Objective: To analyse the rate of occurrence and the clinical variables associated with readmission of patients who had previously been discharged after admission for COVID-19. Setting: University hospital in Madrid (Spain). Participants: Sixty-one patients (74% male) who presented COVID-19 were readmitted during the 3 weeks after discharge from hospital. Interventions: Nested case-control study paired (1:1 ratio) by age, sex and period of admission. Outcome Measures: Rate of readmission rate of patients discharged after suffering COVID-19 and identification of the clinical variables associated with it. Results: Out of 1368 patients who were discharged during the study period, 61 patients (4.4%) were readmitted. Immunocompromised patients (N=10.2%) were at increased risk for readmission (p=0.04). There was also a trend towards a higher probability of readmission in hypertensive patients (p=0.07). Cases had had a shorter hospital stay and a higher prevalence of fever during the 48 hours prior to discharge. There were no significant differences in oxygen levels measured at admission and discharge by pulse oximetry intra-subject or between the groups. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio at hospital admission tended to be higher in cases than in controls (p=0.06). Neither glucocorticoids nor anticoagulants prescribed at hospital discharge were associated with a lower readmission rate. Patients who were readmitted due to a thrombotic event (8 patients, 13.1%) presented a higher level of D-dimer at discharge of initial admission. Conclusion: The rate of readmission after discharge from hospital for COVID-19 was low. Immunocompromised patients and those presenting with fever during the 48 hours prior to discharge were at greater risk of readmission to hospital.
Eccentric resistance exercise produced less cardiopulmonary demands and may be better suited for older persons with low exercise tolerance and at risk of adverse cardiopulmonary events.
Our findings demonstrated that test-retest measures of MVMS and power in older adult men do not differ by more than 2.3% except for leg extension, and have relatively low coefficients of variation using data collected from three studies. Moreover, these findings were similar between two study sites using different equipment, which further supports the reliability of MVMS and power testing in older adult men.
Treatment with a potent anabolic androgen may produce significant increases in muscle mass and strength after only 6 weeks in healthy older men. However, such treatment did not improve leg muscle power or walking speed.
We sought to determine the effects of age and chronic exercise on muscle power in older males. We examined 32 older males 60-74 years of age and grouped as sedentary (CON, n = 11), chronic endurance trained (ET, n = 10), and chronic endurance trained + resistance training (ET + RT, n = 11). Exercise history was obtained by questionnaire. Absolute strength and power measures were obtained by the one-repetition maximum method. Relative strength and power were determined by dividing the absolute measure by the muscle mass involved in the exercise. Total and regional muscle mass was measured by DXA. Absolute and relative leg power were not significantly different among the 3 groups. In contrast, absolute leg press strength was greater in ET + RT compared with CON, and relative leg press strength was greater in ET and ET + RT compared with CON. Chronic running combined with resistance training may therefore enhance absolute and relative muscle strength in older adults, but does not influence muscle power. Endurance exercise may inhibit the ability of resistance exercise to positively influence skeletal muscle power.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.