Increasing Influenza Vaccination in Primary Healthcare Workers Using Solidary Incentives: Analysis of Efficacy and Costs.

INTRODUCTION: Influenza vaccination campaigns have difficulty in reaching the 75% uptake in healthcare workers (HCWs) that public health organizations target. This study runs a campaign across 42 primary care centers (PCCs) where for every HCW vaccinated against influenza, a polio vaccine is donated through UNICEF for children in developing nations. It also analyses the efficacy and cost of the campaign. METHOD: This observational prospective non-randomized cohort study was conducted across 262 PCCs and 15.812 HCWs. A total of 42 PCCs were delivered the full campaign, 114 were used as the control group, and 106 were excluded. The vaccine uptake in HCWs within each of those PCCs was registered. The cost analysis assumes that campaign costs remain stable year to year, and the only added cost would be the polio vaccines (0.59€). RESULTS: We found statistically significant differences between both groups. A total of 1423 (59.02%) HCWs got vaccinated in the intervention group and 3768 (55.76%) in the control group OR 1.14, CI 95% (1.04-1.26). In this scenario, each additional HCW vaccinated in the intervention group costs 10.67€. Assuming all 262 PCCs had joined the campaign and reached 59.02% uptake, the cost of running this incentive would have been 5506€. The potential cost of increasing uptake in HCWs by 1% across all PCC (n = 8816) would be 1683€, and across all healthcare providers, 8862€ (n = 83.226). CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that influenza vaccination uptake can be innovative by including solidary incentives and be successful in increasing uptake in HCWs. The cost of running a campaign such as this one is low.

Evaluation of the perception of physical and emotional health of ophthalmologists in Spain and the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic Évaluation de la perception de la santé physique et émotionnelle des ophtalmologistes en Espagne et de l'influence de la pandémie de COVID-19

Objective: The main objective was to study the perception of physical and emotional health of Spanish ophthalmologists and their health habits, as well as the possible influence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: An observational, cross-sectional, non-randomized, uncontrolled study was carried out among at Spanish ophthalmologists through an online survey of 47 questions on eating habits, tobacco, alcohol, physical exercise, workload, and perception of physical and emotional state. Results: Of a total of 2,179 ophthalmologists, 260 (11.9%) of whom 55% were men responded to the survey, with a mean age of 52.9 ± 11.4 years. 5.8% were smokers. 51.5% reported good physical health, with a mean Body Mass Index of 24.4 kg/m2. Overall, 53.5% reported depression, 66.9% tiredness, 34.6% difficulty sleeping, and 57.3% considered their work hard. Up to 28.5% of those surveyed had thought about leaving their job and 60.8% about reorganizing their workload. 91.9% would continue to choose Ophthalmology as a specialty. 36.2% reported an increase in workload, 42.3% worsening of physical state and 63.8% worsening of emotional state as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: Spanish ophthalmologists have a positive perception of their physical and emotional health, despite having life habits that are not always healthy and feeling mostly down. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative influence on the physical and emotional health of ophthalmologists.

Sepsis of Patients Infected by SARS-CoV-2: Real-World Experience From the International HOPE-COVID-19-Registry and Validation of HOPE Sepsis Score.

Background: Patients with sepsis with a concomitant coronavirus (COVID-19) infection are related to a high morbidity and mortality rate. We investigated a large cohort of patients with sepsis with a concomitant COVID-19, and we developed a risk score for the estimation of sepsis risk in COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a sub-analysis from the international Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation Registry for COVID-19 (HOPE-COVID-19-Registry, NCT04334291). Out of 5,837 patients with COVID-19, 624 patients were diagnosed with sepsis according to the Sepsis-3 International Consensus. Results: In multivariable analysis, the following risk factors were identified as independent predictors for developing sepsis: current smoking, tachypnoea (>22 breath per minute), hemoptysis, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) <92%, blood pressure (BP) (systolic BP <90 mmHg and diastolic BP <60 mmHg), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) <15, elevated procalcitonin (PCT), elevated troponin I (TnI), and elevated creatinine >1.5 mg/dl. By assigning odds ratio (OR) weighted points to these variables, the following three risk categories were defined to develop sepsis during admission: low-risk group (probability of sepsis 3.1-11.8%); intermediate-risk group (24.8-53.8%); and high-risk-group (58.3-100%). A score of 1 was assigned to current smoking, tachypnoea, decreased SpO2, decreased BP, decreased GCS, elevated PCT, TnI, and creatinine, whereas a score of 2 was assigned to hemoptysis. Conclusions: The HOPE Sepsis Score including nine parameters is useful in identifying high-risk COVID-19 patients to develop sepsis. Sepsis in COVID-19 is associated with a high mortality rate.

