scholarly journals Pre-existing Cardiovascular Disease in United States Population at High Risk for Severe COVID-19 Infection

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adnan I Qureshi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
At Risk ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Moderate Risk ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

Background and Purpose There is increasing recognition of a relatively high burden of pre-existing cardiovascular disease in Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID 19) infected patients. We determined the burden of pre-existing cardiovascular disease in persons residing in United States (US) who are at risk for severe COVID-19 infection. Methods Age (60 years or greater), presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, mellitus, hypertension, and/or malignancy were used to identify persons at risk for admission to intensive care unit, or invasive ventilation, or death with COVID-19 infection. Persons were classified as low risk (no risk factors), moderate risk (1 risk factor), and high risk (two or more risk factors present) using nationally representative sample of US adults from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2017 and 2018 survey. Results Among a total of 5856 participants, 2386 (40.7%) were considered low risk, 1325 (22.6%) moderate risk, and 2145 persons (36.6%) as high risk for severe COVID-19 infection. The proportion of patients who had pre-existing stroke increased from 0.6% to 10.5% in low risk patients to high risk patients (odds ratio [OR]19.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]11.6-34.3). The proportion of who had pre-existing myocardial infection (MI) increased from 0.4% to 10.4% in low risk patients to high risk patients (OR 30.6, 95% CI 15.7-59.8). Conclusions A large proportion of persons in US who are at risk for developing severe COVID 19 infection are expected to have pre-existing cardiovascular disease. Further studies need to identify whether targeted strategies towards cardiovascular diseases can reduce the mortality in COVID-19 infected patients.

scholarly journals The Risk of Stroke Using CHA2 DS2 -VASc Score in Hemodialysis Patients at a Tertiary Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (7) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Stroke Risk ◽  
Hemodialysis Patients ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Stroke Risk Factors ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
History Of

Introduction: Patients undergoing hemodialysis are at increased risk of stroke. However, less known about the impact of some of the stroke risk factors, and the value of stroke risk scores in determining the risk in those patients. Our main goal. To assess the risk factors for stroke in hemodialysis patients and the use of the new CHA2DS2-VASc score for stroke assessment. Methods: Single center, retrospective cohort study of 336 patients undergoing hemodialysis from June 24, 2018, to September 6, 2018, was recruited. Baseline demographics, clinical, and laboratory data were collected. We calculated the CHA2 DS2 -VASc score for stroke assessment in all patients and categorized them into high, moderate and low risk patients according to CHA2 DS2 - VASc score and subcategorized them to two groups atrial fibrillation (AFib) and Non- Atrial fibrillation (Non AFib) patients. Results: 336 patients were included in our study; the majority of patients were at high risk with a CHA2 DS2 -VASc Score mean of 2.9± 1.5, although history of stroke was observed only in 15 patients (4.46%). According to CHA2 DS2 - VASc score, 280 patients were at high risk, 172 (51.19%) were high-risk patients on treatment (anticoagulant or antiplatelet) and 108(32.14%) patients were high risk patients not on treatment 48 were at moderate risk (14.28%) and 8 were at low risk (2.38 %). Patients were divided into subgroups as non-AFib and AFib. In non-AFib patients 320 (95.23%), high-risk patients 103 (32.18%) were not treated; high-risk patients with treatment are 162 (50.62%), moderate patients were 47 (14.68%), 8(2.5%) was in low risk. AFib patients were 16 with a mean CHA2 DS2 -VASc score of 4.4±1.1. Patients with AFib were all at high risk except 1 was at moderate risk (6.25%). There were 11 (68.75%) patients on treatment and 5 (31.25%) patients not on treatment. The risk factors for stroke that were statistically significant in increasing score risk for all patients were: age > 65 (95% CI, -2.04– -1.29; p = 0.000), being female (95% CI, -1.36– -0.68; p = 0.000) hypertension (95% CI, -2.59– -1.37; p = 0.000), diabetes (95% CI, -2.10– -1.50; p = 0.000), CVD (95% CI, -2.07– -1.24; p=0.000), history of stroke or TIA (95% CI, -3.70– -2.03; p = 0.000), CHF or LVEF (95% CI, -2.28– - 0.91; p = 0.000). Conclusions: The risk of stroke in hemodialysis patients is significant according to the use of CHA2 DS2 -VASc score in Non-AFib hemodialysis patients shows supportive evidence of increased risk of stroke in those patients, which suggest the importance of close monitoring of patients with stroke risk factors by the nephrologist and the stroke team which will lead to the initiation of early prophylaxis in those patients.

