To evaluate the effectiveness of an integrated emergency department (ED)/hospital at home (HH) medical care model in mild COVID-19 pneumonia and evaluate baseline predictors of major outcomes and ...potential savings. Retrospective cohort study with patients evaluated for COVID-19 pneumonia in the ED, from March 3 to April 30, 2020. All of them were discharged home and controlled by HH. The main outcomes were ED revisit and the need for deferred hospital admission (protocol failure). Outcome predictors were analyzed by simple logistic regression model (OR; 95% CI). Potential savings of this medical care model were estimated. Of the 377 patients attended in the ED, 109 were identified as having mild pneumonia and were included in the ED/HH medical care model. Median age was 50.0 years, 52.3% were males and 57.8% had Charlson index ≥ 1. The median HH stay was 8 (IQR 3.7–11) days. COVID-19-related ED revisit was 19.2% (
n
= 21) within 6 days (IQR 3–12.5) after discharge from ED. Overall protocol failure (deferred hospital admission) was 6.4% (
n
= 7), without ICU admission. The ED/HH model provided potential cost savings of 77% compared to traditional stay, due to the costs of home care entails 23% of the expenses generated by a conventional hospital stay. 789 days of hospital stay were avoided by HH, rather than hospital admission. An innovative ED/HH model for selected patients with mild COVID-19 pneumonia is feasible, safe and effective. Less than 6.5% of patients requiring deferred hospital admission and potential savings were generated due to hospitalization.
Aims
Benzodiazepines have been used as safe anxiolytic drugs for decades and some authors have suggested they could be an alternative for morphine for treating acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema ...(ACPE). We compared the efficacy and safety of midazolam and morphine in patients with ACPE.
Methods and results
A randomized, multicentre, open‐label, blinded endpoint clinical trial was performed in seven Spanish emergency departments (EDs). Patients >18 years old clinically diagnosed with ACPE and with dyspnoea and anxiety were randomized (1:1) at ED arrival to receive either intravenous midazolam or morphine. Efficacy was assessed by in‐hospital all‐cause mortality (primary endpoint). Safety was assessed through serious adverse event (SAE) reporting, and the composite endpoint included 30‐day mortality and SAE. Analyses were made on an intention‐to‐treat basis. The trial was stopped early after a planned interim analysis by the safety monitoring committee. At that time, 111 patients had been randomized: 55 to midazolam and 56 to morphine. There were no significant differences in the primary endpoint (in‐hospital mortality for midazolam vs. morphine 12.7% vs. 17.9%; risk ratioRR 0.71, 95% confidence interval CI 0.29–1.74; p = 0.60). SAE were less common with midazolam versus morphine (18.2% vs. 42.9%; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22–0.80; p = 0.007), as were the composite endpoint (23.6% vs. 44.6%; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30–0.92; p = 0.03).
Conclusion
Although the number of patients was too small to draw final conclusions and there were no significant differences in mortality between midazolam and morphine, a significantly higher rate of SAEs was found in the morphine group.
There were no significant differences in mortality between morphine and midazolam but the rate of serious adverse events was significantly higher in the morphine group, although the number of patients was too small to draw final conclusions.
To analyze clinical, laboratory, and radiologic findings and final health outcomes in patients with pulmonary embolism and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To compare them to findings and ...outcomes in patients with pulmonary embolism without COVID-19.
Multicenter, observational, retrospective study in 4 Spanish hospital emergency departments (EDs) from January 15 to April 15, 2020. Cases were located by reviewing all ED requests for pulmonary computed tomography angiography (CTA) procedures. Clinical, laboratory, and radiologic findings; medical histories and comorbidity; risk factors; and outcomes were compared between the 2 groups of patients (with or without COVID-19).
A total of 399 CTAs were ordered; 88 pulmonary embolisms were diagnosed, 28 of them (32%) in patients with COVID-19. This group had more men, and a history of thromboembolic disease was more common. We found no between-group differences in clinical presentation, laboratory, or radiologic findings; nor were there differences in final outcomes. In-hospital mortality was 7% (2 cases) in patients with COVID-19 and 17% (10 cases) in patients without the virus (odds ratio for death in patients with pulmonary embolism and COVID-19, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.08-1.89).
We found no clinically important differences in the clinical, laboratory, or radiologic findings between patients with or without COVID-19 who were treated for pulmonary embolism in our hospital EDs. Final outcomes also did not differ.
The MIMO clinical trial showed that patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE) treated with midazolam had fewer serious adverse events than those treated with morphine. Atrial ...fibrillation (AF) is a common comorbidity in heart failure and affects patient's outcome.
The primary endpoint of this substudy is to know if AF modified the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam arm compared to morphine. The first secondary endpoint is to know if AF modified the reduced risk of serious adverse events or death at 30 days in the midazolam arm. The second secondary objective of this substudy is to analyze whether AF modified the reduced risk of midazolam against morphine on the total number of serious adverse events per patient.
We conducted a secondary analysis of the MIMO trial. Patients more than 18 years old clinically diagnosed with ACPE and with dyspnea and anxiety were randomized (1:1) at emergency department arrival to receive either intravenous midazolam or morphine.
In this post hoc analysis, we calculated the relative risk (RR) of serious adverse events in patients with and without AF. Calculating the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel interaction test, we evaluated if AF modified the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam arm compared to morphine.
One hundred eleven patients (median = 78.9 years; IQR, 72.3-83.7; women, 52.2%) were randomized in the MIMO trial, 55 to receive midazolam and 56 to morphine. All randomized patients received the assigned drug and there were no losses to follow-up. Forty-four patients (39.6%) had AF. In the AF group, the RR for the incidence of serious adverse events in the midazolam versus morphine arm was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.14-1.3). In the group without AF, the RR was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.21-1). The presence of AF did not modify the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam arm compared with morphine ( P for interaction = 0.88).
This post hoc analysis of the MIMO trial suggests that the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam group compared to morphine is similar in patients with and without AF.
PDF
