Performance of point-of-care severity scores to predict prognosis in patients admitted through the emergency department with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Identifying COVID-19 patients at the highest risk of poor outcomes is critical in emergency department (ED) presentation. Sepsis risk stratification scores can be calculated quickly for COVID-19 patients but have not been evaluated in a large cohort. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether well-known risk scores can predict poor outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. DESIGNS, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study of adults presenting with COVID-19 to 156 Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) Healthcare EDs, March 2, 2020, to February 11, 2021. INTERVENTION: Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Shock Index, National Early Warning System-2 (NEWS2), and quick COVID-19 Severity Index (qCSI) at presentation. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and vasopressors receipt. Patients scored positive with qSOFA ≥ 2, Shock Index > 0.7, NEWS2 ≥ 5, and qCSI ≥ 4. Test characteristics and area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs) were calculated. RESULTS: We identified 90,376 patients with community-acquired COVID-19 (mean age 64.3 years, 46.8% female). 17.2% of patients died in-hospital, 28.6% went to the ICU, 13.7% received mechanical ventilation, and 13.6% received vasopressors. There were 3.8% qSOFA-positive, 45.1% Shock Index-positive, 49.8% NEWS2-positive, and 37.6% qCSI-positive at ED-triage. NEWS2 exhibited the highest AUROC for in-hospital mortality (0.593, confidence interval [CI]: 0.588-0.597), ICU admission (0.602, CI: 0.599-0.606), mechanical ventilation (0.614, CI: 0.610-0.619), and vasopressor receipt (0.600, CI: 0.595-0.604). CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis severity scores at presentation have low discriminative power to predict outcomes in COVID-19 patients and are not reliable for clinical use. Severity scores should be developed using features that accurately predict poor outcomes among COVID-19 patients to develop more effective risk-based triage.

Assessment of the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Nonhospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

Importance: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have higher rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the risk and predictors of VTE among individuals with less severe COVID-19 managed in outpatient settings are less well understood. Objectives: To assess the risk of VTE among outpatients with COVID-19 and identify independent predictors of VTE. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at 2 integrated health care delivery systems in Northern and Southern California. Data for this study were obtained from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records. Participants included nonhospitalized adults aged 18 years or older with COVID-19 diagnosed between January 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, with follow-up through February 28, 2021. Exposures: Patient demographic and clinical characteristics identified from integrated electronic health records. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the rate per 100 person-years of diagnosed VTE, which was identified using an algorithm based on encounter diagnosis codes and natural language processing. Multivariable regression using a Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model was used to identify variables independently associated with VTE risk. Multiple imputation was used to address missing data. Results: A total of 398 530 outpatients with COVID-19 were identified. The mean (SD) age was 43.8 (15.8) years, 53.7% were women, and 54.3% were of self-reported Hispanic ethnicity. There were 292 (0.1%) VTE events identified over the follow-up period, for an overall rate of 0.26 (95% CI, 0.24-0.30) per 100 person-years. The sharpest increase in VTE risk was observed during the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days). In multivariable models, the following variables were associated with a higher risk for VTE in the setting of nonhospitalized COVID-19: age 55 to 64 years (HR 1.85 [95% CI, 1.26-2.72]), 65 to 74 years (3.43 [95% CI, 2.18-5.39]), 75 to 84 years (5.46 [95% CI, 3.20-9.34]), greater than or equal to 85 years (6.51 [95% CI, 3.05-13.86]), male gender (1.49 [95% CI, 1.15-1.96]), prior VTE (7.49 [95% CI, 4.29-13.07]), thrombophilia (2.52 [95% CI, 1.04-6.14]), inflammatory bowel disease (2.43 [95% CI, 1.02-5.80]), body mass index 30.0-39.9 (1.57 [95% CI, 1.06-2.34]), and body mass index greater than or equal to 40.0 (3.07 [1.95-4.83]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of outpatients with COVID-19, the absolute risk of VTE was low. Several patient-level factors were associated with higher VTE risk; these findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who may benefit from more intensive surveillance or VTE preventive strategies.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention and diagnosis in COVID-19: Practice patterns and outcomes at 33 hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Early reports of increased thrombosis risk with SARS-CoV-2 infection led to changes in venous thromboembolism (VTE) management. Real-world data on the prevalence, efficacy and harms of these changes informs best practices. OBJECTIVE: Define practice patterns and clinical outcomes related to VTE diagnosis, prevention, and management in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) using a multi-hospital US sample. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study of 1121 patients admitted to 33 hospitals, exposure was dose of anticoagulant prescribed for VTE prophylaxis (standard, intensified, therapeutic), and primary outcome was VTE (pulmonary embolism [PE] and deep vein thrombosis [DVT]); secondary outcomes were PE, DVT, arterial thromboembolism (ATE), and bleeding events. Multivariable logistic regression models accounting for clustering by site and adjusted for risk factors were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs). Inverse probability weighting was used to account for confounding by indication. RESULTS: 1121 patients (mean age 60 ± 18, 47% female) admitted with COVID-19 between February 2, 2020 and December 31, 2020 to 33 US hospitals were included. Pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis was prescribed in 86%. Forty-seven patients (4.2%) had PE, 51 (4.6%) had DVT, and 23 (2.1%) had ATE. Forty-six patients (4.1%) had major bleeding and 46 (4.1%) had clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Compared to standard prophylaxis, adjusted odds of VTE were 0.67 (95% CI 0.21-2.1) with no prophylaxis, 1.0 (95% CI 0.06-17) with intensified, and 3.0 (95% CI 0.89-10) with therapeutic. Adjusted odds of bleeding with no prophylaxis were 5.6 (95% CI 3.0-11) and 5.3 (95% CI 3.0-10) with therapeutic (no events on intensified dosing). CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a 3-fold increased odds of VTE and 5-fold increased odds of bleeding. While higher bleeding rates with high-intensity prophylaxis were likely due to full-dose anticoagulation, we conclude that high thrombosis rates were due to clinical concern for thrombosis before formal diagnosis.

COVID-19 and Risk of VTE in Ethnically Diverse Populations.

BACKGROUND: Limited existing data suggest that the novel COVID-19 may increase risk of VTE, but information from large, ethnically diverse populations with appropriate control participants is lacking. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the rate of VTE among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 differ from matched hospitalized control participants without COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study among hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and hospitalized adults without evidence of COVID-19 matched for age, sex, race or ethnicity, acute illness severity, and month of hospitalization between January 2020 and August 2020 from two integrated health care delivery systems with 36 hospitals. Outcomes included VTE (DVT or pulmonary embolism ascertained using diagnosis codes combined with validated natural language processing algorithms applied to electronic health records) and death resulting from any cause at 30 days. Fine and Gray hazards regression was performed to evaluate the association of COVID-19 with VTE after accounting for competing risk of death and residual differences between groups, as well as to identify predictors of VTE in patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: We identified 6,319 adults with COVID-19 and 6,319 matched adults without COVID-19, with mean ± SD age of 60.0 ± 17.2 years, 46% women, 53.1% Hispanic, 14.6% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 10.3% Black. During 30-day follow-up, 313 validated cases of VTE (160 COVID-19, 153 control participants) and 1,172 deaths (817 in patients with COVID-19, 355 in control participants) occurred. Adults with COVID-19 showed a more than threefold adjusted risk of VTE (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.48; 95% CI, 2.03-5.98) compared with matched control participants. Predictors of VTE in patients with COVID-19 included age ≥ 55 years, Black race, prior VTE, diagnosed sepsis, prior moderate or severe liver disease, BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2, and platelet count > 217 k/µL. INTERPRETATION: Among ethnically diverse hospitalized adults, COVID-19 infection increased the risk of VTE, and selected patient characteristics were associated with higher thromboembolic risk in the setting of COVID-19.

