ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 pneumonia is a manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection and in most cases involves hospital admission. There are recommendations according to which these patients can be discharged without hospital admission, but there is no evidence regarding the revisit and the most appropriate type of follow-up. The objective of the RESALSEVID study was to investigate the variables associated with the 30-day revisit (Rev30d) in a group of patients discharged directly from 4 emergency departments (ED) with COVID-19 pneumonia, and analyze whether there were differences based on 4 different tracking devices. METHOD: Analysis of a prospective cohort of patients discharged directly from the ED with COVID-19 pneumonia in 4 hospital with different models of follow-up at discharge (primary care, hospitalization at home [HaH] phone and in person, HaH phone, hospital phone). RESULTS: Five hundred twenty patients were included, with a mean age of 50.1 years and 51% men. Rev30d was 18.3% and was related only to immunosuppression, odds ratio 4.49 (95% confidence interval 1.10-18.24); p=0.022. There was no difference in Rev30d based on the follow-up model used at discharge from the ED. CONCLUSIONS: There are some recommendations that allow the safe discharge of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, with no differences in Rev30d depending on the type of follow-up.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To describe the sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidity, and baseline functional status of patients aged 65 or older who came to hospital emergency departments (EDs) during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to compare them with the findings for an earlier period to analyze factors of the index episode that were related to mortality. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied data from the EDEN-COVID cohort (Emergency Department and Elder Needs During COVID-19) of patients aged 65 years or older treated in 40 Spanish EDs on 7 consecutive days. Nine sociodemographic variables, 18 comorbidities, and 7 function variables were registered and compared with the findings for the EDEN cohort of patients included with the same criteria and treated a year earlier in the same EDs. In-hospital mortality was calculated in the 2 cohorts and a multivariable logistic regression model was used to explore associated factors. RESULTS: The EDEN-COVID cohort included 6806 patients with a median age of 78 years; 49% were women. The pandemic cohort had a higher proportion of men, patients covered by the national health care system, patients brought from residential facilities, and patients who arrived in an ambulance equipped for advanced life support. Pandemic-cohort patients more often had diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and dementia; they less often had connective tissue and thromboembolic diseases. The Barthel and Charlson indices were worse in this period, and cognitive decline was more common. Fewer patients had a history of depression or falls. Eight hundred ninety these patients (13.1%) died, 122 of them in the ED (1.8%); these percentages were lower in the earlier EDEN cohort, at 3.1% and 0.5%, respectively. Independent sociodemographic factors associated with higher mortality were transport by ambulance, older age, male sex, and living in a residential facility. Mortalityassociated comorbidities were neoplasms, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure. The only function variable associated with mortality was the inability to walk independently. A history of falls in the past 6 months was a protective factor. CONCLUSION: The sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidity, and functional status of patients aged 65 years or older who were treated in hospital EDs during the pandemic differed in many ways from those usually seen in this older-age population. Mortality was higher than in the prepandemic period. Certain sociodemographic, comorbidity, and function variables were associated with in-hospital mortality.
OBJETIVO: Investigar sociodemografía, comorbilidad y situación funcional de los pacientes de 65 o más años de edad que consultaron a los servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) durante la primera oleada epidémica de COVID, compararlas con un periodo previo y ver su relación. METODO: Se utilizaron los datos obtenidos de la cohorte EDEN-Covid (Emergency Department and Elder Needs during COVID) en la que participaron 40 SUH españoles que incluyeron todos los pacientes de $ 65 años atendidos durante 7 días consecutivos. Se analizaron 9 características sociodemográficas, 18 comorbilidades y 7 variables de funcionalidad, que se compararon con las de la cohorte EDEN (Emergency Department and Elder Needs), que contiene pacientes con el mismo criterio de inclusión etario reclutados por los mismos SUH un año antes. Se recogió la mortalidad intrahospitalaria y se investigaron los factores asociados mediante regresión logística multivariable. RESULTADOS: La cohorte EDEN-Covid incluyó 6.806 pacientes (mediana edad: 78 años; 49% mujeres). Hubo más varones, con cobertura sanitaria pública, procedentes de residencia y que llegaron con ambulancia medicalizada que durante el periodo prepandemia. Presentaron más frecuentemente diabetes mellitus, enfermedad renal crónica, enfermedad cerebrovascular y demencia y menos