Impact of smoking on COVID-19 outcomes: a HOPE Registry subanalysis.

BACKGROUND: Smoking has been associated with poorer outcomes in relation to COVID-19. Smokers have higher risk of mortality and have a more severe clinical course. There is paucity of data available on this issue, and a definitive link between smoking and COVID-19 prognosis has yet to be established. METHODS: We included 5224 patients with COVID-19 with an available smoking history in a multicentre international registry Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19 (NCT04334291). Patients were included following an in-hospital admission with a COVID-19 diagnosis. We analysed the outcomes of patients with a current or prior history of smoking compared with the non-smoking group. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital death. RESULTS: Finally, 5224 patients with COVID-19 with available smoking status were analysed. A total of 3983 (67.9%) patients were non-smokers, 934 (15.9%) were former smokers and 307 (5.2%) were active smokers. The median age was 66 years (IQR 52.0-77.0) and 58.6% were male. The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension (48.5%) and dyslipidaemia (33.0%). A relevant lung disease was present in 19.4%. In-hospital complications such sepsis (23.6%) and embolic events (4.3%) occurred more frequently in the smoker group (p<0.001 for both). All cause-death was higher among smokers (active or former smokers) compared with non-smokers (27.6 vs 18.4%, p<0.001). Following a multivariate analysis, current smoking was considered as an independent predictor of mortality (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.82, p=0.017) and a combined endpoint of severe disease (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.43, p=0.006). CONCLUSION: Smoking has a negative prognostic impact on patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

Gender Differences in the Presentation and Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

Gender-related differences in COVID-19 clinical presentation, disease progression, and mortality have not been adequately explored. We analyzed the clinical profile, presentation, treatments, and outcomes of patients according to gender in the HOPE-COVID-19 International Registry. Among 2,798 enrolled patients, 1,111 were women (39.7%). Male patients had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and more comorbidities at baseline. After propensity score matching, 876 men and 876 women were selected. Male patients more often reported fever, whereas female patients more often reported vomiting, diarrhea, and hyposmia/anosmia. Laboratory tests in men presented alterations consistent with a more severe COVID-19 infection (eg, significantly higher C-reactive protein, troponin, transaminases, lymphocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, and ferritin). Systemic inflammatory response syndrome, bilateral pneumonia, respiratory insufficiency, and renal failure were significantly more frequent in men. Men more often required pronation, corticosteroids, and tocilizumab administration. A significantly higher 30-day mortality was observed in men vs women (23.4% vs 19.2%; P = .039). Trial Numbers: NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

Actividad y asistencia a la parada cardiorrespiratoria en un servicio extrahospitalario de emergencias durante la pandemia COVID-19