COVID-19 coagulopathy and thrombosis: Analysis of hospital protocols in response to the rapidly evolving pandemic.

As the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic spread to the US, so too did descriptions of an associated coagulopathy and thrombotic complications. Hospitals created institutional protocols for inpatient management of COVID-19 coagulopathy and thrombosis in response to this developing data. We collected and analyzed protocols from 21 US academic medical centers developed between January and May 2020. We found greatest consensus on recommendations for heparin-based pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients without contraindications. Protocols differed regarding incorporation of D-dimer tests, dosing of VTE prophylaxis, indications for post-discharge pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis, how to evaluate for VTE, and the use of empiric therapeutic anticoagulation. These findings support ongoing efforts to establish international, evidence-based guidelines.

Clinical features, diagnostics, and outcomes of patients presenting with acute respiratory illness: A retrospective cohort study of patients with and without COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Most data on the clinical presentation, diagnostics, and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 have been presented as case series without comparison to patients with other acute respiratory illnesses. METHODS: We examined emergency department patients between February 3 and March 31, 2020 with an acute respiratory illness who were tested for SARS-CoV-2. We determined COVID-19 status by PCR and metagenomic next generation sequencing (mNGS). We compared clinical presentation, diagnostics, treatment, and outcomes. FINDINGS: Among 316 patients, 33 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2; 31 without COVID-19 tested positive for another respiratory virus. Among patients with additional viral testing (27/33), no SARS-CoV-2 co-infections were identified. Compared to those who tested negative, patients with COVID-19 reported longer symptoms duration (median 7d vs. 3d, p < 0.001). Patients with COVID-19 were more often hospitalized (79% vs. 56%, p = 0.014). When hospitalized, patients with COVID-19 had longer hospitalizations (median 10.7d vs. 4.7d, p < 0.001) and more often developed ARDS (23% vs. 3%, p < 0.001). Most comorbidities, medications, symptoms, vital signs, laboratories, treatments, and outcomes did not differ by COVID-19 status. INTERPRETATION: While we found differences in clinical features of COVID-19 compared to other acute respiratory illnesses, there was significant overlap in presentation and comorbidities. Patients with COVID-19 were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, have longer hospitalizations and develop ARDS, and were unlikely to have co-existent viral infections. FUNDING: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Heart Lung Blood Institute, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

Hospital Ward Adaptation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A National Survey of Academic Medical Centers.

IMPORTANCE: Although intensive care unit (ICU) adaptations to the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have received substantial attention , most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have been in general medical units. OBJECTIVE: To characterize inpatient adaptations to care for non-ICU COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: A network of 72 hospital medicine groups at US academic centers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: COVID-19 testing, approaches to personal protective equipment (PPE), and features of respiratory isolation units (RIUs). RESULTS: Fifty-one of 72 sites responded (71%) between April 3 and April 5, 2020. At the time of our survey, only 15 (30%) reported COVID-19 test results being available in less than 6 hours. Half of sites with PPE data available reported PPE stockpiles of 2 weeks or less. Nearly all sites (90%) reported implementation of RIUs. RIUs primarily utilized attending physicians, with few incorporating residents and none incorporating students. Isolation and room-entry policies focused on grouping care activities and utilizing technology (such as video visits) to communicate with and evaluate patients. The vast majority of sites reported decreases in frequency of in-room encounters across provider or team types. Forty-six percent of respondents reported initially unrecognized non-COVID-19 diagnoses in patients admitted for COVID-19 evaluation; a similar number reported delayed identification of COVID-19 in patients admitted for other reasons. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has required medical wards to rapidly adapt with expanding use of RIUs and use of technology emerging as critical approaches. Reports of unrecognized or delayed diagnoses highlight how such adaptations may produce potential adverse effects on care.