We diagnosed 11 Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) cases among 71,904 COVID patients attended at 61 Spanish emergency departments (EDs) during the 2‐month pandemic peak. The relative frequency of GBS ...among ED patients was higher in COVID (0.15‰) than non‐COVID (0.02‰) patients (odds ratio OR = 6.30, 95% confidence interval CI = 3.18–12.5), as was the standardized incidence (9.44 and 0.69 cases/100,000 inhabitant‐years, respectively, OR = 13.5, 95% CI = 9.87–18.4). Regarding clinical characteristics, olfactory–gustatory disorders were more frequent in COVID‐GBS than non‐COVID–GBS (OR = 27.59, 95% CI = 1.296–587) and COVID–non‐GBS (OR = 7.875, 95% CI = 1.587–39.09) patients. Although COVID‐GBS patients were more frequently admitted to intensive care, mortality was not increased versus control groups. Our results suggest SARS‐CoV‐2 could be another viral infection causing GBS. ANN NEUROL 2021;89:598–603
Abstract
Aims
We investigated the incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with COVID-19 attending emergency departments (EDs), before ...hospitalization.
Methods and Results
We retrospectively reviewed all COVID-19 patients diagnosed with PE in 62 Spanish EDs (20% of Spanish EDs, case group) during the first COVID-19 outbreak. COVID-19 patients without PE and non-COVID-19 patients with PE were included as control groups. Adjusted comparisons for baseline characteristics, acute episode characteristics, and outcomes were made between cases and randomly selected controls (1:1 ratio). We identified 368 PE in 74 814 patients with COVID-19 attending EDs (4.92‰). The standardized incidence of PE in the COVID-19 population resulted in 310 per 100 000 person-years, significantly higher than that observed in the non-COVID-19 population 35 per 100 000 person-years; odds ratio (OR) 8.95 for PE in the COVID-19 population, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.51–9.41. Several characteristics in COVID-19 patients were independently associated with PE, the strongest being D-dimer >1000 ng/mL, and chest pain (direct association) and chronic heart failure (inverse association). COVID-19 patients with PE differed from non-COVID-19 patients with PE in 16 characteristics, most directly related to COVID-19 infection; remarkably, D-dimer >1000 ng/mL, leg swelling/pain, and PE risk factors were significantly less present. PE in COVID-19 patients affected smaller pulmonary arteries than in non-COVID-19 patients, although right ventricular dysfunction was similar in both groups. In-hospital mortality in cases (16.0%) was similar to COVID-19 patients without PE (16.6%; OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65–1.42; and 11.4% in a subgroup of COVID-19 patients with PE ruled out by scanner, OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.97–2.27), but higher than in non-COVID-19 patients with PE (6.5%; OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.66–4.51). Adjustment for differences in baseline and acute episode characteristics and sensitivity analysis reported very similar associations.
Conclusions
PE in COVID-19 patients at ED presentation is unusual (about 0.5%), but incidence is approximately ninefold higher than in the general (non-COVID-19) population. Moreover, risk factors and leg symptoms are less frequent, D-dimer increase is lower and emboli involve smaller pulmonary arteries. While PE probably does not increase the mortality of COVID-19 patients, mortality is higher in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients with PE.
Objective
We investigated the incidence, predictor variables, clinical characteristics, and stroke outcomes in patients with COVID‐19 seen in emergency departments (EDs) before hospitalization.
...Methods
We retrospectively reviewed all COVID‐19 patients diagnosed with stroke during the COVID‐19 outbreak in 62 Spanish EDs. We formed two control groups: COVID‐19 patients without stroke (control A) and non–COVID‐19 patients with stroke (control B). We compared disease characteristics and four outcomes between cases and controls.
Results
We identified 147 strokes in 74,814 patients with COVID‐19 seen in EDs (1.96‰, 95% confidence interval CI = 1.66‰ to 2.31‰), being lower than in non–COVID‐19 patients (6,541/1,388,879, 4.71‰, 95% CI = 4.60‰ to 4.83‰; odds ratio OR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.49). The estimated that standardized incidences of stroke per 100,000 individuals per year were 124 and 133 for COVID‐19 and non–COVID‐19 individuals, respectively (OR = 0.93 for COVID patients, 95% CI = 0.87 to 0.99). Baseline characteristics associated with a higher risk of stroke in COVID‐19 patients were hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and previous cerebrovascular and coronary diseases. Clinically, these patients more frequently presented with confusion, decreased consciousness, and syncope and higher D‐dimer concentrations and leukocyte count at ED arrival. After adjustment for age and sex, the case group had higher hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates (but not mortality) than COVID‐19 controls without stroke (OR = 3.41, 95% CI = 1.27 to 9.16; and OR = 3.79, 95% CI = 1.69 to 8.50, respectively) and longer hospitalization and greater in‐hospital mortality than stroke controls without COVID‐19 (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.24 to 1.94; and OR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.37 to 2.30, respectively).