Abstract 266: Are Outpatient Cardiologists Asking about Peripheral Artery Disease Clinical Symptoms in Low and High Risk Patients in accordance with ACC/AHA Guidelines?

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ankitkumar K Patel ◽  
Rajesh M Kabadi ◽  
Rajani Sharma ◽  
Rita Schmidt ◽  
Elias Iliadis
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
At Risk ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Peripheral Artery Disease ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Peripheral Artery ◽  
Symptom Screening ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Artery Disease

Background: Lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a common syndrome that afflicts many individuals and leads to significant morbidity. The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines for the Management of Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD) (JACC, 2006) outlines four clinical symptoms (claudication, walking impairment, exertional leg complaints and poorly healing wounds) that should be asked to at risk patients. Outpatient cardiology practices often take care of individuals at risk for PAD and have the opportunity to screen and improve quality of medical care in accordance with professional guidelines. Methods: A group of 367 outpatients seen in a large academic cardiology practice from September 2011 underwent chart review. Risk factors for PAD that were assessed include history of smoking, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, homocysteine levels, and CRP. Those that had three or more risk factors or a previous diagnosis of known PAD were classified as high risk and those with less than 2 risk factors were classified as low risk. Documentation of whether clinical symptoms were asked was obtained from outpatient chart. Fisher exact test was utilized for statistical analysis. Results: Fifty-seven percent (N=208) of our population were classified as high risk for PAD and forty-three percent (N=158) were low risk. Table 1 below shows assessment of clinical symptoms in high and low risk patients. Conclusions: Though both high risk and low risk PAD patients are assessed at equivalent rates for clinical symptoms, the vast majority of patients overall are underassessed. Lack of knowledge of clinical symptoms can lead to underscreening of PAD and thus undertreatment. Increasing clinical symptom screening in the outpatient cardiology setting can lead to quality improvement and adherence to ACC/AHA Guidelines.

scholarly journals Catheter Management and Risk Stratification of Patients With in Inpatient Treatment Due to Acute Epididymitis

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Wenzel ◽  
Marina Deuker ◽  
Maria N. Welte ◽  
Benedikt Hoeh ◽  
Felix Preisser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Inpatient Treatment ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Catheter Group ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Acute Epididymitis

Objective: This study aims to evaluate catheter management in acute epididymitis (AE) patients requiring inpatient treatment and risk factors predicting severity of disease.Material and Methods: Patients with diagnosed AE and inpatient treatment between 2004 and 2019 at the University Hospital Frankfurt were analyzed. A risk score, rating severity of AE, including residual urine > 100 ml, fever > 38.0°C, C-reactive protein (CRP) > 5 mg/dl, and white blood count (WBC) > 10/nl was introduced.Results: Of 334 patients, 107 (32%) received a catheter (transurethral (TC): n = 53, 16%, suprapubic (SPC): n = 54, 16%). Catheter patients were older, exhibited more comorbidities, and had higher CRP and WBC compared with the non-catheter group (NC). Median length of stay (LOS) was longer in the catheter group (7 vs. 6 days, p < 0.001), whereas necessity of abscess surgery and recurrent epididymitis did not differ. No differences in those parameters were recorded between TC and SPC. According to our established risk score, 147 (44%) patients exhibited 0–1 (low-risk) and 187 (56%) 2–4 risk factors (high-risk). In the high-risk group, patients received a catheter significantly more often than with low-risk (TC: 22 vs. 9%; SPC: 19 vs. 12%, both p ≤ 0.01). Catheter or high-risk patients exhibited positive urine cultures more frequently than NC or low-risk patients. LOS was comparable between high-risk patients with catheter and low-risk NC patients.Conclusion: Patients with AE who received a catheter at admission were older, multimorbid, and exhibited more severe symptoms of disease compared with the NC patients. A protective effect of catheters might be attributable to patients with adverse risk constellations or high burden of comorbidities. The introduced risk score indicates a possibility for risk stratification.

