Prevalence of Systemic Arterial Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus in Individuals with COVID-19: A Retrospective Study of Deaths in Pernambuco, Brazil

Acute renal failure, COVID-19 and deaths, worrying rates in intensive care units: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney failure is a serious consequence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

OBJECTIVES

To identify the prevalence of COVID-19, kidney failure, frequency of death, and associated factors in patients receiving intensive care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Analytical cross-sectional study conducted in the intensive care unit (ICU) of a medium-sized philanthropic general hospital in center-west Minas Gerais.

METHODS

Adults and older individuals who underwent real-time polymerase chain reaction testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were evaluated by the nephrology team.

RESULTS

Among the 176 patients, the prevalence of COVID-19 and acute kidney injury (AKI) were 103 (58.5%) and 132 (75%), respectively, and 44 (25%) had chronic kidney disease (CKD) and 16 (15,5%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. In the Charlson index classification, which estimates the risk of death, a statistically significant difference was identified in the percentages of groups with and without COVID-19 for indices 0, 1, and 2. There was a significant association between kidney disease and ICU mortality (P < 0.05). Patients with CKD had fewer fatal outcomes (13/97, 13.4%) than those with AKI (85/97, 87.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 rates remained high long after diagnosis and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In addition, a higher death rate among patients who developed AKI, whose prevalence was also greater than that in the national literature, regardless of the presence of COVID-19, revealed a worrying scenario and corroborated the need for early and judicious approaches to preserve the lives of patients with AKI admitted to intensive care units.

Factors associated with mortality, length of hospital stay and diagnosis of COVID-19: Data from a field hospital

Background

During the pandemic of COVID-19, phylogenetic changes have been observed in the characteristics of the virus, in the diagnosis and treatment of the disease. The clinical course and the severe form of the disease depends on several factors. This study characterized the beginning setting for patient care of COVID-19 in a referral center in one of the main capital cities of Brazil. In addition, were evaluated the factors associated with mortality, length of stay, and diagnostic outcome.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted during May 2020 (n = 1100). The association of the variables with outcome was evaluated by a multivariable logistic regression model, using odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Overall, 76 % of patients were COVID-19 positive, and 70 % were diagnosed by RT–qPCR. The majority were male (56 %), and over 52 years old (74 %), 68 % had hypertension, 44 % had diabetes mellitus, and 32 % were obese. The mean length of stay was 10 ± 8 days, which was higher in the 34 % who died (≥14; OR=2; 95 %CI=1.4–4) and who had hypertension (OR=2; 95 %CI=1.3–3) (P < 0.001). The mean length of stay was also higher (P = 0.008) for those patients with pulmonary impairment ≥ 50 % (10.72 ± 8.24), than those with< 50 % (8.98 ± 6.81). Age (>62 and 65 years) was associated with longer hospitalization (OR=2; 95 %CI=1.4–3) and death (OR=6; 95 %CI=3–11). The time of sample collection for RT–qPCR was different between positive and negative tests (P = 0.001), with the time of 4–10 days showing a greater chance for virus detection (OR=2.9; 95 %CI=1.6–5).

Conclusion

Death was associated with age and pulmonary impairment. The length of hospitalization was associated with age, hypertension, pulmonary impairment and death. The time of sample collection to perform RT–qPCR and the rapid test was associated with a positive result for COVID-19. These results highlight the ongoing challenge of diagnosing, treating, and mitigating the effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Small airway dysfunction on impulse oscillometry and pathological signs on lung ultrasound are frequent in post-COVID-19 patients with persistent respiratory symptoms

Background

Thousands of people worldwide are suffering the consequences of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), and impulse oscillometry (IOS) and lung ultrasound (LUS) might be important tools for the follow-up of this population. Our objective was to prospectively evaluate abnormalities detected using these two methods in a cohort of COVID-19 survivors with respiratory symptoms.

Methods

In this follow-up study, 59 patients underwent clinical evaluations, spirometry, IOS and LUS in the 2nd (M1) and 5th (M2) months after diagnostic confirmation of COVID-19 by real-time reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction. Aeration scores were obtained from the LUS exams based on the following findings: B-lines >2, coalescent B-lines, and subpleural consolidations.

Results

Fifty-nine (100%) participants had cough and/or dyspnea at M1, which decreased to 38 (64.4%) at M2 (p = 0.0001). Spirometry was abnormal in 26 (44.1%) and 20 (33.9%) participants at M1 and M2, respectively, although without statistical significance (p = 0.10). Normal examination, restrictive patterns, and obstructive patterns were observed in 33 (55.9%), 18 (30.5%), and 8 (13.6%) participants, respectively, at M1 and in 39 (66.1%), 13 (22%), and 7 (11.9%) participants at M2 (p = 0.14). Regarding IOS, considering changes in resistive and reactive parameters, abnormal exams were detected in 52 (88.1%) and 42 (71.2%) participants at M1 and M2, respectively (p = 0.002). Heterogeneity of resistance between 4 and 20 Hz >20% was observed in 38 (64.4%) and 33 (55.9%) participants at M1 and M2, respectively (p = 0.30). Abnormal LUS was observed in 46 (78%) and 36 (61%) participants at M1 and M2, respectively (p = 0.002), with a reduction in aeration scores between M1 and M2 [5 (2–8) vs. 3 (0–6) points, p<0.0001].

Conclusions

IOS and LUS abnormalities are frequent in the first 5 months post-COVID-19 infection; however, when prospectively evaluated, significant improvement is evident in the parameters measured by these two methods.