Conclusions
The incidence of stroke in COVID‐19 patients presenting to EDs was lower than that in the non–COVID‐19 reference sample. COVID‐19 patients with stroke had greater need for hospitalization and ICU admission than those without stroke and longer hospitalization and greater in‐hospital mortality than non–COVID‐19 patients with stroke.
We investigated the incidence, clinical characteristics, risk factors, and outcome of meningoencephalitis (ME) in patients with COVID-19 attending emergency departments (ED), before hospitalization. ...We retrospectively reviewed all COVID patients diagnosed with ME in 61 Spanish EDs (20% of Spanish EDs, COVID-ME) during the COVID pandemic. We formed two control groups: non-COVID patients with ME (non-COVID-ME) and COVID patients without ME (COVID-non-ME). Unadjusted comparisons between cases and controls were performed regarding 57 baseline and clinical characteristics and 4 outcomes. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biochemical and serologic findings of COVID-ME and non-COVID-ME were also investigated. We identified 29 ME in 71,904 patients with COVID-19 attending EDs (0.40‰, 95%CI=0.27–0.58). This incidence was higher than that observed in non-COVID patients (150/1,358,134, 0.11‰, 95%CI=0.09–0.13; OR=3.65, 95%CI=2.45–5.44). With respect to non-COVID-ME, COVID-ME more frequently had dyspnea and chest X-ray abnormalities, and neck stiffness was less frequent (OR=0.3, 95%CI=0.1–0.9). In 69.0% of COVID-ME, CSF cells were predominantly lymphocytes, and SARS-CoV-2 antigen was detected by RT-PCR in 1 patient. The clinical characteristics associated with a higher risk of presenting ME in COVID patients were vomiting (OR=3.7, 95%CI=1.4–10.2), headache (OR=24.7, 95%CI=10.2–60.1), and altered mental status (OR=12.9, 95%CI=6.6–25.0). COVID-ME patients had a higher in-hospital mortality than non-COVID-ME patients (OR=2.26; 95%CI=1.04–4.48), and a higher need for hospitalization (OR=8.02; 95%CI=1.19–66.7) and intensive care admission (OR=5.89; 95%CI=3.12–11.14) than COVID-non-ME patients. ME is an unusual form of COVID presentation (<0.5‰ cases), but is more than 4-fold more frequent than in non-COVID patients attending the ED. As the majority of these MEs had lymphocytic predominance and in one patient SARS-CoV-2 antigen was detected in CSF, SARS-CoV-2 could be the cause of most of the cases observed. COVID-ME patients had a higher unadjusted in-hospital mortality than non-COVID-ME patients.
Objective
To investigate the relationship between ambient temperature and atmospheric pressure (AP) and the severity of heart failure (HF) decompensations.
Methods
We analysed patients coming from ...the Epidemioloy Acute Heart Failure Emergency (EAHFE) Registry, a multicentre prospective cohort study enrolling patients diagnosed with decompensated HF in 26 emergency departments (EDs) of 16 Spanish cities. We recorded patient and demographic data and maximum temperature (
T
max
) and AP (AP
max
) the day before ED consultation. Associations between temperature and AP and severity endpoints were explored by logistic regression. We used restricted cubic splines to model continuous non-linear associations of temperature and AP with each endpoint.
Results
We analysed 16,545 patients. Daily
T
max
and AP
max
(anomaly) of the day before patient ED arrival ranged from 0.8 to 41.6° and from − 61.7 to 69.9 hPa, respectively. A total of 12,352 patients (75.2%) were hospitalised, with in-hospital mortality in 1171 (7.1%). The probability of hospitalisation by HF decompensation showed a U-shaped curve versus
T
max
and an increasing trend versus AP
max
. Regarding temperature, hospitalisation significantly increased from 20 °C (reference) upwards (25 °C: OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.04–1.21; 40 °C: 1.65, 1.13–2.40) and below 5.4 °C (5 °C: 1.21, 1.01–1.46). Concerning the mean AP of the city (anomaly = 0 hPa), hospitalisation increased when AP
max
(anomaly) was above + 7.0 hPa (atmospheric anticyclone; + 10 hPa: 1.14, 1.05–1.24; + 30 hPa: 2.02. 1.35–3.03). The lowest probability of mortality also corresponded to cold-mild temperatures and low AP, with a significant increased risk only found for
T
max
above 24.3 °C (25 °C: 1.13, 1.01–1.27; 40 °C: 2.05, 1.15–3.64) and AP
max
(anomaly) above + 3.4 hPa (+ 10 hPa: 1.21, 1.07–1.36; + 30 hPa: 1.73, 1.06–2.81). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the main analysis results.