scholarly journals VTE Incidence in RRMM Patients Treated with NOVEL Agents: A Monocentric Real Life Experience

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4972-4972
Author(s):  
Gaetano Giuffrida ◽  
Concetta Conticello ◽  
Valeria Calafiore ◽  
Enrica Antonia Martino ◽  
Silvia Giamporcaro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Low Incidence

INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is very common in patients with malignancies. Compared to the general population, patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have a 9-fold increased risk of developing VTE. In patients treated with thalidomide or lenalidomide, current guidelines recommend systematic VTE prophylaxis with ASA in low risk patients while vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or low weight molecular heparin (LWMH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH) in high-risk patients, based on the type of anti-MM treatment that patients receive and patient-related individual risk factors (e. g. history of VTE). However, little is known on VTE prophylaxis in patients treated with next generation anti-myeloma drugs, such as pomalidomide, carfilzomib and monoclonal antibodies daratumumab and elotuzumab. Here, we describe the incidence of VTE in MM patients treated with third generation novel agents in real life. In addition, we stratify patients on drugs category-based regimens to evaluate strategy of VTE prophylaxis between different groups of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 137 patients affected by relapsed and/ or refractory multiple myeloma treated with novel agents was analyzed. Patients were followed at the Division of Hematology of Catania from April 2013 to June2019. Our series includes 75 patients exposed to Pomalidomide and Dexametasone (PomaD), 46 patients receiving Carfilzomib, Lenalidomide and desamethasone regimen (KRd), 14 patients exposed to Daratumumab(Dara), 27 patients to Daratumumab, Bortezomib and desamethasone (DaraVD), 4 patients to Daratumumab lenalidomide and desamethasone (DaraRd), and12 patients exposed to Elotuzumab and Lenalidomide (EloRd). Several patients were exposed to multiple lines of treatment with novel agents: the total number of analyzed treatments are 178. Patients were stratified to high or low risk for VTE: risk factors taken into account were obesity, history of VTE, central venous catheter, inhered thrombophilia, surgical procedures and comorbidities such as infections, immobilization, cardiac disease, chronic renal disease. Low risk patients had no or one risk factor; in case of two or more risk factors, the patients were classified as high risk. Low-dose aspirin (ASA 100 mg per os once daily) or equivalent was prescribed in low risk patients, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or equivalent was given to high risk patients. Only Dara treatment did not include standard prophylaxis in patients without risk factors. RESULTS: Real life observation revealed a low incidence of VTE (6 VTE-4,3%) in patients exposed to novel agents together with a standard prophylaxis in case of risk of thromboembolic complications. Forty patients were at high risk of VTE, while 97 patients were classified as low risk; VTE/PE occurred in 2 high risk patients who refused to make correct LMWH prophylaxis due to the discomfort of the subcutaneous administration, developing distal DVT respectively after cycle 1 and 2 of KRd. Two low risk patients treated with PomaD developed DVT of lower extremities during cycle 2 and 4; 2 low risk patients had pulmonary embolism during PomaD cycle 8. CONCLUSIONS: Low incidence of VTE in patients with RRMM receiving PomaD, KRd, EloRd, DaraVD, DaraRd, Dara or EloRd treatment is probably due to a correct risk assessment and subsequent prophylaxis in case of therapies including immunomodulators or in case of patients with high risk for thromboembolic complications. These data support the use of VTE risk stratification-based prophylactic strategies in myeloma patients treated with new drugs. Disclosures Conticello: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Di Raimondo:Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

scholarly journals SARS, MERS, COVID-19: Identification of Patients at a Higher Risk: A Narrative Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-70
Author(s):  
Hussein Noureldine ◽  
Georges Chedid ◽  
Jad Gerges Harb ◽  
Wared Nour-Eldine ◽  
Mariam Nour Eldine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Early Identification ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Risk Patients

