Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Abstract withdrawn as it was not presented at the Meeting
P39 - Can advances in molecular methods improve the management and outcomes of Non-Tuberculous Mycobacterial Lung Disease (NTM-LD)? A service evaluation of laboratory and clinical management of NTM-LD in a large teaching hospital in England
Amendments to text in abstracts
P189 - Use of Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in COVID-19 infection does not adversely affect clinical outcomes including need for Non-Invasive and Invasive Ventilation
Introduction
It has been hypothesised that use of Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibitors (ACE-I) and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARB) are associated with worse outcomes in COVID-19 through upregulation of ACE2 receptors1. Recent studies have shown no association between ACE-I/ARB use and increased mortality but there is limited information on other markers of disease severity such as need for non-invasive and invasive ventilation. We assessed the effect of ACE-I/ARB on the outcomes of COVID-19 patients.
Methods
A retrospective observational cohort study of patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the respiratory units during a 1 year period. Patient demographics, clinical and medication history and clinical outcomes were extracted from written and electronic records. Primary outcomes – length of stay (LOS), NIV requirement, intensive care (ITU) admission, intubation and death – were compared between those who received ACE-I/ARB concurrently with their COVID-19 treatment and those who did not. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-squared test and OR.
Results
Of 521 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (median age 59 years, 62.6% male), 183 (35.1%) required NIV, 108 (20.7%) were admitted to ITU, 60 (11.5%) were intubated and 41 (7.9%) died. In total, 151 (29%) were on ACE-I/ARB treatment, most commonly for hypertension. There was no difference in median LOS between those on ACE-I/ARB treatment and those not (11 and 10 days respectively, p=0.20). There was no difference between NIV requirement (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.56), admission to intensive care (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.36), intubation (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.58) and death (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.11) between the two groups (p>0.05).
Conclusion
There was no difference in clinical outcomes between COVID-19 patients on ACE-I/ARB and those who were not, in particular with regards to need for non-invasive and invasive ventilation. Our findings support current recommendations for continued use of ACE-I/ARB in COVID-19 infection.
Amendment to author list
S25 - Cardiopulmonary exercise testing to evaluate exercise limitation and shortness of breath in long COVID-19
L Godinho, T Wallis, D Levett, S Jack, T Wilkinson, B Marshall, A Banerjee, A Freeman
University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
S80 - The diagnosis and management of catheter-associated upper-extremity deep venous thrombosis (CA-UEDVT): a systematic review
1O Aniftos, 2A Scott, 3A Kafai Golahmadi, 1A Chapman
1Ashford and St Peter’s Hospital Trust, Chertsey, UK;
2St George’s University of London, London, UK
3School of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
Amendment to table
P7 - Remote Frailty Assessment and Prevalence of Frailty in Older Outpatients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis