To determine the proportion of patients with COVID-19 who were readmitted to the hospital and the most common causes and the factors associated with readmission. Multicenter nationwide cohort study in Spain. Patients included in the study were admitted to 147 hospitals from March 1 to April 30, 2020. Readmission was defined as a new hospital admission during the 30 days after discharge. Emergency department visits after discharge were not considered readmission. During the study period 8392 patients were admitted to hospitals participating in the SEMI-COVID-19 network. 298 patients (4.2%) out of 7137 patients were readmitted after being discharged. 1541 (17.7%) died during the index admission and 35 died during hospital readmission (11.7%, p = 0.007). The median time from discharge to readmission was 7 days (IQR 3–15 days). The most frequent causes of hospital readmission were worsening of previous pneumonia (54%), bacterial infection (13%), venous thromboembolism (5%), and heart failure (5%). Age [odds ratio (OR): 1.02; 95% confident interval (95% CI): 1.01–1.03], age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index score (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.06–1.21), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.26–2.69), asthma (OR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.04–2.22), hemoglobin level at admission (OR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.86–0.99), ground-glass opacification at admission (OR: 0.86; 95% CI:0.76–0.98) and glucocorticoid treatment (OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.00–1.66) were independently associated with hospital readmission. The rate of readmission after hospital discharge for COVID-19 was low. Advanced age and comorbidity were associated with increased risk of readmission.

When discrepant cases showing subtle genotypic differences were tolerated, the discrepancies fell from 14.6% to 8.6%. Epidemiological links were found for 83.8% of the cases clustered by both RFLP and MIRU-15 analyses, whereas for the cases clustered by RFLP or MIRU-VNTR analysis alone, links were identified for only 30.8% or 38.9% of the cases, respectively. The latter group of cases mainly comprised isolates that could also have been clustered, if subtle genotypic differences had been tolerated. MIRU-15 genotyping seems to be a good alternative to RFLP genotyping for real-time interventional schemes. The correlation between MIRU-15 and IS6110 RFLP findings was reasonable, although some uncertainties as to the assignation of clusters by MIRU-15 analysis were identified.Molecular tools have been widely used to characterize Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates, with the aim of better understanding the epidemiology of tuberculosis (TB) (1,6,8,18,23). This has enabled us to document suspected outbreaks (4, 28, 34), identify risk factors associated with TB transmission (13,20,36), and evaluate the efficiency of control programs by observing the dynamics of clustered cases (9,12,17,22,24).Restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis based on the IS6110 sequence is the reference genotyping method for M. tuberculosis (35). However, its limitations (mainly response times) make its adaptation unsuitable for real-time intervention epidemiological schemes. New genotyping techniques based on PCR have recently been developed and are more suitable for these purposes.One of the most promising PCR-based methods is mycobacterial interspersed repetitive-unit-variable-number tandem-repeat (MIRU-VNTR) genotyping (21,(30)(31)(32). A novel format based on 15 loci has improved upon the initial 12-loci version. Its discriminatory power has been found to be equivalent to that of the standard approach on the basis of reference method, and its response time could be competitive. However, very few long-term analyses apply this technique universally in parallel to the reference method to identify advantages and pitfalls (1,25,27,33).In order to compare both techniques, we selected the province of Almería, in southeast Spain, because of the complexity of its socioepidemiological population profile, which challenges us to develop new and more-efficient methods of surveying TB transmission. In Almería, around 60% of the cases

No abstract

Introduction: Heart failure (HF) and cancer are currently the leading causes of death worldwide, with an increasing incidence with age. Little is known about the treatment received and the prognosis of patients with acute HF and a prior cancer diagnosis. Objective: to determine the clinical characteristics, palliative treatment received, and prognostic impact of patients with acute HF and a history of solid tumor. Methods: The EPICTER study (“Epidemiological survey of advanced heart failure”) is a cross-sectional, multicenter project that consecutively collected patients admitted for acute HF in 74 Spanish hospitals. Patients were classified into two groups according to whether they met criteria for acute HF with and without solid cancer, and the groups were subsequently compared. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted, using the forward stepwise method. A Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of solid tumor on prognosis in patients with acute HF. Results: A total of 3127 patients were included, of which 394 patients (13%) had a prior diagnosis of some type of solid cancer. Patients with a history of cancer presented a greater frequency of weight loss at admission: 18% vs. 12% (p = 0.030). In the cancer group, functional impairment was noted more frequently: 43% vs. 35%, p = 0.039). Patients with a history of solid cancer more frequently presented with acute HF with preserved ejection fraction (65% vs. 58%, p = 0.048) than reduced or mildly reduced. In-hospital and 6-month follow-up mortality was 31% (110/357) in patients with solid cancer vs. 26% (637/2466), p = 0.046. Conclusion: Our investigation demonstrates that in-hospital mortality and mortality during 6-month follow-up in patients with acute HF were higher in those subjects with a history of concomitant solid tumor cancer diagnosis.

No abstract