The different presentations, comorbidities, and outcomes of COVID-19 highlight the importance of early identification and proper triage of patients. High-risk patients can be divided into patients with common comorbidities and patients with special categories. Common comorbidities include, but are not limited to, Cardiovascular Disease (CVD), Diabetes Mellitus (DM), immunosuppression, underlying respiratory disease, and obesity. Certain categories of COVID-19 patients are also at increased risk, including neonates and pregnant women.  In the present article, we delineate the reported risk factors for acquisition of infection, and for increased severity of the clinical disease. We also comparatively analyze those risk factors associated with COVID-19 and with the antecedent human acute respiratory syndrome-causing viruses, SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV. We hypothesize that the structural similarities of the three viruses predict a similarity in the profile of high-risk patients. Several pathophysiological patterns have been detected to support this theory.

Genomic classifier (ColoPrint) to predict outcome and chemotherapy benefit in stage II and III colon cancer patients.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3612-3612
Author(s):  
Scott Kopetz ◽  
Zhi-Qin Jiang ◽  
Michael J. Overman ◽  
Robert Rosenberg ◽  
Ramon Salazar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Additional Treatment ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

3612 Background: Although benefit of chemotherapy in stage II and III colorectal cancer patients is significant, many patients might not need adjuvant chemotherapy because they have a good prognosis even without additional treatment. ColoPrint is a gene expression classifier that distinguish patients with low or high risk of disease relapse. It was developed using whole genome expression data and validated in independent validation studies (JCO 2011, Ann Surg 2013). Methods: In this study, ColoPrint was validated in stage II (n=96) and III patients (n=95) treated at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. Frozen tissue specimen, clinical parameters and follow-up data (median follow-up 64 months) were available. Stage II patients from this study were pooled with patients from previous studies (n=416) and ColoPrint performance was compared to clinical risk factors described in the NCCN Guidelines 2013. Results: In the MDACC patient cohort, ColoPrint classified 56% of stage II and III patients as being at Low Risk. The 3-year Relapse-Free-Survival (RFS) was 90.5% for Low Risk and 78.1% for High Risk patients with a HR of 2.42 (p=0.025). In uni-and multivariate analysis, ColoPrint and stage were the only significant factors to predict outcome. Low Risk ColoPrint patients had a good outcome independent of stage or chemotherapy treatment (91% 3-year RFS for treated patients, 90% for untreated patients) while ColoPrint High Risk patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy had 3-year RFS of 84%, compared to 70% 3-year RFS in untreated patients (p=0.037). In the pooled stage II dataset, ColoPrint identified 63% of patients as Low Risk with a 3-year RFS of 93% while High Risk patients had a 3-year RFS of 82.3% with a HR of 2.7 (p=0.001). In the univariate analysis, no clinical factor reached statistical significance. Using clinical high risk factors as described in the NCCN guidelines as classification, 56% of patients were classified as low risk with a 3-year RFS of 90.3% while high risk patients had a 3-year RFS of 87.7% with a HR of 0.6 (p=0.63). Conclusions: ColoPrint significantly improves prognostic accuracy, thereby facilitating the identification of patients at higher risk who might be considered for additional treatment.

scholarly journals Practice-Relevant Revision of Ipset-Thrombosis Based on 1019 Patients with WHO-Defined Essential Thrombocythemia