Objective. To describe the effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in patients with out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest. To compare the cardiopulmonary arrest caseload during the pandemic to the caseloads in other periods. Methods. Observational, prospective study based on the registry of out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest emergencies the SUMMA112 ambulance service responded to between March 1 and April 30, 2020, in the Spanish autonomous community of Madrid. The registry is a Utstein-style database. The period of March--April 2019 was the control period for direct comparison with the 2020 study period and with the January--February periods of 2019 and 2020. Results. The responders undertook advanced CPR in 146 of the 313 cardiopulmonary arrest cases registered during March-April, 2020. Of the 87 patients with COVID-19--positive tests, 33 reached the hospital alive. Advanced CPR was not applied in 167 cases;the most frequent reason was prolonged circulatory collapse. Most cases (92.7%) occurred in the home. The emergency dispatchers received more calls in March and April of 2020, but they sent out a similar number of ambulances. Conclusions. Mortality was higher in cases of cardiopulmonary arrest during the COVID-19 pandemic. The percentage of cases with no application of advanced CPR rose;the main reason was the amount of time between collapse and first response. Even though the number of emergency calls increased significantly, the SUMMA112 service did not dispatch more ambulances. Objetivos. Conocer las consecuencias de la pandemia COVID-19 en la atención a la parada cardiorrespiratoria (PCR) extrahospitalaria con relación al inicio de las maniobras de resucitación cardiopulmonar (RCP) y su supervivencia. Valorar el impacto de la pandemia por COVID-19 en la actividad asistencial de un servicio de urgencias y emergencias extrahospitalarias en comparación con otros periodos sin enfermedad. Método. Estudio observacional prospectivo, basado en un registro continuo de PCR extrahospitalaria del SUMMA 112 de Madrid, durante el periodo del 1 de marzo al 30 de abril del 2020. Las variables se recogieron siguiendo las recomendaciones Utstein. Se utilizó el periodo de marzo-abril 2019 como control de comparación directa con el periodo de estudio y los periodos de enero-febrero de 2019 y de 2020 para conocer la variabilidad entre dichos años. Resultados. De las 313 PCR atendidas en marzo-abril de 2020, en 146 casos se realizó RCP avanzada. De los 87 pacientes catalogados COVID positivo, llegaron vivos al hospital 33. No se aplicaron maniobras de RCP avanzada en 167 ocasiones, identificando como causa más frecuente el tiempo de colapso excesivo. El 92,7% de las PCR sucedieron en domicilio. Comparado con otros periodos, hubo más llamadas al centro coordinador de urgencias en marzo-abril de 2020, si bien la movilización de recursos fue similar. Conclusiones. Durante la pandemia de COVID-19 hubo más mortalidad en la PCR extrahospitalaria, aumentando el porcentaje de PCR sin RCP avanzada, destacando como principal causa el tiempo de colapso excesivo. Sin embargo, aunque se incrementó significativamente la demanda telefónica, este servicio de emergencias extrahospitalarias no tuvo aumento en la movilización de los recursos móviles asistenciales.

Clinical profile and predictors of in-hospital mortality among older patients hospitalised for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by poor outcomes and mortality, particularly in older patients. METHODS: post hoc analysis of the international, multicentre, 'real-world' HOPE COVID-19 registry. All patients aged ≥65 years hospitalised for COVID-19 were selected. Epidemiological, clinical, analytical and outcome data were obtained. A comparative study between two age subgroups, 65-74 and ≥75 years, was performed. The primary endpoint was all cause in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: about, 1,520 patients aged ≥65 years (60.3% male, median age of 76 [IQR 71-83] years) were included. Comorbidities such as hypertension (69.2%), dyslipidaemia (48.6%), cardiovascular diseases (any chronic heart disease in 38.4% and cerebrovascular disease in 12.5%), and chronic lung disease (25.3%) were prevalent, and 49.6% were on ACEI/ARBs. Patients aged 75 years and older suffered more in-hospital complications (respiratory failure, heart failure, renal failure, sepsis) and a significantly higher mortality (18.4 vs. 48.2%, P < 0.001), but fewer admissions to intensive care units (11.2 vs. 4.8%). In the overall cohort, multivariable analysis demonstrated age ≥75 (OR 3.54), chronic kidney disease (OR 3.36), dementia (OR 8.06), peripheral oxygen saturation at admission <92% (OR 5.85), severe lymphopenia (<500/mm3) (OR 3.36) and qSOFA (Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score) >1 (OR 8.31) to be independent predictors of mortality. CONCLUSION: patients aged ≥65 years hospitalised for COVID-19 had high rates of in-hospital complications and mortality, especially among patients 75 years or older. Age ≥75 years, dementia, peripheral oxygen saturation <92%, severe lymphopenia and qSOFA scale >1 were independent predictors of mortality in this population.

COVID-19 anosmia and gustatory symptoms as a prognosis factor: a subanalysis of the HOPE COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19) registry.

Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions (OGD) are a frequent symptom of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It has been proposed that the neuroinvasive potential of the novel SARS-CoV-2 could be due to olfactory bulb invasion, conversely studies suggest it could be a good prognostic factor. The aim of the current study was to investigate the prognosis value of OGD in COVID-19. These symptoms were recorded on admission from a cohort study of 5868 patients with confirmed or highly suspected COVID-19 infection included in the multicenter international HOPE Registry (NCT04334291). There was statistical relation in multivariate analysis for OGD in gender, more frequent in female 12.41% vs 8.67% in male, related to age, more frequent under 65 years, presence of hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, smoke, renal insufficiency, lung, heart, cancer and neurological disease. We did not find statistical differences in pregnant (p = 0.505), patient suffering cognitive (p = 0.484), liver (p = 0.1) or immune disease (p = 0.32). There was inverse relation (protective) between OGD and prone positioning (0.005) and death (< 0.0001), but no with ICU (0.165) or mechanical ventilation (0.292). On univariable logistic regression, OGD was found to be inversely related to death in COVID-19 patients. The odds ratio was 0.26 (0.15-0.44) (p < 0.001) and Z was - 5.05. The presence of anosmia is fundamental in the diagnosis of SARS.CoV-2 infection, but also could be important in classifying patients and in therapeutic decisions. Even more knowing that it is an early symptom of the disease. Knowing that other situations as being Afro-American or Latino-American, hypertension, renal insufficiency, or increase of C-reactive protein (CRP) imply a worse prognosis we can make a clinical score to estimate the vital prognosis of the patient. The exact pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 that causes olfactory and gustative disorders remains unknown but seems related to the prognosis. This point is fundamental, insomuch as could be a plausible way to find a treatment.

Incidence, clinical, risk factors and outcomes of Guillain-Barré in Covid-19.

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.

Underlying heart diseases and acute COVID-19 outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The presence of any underlying heart condition could influence outcomes during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: The registry HOPE-COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19, NCT04334291) is an international ambispective study, enrolling COVID-19 patients discharged from hospital, dead or alive. RESULTS: HOPE enrolled 2798 patients from 35 centers in 7 countries. Median age was 67 years (IQR: 53.0-78.0), and most were male (59.5%). A relevant heart disease was present in 682 (24%) cases. These were older, more frequently male, with higher overall burden of cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, smoking habit, obesity) and other comorbidities such renal failure, lung, cerebrovascular disease and oncologic antecedents (p < 0.01, for all). The heart cohort received more corticoids (28.9% vs. 20.4%, p < 0.001), antibiotics, but less hydroxychloroquine, antivirals or tocilizumab. Considering the epidemiologic profile, a previous heart condition was independently related with shortterm mortality in the Cox multivariate analysis (1.62; 95% CI 1.29-2.03; p < 0.001). Moreover, heart patients needed more respiratory, circulatory support, and presented more in-hospital events, such heart failure, renal failure, respiratory insufficiency, sepsis, systemic infammatory response syndrome and clinically relevant bleedings (all, p < 0.001), and mortality (39.7% vs. 15.5%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An underlying heart disease is an adverse prognostic factor for patients suffering COVID-19. Its presence could be related with different clinical drug management and would benefit from maintaining treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers during in-hospital stay.

Prognostic Impact of Hyponatremia and Hypernatremia in COVID-19 Pneumonia. A HOPE-COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19) Registry Analysis.

Dysnatremia is associated with increased mortality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. SARS-COV2 (Severe-acute-respiratory syndrome caused by Coronavirus-type 2) pneumonia can be fatal. The aim of this study was to ascertain whether admittance dysnatremia is associated with mortality, sepsis, or intensive therapy (IT) in patients hospitalized with SARS-COV2 pneumonia. This is a retrospective study of the HOPE-COVID-19 registry, with data collected from January 1th through April 31th, 2020. We selected all hospitalized adult patients with RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-COV2 pneumonia and a registered admission serum sodium level (SNa). Patients were classified as hyponatremic (SNa <135 mmol/L), eunatremic (SNa 135-145 mmol/L), or hypernatremic (SNa >145 mmol/L). Multivariable analyses were performed to elucidate independent relationships of admission hyponatremia and hypernatremia, with mortality, sepsis, or IT during hospitalization. Four thousand six hundred sixty-four patients were analyzed, median age 66 (52-77), 58% males. Death occurred in 988 (21.2%) patients, sepsis was diagnosed in 551 (12%) and IT in 838 (18.4%). Hyponatremia was present in 957/4,664 (20.5%) patients, and hypernatremia in 174/4,664 (3.7%). Both hyponatremia and hypernatremia were associated with mortality and sepsis. Only hyponatremia was associated with IT. In conclusion, hyponatremia and hypernatremia at admission are factors independently associated with mortality and sepsis in patients hospitalized with SARS-COV2 pneumonia. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04334291, NCT04334291.

