Background Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is a global outbreak. COVID-19 patients seem to have relevant coagulative abnormalities, even if they are not typical of disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC) of the kind seen in septicaemia. Therefore, anticoagulant therapy with heparins is increasing in interest for a clinical approach to these patients, particularly if older. Studies comparing if prophylactic doses are more effective than therapeutic ones are still missing. Methods Data were collected in the Geriatric Section of the Dolo Hospital, ULSS 3 “Serenissima”, Venice from 31st March to 01st May 2020. Heparins (calciparin, fondaparinux, enoxaparine) were divided into prophylactic or therapeutic doses. People previously treated with oral anticoagulants were removed. Vital status was assessed using administrative data. Cox’s regression analysis, adjusted for potential confounders, was used for assessing the strength of the association between heparins and mortality. The data were reported as hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results 81 older people (mean age 84.1 years; females = 61.9%) were included. No significant differences in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics emerged between people treated with prophylactic or therapeutic doses, including age, gender, X-rays findings or severity of disease. Therapeutic doses were not associated to a better survival rate (HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.47–2.60; p = 0.89), even after adjusting for 15 confounders related to mortality (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.30–2.71; p = 0.84). Conclusions Our paper indicates that in older people affected by COVID-19 there is no justification for using therapeutic doses instead of prophylactic ones, having a similar impact on mortality risk.

No abstract

The reliability of automated oscillometric blood pressure (BP) monitors in atrial fibrillation (AF) has been poorly investigated, only comparing different patients with AF and sinus rhythm (SR), and is a method influenced by individual characteristics. This study compared the reliability of the oscillometric device A&D TM‐2430 (A&D Company, Tokyo, Japan) with that of a mercury sphygmomanometer in AF patients whose SR was restored after electric cardioversion (ECV). Three consecutive BP measurements were obtained on the day before and about 30 days after ECV in stable treatment conditions. Of the 100 patients studied, 63 reported an SR at follow‐up, with a significant increase in systolic BP and a significant decrease in diastolic BP according to both devices. There were no significant differences between the systolic and diastolic biases before and after ECV using Bland Altman analysis (P > .05 each). The oscillometric device analyzed, using three repeated measurements, is reliable in measuring BP in AF patients.

The aim of this study was to test whether ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is as feasible and reliable as ABPM is in patients with normal sinus rhythm (SR). Studies of ABPM in the elderly remain limited, and the use of this method in patients with AF remains controversial. The Italian SIIA 2008 guidelines consider ABPM 'absolutely contraindicated' for AF patients. This study was conducted on 200 hospitalized patients aged ≥ 65 years (68% females; mean age 82.4 ± 6.3 years): 100 patients with SR and 100 patients with permanent AF. Each patient completed serial blood pressure (BP) measurements with a clinical sphygmomanometer (Sphyg) and ABPM. Differences in mean heart rate (HR) between patient groups were not statistically significant. A total of 99.5% of patients were hypertensive. There were no significant differences between SR and AF patients in mean systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) values, as measured with the Sphyg or by ABPM. Compared with the Sphyg, errors associated with BP measurements obtained by ABPM did not significantly differ between the two groups. ABPM proved to be as feasible as Sphyg measurements in both AF patients (intraclass correlation coefficients=0.73, 0.67 and 0.74 for SBP, DBP and HR, respectively) and SR patients (intraclass correlation coefficients=0.74, 0.58 and 0.67 for SBP, DBP and HR, respectively). A Bland-Altman plot analysis confirmed that there was good agreement between the two methods. Stable AF (HR 60-100 b.p.m.) should not be considered as an absolute contraindication for the use of ABPM, even in the elderly; it could be a 'relative' contraindication for very unstable AF patients.

No abstract