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 4055-4055
Author(s):  
Tiziano Barbui ◽  
Alessandro M. Vannucchi ◽  
Veronika Buxhofer-Ausch ◽  
Valerio De Stefano ◽  
Silvia Betti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
P Value ◽  
Jak2 Mutation ◽  
Risk Status ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Background In the recent International Prognostic Score for Thrombosis in essential thrombocythemia (IPSET-thrombosis), age and history of thrombosis were confirmed as independent risk factors for future thrombosis and the study also identified independent prothrombotic role for cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and JAK2 V617F mutation (Barbui et al. Blood 2012). Methods In the current study, we re-analyzed the original IPSET-thrombosis data in 1019 patients with WHO-defined ET in whom JAK2 mutational status was available, in order to quantify the individual contributions of JAK2 mutations and CV risk factors in conventionally-assigned low and high risk ET, as well as in age- versus thrombosis-defined high risk status. Results After a median follow-up of 6.8 and 5.0 years in conventionally-assigned low- and high-risk patients, respectively, the overall annual rate of total thrombosis (108 events) in conventionally-assigned low- and high-risk patients was 1.11%-pt/y (CI 0.81-1.52) and 2.46%-pt/y (CI 1.94-3.11) respectively (p=0.001), and the difference was mainly due to a higher frequency of arterial thrombosis in high-risk patients (p<0.001).The influence of JAK2 mutational status and CV-risk factors on the rate of thrombosis in conventionally assigned low- and high-risk groups is presented in the table. Table 1. Additional risk factors N (%) Event Rate % pts/yr (95% CI) P-value P-value P-value trend Low risk 506 (50) 39 1.11 (0.81-1.52) None 200 (40) 7 0.44 (0.21-0.92) ref Cardiovascular risk factor 36 (7) 3 1.05 (0.34-3.25) 0.220 0.227 JAK2V617F 213 (43) 21 1.59 (1.04-2.44) 0.001 0.217 Both 52 (10) 8 2.57 (1.29-5.15) <0.001 ref <0.001 High risk 513 (50) 69 2.46 (1.94-3.11) None 111 (22) 10 1.44 (0.78-2.68) ref Cardiovascular risk factor 44 (9) 4 1.64 (0.62-4.37) 0.909 0.067 JAK2V617F 222 (43) 30 2.36 (1.65-3.38) 0.168 0.082 Both 136 (27) 25 4.17 (2.82-6.17) 0.011 ref 0.005 The number of major arterial and venous thrombosis was reported as rates per 100 patient-years and the difference among groups was assessed by Mantel Cox log-rank test i) Conventionally-assigned low-risk group. Amongst 506 patients, 200 (40%) displayed neither JAK2 mutation nor CV risk factors and their annual rate of thrombosis was 0.44%, as opposed to 1.05% in the presence of CV risk factors (P=NS), 1.59% in the presence of JAK2 mutation (p=0.001) and 2.57% in the presence of both CV risk factors and JAK2 mutation (P<0.001). There was no significant difference when low-risk patients with both JAK2 mutation and CV risk factors were compared with either those with CV risk factors only (p=0.227) or those with JAK2 mutation only (p=0.217). ii) Conventionally assigned high-risk group: The absence or presence of one or both of the aforementioned additional risk factors for thrombosis were documented in 111 (22%), 44 (9%), 222 (43%) and 136 (27%) patients, respectively, with corresponding annual rates of thrombosis at 1.44%, 1.64%, 2.36% and 4.17% (Table). High-risk patients with both risk factors had a significantly higher risk of thrombosis compared to their counterparts with the absence of JAK2 mutations and CV risk factors (p=0.011). Additional analysis revealed limited enhancement of thrombosis risk by either JAK2 mutations or CV risk factors or both in patients whose high-risk status was defined by the presence of thrombosis history, regardless of age (P=NS). In contrast, the presence of JAK2 mutations, with or without CV risk factors, might have affected thrombosis risk in patients where high-risk status was defined by age alone (p=0.05). Conclusions The current study suggests the possibility of considering four risk categories in ET: "very low risk" group (age ≤60 years and without thrombosis history, JAK2 mutations or CV risk factors); "low risk" (age ≤60 years and without thrombosis history but with JAK2 mutations or CV risk factors); "intermediate risk" (age>60 years but without thrombosis history or JAK2 mutations); and "high risk" (thrombosis history at any age or JAK2 -mutated patients who are older than 60 years of age). Treatment recommendations for each one of the above-mentioned new risk categories should be examined in the context of prospective controlled studies. Disclosures Barbui: Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Vannucchi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Baxalta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Buxhofer-Ausch:AOP Orphan: Research Funding. De Stefano:Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Cilag: Research Funding; Shire: Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Speakers Bureau; Bruno Farmaceutici: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Gisslinger:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AOP ORPHAN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Geron: Consultancy; Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document