Background The role of vitamin D status in COVID-19 patients is a matter of debate. Objectives To assess serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) levels in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and to analyze the possible influence of vitamin D status on disease severity. Methods Retrospective case–control study of 216 COVID-19 patients and 197 population-based controls. Serum 25OHD levels were measured in both groups. The association of serum 25OHD levels with COVID-19 severity (admission to the intensive care unit, requirements for mechanical ventilation, or mortality) was also evaluated. Results Of the 216 patients, 19 were on vitamin D supplements and were analyzed separately. In COVID-19 patients, mean ± standard deviation 25OHD levels were 13.8 ± 7.2 ng/mL, compared with 20.9 ± 7.4 ng/mL in controls (P < .0001). 25OHD values were lower in men than in women. Vitamin D deficiency was found in 82.2% of COVID-19 cases and 47.2% of population-based controls (P < .0001). 25OHD inversely correlates with serum ferritin (P = .013) and D-dimer levels (P = .027). Vitamin D-deficient COVID-19 patients had a greater prevalence of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases, raised serum ferritin and troponin levels, as well as a longer length of hospital stay than those with serum 25OHD levels ≥20 ng/mL. No causal relationship was found between vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19 severity as a combined endpoint or as its separate components. Conclusions 25OHD levels are lower in hospitalized COVID-19 patients than in population-based controls and these patients had a higher prevalence of deficiency. We did not find any relationship between vitamin D concentrations or vitamin deficiency and the severity of the disease.

When the three age groups were compared,the AUROC curve for CCI was significantly larger for patients aged < 65 years(p < 0.001) for both in-hospital and 1-year mortality. Conclusion: There were no differences in the clinical presentation of IE between the groups. Age ≥ 80 years, high comorbidity (measured by CCI),and non-performance of surgery were independent predictors of mortality in patients with IE.CCI could help to identify those patients with IE and surgical indication who present a lower risk of in-hospital and 1-year mortality after surgery, especially in the < 65-year group.

No abstract

The outcome is closely related to the patient's clinical status on arrival to the hospital. We have found that submersion time, age, GCS, pupillary reactivity and APACHE II at ICU admission were related to mortality. Further research in prospective studies is needed.

Background Outpatient parenteral antibiotic treatment (OPAT) has proven efficacious for treating infective endocarditis (IE). However, the 2001 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) criteria for OPAT in IE are very restrictive. We aimed to compare the outcomes of OPAT with those of hospital-based antibiotic treatment (HBAT). Methods Retrospective analysis of data from a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 2000 consecutive IE patients in 25 Spanish hospitals (2008–2012) was performed. Results A total of 429 patients (21.5%) received OPAT, and only 21.7% fulfilled IDSA criteria. Males accounted for 70.5%, median age was 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 56–76), and 57% had native-valve IE. The most frequent causal microorganisms were viridans group streptococci (18.6%), Staphylococcus aureus (15.6%), and coagulase-negative staphylococci (14.5%). Median length of antibiotic treatment was 42 days (IQR, 32–54), and 44% of patients underwent cardiac surgery. One-year mortality was 8% (42% for HBAT; P < .001), 1.4% of patients relapsed, and 10.9% were readmitted during the first 3 months after discharge (no significant differences compared with HBAT). Charlson score (odds ratio [OR], 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04–1.42; P = .01) and cardiac surgery (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, .09–.63; P = .04) were associated with 1-year mortality, whereas aortic valve involvement (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, .22–.98; P = .007) was the only predictor of 1-year readmission. Failing to fulfill IDSA criteria was not a risk factor for mortality or readmission. Conclusions OPAT provided excellent results despite the use of broader criteria than those recommended by IDSA. OPAT criteria should therefore be expanded.

The aim of the study was to draw a comparison between the characteristics of infective endocarditis (IE) in patients with cancer and those of IE in noncancer patients.Patients with IE, according to the modified Duke criteria, were prospectively included in the GAMES registry between January 2008 and February 2014 in 30 hospitals. Patients with active cancer were compared with noncancer patients.During the study period, 161 episodes of IE fulfilled the inclusion criteria. We studied 2 populations: patients whose cancer was diagnosed before IE (73.9%) and those whose cancer and IE were diagnosed simultaneously (26.1%). The latter more frequently had community-acquired IE (67.5% vs 26.4%, P < .01), severe sepsis (28.6% vs 11.1%, P = .013), and IE caused by gastrointestinal streptococci (42.9% vs 16.8%, P < .01). However, catheter source (7.1% vs 29.4%, P = .003), invasive procedures (26.2% vs 44.5%, P = .044), and immunosuppressants (9.5% vs 35.6%, P = .002) were less frequent.When compared with noncancer patients, patients with cancer were more often male (75.2% vs 67.7%, P = .049), with a higher comorbidity index (7 vs 4). In addition, IE was more often nosocomial (48.7% vs 29%) and originated in catheters (23.6% vs 6.2%) (all P < .01). Prosthetic endocarditis (21.7% vs 30.3%, P = .022) and surgery when indicated (24.2% vs 46.5%, P < .01) were less common. In-hospital mortality (34.8% vs 25.8%, P = .012) and 1-year mortality (47.8% vs 30.9%, P < .01) were higher in cancer patients, although 30-day mortality was not (24.8% vs 19.3%, P = .087).A significant proportion of cases of IE (5.6%) were recorded in cancer patients, mainly as a consequence of medical interventions. IE may be a harbinger of occult cancer, particularly that of gastrointestinal or urinary origin.

No abstract

No abstract