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.
To estimate incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics and outcomes of acute (myo)pericarditis (AMP) in patients with COVID-19.
Case-control, retrospective review, consecutive case inclusion ...performed in 62 Spanish EDs. All COVID-19 patients with AMP (cases) were compared in clinical characteristics and outcomes with COVID-19 without AMP (control group A) and non-COVID patients with AMP (control group B). We estimated unadjusted standardised incidence (SI, not adjusted by population's age/sex) of AMP in COVID-19 and non-COVID populations (per 100 000/year).
We identified 67 AMP in COVID-19 patients (SI=56.5, OR with respect to non-COVID patients=4.43, 95% CI=3.98 to 4.94). Remarkably, COVID-19 cases presented with chest pain less frequently than non-COVID patients and had less typical ECG changes, higher NT-proBNP (N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide), more left and right ventricular dysfunction in echocardiography and more need of inotropic/vasopressor drugs. Admission to intensive care was higher than control group A (OR=3.22, 95% CI=1.43 to 7.23), and in-hospital mortality was higher than control group B (OR=7.75, 95% CI=2.77 to 21.7).
AMP is unusual as a form of COVID-19 presentation (about 1‰ cases), but SI is more than fourfold higher than non-COVID population, and it is less symptomatic, more severe and has higher in-hospital mortality; therefore, rapid recognition, echocardiographic assessment of myopericardial inflammation/dysfunction and treatment with vasoactive drugs when needed are recommended in AMP in patients with COVID-19.
•The type of household is associated with elderly patients' prognosis at one year.•Living in a nursing home is associated with higher mortality.•Living at home but not alone is associated with a ...lower rate of rehospitalization/revisit.
To investigate whether the type of household is associated with prognosis at one year in patients ≥65 years of age discharged after medical consultation requiring emergency department care.
Data from the Emergency Department and Elder Needs (EDEN) cohort were used. This retrospective cohort included all patients ≥65 years of age seen in 52 Spanish emergency departments over one week (April 1–7, 2019) in whom the type of household was recorded and categorized as living at home alone, with relatives, with professional caregivers, or in a nursing home. Patient demographic and other baseline characteristics and management during the index emergency department episode were recorded and used to adjust the following 1-year outcomes: all-cause mortality, hospitalization and emergency department revisit. Associations between type of household and outcomes are expressed as adjusted hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals using living alone as the reference category.
13,442 patients with a median age of 79 years (interquartile range 72–86) were included; 56% were women, 12.2% of patients lived alone, 74.9% with relatives, 3.9% with a professional caregiver, and 9.1% in a nursing home. During the year following discharge, the mortality rate was 14.0%, the hospitalization rate 29.7%, and the emergency department revisit rate 59.3%. In the fully adjusted model, the risk of death was associated only with living in a nursing home (hazard ratio 1.366 (1.101–1.695)). On the other hand, the risk of hospitalization was lower in individuals living in nursing homes (hazard ratio 0.783 0.676–0.907) and at home with relatives (hazard ratio 0.897 0.810–0.992), while the risk of emergency department revisit was lower in individuals living in nursing homes (hazard ratio 0.826 0.742–0.920) or at home with caregivers (hazard ratio 0.856 0.750–0.976).
The type of household was modestly associated with the one-year prognosis of patients ≥65 years of age discharged after attendance at an emergency department. Living in a nursing home is associated with an increased risk of death but a decreased risk of rehospitalization or emergency department revisit, while living at home with relatives or professional caregivers is associated only with a decreased risk of hospitalization and emergency department revisit, respectively.
To evaluate lactate and the Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and compare their ability to predict 30-day mortality in patients treated for infection in emergency departments ...(ED).
Prospective multicenter observational cohort study. We enrolled a convenience sample of patients aged 18 years or older attended in 71 Spanish ED from October 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. Each model's predictive power was analyzed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and its values of sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative (NPV).
A total of 4439 patients with a mean (SD) age of 18 years were studied; 2648 (59.7%) were men and 459 (10.3%) died within 30 days. For 30-day mortality, the AUC-COR obtained with the qSOFA = 1 model plus 2 mmol/l lactate was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63-0.69) with Se: 68%, Es: 70% and NPV:92%, while qSOFA = 1 obtained AUC-COR of 0.52 (95% CI, 0.49-0.55) with a Se:42%, Es:64% and NPV:90%.
To predict 30-day mortality in patients presenting to the ED due to an episode of infection, the qSOFA =1 + lactate≥2 mmol/L model significantly improves the predictive power achieved individually by qSOFA1 and becomes very similar to qSOFA≥2.
To assess whether dementia is an independent predictor of death after a hospital emergency department (ED) visit by older adults with or without a COVID-19 diagnosis during the first pandemic wave.
...We used data from the EDEN-Covid (Emergency Department and Elderly Needs during Covid) cohort formed by all patients ≥65 years seen in 52 Spanish EDs from March 30 to April 5, 2020. The association of prior history of dementia with mortality at 30, 180 and 365 d was evaluated in the overall sample and according to a COVID-19 or non COVID diagnosis.
