-90.7; I2 = 98%).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of coronavirus disease 2019 patients hospitalized in the ICU meet Sepsis-3 criteria and present infection-associated organ dysfunction. The medical and scientific community should be aware and systematically report viral sepsis for prognostic and treatment implications.

Mortality and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated with non-invasive respiratory support: A rapid review

Introduction and aim

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) have been widely employed to treat acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia, but their role in terms of efficacy and safety are still debated. The aim of this review was to analyse mortality and intubation rates in COVID-19 patients treated with NIV/CPAP.

Methods

Rapid review methodology was applied to include all the studies published since December-2019 until November-2020 with available data on in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients treated with NIV or CPAP.

Results

23 manuscripts were included (4776 patients, 66% males, 46% with hypertension). 46% of patients received non-invasive respiratory support, of which 48.4% with CPAP, 46% with NIV, and 4% with either CPAP or NIV. Non-invasive respiratory support failed in 47.7% of patients, of which 26.5% were intubated and 40.9% died. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients treated with NIV compared with CPAP (35.1% vs. 22.2%). Complications were under-reported, but mostly not related to CPAP/NIV treatment.

Conclusion

CPAP and NIV appear equally and frequently applied in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, but associated with high mortality. Robust evidence is urgently needed to confirm the clinical efficacy of non-invasive respiratory support in COVID-19-related ARDS.

Long Term Respiratory Follow-Up for COVID-19 Patients a Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic initiated officially in October 2020. Since then several observations have been made regarding the disease and its symptoms.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We included eighty seven in our observational study. Our main aim was to investigate their long term respiratory follow-up in correlation with their initial radiological and laboratory findings and values. The nose swab PCR test for COVID-19 was used for diagnosis. Patients were monitored at 3 and 6 months after their hospital reception whereas basic parameters of health condition (smoking, PO2, SPO2, WBC, CXR, CRP, intercurrent findings, days of nursing, colchicine administration) in joint with gender and age were recorded.

RESULTS

Males seem more susceptible to the viral disease than females in a ratio 1,8:1. The parameters FEV1 and FVC (as % relative changes) were not affected, apart from the DLCO to which CRP (in loge+1 transformation) and SPO2 showed a statistically significant effect.

CONCLUSION

None of these patients were intubated, or admitted to the intensive care unit. The respiratory function is affected by the virus and the effect is reversed within the first three months. Males are more affected and the radiological and laboratory findings are associated with the respiratory functions.