SAEM23 Editors‐in‐Chief Welcome

The article offers information on the SAEM 2023 annual meeting, which is considered the first post-COVID gathering, It expresses gratitude for the readers' engagement with the s, which represent the thoughts of over 1300 emergency medicine enthusiasts from various backgrounds and expertise.

D-dimer Thresholds to Exclude Pulmonary Embolism among COVID-19 Patients in the Emergency Department: Derivation with Independent Validation.

OBJECTIVE: To derive and validate a D-dimer cutoff for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed in an integrated healthcare system including 22 adult ED's between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. Results were validated among patients enrolled in the RECOVER Registry, representing data from 154 ED's from 26 US states. Consecutive ED patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19, a D-dimer performed within 48 h of ED arrival, and with objectively confirmed PE were compared to those without PE. After identifying a D-dimer threshold at which the 95% confidence lower bound of the negative predictive value for PE was higher than 98% in the derivation cohort, it was validated using RECOVER registry data. RESULTS: Among 3978 patients with a D-dimer result, 3583 with confirmed COVID-19 infection were included in the derivation cohort. Overall, PE incidence was 4.1% and a D-dimer cutoff of <2 µ/mL (2000 ng/mL) was associated with a NPV of 98.5% (95% CI = 98.0%-98.9%). In the validation cohort of 13,091 patients with a D-dimer, 7748 had confirmed COVID-19 infection, and the PE incidence was 1.14%. A D-dimer cutoff of <2 µ/mL was associated with a NPV of 99.5% (95% CI = 99.3%-99.7%). CONCLUSION: A D-dimer cutoff of <2 µ/ml was associated with a high negative predictive value for PE among patients with COVID-19. However, the resultant sensitivity for PE result at that threshold without pre-test probability assessment would be considered clinically unsafe.

Assessing quality of life after pulmonary embolism: Comparing results from the PEmb-QoL with semistructured interviews.

Background: The Pulmonary Embolism Quality of Life questionnaire (PEmb-QoL) assesses quality of life (QoL) in patients with previous pulmonary embolism (PE). Objective: Our aim was to assess the agreement between the PEmb-QoL and interviews and to explore other QoL concerns in patients diagnosed with PE. Methods: This mixed-method study included interviews with 21 patients about QoL after PE, followed by the PEmb-QoL questionnaire. In interviews, patients were asked about their lived experiences and impact of PE. Our analysis identified the frequency and severity of decreased QoL in qualitative interviews and compared with the PEmb-QoL score. Excerpts that described the effect of PE on QoL in interview transcripts were transcoded to match the answers corresponding to the 1 to 6 numeric values for each question from the PEmb-QoL using a predetermined matrix (eg, "constant" and "daily" = all of the time = value 1) and directly compared with responses on the PEmb-QoL in the areas of emotional complaints and activities of daily living/social limitations. Results: Interviews showed more functional impairment than predicted by PEmb-QoL. For fear of recurrence, 86% of participants had disagreements between PEmb-QoL scores and transcoded interview scores. We found 42% disagreement between reported descriptions of the inability to do or enjoy hobbies in interviews and the PEmb-QoL score. Conclusion: Patient interviews showed discordances compared with a validated psychometric tool. To capture a more detailed and accurate picture of the effect of PE on QoL, providers and researchers should consider the addition of qualitative methods to assess outcomes.

Increased Body Mass Index and Metabolic Syndrome Are Associated with Poor Outcomes in SARS-CoV-2-Positive Emergency Department Patients.

Background: Increased body mass index (BMI) and metabolic syndrome (MetS) have been associated with adverse outcomes in viral syndromes. We sought to examine associations of increased BMI and MetS on several clinical outcomes in patients tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods: The registry of suspected COVID-19 in emergency care (RECOVER) is an observational study of SARS-CoV-2-tested patients (n=27,051) across 155 United States emergency departments (EDs). We used multivariable logistic regression to test for associations of several predictor variables with various clinical outcomes. Results: We found that a BMI ≥30 kg/m2 increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 test positivity (odds ratio [OR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-1.38), while MetS reduced odds of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.82). Adjusted multivariable analysis found that MetS was significantly associated with the need for admission (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.89-2.37), intensive care unit (ICU) care (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.40-1.78), intubation (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.28-1.66), mortality (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.13-1.48), and venous thromboembolism (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.07-2.13) in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. Similarly, BMI ≥40 kg/m2 was significantly associated with ICU care (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.65-2.35), intubation (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 2.22-3.26), and mortality (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.22-1.84). Conclusion: In this large nationwide sample of ED patients, we report a significant association of both high BMI and composite MetS with poor outcomes in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. Findings suggest that composite MetS profile may be a more universal predictor of adverse disease outcomes, while the impact of BMI is more heavily modulated by SARS-CoV-2 status.

