The first wave (FW) of COVID-19 led to a rapid reduction in total emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions for other diseases. Whether this represented a transient “lockdown and fear” ...phenomenon, or a more persisting trend, is unknown. We divided acute from post-wave changes in ED flows, diagnoses, and hospital admissions, in an Italian city experiencing a FW peak followed by nadir. This multicenter, retrospective, cross-sectional study involved five general EDs of a large Italian city (January–August 2020). Percent changes were calculated versus 2019, using four 14-day periods (FW peak, early/mid/late post-wave). ED visits were 147,446 in 2020, versus 214,868 in 2019. During the FW peak, visits were reduced by 66.4% (
P
< 0.001). The drop was maximum during daytime (69.8%) and for pediatric patients (89.4%). Critical triage codes were unchanged. Reductions were found for all non-COVID-19 diagnoses. Non-COVID-19 hospital admissions were reduced by 39.5% (
P
< 0.001), involving all conditions except hematologic, metabolic/endocrine, respiratory diseases, and traumas. In the early, mid, and late post-wave periods, visits were reduced by 25.4%, 25.3% and 23.5% (all
P
< 0.001) respectively. In the late period, reduction was greater for female (27.9%) and pediatric patients (44.6%). Most critical triage codes were unchanged. Oncological, metabolic/endocrine, and hematological diagnoses were unchanged, while other diagnoses had persistent reductions. Non-COVID-19 hospital admissions were reduced by 12.8% (
P
= 0.001), 6.3% (
P
= 0.1) and 12.2% (
P
= 0.001), respectively. Reductions in ED flows, led by non-critical codes, persisted throughout the summer nadir of COVID-19. Hospital admissions for non-COVID-19 diseases had transient changes.
Objectives To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS) used alone or in combination with D-dimer for detecting acute aortic syndrome (AAS) in patients ...presenting with symptoms suggestive of AAS. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 2024. Additionally, the reference lists of included studies and other systematic reviews were thoroughly searched. All diagnostic accuracy studies that assessed the use of ADD-RS alone or with D-Dimer for diagnosing AAS compared with a reference standard test (e.g. computer tomographic angiography (CTA), ECG-gated CTA, echocardiography, magnetic resonance angiography, operation, or autopsy) were included. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using QUADAS-2 tool. Data were synthesised using hierarchical meta-analysis models. Results We selected 13 studies from the 2017 citations identified, including six studies evaluating combinations of ADD-RS alongside D-dimer>500ng/L. Summary sensitivities and specificities (95% credible interval) were: ADD-RS>0 94.6% (90%, 97.5%) and 34.7% (20.7%, 51.2%), ADD-RS>1 43.4% (31.2%, 57.1%) and 89.3% (80.4%, 94.8%); ADD RS>0 or D-Dimer>500ng/L 99.8% (98.7%, 100%) and 21.8% (12.1%, 32.6%); ADD RS>1 or D-Dimer>500ng/L 98.3% (94.9%, 99.5%) and 51.4% (38.7%, 64.1%); ADD RS>1 or ADD RS = 1 with D-dimer>500ng/L 93.1% (87.1%, 96.3%) and 67.1% (54.4%, 77.7%). Conclusions Combinations of ADD-RS and D-dimer can be used to select patients with suspected AAS for imaging with a range of trade-offs between sensitivity (93.1% to 99.8%) and specificity (21.8% to 67.1%).
Abstract
Glucose is a universally available inexpensive biomarker, which is increased as part of the physiological stress response to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and may therefore help in its ...early diagnosis. To test this hypothesis, glucose, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) T, and hs-cTnI were measured in consecutive patients presenting with acute chest discomfort to the emergency department (ED) and enrolled in a large international diagnostic study (NCT00470587). Two independent cardiologists centrally adjudicated the final diagnosis using all clinical data, including serial hs-cTnT measurements, cardiac imaging and clinical follow-up. The primary diagnostic endpoint was index non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI). Prognostic endpoints were all-cause death, and cardiovascular (CV) death or future AMI, all within 730-days. Among 5639 eligible patients, NSTEMI was the adjudicated final diagnosis in 1051 (18.6%) patients. Diagnostic accuracy quantified using the area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC) for the combination of glucose with hs-cTnT and glucose with hs-cTnI was very high, but not higher versus that of hs-cTn alone (glucose/hs-cTnT 0.930 95% CI 0.922–0.937 versus hs-cTnT 0.929 95% CI 0.922–0.937; glucose/hs-cTnI 0.944 95% CI 0.937–0.951 versus hs-cTnI 0.944 95% CI 0.937–0.951). In early-presenters, a dual-marker strategy (glucose < 7 mmol/L and hs-cTnT < 5/hs-cTnI < 4 ng/L) provided very high and comparable sensitivity to slightly lower hs-cTn concentrations (cTnT/I < 4/3 ng/L) alone, and possibly even higher efficacy. Glucose was an independent predictor of 730-days endpoints. Our results showed that a dual marker strategy of glucose and hs-cTn did not increase the diagnostic accuracy when used continuously. However, a cutoff approach combining glucose and hs-cTn may provide diagnostic utility for patients presenting ≤ 3 h after onset of symptoms, also providing important prognostic information.