We included 9,770 patients aged 78.7 ± 8.3 years, 51.1% men, 1513 (15.5%) subjects with prior history of dementia and 3055 (31.3%) with COVID-19 diagnosis. 1399 patients (14.3%) died at 30 d, 2008 (20.6%) at 180 days and 2456 (25.1%) at 365 d. The adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) for age, sex, comorbidity, disability and diagnosis for death associated with dementia were 1.16 (95% CI 1.01-1.34) at 30 d; 1.15 at 180 d (95% CI 1.03-1.30) and 1.19 at 365 d (95% CI 1.07-1.32),
< .001. In patients with COVID-19, the aHR were 1.26 (95% CI: 1.04-1.52) at 30 days; 1.29 at 180 d (95% CI: 1.09-1.53) and 1.35 at 365 d (95% CI: 1.15-1.58).
Dementia in older adults attending Spanish EDs during the first pandemic wave was independently associated with 30-, 180- and 365-day mortality. This impact was lower when adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity and disability, and was greater in patients diagnosed with COVID-19.
To describe the approach to the patients with suspected sepsis in the Spanish emergency department hospitals (ED) and analyze whether there are differences according to the size of the hospital and ...the number of visits to the emergency room.
Structured survey of those responsible for the 282 public EDs that serve adults 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It was asked about assistance and management in the emergency room in the care of patients with suspected sepsis. The results are compared according to hospital size (large ≥ 500 beds vs medium-small <500) and influx to the emergency room (discharge ≥ 200 visits / day vs medium-low <200).
A total of 250 Spanish EDs responded (89%). Sepsis protocols are available in 163 (65%) EDs median weekly sepsis treated ranged from 0-5 per week in 39 (71%) ED, 6-10 per week in 10 (18%), 11-15 per week in 4 (7%), and more than 15 activations per week in 3 centers (3.6%). The criteria used for sepsis diagnosis were the qSOFA/SOFA in 105 (63.6%) of the hospitals, SIRS in 6 (3.6%), while in 49 (29.7%) they used both criteria simultaneously. In 79 centers, the sepsis diagnosis was computerized, and in 56 there were tools to help decision-making. 48% (79 of 163) of the EDs had data on bundles compliance. In 61% (99 of 163) of EDs there was training in sepsis and in 56% (55 of 99) it was periodic. Considering the size of the hospital, large hospitals participated more frequently as recipients of patients with sepsis and had an infectious, sepsis and short-stay unit, a microbiologist and infectious disease specialist on duty.
Most EDs have sepsis protocols, but there is room for improvement. The computerization and development of alerts for diagnosis and treatment still have a long way to go in EDs.
•In this retrospective analysis of patients with PE diagnosed in the ED from two cohorts in Spain and France, patients with COVID exhibited PEs of less severity.•However, COVID was associated with an ...increased risk of in-hospital mortality.•This study suggests that the usual tools for risk stratification, specifically the sPESI and RVD, are still valid in COVID patients, while the size of a PE is not valid in this particular population infected by SARS-CoV-2.
To compare the severity of pulmonary embolism (PE) between patients with and without COVID, and to assess the association between severity and in-hospital-mortality.
We performed an analysis of 549 COVID (71.3% PCR-confirmed) and 439 non-COVID patients with PE consecutively included by 62 Spanish and 16 French emergency departments. PE-severity was assessed by size, the presence of right ventricular dysfunction (RVD), and the sPESI. The association of PE-severity and in-hospital-mortality was assessed both in COVID and non-COVID patients, and the interaction of COVID status and PE severity/outcome associations was also evaluated.
COVID patients had PEs of smaller size (43% vs 56% lobar or larger, 42% vs. 35% segmental and 13% vs. 9% subsegmental, respectively; p = 0.01 for trend), less RVD (22% vs. 16%, p =0.02) and lower sPESI (p =0.03 for trend). Risk of in-hospital death was higher in COVID patients (12.8% vs. 5.3%, p < 0.001). PE-severity assessed by RVD and sPESI was independently associated with in-hospital-mortality in COVID patients, while PE size and sPESI were significantly associated with in-hospital-mortality in non-COVID. COVID status showed a significant interaction in the association of PE size and outcome (p =0.01), with OR for in-hospital mortality in COVID and non-COVID patients with lobar or larger PE of 0.92 (95%CI=0.19–4.47) and 4.47 (95%CI=1.60–12.5), respectively. Sensitivity analyses using only PCR-confirmed COVID cases confirmed these results.
COVID patients present a differential clinical picture, with PE of less severity than in non-COVID patients. An increased sPESI was associated with the risk of mortality in both groups but, PE size did not seem to be associated with in-hospital mortality in COVID patients.
Functional decline and frailty are common in older adults and influence the risk of adverse outcomes. We aimed to assess the value of a Barthel index at the Emergency Department (ED-BI) score in ...predicting 30-day mortality and ED reconsultation among older patients with acute infection.
We performed a prospective multicentre cohort study of older patients (≥75 years) diagnosed with acute infection in 69 Spanish EDs. Demographic, comorbidities, functional status, clinical and analytical data were collected. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models were used to assess the association between ED-BI score, mortality and ED reconsultation.
In total 1596 patients with a mean age of 84.7 years were included in the study and 51.7% female. The most frequent focus of infection was respiratory in 918 patients (57.5%). Patients with an ED-BI< 60 points were significantly older, predominantly female, more likely institutionalized and more urinary infections. When comparing patients with an ED-BI score ≥ 60 points with those< 60 points no differences were found in ED reconsultation but in the latter group mortality at 30-days was higher (p < 0.001).
An ED-BI score< 60 points appears to be a strong predictor of mortality at the 30-day follow up in older patients with acute infection.
The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.
PDF
