Back to the future of viruses: a case of triple coinfection caused by respiratory syncytial virus, human coronavirus OC43, and rhinovirus.

We present the case of an 81-year-old man, who was immunocompetent, who was admitted to the hospital with symptoms of fever and dyspnea suspected to be caused by COVID-19. Further examination revealed a triple coinfection, as determined by multiplex polymerase chain reaction testing, caused by the respiratory syncytial virus, human coronavirus OC43, and rhinovirus. Upon auscultation, diffuse wheezing without crackles was detected. After ruling out the possibility of acute heart failure with pulmonary edema, the patient was treated with nebulization of terbutaline for a period of 72 hours. This case serves to demonstrate the potential dangers of lifting barrier measures, such as mandatory face masks in high-risk areas, during the fall-winter season. In addition, it highlights the challenges that may arise in the post-COVID-19 era because reliance on flu vaccinations alone may not be sufficient.

Strategies to safely rule out pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 outpatients: a multicenter retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to define a safe strategy to exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 outpatients, without performing CT pulmonary angiogram (CTPA). METHODS: COVID-19 outpatients from 15 university hospitals who underwent a CTPA were retrospectively evaluated. D-Dimers, variables of the revised Geneva and Wells scores, as well as laboratory findings and clinical characteristics related to COVID-19 pneumonia, were collected. CTPA reports were reviewed for the presence of PE and the extent of COVID-19 disease. PE rule-out strategies were based solely on D-Dimer tests using different thresholds, the revised Geneva and Wells scores, and a COVID-19 PE prediction model built on our dataset were compared. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), failure rate, and efficiency were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 1369 patients were included of whom 124 were PE positive (9.1%). Failure rate and efficiency of D-Dimer > 500 µg/l were 0.9% (95%CI, 0.2-4.8%) and 10.1% (8.5-11.9%), respectively, increasing to 1.0% (0.2-5.3%) and 16.4% (14.4-18.7%), respectively, for an age-adjusted D-Dimer level. D-dimer > 1000 µg/l led to an unacceptable failure rate to 8.1% (4.4-14.5%). The best performances of the revised Geneva and Wells scores were obtained using the age-adjusted D-Dimer level. They had the same failure rate of 1.0% (0.2-5.3%) for efficiency of 16.8% (14.7-19.1%), and 16.9% (14.8-19.2%) respectively. The developed COVID-19 PE prediction model had an AUC of 0.609 (0.594-0.623) with an efficiency of 20.5% (18.4-22.8%) when its failure was set to 0.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The strategy to safely exclude PE in COVID-19 outpatients should not differ from that used in non-COVID-19 patients. The added value of the COVID-19 PE prediction model is minor. KEY POINTS: • D-dimer level remains the most important predictor of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients. • The AUCs of the revised Geneva and Wells scores using an age-adjusted D-dimer threshold were 0.587 (95%CI, 0.572 to 0.603) and 0.588 (95%CI, 0.572 to 0.603). • The AUC of COVID-19-specific strategy to rule out pulmonary embolism ranged from 0.513 (95%CI: 0.503 to 0.522) to 0.609 (95%CI: 0.594 to 0.623).

Electrocardiogram abnormalities and prognosis in COVID-19.

Background: COVID-19 is a major pandemic with potential cardiovascular complications. Few studies have focused on electrocardiogram (ECG) modifications in COVID-19 patients. Method and results: We reviewed from our database all patients referred to our hospital for COVID-19 between January 1st, 2020, and December 31st, 2020: 669 patients were included and 98 patients died from COVID-19 (14.6%). We systematically analyzed ECG at admission and during hospitalization if available. ECG was abnormal at admission in 478 patients (71.4%) and was more frequently abnormal in patients who did not survive (88.8 vs. 68.5%, p < 0.001). The most common ECG abnormalities associated with death were left anterior fascicular block (39.8 vs. 20.0% among alive patients, p < 0.001), left and right bundle branch blocks (p = 0.002 and p = 0.02, respectively), S1Q3 pattern (14.3 vs. 6.0%, p = 0.006). In multivariate analysis, at admission, the presence of left bundle branch block remained statistically related to death [OR = 3.82, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.52-9.28, p < 0.01], as well as S1Q3 pattern (OR = 3.17, 95% CI: 1.38-7.03, p < 0.01) and repolarization abnormalities (OR = 2.41, 95% CI: 1.40-4.14, p < 0.01).On ECG performed during hospitalization, the occurrence of new repolarization abnormality was significantly related to death (OR = 2.72, 95% CI: 1.14-6.54, p = 0.02), as well as a new S1Q3 pattern (OR = 13.23, 95% CI: 1.49-286.56, p = 0.03) and new supraventricular arrhythmia (OR = 3.8, 95% CI: 1.11-13.35, p = 0.03). Conclusion: The presence of abnormal ECG during COVID-19 is frequent. Physicians should be aware of the usefulness of ECG for risk stratification during COVID-19.

Electrocardiogram abnormalities and prognosis in COVID-19

Background COVID-19 is a major pandemic with potential cardiovascular complications. Few studies have focused on electrocardiogram (ECG) modifications in COVID-19 patients. Method and results We reviewed from our database all patients referred to our hospital for COVID-19 between January 1st, 2020, and December 31st, 2020: 669 patients were included and 98 patients died from COVID-19 (14.6%). We systematically analyzed ECG at admission and during hospitalization if available. ECG was abnormal at admission in 478 patients (71.4%) and was more frequently abnormal in patients who did not survive (88.8 vs. 68.5%, p < 0.001). The most common ECG abnormalities associated with death were left anterior fascicular block (39.8 vs. 20.0% among alive patients, p < 0.001), left and right bundle branch blocks (p = 0.002 and p = 0.02, respectively), S1Q3 pattern (14.3 vs. 6.0%, p = 0.006). In multivariate analysis, at admission, the presence of left bundle branch block remained statistically related to death [OR = 3.82, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.52–9.28, p < 0.01], as well as S1Q3 pattern (OR = 3.17, 95% CI: 1.38–7.03, p < 0.01) and repolarization abnormalities (OR = 2.41, 95% CI: 1.40–4.14, p < 0.01). On ECG performed during hospitalization, the occurrence of new repolarization abnormality was significantly related to death (OR = 2.72, 95% CI: 1.14–6.54, p = 0.02), as well as a new S1Q3 pattern (OR = 13.23, 95% CI: 1.49–286.56, p = 0.03) and new supraventricular arrhythmia (OR = 3.8, 95% CI: 1.11–13.35, p = 0.03). Conclusion The presence of abnormal ECG during COVID-19 is frequent. Physicians should be aware of the usefulness of ECG for risk stratification during COVID-19.

Comparison of Patients Infected With Delta Versus Omicron COVID-19 Variants Presenting to Paris Emergency Departments : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: At the end of 2021, the B.1.1.529 SARS-CoV-2 variant (Omicron) wave superseded the B.1.617.2 variant (Delta) wave. OBJECTIVE: To compare baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Delta variant versus the Omicron variant in the emergency department (ED). DESIGN: Retrospective chart reviews. SETTING: 13 adult EDs in academic hospitals in the Paris area from 29 November 2021 to 10 January 2022. PATIENTS: Patients with a positive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result for SARS-CoV-2 and variant identification. MEASUREMENTS: Main outcome measures were baseline clinical and biological characteristics at ED presentation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 3728 patients had a positive RT-PCR test result for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period; 1716 patients who had a variant determination (818 Delta and 898 Omicron) were included. Median age was 58 years, and 49% were women. Patients infected with the Omicron variant were younger (54 vs. 62 years; difference, 8.0 years [95% CI, 4.6 to 11.4 years]), had a lower rate of obesity (8.0% vs. 12.5%; difference, 4.5 percentage points [CI, 1.5 to 7.5 percentage points]), were more vaccinated (65% vs. 39% for 1 dose and 22% vs. 11% for 3 doses), had a lower rate of dyspnea (26% vs. 50%; difference, 23.6 percentage points [CI, 19.0 to 28.2 percentage points]), and had a higher rate of discharge home from the ED (59% vs. 37%; difference, 21.9 percentage points [-26.5 to -17.1 percentage points]). Compared with Delta, Omicron infection was independently associated with a lower risk for ICU admission (adjusted difference, 11.4 percentage points [CI, 8.4 to 14.4 percentage points]), mechanical ventilation (adjusted difference, 3.6 percentage points [CI, 1.7 to 5.6 percentage points]), and in-hospital mortality (adjusted difference, 4.2 percentage points [CI, 2.0 to 6.5 percentage points]). LIMITATION: Patients with COVID-19 illness and no SARS-CoV-2 variant determination in the ED were excluded. CONCLUSION: Compared with the Delta variant, infection with the Omicron variant in patients in the ED had different clinical and biological patterns and was associated with better in-hospital outcomes, including higher survival. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Pre-test probability for SARS-Cov-2-related infection score: The PARIS score.

INTRODUCTION: In numerous countries, large population testing is impossible due to the limited availability of RT-PCR kits and CT-scans. This study aimed to determine a pre-test probability score for SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study (4 University Hospitals) included patients with clinical suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Demographic characteristics, clinical symptoms, and results of blood tests (complete white blood cell count, serum electrolytes and CRP) were collected. A pre-test probability score was derived from univariate analyses of clinical and biological variables between patients and controls, followed by multivariate binary logistic analysis to determine the independent variables associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: 605 patients were included between March 10th and April 30th, 2020 (200 patients for the training cohort, 405 consecutive patients for the validation cohort). In the multivariate analysis, lymphocyte (<1.3 G/L), eosinophil (<0.06 G/L), basophil (<0.04 G/L) and neutrophil counts (<5 G/L) were associated with high probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection but no clinical variable was statistically significant. The score had a good performance in the validation cohort (AUC = 0.918 (CI: [0.891-0.946]; STD = 0.014) with a Positive Predictive Value of high-probability score of 93% (95%CI: [0.89-0.96]). Furthermore, a low-probability score excluded SARS-CoV-2 infection with a Negative Predictive Value of 98% (95%CI: [0.93-0.99]). The performance of the score was stable even during the last period of the study (15-30th April) with more controls than infected patients. CONCLUSIONS: The PARIS score has a good performance to categorize the pre-test probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on complete white blood cell count. It could help clinicians adapt testing and for rapid triage of patients before test results.

