Introduction: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is a whole Earth health emergency related to a highly pathogenic human coronavirus responsible for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2). Despite the fact that the majority of infected patients were managed in outpatient settings, little is known about the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients not requiring hospitalization. The aim of our study was to describe the clinical comorbidity and the pharmacological therapies of COVID-19 patients managed in outpatient settings. Materials and Methods: We performed an observational, retrospective analysis of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients managed in outpatient settings in Naples, Italy between 9 March and 1 May 2020. Data were sourced from the prospectively maintained Health Search (HS)/Thales database, shared by 128 primary care physicians (PCPs) in Naples, Italy. The clinical features and pharmacological therapies of COVID-19 patients not requiring hospitalization and managed in outpatient settings have been described. Results: A total of 351 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients (mean age 54 ± 17 years; 193 males) with outpatient management were evaluated. Hypertension was the most prevalent comorbidity (35%). The distribution of cardiovascular comorbidities showed no gender-related differences. A total of 201 patients (57.3%) were treated with at least one experimental drug for COVID-19. Azithromycin, alone (42.78%) or in combination (27.44%), was the most widely used experimental anti-COVID drug in outpatient settings. Low Molecular Weight Heparin and Cortisone were prescribed in 24.87% and 19.4% of the study population, respectively. At multivariate regression model, diabetes (risk ratio (RR): 3.74; 95% CI 1.05 to 13.34; p = 0.04) and hypertension (RR: 1.69; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.7; p = 0.03) were significantly associated with the experimental anti-COVID drug administration. Moreover, only diabetes (RR: 2.43; 95% CI 1.01 to 5.8; p = 0.03) was significantly associated with heparin administration. Conclusions: Our data show a high prevalence of hypertension, more likely treated with renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RASS) inhibitors, among COVID-19 patients not requiring hospitalization. Experimental COVID-19 therapies have been prescribed to COVID-19 patients considered at risk for increased venous thromboembolism based on concomitant comorbidities, in particular diabetes and hypertension.

Statin therapy has been recently suggested as possible adjuvant treatment to improve the clinical outcome in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence of preadmission statin therapy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and to investigate its potential association with acute distress respiratory syndrome (ARDS) at admission and in-hospital mortality. We retrospectively recruited 467 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the emergency department of 10 Italian hospitals. The study population was divided in 2 groups according to the ARDS diagnosis at admission and in-hospital mortality. A multivariable regression analysis was performed to assess the risk of ARDS at admission and death during hospitalization among patients with COVID-19. A competing risk analysis in patients taking or not statins before admission was also performed. ARDS at admission was reported in 122 cases (26.1%). There was no statistically significant difference for clinical characteristics between patients presenting with and without ARDS. One hundred seven patients (18.5%) died during the hospitalization; they showed increased age (69.6 ± 13.1 vs. 66.1 ± 14.9; P = 0.001), coronary artery disease (23.4% vs. 12.8%; P = 0.012), and chronic kidney disease (20.6% vs. 11.1%; P = 0.018) prevalence; moreover, they presented more frequently ARDS at admission (48.6% vs. 19.4%; P < 0.001). At multivariable regression model, statin therapy was not associated neither with ARDS at admission nor with in-hospital mortality. Preadmission statin therapy does not seem to show a protective effect in severe forms of COVID-19 complicated by ARDS at presentation and rapidly evolving toward death.

Ultrasound (US)-based measurements of the inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter are widely used to estimate right atrial pressure (RAP) in a variety of clinical settings. However, the correlation with invasively measured RAP along with the reproducibility of US-based IVC measurements is modest at best. In the present manuscript, we discuss the limitations of the current technique to estimate RAP through IVC US assessment and present a new promising tool developed by our research group, the automated IVC edge-to-edge tracking system, which has the potential to improve RAP assessment by transforming the current categorical classification (low, normal, high RAP) in a continuous and precise RAP estimation technique. Finally, we critically evaluate all the clinical settings in which this new tool could improve current practice.

Background: Elderly patients are at high risk of both ischaemic and bleeding events, and the low body weight is considered a risk factor for major bleeding in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients on anticoagulation therapy. The aim of our study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus well-controlled vitamin-K antagonists (VKA) therapy among AF patients aged >75 years and with a body weight <60 kg in a prospective registry setting. Methods: Data for this study were sourced from the Italian cohorts of PREFER in AF and PREFER in AF PROLONGATION registries. The occurrence of a composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack and systemic embolism (thromboembolic events) was the primary effectiveness endpoint. The occurrence of major bleeding was the primary safety endpoint. All-cause hospitalizations and all-cause death were the secondary endpoints. The net clinical benefit (NCB) was calculated in order to obtain an integrated assessment of the anti-thromboembolic and pro-haemorrhagic effects of NOACs vs. VKA. Results: Overall, 522 patients were included; 225 were on treatment with NOACs and 317 patients with VKA. The NOAC group more frequently featured a higher BMI and a higher prevalence of history of stroke/TIA and insulin-requiring diabetes; conversely, heart failure and chronic liver disease were less frequent in the NAOC group. In the unmatched study population, 18 patients (3.6% in the NOAC vs. 3.2% in the VKA group, p = 0.79) experienced thromboembolic events; 19 patients (1.78% in the NOAC vs. 4.73% in the VKA group, p = 0.06) experienced major bleeding events; and 68 patients were hospitalized during the follow-up (9.3% vs. 14.8%, p = 0.06). After balancing for potential confounders by using the 1:1 propensity score matching technique, 426 patients (213 on NOAC and 213 on VKA) were selected. We found no significant differences in terms of thromboembolic events (3.76% vs. 4.69%, p = 0.63), major bleeding events (n: 1.88% vs. 4.22%, p = 0.15) and hospitalizations (9.9% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.06) between NOAC vs. VKA matched population. Based on these incidences, we found a positive net clinical benefit (+1.6) of NOACs vs. VKAs. Conclusions: These real-world data suggest the safety and effectiveness of using NOACs in elderly patients with low body weight.

Background. Combination of dual antiplatelet (DAPT) and oral anticoagulation therapy is required to decrease cardioembolic stroke and stent thrombosis risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We compared the safety and efficacy of dabigatran etexilate with vitamin K antagonist (VKA), in combination with DAPT (aspirin plus clopidogrel) treatment in AF patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting for ACS. Methods. Consecutive nonvalvular AF patients who received twice-daily dabigatran 110 mg (n = 389) or VKA (n = 510) and DAPT were included. Primary endpoints were major bleeding (safety) and the composite of ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and myocardial infarction (efficacy). The secondary efficacy endpoint was hospitalization for cardiovascular disease. Results. After propensity score matching, comparative treatment groups comprised 175 dabigatran recipients and 175 VKA recipients. The cumulative incidence of major bleeding was lower in the dabigatran group (2.3%) compared with the VKA group (10.3%) with a hazard ratio (HR) of 4.81 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6–14.2, p < 0.005]. The cumulative incidence of thromboembolic events with dabigatran was slightly higher (8.0%) than with VKA (6.85%), but not statistically significantly so (0.8, 0.39–1.8; p = 0.6). Cumulative incidence of hospitalization for cardiovascular disease was lower with dabigatran (10.3%) compared with VKA (20.6%) treatment (2.2, 1.25–3.8; p < 0.006). Conclusion. Dabigatran at the dose used for stroke prevention appears safer than VKA and maintains a similar efficacy profile, when used with DAPT, in AF patients who have undergone PCI with stenting for ACS.