Conclusion
Temperature and AP are independently associated with the severity of HF decompensations, with possible different effects on the need for hospitalisation and in-hospital mortality.
The authors investigated the incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGB) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), who were ...attending the emergency department (ED), before hospitalization.
We retrospectively reviewed all COVID-19 patients diagnosed with UGB in 62 Spanish EDs (20% of Spanish EDs, case group) during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 outbreak. We formed 2 control groups: COVID-19 patients without UGB (control group A) and non-COVID-19 patients with UGB (control group B). Fifty-three independent variables and 4 outcomes were compared between cases and controls.
We identified 83 UGB in 74,814 patients with COVID-19 who were attending EDs (1.11%, 95% CI=0.88-1.38). This incidence was lower compared with non-COVID-19 patients 2474/1,388,879, 1.78%, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.71-1.85; odds ratio (OR)=0.62; 95% CI=0.50-0.77. Clinical characteristics associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 patients presenting with UGB were abdominal pain, vomiting, hematemesis, dyspnea, expectoration, melena, fever, cough, chest pain, and dysgeusia. Compared with non-COVID-19 patients with UGB, COVID-19 patients with UGB more frequently had fever, cough, expectoration, dyspnea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, interstitial lung infiltrates, and ground-glass lung opacities. They underwent fewer endoscopies in the ED (although diagnoses did not differ between cases and control group B) and less endoscopic treatment. After adjustment for age and sex, cases showed a higher in-hospital all-cause mortality than control group B (OR=2.05, 95% CI=1.09-3.86) but not control group A (OR=1.14, 95% CI=0.59-2.19) patients.
The incidence of UGB in COVID-19 patients attending EDs was lower compared with non-COVID-19 patients. Digestive symptoms predominated over respiratory symptoms, and COVID-19 patients with UGB underwent fewer gastroscopies and endoscopic treatments than the general population with UGB. In-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients with UGB was increased compared with non-COVID patients with UGB, but not compared with the remaining COVID-19 patients.
To investigate whether the existence of heart failure units (HFU) and link nurse units (LNU) in the hospital improve short-term outcomes of acute heart failure (AHF) episodes.
Patients with AHF ...diagnosed in 45 Spanish emergency departments were analysed according to whether the hospital had a complete development of follow-up units (HFU + LNU), partial (HFU or LNU) or none. The outcomes were: 30-day mortality, hospitalization, in-hospital mortality, >7 days admission, and adverse event (death, rehospitalisation, or reconsultation to the emergency department) at 30 days post-discharge. Outcomes were adjusted for baseline and AHF episode characteristics.
19,947 patients were included, median age was 82 years (IQR 76‐–87), women were 55%. It was 20% of patients attended in hospitals with null development, 28% with partial development and 52% with complete development. Mortality at 30 days was 10.1% (null/partial/complete development: 10.5%/9.5%/10.4%; p=0.880), hospitalization 74.6% (72.7%/72.7%/75.7%; p<0.001), in-hospital mortality 7.4% (7.6%/7.0%/7.5%; p=0.995), prolonged hospitalization 47.4% (51.1%/52.4%/43.5%; p<0.001) and adverse events 30 days post-hospitalization 30.3% (36.2%/28.9%/30.3%; p < 0.001). In the adjusted analysis, hospital with complete development of follow-up units was not associated with mortality, but with increased hospitalization (OR= 1.172; 95%CI 1.069–1.285) and lower prolonged hospitalization (OR = 0.725; 95%CI 0.660–0.797) and adverse events at 30 days post-discharge (OR=0.831; 95%CI 0.755–0.916). Partial development was only associated with decreased post-discharge adverse events (OR= 0.782; 95%CI 0.702-0.871).
The development of follow-up units is not associated with 30-day mortality, but is associated with less prolonged hospitalization and fewer post-discharge adverse events in patients with AHF.