The COVID-19 pandemic has deeply affected the activity and patient flows of Emergency Departments (EDs), and concern for the worsening outcome of cardiovascular emergencies has been raised. However, ...the impact of COVID-19 on all subtypes of acute aortic syndromes (AASs) has not been evaluated so far. Cases of AASs managed in the ED of three hub hospitals in a large area of Northern Italy were retrospectively analyzed, comparing those registered during the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021) with corresponding pre-COVID-19 periods. A total of 124 patients with AAS were managed during the COVID-19 period vs. 118 pre-COVID-19 (p = 0.70), despite a −34.6% change in ED visits. Posterior chest pain at presentation was the only clinical variable with a different prevalence (46.0% vs. 32.2%, p = 0.03). Surgery and endovascular treatment rates were unchanged. Time intervals influenced by patient transfer to the hub center were longer during the COVID-19 period and longest during high viral circulation periods. Ninety-day mortality was unchanged, with a higher mortality trend during the pandemic surges. In conclusion, ED presentation and care of AASs were marginally affected by COVID-19, but efforts are needed to preserve efficient patient transfer to specialized centers and prevent mortality, especially during pandemic peaks.
Background When acute aortic syndromes (AASs) are suspected, pretest clinical probability assessment and d-dimer (DD) testing are diagnostic options allowing standardized care. Guidelines suggest use ...of a 12-item/3-category score (aortic dissection detection) and a DD cutoff of 500 ng/mL. However, a simplified assessment tool and a more specific DD cutoff could be advantageous. Methods and Results In a prospective derivation cohort (n=1848), 6 items identified by logistic regression (thoracic aortic aneurysm, severe pain, sudden pain, pulse deficit, neurologic deficit, hypotension), composed a simplified score (AORTAs) assigning 2 points to hypotension and 1 to the other items. AORTAs≤1 and ≥2 defined low and high clinical probability, respectively. Age-adjusted DD was calculated as years/age × 10 ng/mL (minimum 500). The AORTAs score and AORTAs≤1/age-adjusted DD rule were validated in 2 patient cohorts: a high-prevalence retrospective cohort (n=1035; 22% AASs) and a low-prevalence prospective cohort (n=447; 11% AASs) subjected to 30-day follow-up. The AUC of the AORTAs score was 0.729 versus 0.697 of the aortic dissection detection score (
=0.005). AORTAs score assessment reclassified 16.6% to 25.1% of patients, with significant net reclassification improvement of 10.3% to 32.7% for AASs and -8.6 to -17% for alternative diagnoses. In both cohorts, AORTAs≥2 had superior sensitivity and slightly lower specificity than aortic dissection detection ≥2. In the prospective validation cohort, AORTAs≤1/age-adjusted DD had a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 48.6%, and an efficiency of 43.3%. Conclusions AORTAs is a simplified score with increased sensitivity, improved AAS classification, and minor trade-off in specificity, amenable to integration with age-adjusted DD for diagnostic rule-out.
