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.

The D-dimer assay identifies patients at increased risk for mortality and may be a more sensitive test to determine the presence of underlying microvascular pathology in critically ill patients. A positive D-dimer at admission to the MICU is associated with an increased risk for the later development of a venous thromboembolic event (VTE).

No abstract

We report the case of a man affected by polymicrobial endocarditis developed on a St. Jude Medical Riata lead with a malfunction because of the outsourcing of conductors. The patient was treated with antibiotic targeted therapy and showed different bacteria at the blood cultures and then underwent transvenous leads extraction. Vegetations were highlighted on the caval, atrial, and ventricular tracts of the Riata lead, but the cultures were all negative. The externalization of Riata lead may cause the malfunction but it could also promote bacterial colonies and vegetations. In conclusion, looking for early signs of infection is mandatory during Riata leads follow-up checks.

Background The correct identification of the appropriateness of fluid administration is important for the treatment of critically ill patients. Static and dynamic indices used to identify fluid responsiveness have been developed throughout the years, nonetheless fluid responsiveness does not indicate that fluid administration is appropriate, and indexes to evaluate appropriateness of fluid administration are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate if central venous pressure (CVP) anddynamic indices could correctly identify fluid appropriateness for critically ill patients. Methods Data from 31 ICU patients, for a total of 53 observations, was included in the analysis. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on the appropriateness of fluid administration. Fluid appropriateness was defined in presence of a low cardiac index (< 2.5 l/min/m2) without any sign of fluid overload, as assessed by global end-diastolic volume index, extravascular lung water index or pulmonary artery occlusion pressure. Results For 10 patients, fluid administration was deemed appropriate, while for 21 patients it was deemed inappropriate. Central venous pressure was not different between the two cohorts (mean CVP 11 (4) mmHg in the fluid inappropriate group, 12 (4) mmHg in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.58). The same is true for pulse pressure variation (median PPV 5 [2, 9] % in the fluid inappropriate group, 4 [3, 13] % in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.57), for inferior vena cava distensibility (mean inferior vena cava distensibility 24 (14) % in the fluid inappropriate group, 22 (16) % in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.75) and for changes in end tidal carbon dioxide during a passive leg raising test (median d.ETCO2 1.5 [0.0, 2.0]% in the fluid inappropriate group, 1.0 [0.0, 2.0] % in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.98). There was no association between static and dynamic indices and fluid appropriateness. Conclusions Central venous pressure, pulse pressure variation, changes in end tidal carbon dioxide during a passive leg raising test, inferior vena cava distensibility were not associated with fluid appropriateness in our cohorts.