conectivopatías y enfermedad tromboembólica, peores índices de Barthel y Charlson, más deterioro cognitivo y menos antecedentes de depresión o caídas previas. Fallecieron durante el episodio 890 pacientes (13,1%), 122 de ellos en urgencias (1,8%), porcentajes superiores al periodo prepandemia (3,1% y 0,5%, respectivamente). Se asociaron de forma independiente a mayor mortalidad durante el periodo COVID la llegada en ambulancia, mayor edad, ser varón y vivir en residencia como variables sociodemográficas, y neoplasia, enfermedad renal crónica e insuficiencia cardiaca como comorbilidades. La única variable funcional asociada a mortalidad fue no deambular respecto a ser autónomo, y la existencia de caídas los 6 meses previos resultó un factor protector. CONCLUSIONES: La sociodemografía, comorbilidad y funcionalidad de los pacientes de 65 o más años que consultaron en los SUH españoles durante la primera ola pandémica difirieron en muchos aspectos de lo habitualmente observado en esta población. La mortalidad fue mayor a la del periodo prepandémico. Algunos aspectos sociodemográficos, de comorbilidad y funcionales se relacionaron con la mortalidad intrahospitalaria.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Male , Female , Aged , COVID-19/therapy , Pandemics , Functional Status , Comorbidity , Emergency Service, HospitalABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To define quality of care indicators and care process standards for treating patients with COVID-19 in hospital emergency departments (EDs), to determine the level of adherence to standards during the first wave in 2020, and to detect factors associated with different levels of adherence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We selected care indicators and standards by applying the Delphi method. We then analyzed the level of adherence in the SIESTA cohort (registered by the Spanish Investigators in Emergency Situations Team). This cohort was comprised of patients with COVID-19 treated in 62 Spanish hospitals in March and April 2020. Adherence was compared according to pandemic-related ED caseload pressure, time periods during the wave (earlier and later), and age groups. RESULTS: Fourteen quality indicators were identified. Three were adhered to in less than 50% of the patients. Polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection was the indicator most often disregarded, in 29% of patients when the caseload was high vs 40% at other times (P .001) and in 30% of patients in the later period vs 37% in the earlier period (P = .04). Adherence to the following indicators was better in the later part of the wave: monitoring of oxygen saturation (100% vs 99%, P = .035), electrocardiogram monitoring in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine (87% vs 65%, P .001), and avoiding of lopinavir/ritonavir treatment in patients with diarrhea (79% vs 53%, P .001). No differences related to age groups were found. CONCLUSION: Adherence to certain quality indicators deteriorated during ED treatment of patients with COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic. Pressure from high caseloads may have exacerbated this deterioration. A learning effect led to improvement. No differences related to patient age were detected.
OBJETIVO: Definir indicadores de calidad y sus estándares para el proceso asistencial del paciente con COVID-19 en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH), así como determinar su grado de cumplimiento durante el primer pico pandémico e investigar si existieron diferencias en relación con diferentes factores. METODO: Siguiendo la metodología del Delphi, los autores seleccionaron los indicadores y sus estándares. Posteriormente, se analizó el grado de cumplimiento en la cohorte SIESTA, formada por pacientes COVID-19 de 62 SUH españoles atendidos en marzo y abril de 2020. Se comparó el cumplimiento de los indicadores según la presión asistencial generada por la pandemia en el SUH, el periodo asistencial y el grupo etario. RESULTADOS: Se definieron 14 indicadores. Tres de ellos se cumplieron en 50% de los pacientes. La realización de la reacción en cadena de la polimerasa (PCR) para el SARS-CoV-2 tuvo peor cumplimiento en SUH con alta presión (29% frente a 40%, p 0,001) y durante el periodo tardío (30% frente a 37%, p = 0,04). Durante el periodo tardío, mejoró la medida de saturación de oxígeno (100% frente a 99%, p = 0,035), la realización de electrocardiograma en pacientes tratados con hidroxicloroquina (87% frente a 65%, p 0,001) y la no administración de lopinavir-ritonavir en pacientes con diarrea (79% frente a 53%, p 0,001). No hubo diferencias en relación con el grupo etario. CONCLUSIONES: Durante el primer pico pandémico, diversos aspectos de la calidad de la atención a pacientes COVID-19 en los SUH españoles se vieron deteriorados. La presión asistencial pudo incrementar este deterioro. Hubo un efecto de aprendizaje que condicionó una mejora, pero no se observaron diferencias según la edad de los pacientes.