Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia: A national retrospective study

BACKGROUND The global battle to contain the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic rages on. Previous studies described the clinical characteristics of COVID-19, but knowledge gaps remain in the Middle East region. Identifying these features will help in mapping the disease and guiding pandemic management. A multi-center, retrospective cross-sectional study was initiated to describe the demographic data, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of COVID-19 cases across all the regions of Saudi Arabia. METHODS The analysis included all laboratory-confirmed positive COVID-19 patients from the 1st of March 2020 to 31st of March 2020 across all regions of Saudi Arabia. Demographic data, clinical characteristics, incubation periods, laboratory findings, and patient outcomes data were retrieved from 1519 cases in the Health Electronic Surveillance Network Database. RESULTS The median age was 36 years and 54.3% (n = 825) of the patients were men. Patients working in health care facilities represented 12.5% of the cases (n = 190) and 9.3% of cases were asymptomatic. The median incubation period was 6 days. The most common symptoms were cough (89.4%), fever (85.6%), and sore throat (81.6%); 20.1% of the patients had underlying comorbidities. Hypertension was seen in 8.8% and diabetes in 7.6% of all the cases. The percentage of cases with temperatures >38֯C was 20.3% (n = 129), and 1.6% of patients had heart rates ≥125 beats/min and 4.7% of them had respiratory rates of >24 breaths/min. Lymphocytopenia occurred in 37.5% of cases. Overall, 71.6% of patients were admitted to hospitals and 4.7% required ICU treatment. We could not completely assess the clinical courses or final outcomes of COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION In this multi-center retrospective study, fever and cough were common symptoms. Special attention should be addressed toward asymptomatic carriers and workers in health care facilities as they play a key role in disease transmission

Paramedic Ability in Interpreting Electrocardiogram with ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) in Saudi Arabia.

ObjectiveTo evaluate paramedic ability in recognizing 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG) with ST-segment Elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in Saudi Arabia.MethodsThis is a quantitative exploratory cross-sectional study using an electronic survey of paramedics was conducted between June and September 2021. The survey included demographics, educational and clinical experiences, and multiple 12-lead ECG strip questions to assess participants' ability to recognize STEMI. We reported the overall sensitivity, specificity, and correct proportions with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI).ResultsEighty-four paramedics completed the survey, and 65% of them were between 24 and 29 years old, with a median, of three years of field experience. Overall sensitivity and specificity were 58.39% (95% CI, 50.4% to 66.1%) and 29.01% (95% CI, 25.15% to 33.1%), respectively. In total, 67.1% correctly identified inferior STEMI, whereas only 50% correctly identified lateral STEMI. Both STEMIs were correctly identified by 41%, and the majority misinterpreted STEMI mimics (ECG rhythms with similar ECG morphology to STEMI). The proportion who correctly recognized left bundle branch block was 14.8%, pericarditis was 10.9%, and ventricular pacing was 1.4%. However, almost third of participants correctly identified right bundle branch block (32.9%) and left ventricle hypertrophy (30.7%). Overall, there was no correlation between the correct ECG interpretation of STEMIs and educational and clinical experiences.ConclusionParamedics were able to identify STEMI events in prehospital settings with moderate sensitivity and low specificity with limited ability to differentiate between STEMI and STEMI mimics. Therefore, additional training in ECG interpretation could improve their clinical decision-making, and to ensure that proper care and treatment is provided. Further research on a large, representative sample of paramedics across the country could provide more definitive evidence to establish a greater degree of accuracy in detecting STEMI in prehospital settings

Demographic Characteristics and Status of Vaccinated Individuals with a History of COVID-19 Infection Pre- or Post-Vaccination: A Descriptive Study of a Nationally Representative Sample in Saudi Arabia

Background: Saudi Arabia expedited the approval of some COVID-19 vaccines and launched mass vaccination campaigns. The aim of this study was to describe the demographics of vaccinated COVID-19 cases and compare the mortality rates of COVID-19 cases who were infected post-vaccination in Saudi Arabia. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study. We retrieved data for COVID-19 cases who were infected pre- or post-vaccination and had received at least one injection of the Oxford–AstraZeneca or Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine from 4 December 2020 to 15 October 2021. Results: The number of patients who were infected and had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was 281,744. Approximately 45% of subjects were infected post-vaccination, and 75% of subjects had received the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine. Only 0.342% of the patients who were infected post-vaccination died, and 447 patients were admitted to ICUs. Most of the patients who were infected with COVID-19 post-vaccination and were admitted to ICUs (69.84%) had received only one dose of the vaccine (p < 0.0001). The mean time to infection for patients who had received one and two doses of the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine were 27 and 8 days longer than their counterparts who had received one and two doses of Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine, respectively. No difference in the odds of mortality between the Pfizer–BioNTech and Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccines was found (OR = 1.121, 95% CI = [0.907–1.386], p-value = 0.291). Patients who had received two doses of the vaccine had significantly lower odds of mortality compared to those who had received one dose (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Vaccines are vital in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this study show no difference between the Pfizer–BioNTech and Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccines in the rate of mortality. However, the number of vaccine doses was significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of different COVID-19 vaccines using real-world data and more robust designs