Occurrence of pulmonary embolism related to COVID-19.

Recent reports have suggested an increased risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) related to COVID-19. The aim of this cohort study is to compare the incidence of PE during a 3-year period and to assess the characteristics of PE in COVID-19. We studied consecutive patients presenting with PE (January 2017-April 2020). Clinical presentation, computed tomography (CT) and biological markers were systematically assessed. We recorded the global number of hospitalizations during the COVID-19 pandemic and during the same period in 2018-2019. We included 347 patients: 326 without COVID-19 and 21 with COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 experienced more likely dyspnea (p=0.04), had lower arterial oxygen saturation (p<0.001), higher C-reactive protein and white blood cell (WBC) count (p<0.0001 and p=0.001, respectively), and a significantly higher in-hospital mortality (14% versus 3.4%, p=0.04). Among COVID-19 patients, diagnosis of PE was performed at admission in 38% (n=8). COVID-19 patients with diagnosis of PE during hospitalization (n=13) had significantly more dyspnea (p=0.04), lower arterial oxygen saturation (p=0.01), less proximal PE (p=0.02), and higher heart rate (p=0.009), CT severity score (p=0.001), C-reactive protein (p=0.006) and WBC count (p=0.04). During the COVID-19 outbreak, a 97.4% increase of PE incidence was observed as compared to 2017-2019 and the proportion of hospitalizations related to PE was 3.7% versus 1.3% in 2018-2019 (p<0.0001). In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic leads to a dramatic increased incidence of PE. Physicians should be aware that PE may be diagnosed at admission, but also after several days of hospitalization, with a different clinical, CT and biological features of thrombotic disease.

Association Between Pulmonary Embolism and COVID-19 in Emergency Department Patients Undergoing Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiogram: The PEPCOV International Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: There have been reports of procoagulant activity in patients with COVID-19. Whether there is an association between pulmonary embolism (PE) and COVID-19 in the emergency department (ED) is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess whether COVID-19 is associated with PE in ED patients who underwent a computed tomographic pulmonary angiogram (CTPA). METHODS: A retrospective study in 26 EDs from six countries. ED patients in whom a CTPA was performed for suspected PE during a 2-month period covering the pandemic peak. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a PE on CTPA. COVID-19 was diagnosed in the ED either on CT or reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. A multivariable binary logistic regression was built to adjust with other variables known to be associated with PE. A sensitivity analysis was performed in patients included during the pandemic period. RESULTS: A total of 3,358 patients were included, of whom 105 were excluded because COVID-19 status was unknown, leaving 3,253 for analysis. Among them, 974 (30%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Mean (±SD) age was 61 (±19) years and 52% were women. A PE was diagnosed on CTPA in 500 patients (15%). The risk of PE was similar between COVID-19 patients and others (15% in both groups). In the multivariable binary logistic regression model, COVID-19 was not associated with higher risk of PE (adjusted odds ratio = 0.98, 95% confidence interval = 0.76 to 1.26). There was no association when limited to patients in the pandemic period. CONCLUSION: In ED patients who underwent CTPA for suspected PE, COVID-19 was not associated with an increased probability of PE diagnosis. These results were also valid when limited to the pandemic period. However, these results may not apply to patients with suspected COVID-19 in general.

Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 outbreak on acute coronary syndrome admissions: four weeks to reverse the trend.

Data whether the COVID-19 outbreak impacts the acute coronary syndromes (ACS) admissions and the time required to reverse the downward curve are scarce. We included all consecutive patients referred for an ACS who underwent PCI from February 17, 2020 to April 26, 2020 in a high-volume PCI coronary care unit. We compared the number of ACS patients in 2020 to the same period in 2018 and 2019. Predictors of adverse outcome in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients were recorded: symptom-onset-to-first medical contact (FMC), and FMC-to-sheath insertion times. During the studied period (calendar weeks 8-17, 2018-2020), 144 ACS patients were included. In 2020, we observed two distinct phases in the ACS admissions: a first significant fall, with a relative reduction of 73%, from the week of lockdown (week 12) to 3 weeks later and then an increase of ACS. Median symptom-onset-to-FMC time was significantly higher in 2020 than in the two previous years (600 min [298-632] versus 121 min [55-291], p < 0.001). Median FMC-to-sheath insertion did not differ significantly (93 min [81-131] in 2020 versus 90 min [67-137] in 2018-2019, p = 0.57). The main findings are (1) a pattern of a U-curve in ACS admissions, with a first decrease in ACS admissions and a return to "normality" 4 weeks after; (2) a significant increase in the total ischemic time exclusively due to an increase in the symptom-onset-to-first-medical-contact time.