During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, treatment protocols varied substantially among countries and even between hospitals. This study compared the clinical characteristics, management strategies, and outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated in tertiary centers in Türkiye and Bosnia and Herzegovina. We
[...] Read more.
During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, treatment protocols varied substantially among countries and even between hospitals. This study compared the clinical characteristics, management strategies, and outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated in tertiary centers in Türkiye and Bosnia and Herzegovina. We retrospectively analyzed 1338 adults hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection: 657 patients in Tuzla (Bosnia and Herzegovina, June–December 2020) and 681 in İstanbul (Turkiye, April–May 2020). Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data, treatment details (including favipiravir use), need for invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality were extracted from medical records. Patients in Bosnia and Herzegovina were older (61.6 ± 14.4 vs. 56.9 ± 15.8 years;
p < 0.001) and had longer hospital stays (9.0 ± 5.5 vs. 7.7 ± 6.1 days;
p < 0.001). In the Bosnian cohort, leukocyte, neutrophil, platelet, ferritin, CRP, troponin, creatinine, AST, and ALT levels were significantly higher, whereas hemoglobin and D-dimer levels were lower. The need for ventilatory support was greater in Bosnia and Herzegovina (15.1% vs. 12.2%,
p < 0.001), and overall mortality was higher (25.7% vs. 9.3%,
p < 0.001). No mortality difference was observed between patients treated and not treated with favipiravir. Despite similar inclusion criteria, patients in Bosnia and Herzegovina exhibited more severe disease, greater organ involvement, and higher mortality than those in Turkiye. Favipiravir use did not influence survival. Inter-country comparisons highlight how differing patient profiles and treatment protocols may impact COVID-19 outcomes; however, interpretation should consider that the two centers contributed data from different phases of the 2020 pandemic, and that country-level differences in circulating variants, healthcare capacity, hospital strain, and evolving clinical guidelines may also have influenced the observed patterns.
Full article