Mortality risk assessment in Spain and Italy, insights of the HOPE COVID-19 registry.

Recently the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak has been declared a pandemic. Despite its aggressive extension and significant morbidity and mortality, risk factors are poorly characterized outside China. We designed a registry, HOPE COVID-19 (NCT04334291), assessing data of 1021 patients discharged (dead or alive) after COVID-19, from 23 hospitals in 4 countries, between 8 February and 1 April. The primary end-point was all-cause mortality aiming to produce a mortality risk score calculator. The median age was 68 years (IQR 52-79), and 59.5% were male. Most frequent comorbidities were hypertension (46.8%) and dyslipidemia (35.8%). A relevant heart or lung disease were depicted in 20%. And renal, neurological, or oncological disease, respectively, were detected in nearly 10%. Most common symptoms were fever, cough, and dyspnea at admission. 311 patients died and 710 were discharged alive. In the death-multivariate analysis, raised as most relevant: age, hypertension, obesity, renal insufficiency, any immunosuppressive disease, 02 saturation < 92% and an elevated C reactive protein (AUC = 0.87; Hosmer-Lemeshow test, p > 0.999; bootstrap-optimist: 0.0018). We provide a simple clinical score to estimate probability of death, dividing patients in four grades (I-IV) of increasing probability. Hydroxychloroquine (79.2%) and antivirals (67.6%) were the specific drugs most commonly used. After a propensity score adjustment, the results suggested a slight improvement in mortality rates (adjusted-ORhydroxychloroquine 0.88; 95% CI 0.81-0.91, p = 0.005; adjusted-ORantiviral 0.94; 95% CI 0.87-1.01; p = 0.115). COVID-19 produces important mortality, mostly in patients with comorbidities with respiratory symptoms. Hydroxychloroquine could be associated with survival benefit, but this data need to be confirmed with further trials. Trial Registration: NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID 19 international registry (HOPE COVID-19), rationale and design.

The disease produced by the new coronavirus known as SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2), named COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease-2019) has recently been classified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). However, scarce clinical data is available and generally limited to the Chinese population due to the first cases were identified in Wuhan (Hubei, China).This article describes the rationale and design of the HOPE COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID 19) registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04334291). With an ambispective cohort design, eligible patients are those discharged, deceased or alive, from any hospital center with a confirmed diagnosis or a COVID-19 high suspicion. With a current recruitment of more than 7000 cases, in 46 hospitals in 8 countries, since it is not possible to estimate the sample size based on literature reports, the investigators will try to get the maximum numbers of patients possible. The study primary objective is all cause mortality and aims to characterize the clinical profile of patients infected in order to develop a prognostic clinical score allowing, rapid logistic decision making. As secondary objectives, the analysis of other clinical events, the risk-adjusted influence of treatments and previous comorbidities of patients infected with the disease will be performed.The results of HOPE COVID-19 will contribute to a better understanding of this condition. We aim to describe the management of this condition as well as the outcomes in relation to the therapy chosen, in order to gain insight into improving patient care in the coming months. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT04334291.

