Lymphocyte-to-C-Reactive Protein (LCR) Ratio Is Not Accurate to Predict Severity and Mortality in Patients with COVID-19 Admitted to the ED.

Health care systems worldwide have been battling the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Lymphocytes and CRP have been reported as markers of interest. We chose to investigate the prognostic value of the LCR ratio as a marker of severity and mortality in COVID-19 infection. Between 1 March and 30 April 2020, we conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with moderate and severe coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), all of whom were hospitalized after being admitted to the Emergency Department (ED). We conducted our study in six major hospitals of northeast France, one of the outbreak's epicenters in Europe. A total of 1035 patients with COVID-19 were included in our study. Around three-quarters of them (76.2%) presented a moderate form of the disease, while the remaining quarter (23.8%) presented a severe form requiring admission to the ICU. At ED admission, the median LCR was significantly lower in the group presenting severe disease compared to that with moderate disease (versus 6.24 (3.24-12) versus 12.63 ((6.05-31.67)), p < 0.001). However, LCR was neither associated with disease severity (OR: 0.99, CI 95% (0.99-1)), p = 0.476) nor mortality (OR: 0.99, CI 95% (0.99-1)). In the ED, LCR, although modest, with a threshold of 12.63, was a predictive marker for severe forms of COVID-19.

Assessment of plasma Catestatin in COVID-19 reveals a hitherto unknown inflammatory activity with impact on morbidity-mortality.

Introduction: Neuroendocrine cells release Catestatin (CST) from Chromogranin A (CgA) to regulate stress responses. As regards COVID-19 patients (COVID+) requiring oxygen supply, to date nobody has studied CST as a potential mediator in the regulation of immunity. Patients & Methods: Admission plasma CST and CgA - its precursor - concentrations were measured (ELISA test) in 73 COVID+ and 27 controls. Relationships with demographics, comorbidities, disease severity and outcomes were analysed (Mann-Whitney, Spearman correlation tests, ROC curves). Results: Among COVID+, 49 required ICU-admission (COVID+ICU+) and 24 standard hospitalization (COVID+ICU-). Controls were either healthy staff (COVID-ICU-, n=11) or COVID-ICU+ patients (n=16). Median plasma CST were higher in COVID+ than in controls (1.6 [1.02; 3.79] vs 0.87 [0.59; 2.21] ng/mL, p<0.03), with no difference between COVID+ and COVID-ICU+. There was no difference between groups in either CgA or CST/CgA ratios, but these parameters were lower in healthy controls (p<0.01). CST did not correlate with either hypoxia- or usual inflammation-related parameters. In-hospital mortality was similar whether COVID+ or not, but COVID+ had longer oxygen support and more complications (p<0.03). CST concentrations and the CST/CgA ratio were associated with in-hospital mortality (p<0.01) in COVID+, whereas CgA was not. CgA correlated with care-related infections (p<0.001). Conclusion: Respiratory COVID patients release significant amounts of CST in the plasma making this protein widely available for the neural regulation of immunity. If confirmed prospectively, plasma CST will reliably help in predicting in-hospital mortality, whereas CgA will facilitate the detection of patients prone to care-related infections.

Imaging strategies used in emergency departments for the diagnostic workup of COVID-19 patients during the first wave of the pandemic: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency departments (EDs) were on the front line for the diagnostic workup of patients with COVID-19-like symptoms during the first wave. Chest imaging was the key to rapidly identifying COVID-19 before administering RT-PCR, which was time-consuming. The objective of our study was to compare the costs and organizational benefits of triage strategies in ED during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study in five EDs in France, involving 3712 consecutive patients consulting with COVID-like symptoms between 9 March 2020 and 8 April 2020, to assess the cost effectiveness of imaging strategies (chest radiography, chest computed tomography (CT) scan in the presence of respiratory symptoms, systematic ultra-low-dose (ULD) chest CT, and no systematic imaging) on ED length of stay (LOS) in the ED and on hospital costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the difference in costs divided by the difference in LOS. RESULTS: Compared with chest radiography, workup with systematic ULD chest CT was the more cost-effective strategy (average LOS of 6.89 hours; average cost of €3646), allowing for an almost 4-hour decrease in LOS in the ED at a cost increase of €98 per patient. Chest radiography (extendedly dominated) and RT-PCR with no systematic imaging were the least effective strategies, with an average LOS of 10.8 hours. The strategy of chest CT in the presence of respiratory symptoms was more effective than the systematic ULD chest CT strategy, with the former providing a gain of 37 minutes at an extra cost of €718. DISCUSSION: Systematic ULD chest CT for patients with COVID-like symptoms in the ED is a cost-effective strategy and should be considered to improve the management of patients in the ED during the pandemic, given the need to triage patients.

Assessment of plasma Catestatin in COVID-19 reveals a hitherto unknown inflammatory activity with impact on morbidity-mortality

Introduction Neuroendocrine cells release Catestatin (CST) from Chromogranin A (CgA) to regulate stress responses. As regards COVID-19 patients (COVID+) requiring oxygen supply, to date nobody has studied CST as a potential mediator in the regulation of immunity. Patients & Methods Admission plasma CST and CgA - its precursor - concentrations were measured (ELISA test) in 73 COVID+ and 27 controls. Relationships with demographics, comorbidities, disease severity and outcomes were analysed (Mann-Whitney, Spearman correlation tests, ROC curves). Results Among COVID+, 49 required ICU-admission (COVID+ICU+) and 24 standard hospitalization (COVID+ICU-). Controls were either healthy staff (COVID-ICU-, n=11) or COVID-ICU+ patients (n=16). Median plasma CST were higher in COVID+ than in controls (1.6 [1.02;3.79] vs 0.87 [0.59;2.21] ng/mL, p<0.03), with no difference between COVID+ and COVID-ICU+. There was no difference between groups in either CgA or CST/CgA ratios, but these parameters were lower in healthy controls (p<0.01). CST did not correlate with either hypoxia- or usual inflammation-related parameters. In-hospital mortality was similar whether COVID+ or not, but COVID+ had longer oxygen support and more complications (p<0.03). CST concentrations and the CST/CgA ratio were associated with in-hospital mortality (p<0.01) in COVID+, whereas CgA was not. CgA correlated with care-related infections (p<0.001). Conclusion Respiratory COVID patients release significant amounts of CST in the plasma making this protein widely available for the neural regulation of immunity. If confirmed prospectively, plasma CST will reliably help in predicting in-hospital mortality, whereas CgA will facilitate the detection of patients prone to care-related infections.

Silent Hypoxemia in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Cohort of Two Clinical Phenotypes in Critical COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding hypoxemia, with and without the clinical signs of acute respiratory failure (ARF) in COVID-19, is key for management. Hence, from a population of critical patients admitted to the emergency department (ED), we aimed to study silent hypoxemia (Phenotype I) in comparison to symptomatic hypoxemia with clinical signs of ARF (Phenotype II). METHODS: This multicenter study was conducted between 1 March and 30 April 2020. Adult patients who were presented to the EDs of nine Great-Eastern French hospitals for confirmed severe or critical COVID-19, who were then directly admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), were retrospectively included. RESULTS: A total of 423 critical COVID-19 patients were included, out of whom 56.1% presented symptomatic hypoxemia with clinical signs of ARF, whereas 43.9% presented silent hypoxemia. Patients with clinical phenotype II were primarily intubated, initially, in the ED (46%, p < 0.001), whereas those with silent hypoxemia (56.5%, p < 0.001) were primarily intubated in the ICU. Initial univariate analysis revealed higher ICU mortality (29.2% versus 18.8%, p < 0.014) and in-hospital mortality (32.5% versus 18.8%, p < 0.002) in phenotype II. However, multivariate analysis showed no significant differences between the two phenotypes regarding mortality and hospital or ICU length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Silent hypoxemia is explained by various mechanisms, most physiological and unspecific to COVID-19. Survival was found to be comparable in both phenotypes, with decreased survival in favor of Phenotype II. However, the spectrum of silent to symptomatic hypoxemia appears to include a continuum of disease progression, which can brutally evolve into fatal ARF.

Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (PLR) Is Not a Predicting Marker of Severity but of Mortality in COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

(1) Introduction: In the present study, we investigate the prognostic value of platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) as a marker of severity and mortality in COVID-19 infection. (2) Methods: Between 1 March and 30 April 2020, we conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with moderate to severe coronavirus 19 (COVID-19), all of whom were hospitalized after being admitted to the emergency department (ED). (3) Results: A total of 1035 patients were included in our study. Neither lymphocytes, platelets or PLR were associated with disease severity. Lymphocyte count was significantly lower and PLR values were significantly higher in the group of patients who died, and both were associated with mortality in the univariate analysis (OR: 0.524, 95% CI: (0.336-0.815), p = 0.004) and (OR: 1.001, 95% CI: (1.000-1.001), p = 0.042), respectively. However, the only biological parameter significantly associated with mortality in the multivariate analysis was platelet count (OR: 0.996, 95% CI: (0.996-1.000), p = 0.027). The best PLR value for predicting mortality in COVID-19 was 356.6 (OR: 3.793, 95% CI: (1.946-7.394), p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: A high PLR value is however associated with excess mortality.

Lymphopenia and Early Variation of Lymphocytes to Predict In-Hospital Mortality and Severity in ED Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

(1) Introduction: Multiple studies have demonstrated that lymphocyte count monitoring is a valuable prognostic tool for clinicians during inflammation. The aim of our study was to determine the prognostic value of delta lymphocyte H24 from admission from the emergency department for mortality and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection. (2) Methods: We have made a retrospective and multicentric study in six major hospitals of northeastern France. The patients were hospitalized and had a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. (3): Results: A total of 1035 patients were included in this study. Factors associated with infection severity were CRP > 100 mg/L (OR: 2.51, CI 95%: (1.40-3.71), p < 0.001) and lymphopenia < 800/mm3 (OR: 2.15, CI 95%: (1.42-3.27), p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, delta lymphocytes H24 (i.e., the difference between lymphocytes values at H24 and upon admission to the ED) < 135 was one of the most significant biochemical factors associated with mortality (OR: 2.23, CI 95%: (1.23-4.05), p = 0.009). The most accurate threshold for delta lymphocytes H24 was 75 to predict severity and 135 for mortality. (4) Conclusion: Delta lymphocytes H24 could be a helpful early screening prognostic biomarker to predict severity and mortality associated with COVID-19.

The Impact of Age on In-Hospital Mortality in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective and Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: For the past two years, healthcare systems worldwide have been battling the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Several studies tried to find predictive factors of mortality in COVID-19 patients. We aimed to research age as a predictive factor associated with in-hospital mortality in severe and critical SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Between 1 March and 20 April 2020, we conducted a multicenter and retrospective study on a cohort of severe COVID-19 patients who were all hospitalized in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). We led our study in nine hospitals of northeast France, one of the pandemic's epicenters in Europe. RESULTS: The median age of our study population was 66 years (58-72 years). Mortality was 24.6% (CI 95%: 20.6-29%) in the ICU and 26.5% (CI 95%: 22.3-31%) in the hospital. Non-survivors were significantly older (69 versus 64 years, p < 0.001) than the survivors. Although a history of cardio-vascular diseases was more frequent in the non-survivor group (p = 0.015), other underlying conditions and prior level of autonomy did not differ between the two groups. On multivariable analysis, age appeared to be an interesting predictive factor of in-hospital mortality. Thus, age ranges of 65 to 74 years (OR = 2.962, CI 95%: 1.231-7.132, p = 0.015) were predictive of mortality, whereas the group of patients aged over 75 years was not (OR = 3.084, CI 95%: 0.952-9.992, p = 0.06). Similarly, all comorbidities except for immunodeficiency (OR = 4.207, CI 95%: 1.006-17.586, p = 0.049) were not predictive of mortality. Finally, survival follow-up was obtained for the study population. CONCLUSION: Age appears to be a relevant predictive factor of in-hospital mortality in cases of severe or critical SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Pulmonary embolism severity and in-hospital mortality: An international comparative study between COVID-19 and non-COVID patients.

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.

Prognostic Value of C-Reactive Protein to Lymphocyte Ratio (CLR) in Emergency Department Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

(1) Introduction: According to recent studies, the ratio of C-reactive-protein to lymphocyte is more sensitive and specific than other biomarkers associated to systemic inflammatory processes. This study aimed to determine the prognostic value of CLR on COVID-19 severity and mortality at emergency department (ED) admission. (2) Methods: Between 1 March and 30 April 2020, we carried out a multicenter and retrospective study in six major hospitals of northeast France. The cohort was composed of patients hospitalized for a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. (3) Results: A total of 1,035 patients were included in this study. Factors associated with infection severity were the CLR (OR: 1.001, CI 95%: (1.000-1.002), p = 0.012), and the lymphocyte level (OR: 1.951, CI 95%: (1.024-3.717), p = 0.042). In multivariate analysis, the only biochemical factor significantly associated with mortality was lymphocyte rate (OR: 2.308, CI 95%: (1.286-4.141), p = 0.005). The best threshold of CLR to predict the severity of infection was 78.3 (sensitivity 79%; specificity 47%), and to predict mortality, was 159.5 (sensitivity 48%; specificity 70%). (4) Conclusion: The CLR at admission to the ED could be a helpful prognostic biomarker in the early screening and prediction of the severity and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Early Variation of NLR to Predict In-Hospital Mortality and Severity in ED Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

(1) Introduction: The neutrophil-to lymphocyte ratio is valued as a predictive marker in several inflammatory diseases. For example, an increasing NLR is a risk factor of mortality in sepsis. It also appears to be helpful in other settings such as cancer. The aim of our work was to study the prognostic value of NLR for disease severity and mortality in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 upon their admission to the Emergency Department (ED) and its early variation (ΔNLR) in the first 24 h of management (H-24). (2) Methods: Between 1 March and 30 April 2020, we conducted a multicenter and retrospective cohort study of patients with moderate or severe coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), who were all hospitalized after presenting to the ED. (3) Results: A total of 1035 patients were included in our study. Factors associated with infection severity were C-reactive protein level (OR: 1.007, CI 95%: [1.005-1.010], p < 0.001), NLR at H-24 (OR: 1.117, CI 95%: [1.060-1.176], p < 0.001), and ΔNLR (OR: 1.877, CI 95%: [1.160-3.036], p: 0.01). The best threshold of ΔNLR to predict the severity of infection was 0.222 (sensitivity 56.1%, specificity 68.3%). In multivariate analysis, the only biochemical factor significantly associated with mortality was again ΔNLR (OR: 2.142, CI 95%: ([1.132-4.056], p: 0.019). The best threshold of ΔNLR to predict mortality was 0.411 (sensitivity 53.3%; specificity 67.3%). (4) Conclusion: The NLR and its early variation (ΔNLR) could help physicians predict both severity and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, hence contributing to optimized patient management (accurate triage and treatment).

Do Blood Eosinophils Predict in-Hospital Mortality or Severity of Disease in SARS-CoV-2 Infection? A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare systems worldwide have been battling the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Eosinophils are multifunctional leukocytes implicated in the pathogenesis of several inflammatory processes including viral infections. We focus our study on the prognostic value of eosinopenia as a marker of disease severity and mortality in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Between 1 March and 30 April 2020, we conducted a multicenter and retrospective study on a cohort of COVID-19 patients (moderate or severe disease) who were hospitalized after presenting to the emergency department (ED). We led our study in six major hospitals of northeast France, one of the outbreak's epicenters in Europe. RESULTS: We have collected data from 1035 patients, with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. More than three quarters of them (76.2%) presented a moderate form of the disease, while the remaining quarter (23.8%) presented a severe form requiring admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Mean circulating eosinophils rate, at admission, varied according to disease severity (p < 0.001), yet it did not differ between survivors and non-survivors (p = 0.306). Extreme eosinopenia (=0/mm3) was predictive of severity (aOR = 1.77, p = 0.009); however, it was not predictive of mortality (aOR = 0.892, p = 0.696). The areas under the Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve were, respectively, 58.5% (CI95%: 55.3-61.7%) and 51.4% (CI95%: 46.8-56.1%) for the ability of circulating eosinophil rates to predict disease severity and mortality. CONCLUSION: Eosinopenia is very common and often profound in cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Eosinopenia was not a useful predictor of mortality; however, undetectable eosinophils (=0/mm3) were predictive of disease severity during the initial ED management.

SARS-CoV-2 viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs in the emergency department does not predict COVID-19 severity and mortality.

INTRODUCTION: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has led to devastating repercussions on health care systems worldwide. This viral infection has a broad clinical spectrum (ranging from influenza-like disease, viral pneumonia, and hypoxemia to acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring prolonged intensive care unit stays). The prognostic impact of measuring viral load on nasopharyngeal swab specimens (by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR]) is yet to be elucidated. METHODS: Between March 3 and April 5, 2020, we conducted a retrospective study on a cohort of COVID-19 patients (mild or severe disease) who were hospitalized after presenting to the emergency department (ED) and had at least one positive nasopharyngeal swab during their hospital stay. We led our study at the University Hospitals of Strasbourg in the Greater East region of France, one of the pandemic's epicenters in Europe. RESULTS: We have collected samples from a cohort of 287 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who were included in our study. Nearly half of them (50.5%) presented a mild form of the disease, while the other half (49.5%) presented a severe form, requiring mechanical ventilation. Median (interquartile range) viral load on the initial upper respiratory swab at admission was 4.76 (3.29-6.06) log10 copies/reaction. When comparing survivors and nonsurvivors, this viral load measurement did not differ according to subgroups (p = 0.332). Additionally, we have found that respiratory viral load measurement was predictive of neither in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.85 to 1.31, p = 0.637) nor disease severity (AOR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.73 to 1.06, p = 0.167). CONCLUSION: Respiratory viral load measurement on the first nasopharyngeal swab (by RT-PCR) during initial ED management is neither a predictor of severity nor a predictor of mortality in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Host response to this viral infection along with the extent of preexisting comorbidities might be more foretelling of disease severity than the virus itself.

Pre-Hospital Management of Critically Ill Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 outbreak had a major impact on healthcare systems worldwide. Our study aims to describe the characteristics and therapeutic emergency mobile service (EMS) management of patients with vital distress due to COVID-19, their in-hospital care pathway and their in-hospital outcome. METHODS: This retrospective and multicentric study was conducted in the six main centers of the French Greater East region, an area heavily impacted by the pandemic. All patients requiring EMS dispatch and who were admitted straight to the intensive care unit (ICU) were included. Clinical data from their pre-hospital and hospital management were retrieved. RESULTS: We included a total of 103 patients (78.6% male, median age 68). In the initial stage, patients were in a critical condition (median oxygen saturation was 72% (60-80%)). In the field, 77.7% (CI 95%: 71.8-88.3%) were intubated. Almost half of our population (45.6%, CI 95%: 37.1-56.9%) had clinical Phenotype 1 (silent hypoxemia), while the remaining half presented Phenotype 2 (acute respiratory failure). In the ICU, a great number had ARDS (77.7%, CI 95% 71.8-88.3% with a PaO2/FiO2 < 200). In-hospital mortality was 33% (CI 95%: 24.6-43.3%). The two phenotypes showed clinical and radiological differences (respiratory rate, OR = 0.98, p = 0.02; CT scan lesion extension >50%, OR = 0.76, p < 0.03). However, no difference was found in terms of overall in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.07, p = 0.74). CONCLUSION: The clinical phenotypes appear to be very distinguishable in the pre-hospital field, yet no difference was found in terms of mortality. This leads us to recommend an identical management in the initial phase, despite the two distinct presentations.

Patients with Initial Negative RT-PCR and Typical Imaging of COVID-19: Clinical Implications.

The sensitivity of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has been questioned due to negative results in some patients who were strongly suspected of having coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of our study was to analyze the prognosis of infected patients with initial negative RT-PCR in the emergency department (ED) during the COVID-19 outbreak. This study included two cohorts of adult inpatients admitted into the ED. All patients who were suspected to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 and who underwent a typical chest CT imaging were included. Thus, we studied two distinct cohorts: patients with positive RT-PCR (PCR+) and those with negative initial RT-PCR (PCR-). The data were analyzed using Bayesian methods. We included 66 patients in the PCR- group and 198 in the PCR+ group. The baseline characteristics did not differ except in terms of a proportion of lower chronic respiratory disease in the PCR- group. We noted a less severe clinical presentation in the PCR- group (lower respiratory rate, lower oxygen need and mechanical ventilation requirement). Hospital mortality (9.1% vs. 9.6%) did not differ between the two groups. Despite an initially less serious clinical presentation, the mortality of patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 with a negative RT-PCR did not differ from those with positive RT-PCR.

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

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