Putting Patients First

An introduction is presented to a series of s within the issue on topics including health disparities, well-being and burnout, research related to artificial intelligence and clinical decision support, racism, sexism and bullying in the workplace.

Age-related differences in symptoms in older emergency department patients with COVID-19: Prevalence and outcomes in a multicenter cohort.

BACKGROUND: Older adults represent a disproportionate share of severe COVID-19 presentations and fatalities, but we have limited understanding of the differences in presentation by age and the association between less typical emergency department (ED) presentations and clinical outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the RECOVER Network registry, a research collaboration of 86 EDs in 27 U.S. states. We focused on encounters with a positive nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2, and described their demographics, clinical presentation, and outcomes. Sequential multivariable logistic regressions examined the strength of association between age cohort and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 4536 encounters, median patient age was 55 years, 49% were women, and 34% were non-Hispanic Black persons. Cough was the most common presenting complaint across age groups (18-64, 65-74, and 75+): 71%, 67%, and 59%, respectively (p < 0.001). Neurological symptoms, particularly altered mental status, were more common in older adults (2%, 11%, 26%; p < 0.001). Patients 75+ had the greatest odds of ED index visit admission of all age groups (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 6.66; 95% CI 5.23-8.56), 30-day hospitalization (aOR 7.44; 95% CI 5.63-9.99), and severe COVID-19 (aOR 4.26; 95% CI 3.45-5.27). Compared to individuals with alternate presentations and adjusting for age, patients with typical symptoms (fever, cough and/or shortness of breath) had similar odds of ED index visit admission (aOR 1.01; 95% CI 0.81-1.24), potentially higher odds of 30-day hospitalization (aOR 1.23; 95% CI 1.00-1.53), and greater odds of severe COVID-19 (aOR 1.46; 95% CI 1.12-1.90). CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with COVID-19 are more likely to have presentations without the most common symptoms. However, alternate presentations of COVID-19 in older ED patients are not associated with greater odds of mechanical ventilation and/or death. Our data highlights the importance of a liberal COVID-19 testing strategy among older ED patients to facilitate accurate diagnoses and timely treatment and prophylaxis.

Viral Coinfection is Associated with Improved Outcomes in Emergency Department Patients with SARS-CoV-2.

INTRODUCTION: Coinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and another virus may influence the clinical trajectory of emergency department (ED) patients. However, little empirical data exists on the clinical outcomes of coinfection with SARS-CoV-2 METHODS: In this retrospective cohort analysis, we included adults presenting to the ED with confirmed, symptomatic coronavirus 2019 who also underwent testing for additional viral pathogens within 24 hours. To investigate the association between coinfection status with each of the outcomes, we performed logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 6,913 ED patients, 5.7% had coinfection. Coinfected individuals were less likely to experience index visit or 30-day hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.90 and OR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25-0.62, respectively). CONCLUSION: Coinfection is relatively uncommon in symptomatic ED patients with SARS-CoV-2 and the clinical short- and long-term outcomes are more favorable in coinfected individuals.

Communication at diagnosis of venous thromboembolism: Lasting impact of verbal and nonverbal provider communication on patients.

BACKGROUND: Establishing trust and effective communication can be challenging in the emergency department, where a prior relationship between patient and provider is lacking and decisions have to be made rapidly. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) represents an emergent condition that requires immediate decision making. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to document the experiences, perceptions, and the overall impact of health care provider communication on patients during the diagnosis of VTE in the emergency department. METHODS: This was a qualitative method study using semistructured interviews to increase understanding of the patient experience during the diagnosis of VTE and impact of the health care provider communication on subsequent patient perceptions. RESULTS: A total of 24 interviews were conducted. Content analysis revealed that certain aspects of health care providers' communication-namely, word choice, incomplete information, imbalance between fear over reassurance and nonverbal behavior-used to deliver and explain VTE diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis increases patients' fears. CONCLUSION: These interviews elucidate areas for improvement of communication in the emergency care setting for acute VTE.