Diagnostic groups and short-term outcomes in suspected COVID-19 cases treated in an emergency department. / Categorías diagnósticas y resultados a corto plazo en los pacientes con sospecha de COVID-19 atendidos en un servicio de urgencias.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to describe the clinical characteristics and 30-day mortality rates in emergency department patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in different diagnostic groupings. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Secondary analysis of the COVID-19 registry compiled by the emergency department of Hospital Clínico San Carlos in Madrid, Spain. We selected suspected COVID-19 cases treated in the emergency department between February 28 and March 31, 2020. The cases were grouped as follows: 1) suspected, no polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test (S/no-PCR); 2) suspected, negative PCR (S/PCR-); 3) suspected, positive PCR (S/PCR+); 4) highly suspected, no PCR, or negative PCR (HS/no or PCR-); and 5) highly suspected, positive PCR (HS/PCR+). We collected clinical, radiologic, and microbiologic data related to the emergency visit. The main outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization and clinical severity of the episode. RESULTS: A total of 1993 cases (90.9%) were included as follows: S/no-PCR, 17.2%; S/PCR-, 11.4%; S/PCR+, 22.1%; HS/no PCR or PCR-, 11.7%; and HS/PCR+, 37.6%. Short-term outcomes differed significantly in the different groups according to demographic characteristics; comorbidity and clinical, radiographic, analytical, and therapeutic variables. Thirty-day mortality was 11.5% (56.5% in hospitalized cases and 19.6% in cases classified as severe). The 2 HS categories and the S/PCR+ category had a greater adjusted risk for 30-day mortality and for having a clinically severe episode during hospitalization in comparison with S/PCR- cases. Only the 2 HS categories showed greater risk for hospitalization than the S/PCR- cases. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 diagnostic groups differ according to clinical and laboratory characteristics, and the differences are associated with the 30-day prognosis.

OBJETIVO: El objetivo principal fue describir el perfil clínico y la mortalidad a los 30 días de diferentes categorías diagnósticas en los casos de COVID-19 atendidos en un servicio de urgencias (SU). METODO: Análisis secundario del registro COVID-19_URG-HCSC. Se seleccionaron los casos sospechosos de COVID-19 atendidos en un SU de Madrid desde el 28 de febrero hasta el 31 de marzo de 2020. La muestra se dividió: 1) sospecha con PCR no realizada (S/PCR NR); 2) sospecha con PCR negativa (S/PCR­); 3) sospecha con PCR positiva (S/ PCR+); 4) alta sospecha con PCR negativa o no realizada (AS/PCR­ o NR); y 5) alta sospecha con PCR positiva (AS/ PCR+). Se recogieron variables clínicas, radiológicas y microbiológicas del episodio de urgencias. La variable de resultado principal fue la mortalidad por cualquier causa a los 30 días. Las variables secundarias fueron el ingreso y la gravedad del episodio. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 1.993 pacientes; 17,2% S/PCR NR, 11,4% S/PCR­, 22,1% S/PCR+, 11,7% AS/PCR­ o NR y 37,6% AS/PCR+. Se hallaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas respecto a las variables demográficas, comorbilidad, clínicas, radiográficas, analíticas y terapéuticas y de resultados a corto plazo en función las categorías diagnósticas. La mortalidad global a los 30 días fue de un 11,5%, 56,5% casos fueron hospitalizados y 19,6% casos sufrieron un episodio grave. Las categorías de AS y de S/PCR+ tuvieron un incremento del riesgo ajustado de mortalidad a los 30 días y de sufrir un episodio grave durante el ingreso hospitalario respecto a S/PCR­. En relación al ingreso, solo las categorías de AS tuvieron un incremento del riesgo ajustado de hospitalización respecto a la categoría de S/PCR­. CONCLUSIONES: Existen diferentes categorías diagnósticas de la enfermedad COVID-19 en función del perfil clínico y microbiológico que tienen correlato con el pronóstico a 30 días.

Categorías diagnósticas y resultados a corto plazo en los pacientes con sospecha de COVID-19 atendidos en un servicio de urgencias