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Emergency Service, Hospital , Hospitals , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine , Lopinavir , Ritonavir , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Objectives. To define quality of care indicators and care process standards for treating patients with COVID-19 in hospital emergency departments (EDs), to determine the level of adherence to standards during the first wave in 2020, and to detect factors associated with different levels of adherence. Methods. We selected care indicators and standards by applying the Delphi method. We then analyzed the level of adherence in the SIESTA cohort (registered by the Spanish Investigators in Emergency Situations Team). This cohort was comprised of patients with COVID-19 treated in 62 Spanish hospitals in March and April 2020. Adherence was compared according to pandemic-related ED caseload pressure, time periods during the wave (earlier and later), and age groups. Results. Fourteen quality indicators were identified. Three were adhered to in less than 50% of the patients. Polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection was the indicator most often disregarded, in 29% of patients when the caseload was high vs 40% at other times (P < .001) and in 30% of patients in the later period vs 37% in the earlier period (P = .04). Adherence to the following indicators was better in the later part of the wave: monitoring of oxygen saturation (100% vs 99%, P = .035), electrocardiogram monitoring in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine (87% vs 65%, P < .001), and avoiding of lopinavir/ritonavir treatment in patients with diarrhea (79% vs 53%, P < .001). No differences related to age groups were found. Conclusions. Adherence to certain quality indicators deteriorated during ED treatment of patients with COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic. Pressure from high caseloads may have exacerbated this deterioration. A learning effect led to improvement. No differences related to patient age were detected. Objetivo. Definir indicadores de calidad y sus estándares para el proceso asistencial del paciente con COVID-19 en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH), así como determinar su grado de cumplimiento durante el primer pico pandémico e investigar si existieron diferencias en relación con diferentes factores. Método. Siguiendo la metodología del Delphi, los autores seleccionaron los indicadores y sus estándares. Posteriormente, se analizó el grado de cumplimiento en la cohorte SIESTA, formada por pacientes COVID-19 de 62 SUH españoles atendidos en marzo y abril de 2020. Se comparó el cumplimiento de los indicadores según la presión asistencial generada por la pandemia en el SUH, el periodo asistencial y el grupo etario. Resultados. Se definieron 14 indicadores. Tres de ellos se cumplieron en < 50% de los pacientes. La realización de la reacción en cadena de la polimerasa (PCR) para el SARS-CoV-2 tuvo peor cumplimiento en SUH con alta presión (29% frente a 40%, p < 0,001) y durante el periodo tardío (30% frente a 37%, p = 0,04). Durante el periodo tardío, mejoró la medida de saturación de oxígeno (100% frente a 99%, p = 0,035), la realización de electrocardiograma en pacientes tratados con hidroxicloroquina (87% frente a 65%, p < 0,001) y la no administración de lopinavir-ritonavir en pacientes con diarrea (79% frente a 53%, p < 0,001). No hubo diferencias en relación con el grupo etario. Conclusiones. Durante el primer pico pandémico, diversos aspectos de la calidad de la atención a pacientes COVID-19 en los SUH españoles se vieron deteriorados. La presión asistencial pudo incrementar este deterioro. Hubo un efecto de aprendizaje que condicionó una mejora, pero no se observaron diferencias según la edad de los pacientes.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Mid-Regional pro-Adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) is an inflammatory biomarker that improves the prognostic assessment of patients with sepsis, septic shock and organ failure. Previous studies of MR-proADM have primarily focussed on bacterial infections. A limited number of small and monocentric studies have examined MR-proADM as a prognostic factor in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, however there is need for multicenter validation. An evaluation of its utility in predicting need for hospitalisation in viral infections was also performed. METHODS: An observational retrospective analysis of 1861 patients, with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by RT-qPCR, from 10 hospitals across Europe was performed. Biomarkers, taken upon presentation to Emergency Departments (ED), clinical scores, patient demographics and outcomes were collected. Multiclass random forest classifier models were generated as well as calculation of area under the curve analysis. The primary endpoint was hospital admission with and without death. RESULTS: Patients suitable for safe discharge from Emergency Departments could be identified through an MR-proADM value of ≤ 1.02 nmol/L in combination with a CRP (C-Reactive Protein) of ≤ 20.2 mg/L and age ≤ 64, or in combination with a SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) score < 2 if MR-proADM was ≤ 0.83 nmol/L regardless of age. Those at an increased risk of mortality could be identified upon presentation to secondary care with an MR-proADM value of > 0.85 nmol/L, in combination with a SOFA score ≥ 2 and LDH > 720 U/L, or in combination with a CRP > 29.26 mg/L and age ≤ 64, when MR-proADM was > 1.02 nmol/L. CONCLUSIONS: This international study suggests that for patients presenting to the ED with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, MR-proADM in combination with age and CRP or with the patient's SOFA score could identify patients at low risk where outpatient treatment may be safe.
