Objectives Frailty can be used as a predictor of adverse outcomes in people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). The aim of the study was to analyse the prognostic value of two different frailty scores in patients hospitalised for COVID‐19. Material and Methods This retrospective cohort study included adult (≥18 years) inpatients with COVID‐19 and took place from 3 March to 2 May 2020. Patients were categorised by Clinical Frailty Score (CFS) and Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS). The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were tocilizumab treatment, length of hospital stay, admission in intensive care unit (ICU) and need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Results were analysed by multivariable logistic regression and expressed as odds ratios (ORs), adjusting for age, sex, kidney function and comorbidity. Results Of the 290 included patients, 54 were frail according to the CFS (≥5 points; prevalence 18.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.4‐23.7) vs 65 by HFRS (≥5 points; prevalence: 22.4%, 95% CI 17.8‐27.7). Prevalence of frailty increased with age according to both measures: 50‐64 years, CFS 1.9% vs HFRS 12.3%; 65‐79 years, CFS 31.5% vs HFRS 40.0%; and ≥80 years, CFS 66.7% vs HFRS 40.0% ( P < .001). CFS‐defined frailty was independently associated with risk of death (OR 3.67, 95% CI 1.49‐9.04) and less treatment with tocilizumab (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08‐0.93). HFRS‐defined frailty was independently associated with length of hospital stay over 10 days (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.53‐5.44), ICU admission (OR 4.18, 95% CI 1.84‐9.52) and invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 5.93, 95% CI 2.33‐15.10). Conclusion In the spring 2020 wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic in Spain, CFS‐defined frailty was an independent predictor for death, while frailty as measured by the HFRS was associated with length of hospital stay over 10 days, ICU admission and use of invasive mechanical ventilation.

Background Frailty is a physiological condition characterized by a decreased reserve to stressors. In patients with COVID-19, frailty is a risk factor for in-hospital mortality. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between clinical presentation, analytical and radiological parameters at admission, and clinical outcomes according to frailty, as defined by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), in old people hospitalized with COVID-19. Materials and methods This retrospective cohort study included people aged 65 years and older and admitted with community-acquired COVID-19 from 3 March 2020 to 31 April 2021. Patients were categorized using the CFS. Primary outcomes were symptoms of COVID-19 prior to admission, mortality, readmission, admission in intensive care unit (ICU), and need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Analysis of clinical symptoms, clinical outcomes, and CFS was performed using multivariable logistic regression, and results were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Of the 785 included patients, 326 (41.5%, 95% CI 38.1%–45.0%) were defined as frail (CFS ≥ 5 points): 208 (26.5%, 95% CI 23.5%–29.7%) presented mild-moderate frailty (CFS 5–6 points) and 118 (15.0%, 95% CI 12.7%–17.7%), severe frailty (7–9 points). After adjusting for epidemiological variables (age, gender, residence in a nursing home, and Charlson comorbidity index), frail patients were significantly less likely to present dry cough (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40–0.83), myalgia-arthralgia (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29–0.75), and anosmia-dysgeusia (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23-0.94). Confusion was more common in severely frail patients (OR 3.14; 95% CI 1.64-5.97). After adjusting for epidemiological variables, the risk of in-hospital mortality was higher in frail patients (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.79-4.25), including both those with mild-moderate frailty (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.23-3.19) and severe frailty (OR 5.44, 95% CI 3.14-9.42). Readmission was higher in frail patients (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.07–4.16), but only in mild-moderate frailty (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.17–4.75).. Conclusion Frail patients presented atypical symptoms (less dry cough, myalgia-arthralgia, and anosmia-dysgeusia, and more confusion). Frailty was an independent predictor for death, regardless of severity, and mild-moderate frailty was associated with readmission.

BackgroundAutopsies can shed light on the pathogenesis of new and emerging diseases.AimTo describe needle core necropsy findings of the lung, heart, and liver in decedents with COVID-19.MaterialCross-sectional study of needle core necropsies in patients who died with virologically confirmed COVID-19. Histopathological analyses were performed, and clinical data and patient course evaluated.ResultsChest core necropsies were performed in 71 decedents with a median age of 81 years (range 52–97); 47 (65.3%) were men. The median interval from symptoms onset to death was 17.5 days (range 1–84). Samples of lung (n = 62, 87.3%), heart (n = 48, 67.6%) and liver (n = 39, 54.9%) were obtained. Fifty-one lung samples (82.3%) were abnormal: 19 (30.6%) showed proliferative diffuse alveolar damage (DAD), 12 (19.4%) presented exudative DAD, and 10 (16.1%) exhibited proliferative plus exudative DAD. Of the 46 lung samples tested for SARS-CoV-19 by RT-PCR, 39 (84.8%) were positive. DAD was associated with premortem values of lactate dehydrogenase of 400 U/L or higher [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 21.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.22–146] and treatment with tocilizumab (AOR 6.91; 95% CI 1.14–41.7). Proliferative DAD was associated with an onset-to-death interval of over 15 days (AOR 7.85, 95% CI 1.29–47.80). Twenty-three of the 48 (47.9%) heart samples were abnormal: all showed fiber hypertrophy, while 9 (18.8%) presented fibrosis. Of the liver samples, 29/39 (74.4%) were abnormal, due to steatosis (n = 12, 30.8%), cholestasis (n = 6, 15.4%) and lobular central necrosis (n = 5, 12.8%).ConclusionProliferative DAD was the main finding on lung core needle necropsy in people who died from COVID-19; this finding was related to a longer disease course. Changes in the liver and heart were common.

Background and Objectives: Descriptions of end-of-life in COVID-19 are limited to small cross-sectional studies. We aimed to assess end-of-life care in inpatients with COVID-19 at Alicante General University Hospital (ALC) and compare differences according to palliative and non-palliative sedation. Material and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study in inpatients included in the ALC COVID-19 Registry (PCR-RT or antigen-confirmed cases) who died during conventional admission from 1 March to 15 December 2020. We evaluated differences among deceased cases according to administration of palliative sedation. Results: Of 747 patients evaluated, 101 died (13.5%). Sixty-eight (67.3%) died in acute medical wards, and 30 (44.1%) received palliative sedation. The median age of patients with palliative sedation was 85 years; 44% were women, and 30% of cases were nosocomial. Patients with nosocomial acquisition received more palliative sedation than those infected in the community (81.8% [9/11] vs 36.8% [21/57], p = 0.006), and patients admitted with an altered mental state received it less (20% [6/23] vs. 53.3% [24/45], p = 0.032). The median time from admission to starting palliative sedation was 8.5 days (interquartile range [IQR] 3.0–14.5). The main symptoms leading to palliative sedation were dyspnea at rest (90%), pain (60%), and delirium/agitation (36.7%). The median time from palliative sedation to death was 21.8 h (IQR 10.4–41.1). Morphine was used in all palliative sedation perfusions: the main regimen was morphine + hyoscine butyl bromide + midazolam (43.3%). Conclusions: End-of-life palliative sedation in patients with COVID-19 was initiated quite late. Clinicians should anticipate the need for palliative sedation in these patients and recognize the breathlessness, pain, and agitation/delirium that foreshadow death.

No abstract