SARS-CoV-2 Positivity in Ambulatory Symptomatic Patients Is Not Associated With Increased Venous or Arterial Thrombotic Events in the Subsequent 30 Days.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been associated with increased risk of thromboembolism in critically ill patients. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the association of SARS-CoV-2 test positivity and subsequent acute vascular thrombosis, including venous thromboembolism (VTE) or arterial thrombosis (AT), in a large nationwide registry of emergency department (ED) patients tested with a nucleic acid test for suspected SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: The RECOVER (Registry of Potential COVID-19 in Emergency Care) registry includes 155 EDs across the United States. We performed a retrospective cohort study to produce odds ratios (ORs) for COVID-19-positive vs. COVID-19-negative status as a predictor of 30-day VTE or AT, adjusting for age, sex, active cancer, intubation, hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit (ICU) care. RESULTS: Comparing 14,056 COVID-19-positive patients with 12,995 COVID-19-negative patients, the overall 30-day prevalence of VTE events was 1.4% vs. 1.3%, respectively (p = 0.44, χ2). Multivariable analysis identified that testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 status was negatively associated with both VTE (OR 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.94) and AT (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.32-0.80), whereas intubation, ICU care, and age 50 years or older were positively associated with both VTE and AT. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to other reports, results from this large, hetereogenous national sample of ED patients tested for SARS-CoV-2, showed no association between vascular thrombosis and COVID-19 test positivity.

Predicting 30-day return hospital admissions in patients with COVID-19 discharged from the emergency department: A national retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Identification of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at risk for deterioration after discharge from the emergency department (ED) remains a clinical challenge. Our objective was to develop a prediction model that identifies patients with COVID-19 at risk for return and hospital admission within 30 days of ED discharge. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of discharged adult ED patients (n = 7529) with SARS-CoV-2 infection from 116 unique hospitals contributing to the National Registry of Suspected COVID-19 in Emergency Care. The primary outcome was return hospital admission within 30 days. Models were developed using classification and regression tree (CART), gradient boosted machine (GBM), random forest (RF), and least absolute shrinkage and selection (LASSO) approaches. RESULTS: Among patients with COVID-19 discharged from the ED on their index encounter, 571 (7.6%) returned for hospital admission within 30 days. The machine-learning (ML) models (GBM, RF, and LASSO) performed similarly. The RF model yielded a test area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.78), with a sensitivity of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.39-0.54) and a specificity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.82-0.85). Predictive variables, including lowest oxygen saturation, temperature, or history of hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, or obesity, were common to all ML models. CONCLUSIONS: A predictive model identifying adult ED patients with COVID-19 at risk for return for return hospital admission within 30 days is feasible. Ensemble/boot-strapped classification methods (eg, GBM, RF, and LASSO) outperform the single-tree CART method. Future efforts may focus on the application of ML models in the hospital setting to optimize the allocation of follow-up resources.

Association Between Baseline Use of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers and Death Among Patients Tested for COVID-19.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) drugs may modify risk associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Therefore, we assessed whether baseline therapy with ACEIs or ARBs was associated with lower mortality, respiratory failure (noninvasive ventilation or intubation), and renal failure (new renal replacement therapy) in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. This retrospective registry-based observational cohort study used data from a national database of emergency department patients tested for SARS-CoV-2. Symptomatic emergency department patients were accrued from January to October 2020, across 197 hospitals in the United States. Multivariable analysis using logistic regression evaluated end points among SARS-CoV-2-positive cases, focusing on ACEIs/ARBs and adjusting for covariates. Model performance was evaluated using the c statistic for discrimination and Cox plotting for calibration. A total of 13 859 (99.9%) patients had known mortality status, of whom 2045 (14.8%) died. Respiratory failure occurred in 2485/13 880 (17.9%) and renal failure in 548/13 813 (4.0%) patients with available data. ACEI/ARB status was associated with a 25% decrease in mortality odds (odds ratio [OR], 0.75; 95%CI, 0.59-0.94; P = .011; c = .82). ACEIs/ARBs were not significantly associated with respiratory failure (OR, 0.89; 95%CI, 0.78-1.06; P = .206) or renal failure (OR, 0.75; 95%CI, 0.55-1.04; P = .083). Adjusting for covariates, baseline ACEI/ARB was associated with 25% lower mortality in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. The potential mechanism for ACEI/ARB mortality modification requires further exploration.

Clinical prediction rule for SARS-CoV-2 infection from 116 U.S. emergency departments 2-22-2021.

OBJECTIVES: Accurate and reliable criteria to rapidly estimate the probability of infection with the novel coronavirus-2 that causes the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) and associated disease (COVID-19) remain an urgent unmet need, especially in emergency care. The objective was to derive and validate a clinical prediction score for SARS-CoV-2 infection that uses simple criteria widely available at the point of care. METHODS: Data came from the registry data from the national REgistry of suspected COVID-19 in EmeRgency care (RECOVER network) comprising 116 hospitals from 25 states in the US. Clinical variables and 30-day outcomes were abstracted from medical records of 19,850 emergency department (ED) patients tested for SARS-CoV-2. The criterion standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 required a positive molecular test from a swabbed sample or positive antibody testing within 30 days. The prediction score was derived from a 50% random sample (n = 9,925) using unadjusted analysis of 107 candidate variables as a screening step, followed by stepwise forward logistic regression on 72 variables. RESULTS: Multivariable regression yielded a 13-variable score, which was simplified to a 13-point score: +1 point each for age>50 years, measured temperature>37.5°C, oxygen saturation<95%, Black race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, household contact with known or suspected COVID-19, patient reported history of dry cough, anosmia/dysgeusia, myalgias or fever; and -1 point each for White race, no direct contact with infected person, or smoking. In the validation sample (n = 9,975), the probability from logistic regression score produced an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79-0.81), and this level of accuracy was retained across patients enrolled from the early spring to summer of 2020. In the simplified score, a score of zero produced a sensitivity of 95.6% (94.8-96.3%), specificity of 20.0% (19.0-21.0%), negative likelihood ratio of 0.22 (0.19-0.26). Increasing points on the simplified score predicted higher probability of infection (e.g., >75% probability with +5 or more points). CONCLUSION: Criteria that are available at the point of care can accurately predict the probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These criteria could assist with decisions about isolation and testing at high throughput checkpoints.

Agricultural workers in meatpacking plants presenting to an emergency department with suspected COVID-19 infection are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

OBJECTIVE: Facilities that process and package meat for consumer sale and consumption (meatpacking plants) were early sites of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks. The aim of this study was to characterize the association between meatpacking plant exposure and clinical outcomes among emergency department (ED) patients with COVID-19 symptoms. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients presenting to a single ED, from March 1 to May 31, 2020, who had: 1) symptoms consistent with COVID-19 and 2) a COVID-19 test performed. The primary outcome was COVID-19 positivity, and secondary outcomes included hospital admission from the ED, ventilator use, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, hospital length of stay (LOS; <48 or ≥48 h), and mortality. RESULTS: Patients from meatpacking plants were more likely to be Black or Hispanic than the ED patients without this occupational exposure. Patients with a meatpacking plant exposure were more likely to test positive for COVID-19 (adjusted relative risk [aRR] = 2.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.59 to 3.53) but had similar rates of hospital admission (aRR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.82 to 1.07) and hospital LOS (aRR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.45 to 1.23). There was no significant difference in ventilator use among patients with meatpacking and nonmeatpacking plant exposure (8.2% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.531), ICU admissions (4.1% vs. 12.0%, p = 0.094), and mortality (2.0% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.473). CONCLUSIONS: Workers in meatpacking plants in Iowa had a higher rate of testing positive for COVID-19 but were not more likely to be hospitalized for their illness. These patients were disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

Multicenter Study of Outcomes Among Persons With HIV Who Presented to US Emergency Departments With Suspected SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to characterize patients with HIV with suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). SETTING: Multicenter registry of patients from 116 emergency departments in 27 US states. METHODS: Planned secondary analysis of patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2, with (n = 415) and without (n = 25,306) HIV. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patient information and clinical characteristics by SARS-CoV-2 and HIV status. Unadjusted and multivariable models were used to explore factors associated with death, intubation, and hospital length of stay. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate survival by SARS-CoV-2 and HIV infection status. RESULTS: Patients with both SARS-CoV-2 and HIV and patients with SARS-CoV-2 but without HIV had similar admission rates (62.7% versus 58.6%, P = 0.24), hospitalization characteristics [eg, rates of admission to the intensive care unit from the emergency department (5.0% versus 6.3%, P = 0.45) and intubation (10% versus 13.3%, P = 0.17)], and rates of death (13.9% versus 15.1%, P = 0.65). They also had a similar cumulative risk of death (log-rank P = 0.72). However, patients with both HIV and SARS-CoV-2 infections compared with patients with HIV but without SAR-CoV-2 had worsened outcomes, including increased mortality (13.9% versus 5.1%, P < 0.01, log-rank P < 0.0001) and their deaths occurred sooner (median 11.5 versus 34 days, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Among emergency department patients with HIV, clinical outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection are not worse when compared with patients without HIV, but SARS-CoV-2 infection increased the risk of death in patients with HIV.

Inter-rater reliability and prospective validation of a clinical prediction rule for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

OBJECTIVES: Accurate estimation of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on bedside data alone has importance to emergency department (ED) operations and throughput. The 13-item CORC (COVID [or coronavirus] Rule-out Criteria) rule had good overall diagnostic accuracy in retrospective derivation and validation. The objective of this study was to prospectively test the inter-rater reliability and diagnostic accuracy of the CORC score and rule (score ≤ 0 negative, > 0 positive) and compare the CORC rule performance with physician gestalt. METHODS: This noninterventional study was conducted at an urban academic ED from February 2021 to March 2021. Two practitioners were approached by research coordinators and asked to independently complete a form capturing the CORC criteria for their shared patient and their gestalt binary prediction of the SARS-CoV-2 test result and confidence (0%-100%). The criterion standard for SARS-CoV-2 was from reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction performed on a nasopharyngeal swab. The primary analysis was from weighted Cohen's kappa and likelihood ratios (LRs). RESULTS: For 928 patients, agreement between observers was good for the total CORC score, κ = 0.613 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.579-0.646), and for the CORC rule, κ = 0.644 (95% CI = 0.591-0.697). The agreement for clinician gestalt binary determination of SARs-CoV-2 status was κ = 0.534 (95% CI = 0.437-0.632) with median confidence of 76% (first-third quartile = 66-88.5). For 425 patients who had the criterion standard, a negative CORC rule (both observers scored CORC < 0), the sensitivity was 88%, and specificity was 51%, with a negative LR (LR-) of 0.24 (95% CI = 0.10-0.50). Among patients with a mean CORC score of >4, the prevalence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test was 58% (95% CI = 28%-85%) and positive LR was 13.1 (95% CI = 4.5-37.2). Clinician gestalt demonstrated a sensitivity of 51% and specificity of 86% with a LR- of 0.57 (95% CI = 0.39-0.74). CONCLUSION: In this prospective study, the CORC score and rule demonstrated good inter-rater reliability and reproducible diagnostic accuracy for estimating the pretest probability of SARs-CoV-2 infection.

Multicenter registry of United States emergency department patients tested for SARS-CoV-2.

This paper summarizes the methodology for the registry of suspected COVID-19 in emergency care (RECOVER), a large clinical registry of patients from 155 United States (US) emergency departments (EDs) in 27 states tested for SARS-CoV-2 from March-September 2020. The initial goals are to derive and test: (1) a pretest probability instrument for prediction of SARS-CoV-2 test results, and from this instrument, a set of simple criteria to exclude COVID-19 (the COVID-19 Rule-Out Criteria-the CORC rule), and (2) a prognostic instrument for those with COVID-19. Patient eligibility included any ED patient tested for SARS-CoV-2 with a nasal or oropharyngeal swab. Abstracted clinical data included 204 variables representing the earliest manifestation of infection, including week of testing, demographics, symptoms, exposure risk, past medical history, test results, admission status, and outcomes 30 days later. In addition to the primary goals, the registry will provide a vital platform for characterizing the course, epidemiology, clinical features, and prognosis of patients tested for COVID-19 in the ED setting.

Unconditional care in academic emergency departments

Abstract Recent news stories have explicitly stated that patients with symptoms of COVID-19 were ?turned away? from emergency departments. This commentary addresses these serious allegations, with an attempt to provide the perspective of academic emergency departments (EDs) around the Nation. The overarching point we wish to make is that academic EDs never deny emergency care to any person.