Subject(s)
Adrenomedullin , COVID-19 , Hospitalization , Adrenomedullin/analysis , Biomarkers , C-Reactive Protein , COVID-19/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Prognosis , Protein Precursors , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pulmonary Embolism , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products , Humans , Incidence , Pulmonary Embolism/epidemiology , Pulmonary Embolism/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The use of devices that provide continuous positive pressure in the airway has shown improvement in various pathologies that cause respiratory failure. In the COVID 19 pandemic episode the use of these devices has become widespread, but, due to the shortage of conventional CPAP devices, alternative devices have been manufactured. The objective of this study is to describe the use of these devices, as well as their efficacy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data are collected from patients admitted for Pneumonia due to COVID 19 at the IFEMA Field Hospital. Data are collected from 23 patients with respiratory failure and need for ventilatory support. RESULTS: Study carried out on a total of 23 patients, dated admission to IFEMA. Alternative CPAP was used in five patients (21.7%), while ventilatory support with a reservoir mask or Ventimask Venturi effect was used in the remaining 18 patients (78.3%). A progressive increase in saturation is observed in those patients in whom alternative CPAP was used (from 94% on average to 98% and 99% on average after 30 and 60â¯min with the mask, respectively), although this change was not significant (pâ¯=â¯0.058 and pâ¯=â¯0.122 respectively). No significant change in RF was observed at the beginning and end of the measurement in patients who used alternative CPAP (pâ¯=â¯0.423), but among those who did not use alternative CPAP (pâ¯=â¯0.001). A statistically significant improvement in the variable oxygen saturation / fraction inspired by oxygen is observed in patients who used alternative CPAP (pâ¯=â¯0.040). CONCLUSION: The use of these devices has helped the ventilatory work of several patients by improving their oxygenation parameters. To better observe the evolution of patients undergoing this therapy and compare them with patients with other types of ventilatory support, further studies are necessary.
INTRODUCCIÓN: El uso de dispositivos que aportan presión positiva continua en la vía aérea ha demostrado mejoría en diversas patologías que producen insuficiencia respiratoria. En el episodio de pandemia por COVID 19 el uso de estos dispositivos se ha generalizado, pero, debido a la escasez de dispositivos convencionales de CPAP, se han fabricado dispositivos alternativos. El objetivo de este estudio es describir el uso de estos dispositivos, así como su eficacia. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se recogen datos de pacientes ingresados por Neumonía por COVID 19 en el Hospital de campaña de IFEMA. Se recogen datos de pacientes con insuficiencia respiratoria y necesidad de soporte ventilatorio. RESULTADOS: Estudio realizado sobre un total de 23 pacientes, con fecha ingreso en IFEMA. Se empleó CPAP alternativa en cinco pacientes (21,7%), mientras que en los 18 pacientes restantes (78,3%) se usó soporte ventilatorio con mascarilla reservorio o Ventimask efecto Venturi. Se observa un aumento progresivo de la saturación en aquellos pacientes en los que se empleó CPAP alternativa (de 94% de promedio a 98% y 99% de promedio tras 30 y 60 minutos con la máscara, respectivamente), aunque este cambio no resultó significativo (pâ¯=â¯0,058 y pâ¯=â¯0,122 respectivamente). No se observó un cambio significativo de frecuencia respiratoria al inicio y final de la medición en pacientes que usaron CPAP alternativa (pâ¯=â¯0,423) pero si entre los que no la usaron (pâ¯=â¯0,001). Se observa una mejoría estadísticamente significativa en la variable Saturación de oxigeno / Fracción inspirado de oxígeno en los pacientes que usaron CPAP alternativa (pâ¯=â¯0,040). CONCLUSIÓN: El uso de estos dispositivos ha ayudado al trabajo ventilatorio de varios pacientes mejorando sus parámetros de oxigenación. Para observar mejor la evolución de los pacientes sometidos a esta terapia y compararlos con pacientes con otro tipo de soporte ventilatorio, son necesarios más estudios en los que se aleatorice su uso.
ABSTRACT
The aim of this report is to review the literature and shed light on the uncertainties surrounding the use of antiviral agents in general and remdesivir in COVID-19 patients. This review evaluated a battery of antiviral compounds and their effectiveness in the treatment of COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic. Remdesivir is the only antiviral approved by the EMA and FDA for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This work extensively reviews remdesivir data generated from clinical trials and observational studies, paying attention to the most recent data, and focusing on outcomes to give readers a more comprehensive understanding of the results. This review also discusses the recommendations issued by official bodies during the pandemic in the light of the current knowledge. The use of remdesivir in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection is justified because a virus is the causative agent that triggers the inflammatory responses and its consequences. More trials are needed to improve the management of this disease.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Virus ReplicationABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To estimate incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics and outcomes of acute (myo)pericarditis (AMP) in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pericarditis , Adenosine Monophosphate , Biomarkers , COVID-19/epidemiology , Case-Control Studies , Humans , Incidence , Natriuretic Peptide, Brain , Peptide Fragments , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pulmonary Embolism , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Prognosis , Risk Assessment , Severity of Illness IndexABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated the incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGB) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), who were attending the emergency department (ED), before hospitalization. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all COVID-19 patients diagnosed with UGB in 62 Spanish EDs (20% of Spanish EDs, case group) during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 outbreak. We formed 2 control groups: COVID-19 patients without UGB (control group A) and non-COVID-19 patients with UGB (control group B). Fifty-three independent variables and 4 outcomes were compared between cases and controls. RESULTS: We identified 83 UGB in 74,814 patients with COVID-19 who were attending EDs (1.11%, 95% CI=0.88-1.38). This incidence was lower compared with non-COVID-19 patients [2474/1,388,879, 1.78%, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.71-1.85; odds ratio (OR)=0.62; 95% CI=0.50-0.77]. Clinical characteristics associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 patients presenting with UGB were abdominal pain, vomiting, hematemesis, dyspnea, expectoration, melena, fever, cough, chest pain, and dysgeusia. Compared with non-COVID-19 patients with UGB, COVID-19 patients with UGB more frequently had fever, cough, expectoration, dyspnea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, interstitial lung infiltrates, and ground-glass lung opacities. They underwent fewer endoscopies in the ED (although diagnoses did not differ between cases and control group B) and less endoscopic treatment. After adjustment for age and sex, cases showed a higher in-hospital all-cause mortality than control group B (OR=2.05, 95% CI=1.09-3.86) but not control group A (OR=1.14, 95% CI=0.59-2.19) patients. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of UGB in COVID-19 patients attending EDs was lower compared with non-COVID-19 patients. Digestive symptoms predominated over respiratory symptoms, and COVID-19 patients with UGB underwent fewer gastroscopies and endoscopic treatments than the general population with UGB. In-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients with UGB was increased compared with non-COVID patients with UGB, but not compared with the remaining COVID-19 patients.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/diagnosis , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/epidemiology , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/etiology , Gastroscopy , Humans , Incidence , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Stroke , Case-Control Studies , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Stroke/epidemiologySubject(s)
Acute Coronary Syndrome/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/epidemiology , Hemostasis/physiology , Pulmonary Embolism/epidemiology , Stroke/epidemiology , Venous Thrombosis/epidemiology , Acute Coronary Syndrome/diagnosis , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , Cardiovascular Diseases/diagnosis , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Case-Control Studies , Female , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/diagnosis , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pulmonary Embolism/diagnosis , Retrospective Studies , Stroke/diagnosis , Venous Thrombosis/diagnosisABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Social vulnerability is a known determinant of health in respiratory diseases. Our aim was to identify whether there are socio-demographic factors among COVID-19 patients hospitalized in Spain and their potential impact on health outcomes during the hospitalization. METHODS: A multicentric retrospective case series study based on administrative databases that included all COVID-19 cases admitted in 19 Spanish hospitals from 1 March to 15 April 2020. Socio-demographic data were collected. Outcomes were critical care admission and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: We included 10,110 COVID-19 patients admitted to 18 Spanish hospitals (median age 68 (IQR 54-80) years old; 44.5% female; 14.8% were not born in Spain). Among these, 779 (7.7%) cases were admitted to critical care units and 1678 (16.6%) patients died during the hospitalization. Age, male gender, being immigrant, and low hospital saturation were independently associated with being admitted to an intensive care unit. Age, male gender, being immigrant, percentile of average per capita income, and hospital experience were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Social determinants such as residence in low-income areas and being born in Latin American countries were associated with increased odds of being admitted to an intensive care unit and of in-hospital mortality. There was considerable variation in outcomes between different Spanish centers.