The prognostic value of mid-regional proADM (MR-proADM) in septic patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) is not well established. In this prospective observational study enrolling ...septic patients evaluated in two EDs, MR-proADM was measured at arrival (t0) and after 72 h (t72). MR-proADM
was calculated as follows: (MR-proADM
- MR-proADM
)/MR-proADM
. In total, 147 patients were included in the study, including 109 with a final diagnosis of sepsis and 38 with septic shock, according to the Sepsis-3 criteria. The overall 28-day mortality (outcome) rate was 12.9%. The AUC for outcome prognostication was 0.66 (95% CI 0.51-0.80) for MR-proADM
, 0.77 (95% CI 0.63-0.92) for MR-proADM
and 0.74 (95% CI 0.64-0.84) for MR-proADM
. MR-proADM
≥ 2.78 nmol/L, MR-proADM
≥ 2.7 nmol/L and MR-proADM
≥ -15.2% showed statistically significant log-rank test results and sensitivity/specificity of 81/65%, 69/80% and 75/70% respectively. In regression analysis, MR-proADM
was a significant outcome predictor both in univariate and multivariate analysis, after adjustment for age, SOFA and APACHEII scores, providing up to 80% of added prognostic value. In conclusion, time trends of MR-proADM may provide additional insights for patient risk stratification over single sampling. MR-proADM levels sampled both at presentation and after 72 h predicted 28-day survival in septic patients presenting to the ED.
In the Emergency Department (ED), the decision to hospitalize or discharge COVID-19 patients is challenging. We assessed the utility of lung ultrasound (LUS), alone or in association with a clinical ...rule/score. This was a multicenter observational prospective study involving six EDs (NCT046291831). From October 2020 to January 2021, COVID-19 outpatients discharged from the ED based on clinical judgment were subjected to LUS and followed-up at 30 days. The primary clinical outcome was a composite of hospitalization or death. Within 393 COVID-19 patients, 35 (8.9%) reached the primary outcome. For outcome prognostication, LUS had a C-index of 0.76 (95%CI 0.68−0.84) and showed good performance and calibration. LUS-based classification provided significant differences in Kaplan−Meier curves, with a positive LUS leading to a hazard ratio of 4.33 (95%CI 1.95−9.61) for the primary outcome. The sensitivity and specificity of LUS for primary outcome occurrence were 74.3% (95%CI 59.8−88.8) and 74% (95%CI 69.5−78.6), respectively. The integration of LUS with a clinical score further increased sensitivity. In patients with a negative LUS, the primary outcome occurred in nine (3.3%) patients (p < 0.001 vs. unselected). The efficiency for rule-out was 69.7%. In unvaccinated ED patients with COVID-19, LUS improves prognostic stratification over clinical judgment alone and may support standardized disposition decisions.
Objectives
In patients at low clinical probability of acute aortic syndromes (AASs), decision on advanced aortic imaging is cumbersome. Integration of the aortic dissection detection risk score ...(ADD‐RS) with D‐dimer (DD) provides a potential pipeline for standardized diagnostic rule‐out. We systematically reviewed and summarized supporting data.
Methods
Cross‐sectional studies assessing integration of ADD‐RS with DD for diagnosis of AASs were identified on MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web Of Science databases. Two reviewers independently screened articles, assessed quality, and extracted data. The quality of design and reporting was evaluated with the QUADAS‐2 and STARD tools. Individual patient data were obtained, to allow analysis of both conventional (500 ng/mL) and age‐adjusted (DDage‐adj) DD cutoffs. Data were summarized for four diagnostic strategies combining ADD‐RS = 0 or ≤ 1, with DD < 500 ng/mL or < DDage‐adj. The statistical heterogeneity of the diagnostic variables was estimated with Higgins’ I2. Pooled values were calculated for variables showing nonsignificant heterogeneity.
Results
After screening of 680 studies, four articles (including a total of 3,804 patients) met inclusion criteria. One prospective study provided a low risk of bias/applicability concerns, while methodologic limitations were found in the other three retrospective studies. Statistical heterogeneity was negligible for sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio (LR) values and significant for specificity and positive LR values of all diagnostic strategies. Pooled sensitivity was 99.9% (95% confidence interval CI = 99.3% to 100%, I2 = 0) for ADD‐RS = 0 and DD < 500 ng/mL or < DDage‐adj, 98.9% (95% CI = 97.9% to 99.9%, I2 = 0) for ADD‐RS ≤ 1 and DD < 500 ng/mL, and 97.6% (95% CI = 96.3% to 98.9%, I2 = 0) for ADD‐RS ≤ 1 and DD < DDage‐adj.
Conclusions
Despite methodologic limitations, integration of ADD‐RS = 0 or ≤ 1 with DD < 500 ng/mL shows negligible heterogeneity and consistently high sensitivity across studies, thus supporting reliability for diagnostic rule‐out of AASs. Data supporting ADD‐RS = 0 plus DDage‐adj appear preliminary and require further scrutiny.
PDF