•Multidisciplinary approach of HF is essential to reduce readmission and improve survival.•The follow-up units minimize hospital stay and avoid related adverse events.•In patients with AHF attended in the ED, development of HF-units did not impact on mortality.•It was found significant reduction of 30-day outcomes, mainly by a in HF decompensation.
We investigated the incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics and outcomes of acute pancreatitis (AP) in patients with COVID-19 attending the emergency department (ED), before ...hospitalization.
We retrospectively reviewed all COVID patients diagnosed with AP in 62 Spanish EDs (20% of Spanish EDs, COVID-AP) during the COVID outbreak. We formed two control groups: COVID patients without AP (COVID-non-AP) and non-COVID patients with AP (non-COVID-AP). Unadjusted comparisons between cases and controls were performed regarding 59 baseline and clinical characteristics and four outcomes.
We identified 54 AP in 74 814 patients with COVID-19 attending the ED (frequency = 0.72‰, 95% CI = 0.54-0.94‰). This frequency was lower than in non-COVID patients (2231/1 388 879, 1.61‰, 95% CI = 1.54-1.67; OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.34-0.58). Etiology of AP was similar in both groups, being biliary origin in about 50%. Twenty-six clinical characteristics of COVID patients were associated with a higher risk of developing AP: abdominal pain (OR = 59.4, 95% CI = 23.7-149), raised blood amylase (OR = 31.8; 95% CI = 1.60-632) and vomiting (OR = 15.8, 95% CI = 6.69-37.2) being the strongest, and some inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, platelets, D-dimer) were more increased. Compared to non-COVID-AP, COVID-AP patients differed in 23 variables; the strongest ones related to COVID symptoms, but less abdominal pain was reported, pancreatic enzymes raise was lower, and severity (estimated by BISAP and SOFA score at ED arrival) was higher. The in-hospital mortality (adjusted for age and sex) of COVID-AP did not differ from COVID-non-AP (OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.45-245) but was higher than non-COVID-AP (OR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.35-4.48).
Acute pancreatitis as presenting form of COVID-19 in the ED is unusual (<1‰ cases). Some clinically distinctive characteristics are present compared to the remaining COVID patients and can help to identify this unusual manifestation. In-hospital mortality of COVID-AP does not differ from COVID-non-AP but is higher than non-COVID-AP, and the higher severity of AP in COVID patients could partially contribute to this increment.
To determine the impact of risk stratification using the MEESSI-AHF (Multiple Estimation of risk based on the Emergency department Spanish Score In patients with acute heart failure) scale to guide ...disposition decision-making on the outcomes of ED patients with acute heart failure (AHF), and assess the adherence of emergency physicians to risk stratification recommendations.
This was a prospective quasi-experimental study (before/after design) conducted in eight Spanish EDs which consecutively enrolled adult patients with AHF. In the pre-implementation stage, the admit/discharge decision was performed entirely based on emergency physician judgement. During the post-implementation phase, emergency physicians were advised to 'discharge' patients classified by the MEESSI-AHF scale as low risk and 'admit' patients classified as increased risk. Nonetheless, the final decision was left to treating emergency physicians. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were days alive and out of hospital, in-hospital mortality and 30-day post-discharge combined adverse event (ED revisit, hospitalisation or death).
The pre-implementation and post-implementation cohorts included 1589 and 1575 patients, respectively (median age 85 years, 56% females) with similar characteristics, and 30-day all-cause mortality was 9.4% and 9.7%, respectively (post-implementation HR=1.03, 95% CI=0.82 to 1.29). There were no differences in secondary outcomes or in the percentage of patients entirely managed in the ED without hospitalisation (direct discharge from the ED, 23.5% vs 24.4%, OR=1.05, 95% CI=0.89 to 1.24). Adjusted models did not change these results. Emergency physicians followed the MEESSI-AHF-based recommendation on patient disposition in 70.9% of cases (recommendation over-ruling: 29.1%). Physicians were more likely to over-rule the recommendation when 'discharge' was recommended (56.4%; main reason: need for hospitalisation for a second diagnosis) than when 'admit' was recommended (12.8%; main reason: no appreciation of severity of AHF decompensation by emergency physician), with an OR for over-ruling the 'discharge' compared with the 'admit' recommendation of 8.78 (95% CI=6.84 to 11.3).
Implementing the MEESSI-AHF risk stratification tool in the ED to guide disposition decision-making did not improve patient outcomes.
PDF