OBJETIVO: EL objetivo principal fue describir el perfil clínico y la mortalidad a los 30 días de diferentes categorías diagnósticas en los casos de COVID-19 atendidos en un servicio de urgencias (SU). MÉTODO: Análisis secundario del registro COVID-19_URG-HCSC. Se seleccionaron los casos sospechosos de COVID-19 atendidos en un SU de Madrid desde el 28 de febrero hasta el 31 de marzo de 2020. La muestra se dividió: 1) sospecha con PCR no realizada (S/PCR NR);2) sospecha con PCR negativa (S/PCR-);3) sospecha con PCR positiva (S/PCR+);4) alta sospecha con PCR negativa o no realizada (AS/PCR- o NR);y 5) alta sospecha con PCR positiva (AS/PCR+). Se recogieron variables clínicas, radiológicas y microbiológicas del episodio de urgencias. La variable de resultado principal fue la mortalidad por cualquier causa a los 30 días. Las variables secundarias fueron el ingreso y la gravedad del episodio. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 1.993 pacientes;17,2% S/PCR NR, 11,4% S/PCR-, 22,1% S/PCR+, 11,7% AS/PCR- o NR y 37,6% AS/PCR+. Se hallaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas respecto a las variables demográficas, comorbilidad, clínicas, radiográficas, analíticas y terapéuticas y de resultados a corto plazo en función las categorías diagnósticas. La mortalidad global a los 30 días fue de un 11,5%, 56,5% casos fueron hospitalizados y 19,6% casos sufrieron un episodio grave. Las categorías de AS y de S/PCR+ tuvieron un incremento del riesgo ajustado de mortalidad a los 30 días y de sufrir un episodio grave durante el ingreso hospitalario respecto a S/PCR-. En relación al ingreso, solo las categorías de AS tuvieron un incremento del riesgo ajustado de hospitalización respecto a la categoría de S/PCR-. CONCLUSIONES: Existen diferentes categorías diagnósticas de la enfermedad COVID-19 en función del perfil clínico y microbiológico que tienen correlato con el pronóstico a 30 días OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to describe the clinical characteristics and 30-day mortality rates in emergency department patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in different diagnostic groupings. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the COVID-19 registry compiled by the emergency department of Hospital Clínico San Carlos in Madrid, Spain. We selected suspected COVID-19 cases treated in the emergency department between February 28 and March 31, 2020. The cases were grouped as follows: 1) suspected, no polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test (S/no-PCR);2) suspected, negative PCR (S/PCR-);3) suspected, positive PCR (S/PCR+);4) highly suspected, no PCR, or negative PCR (HS/no or PCR-);and 5) highly suspected, positive PCR (HS/PCR+). We collected clinical, radiologic, and microbiologic data related to the emergency visit. The main outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization and clinical severity of the episode. RESULTS: A total of 1993 cases (90.9%) were included as follows: S/no-PCR, 17.2%;S/PCR-, 11.4%;S/PCR+, 22.1%;HS/no PCR or PCR-, 11.7%;and HS/PCR+, 37.6%. Short-term outcomes differed significantly in the different groups according to demographic characteristics;comorbidity and clinical, radiographic, analytical, and therapeutic variables. Thirty-day mortality was 11.5% (56.5% in hospitalized cases and 19.6% in cases classified as severe). The 2 HS categories and the S/PCR+ category had a greater adjusted risk for 30-day mortality and for having a clinically severe episode during hospitalization in comparison with S/PCR- cases. Only the 2 HS categories showed greater risk for hospitalization than the S/PCR- cases

Clinical presentation and outcome across age categories among patients with COVID-19 admitted to a Spanish Emergency Department.

PURPOSE: To determine the differences by age-dependent categories in the clinical profile, presentation, management, and short-term outcomes of patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to a Spanish Emergency Department (ED). METHODS: Secondary analysis of COVID-19_URG-HCSC registry. We included all consecutive patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the ED of the University Hospital Clinico San Carlos (Madrid, Spain). The population was divided into six age groups. Demographic, baseline and acute clinical data, and in-hospital and 30-day outcomes were collected. RESULTS: 1379 confirmed COVID-19 cases (mean age 62 (SD 18) years old; 53.5% male) were included (18.1% < 45 years; 17.8% 45-54 years; 17.9% 55-64 years; 17.2% 65-74 years; 17.0% 75-84 years; and 11.9% ≥ 85 years). A statistically significant association was found between demographic, comorbidity, clinical, radiographic, analytical, and therapeutic variables and short-term results according to age-dependent categories. There were less COVID-specific symptoms and more atypical symptoms among older people. Age was a prognostic factor for hospital admission (aOR = 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.05) and in-hospital (aOR = 1.08; 95% CI 1.05-1.10) and 30-day mortality (aOR = 1.07; 95% CI 1.04-1.09), and was associated with not being admitted to intensive care (aOR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.93-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Older age is associated with less COVID-specific symptoms and more atypical symptoms, and poor short-term outcomes. Age has independent prognostic value and may help in shared decision-making in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection.