Appropriateness of frequent use of emergency departments: A retrospective analysis in Rome, Italy.

Background: Frequent users (FUs) are patients who repeatedly and inappropriately visit the emergency department (ED) for low-grade symptoms that could be treated outside the hospital setting. This study aimed to investigate the phenomenon of the FU in Rome by profiling such users and analyzing ED attendance by FUs. Methods: The analysis was carried out for attendance in 2021 at 15 EDs in the Local Health Authority Roma 1 geographical area. A digital app collected data, including information on the following variables: number of attendance, demographic characteristics, emergency medical service (EMS) usage, triage code, and appropriateness of attendance. COVID-19 diagnosis was also studied to analyze any possible influence on ED attendance. Differences between FUs and non-FUs were investigated statistically by t-test and chi-square test. Univariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression were performed to analyze the associated factors. Results: A total of 122,762 ED attendance and 89,036 users were registered. The FU category represented 2.9% of all users, comprising 11.9% of total ED attendance. There was a three times higher frequency of non-urgent codes in attendance of FU patients (FU: 9.7%; non-FU: 3.2%). FUs were slightly more likely to have used the EMS (13.6% vs. 11.4%) and had a lower frequency of appropriate ED attendance (23.8% vs. 27.0%). Multivariate logistic analysis confirmed a significant effect of triage code, gender, age, EMS usage, and COVID-19 diagnosis for the appropriateness of attendance. The results were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The FU profile describes mostly non-urgent and inappropriate attendance at the ED, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study represents an important tool for strengthening preventive policies outside the hospital setting. The Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan represents an excellent opportunity for the development of new strategies to mitigate the phenomenon of FUs.

Predictive Value of MR-proADM in the Risk Stratification and in the Adequate Care Setting of COVID-19 Patients Assessed at the Triage of the Emergency Department.

In the past two pandemic years, Emergency Departments (ED) have been overrun with COVID-19-suspicious patients. Some data on the role played by laboratory biomarkers in the early risk stratification of COVID-19 patients have been recently published. The aim of this study is to assess the potential role of the new biomarker mid-regional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM) in stratifying the in-hospital mortality risk of COVID-19 patients at the triage. A further goal of the present study is to evaluate whether MR-proADM together with other biochemical markers could play a key role in assessing the correct care level of these patients. Data from 321 consecutive patients admitted to the triage of the ED with a COVID-19 infection were analyzed. Epidemiological; demographic; clinical; laboratory; and outcome data were assessed. All the biomarkers analyzed showed an important role in predicting mortality. In particular, an increase of MR-proADM level at ED admission was independently associated with a threefold higher risk of IMV. MR-proADM showed greater ROC curves and AUC when compared to other laboratory biomarkers for the primary endpoint such as in-hospital mortality, except for CRP. This study shows that MR-proADM seems to be particularly effective for early predicting mortality and the need of ventilation in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ED.

Performance of a rapid antigen test in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Diagnostics is crucial for a prompt identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected patients, their isolation and treatment. Real-time PCR is the reference method for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, the unprecedented increase in the number of infections worldwide calls for faster and easy methods that do not require skilled personnel and special equipment. Rapid antigen tests have been developed and used as first line screening. Here, we assessed the performance of a rapid antigen test in comparison to a real-time qualitative PCR as gold standard. Fifty nasopharyngeal swabs from suspected cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection have been tested by Coris coronavirus disease 2019 Ag Respi-Strip test and Allplex 2019n-CoV assay. Of the 50 nasopharyngeal swabs tested, 11 were negative by both tests, 27 were negative by Ag test but positive by real-time PCR, and 12 were positive by both methods. PCR detected the 39 positive samples at a median cycle threshold (Ct) value of 22.78 (mean: 24.51; range: 13.59-39.6). In the 12 concordant samples, the median Ct value was 17.37. The sensitivity of the Ag test was 30.77% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 17.02%-47.57%), specificity 100% (95% CI: 71.51%-100.00%), positive predictive value 100%, negative predictive value 85.25% (95% CI: 82.42%-87.69%), and accuracy 86.15% (95% CI: 73.45%-94.28%). The level of agreement between the two tests was poor, k = 0.164. The Ag test performs well in the presence of high viral loads, whereas lower levels are missed. Considering the poor sensitivity of the method, real-time PCR remains the gold standard as front line screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Viruses of Respiratory Tract: an Observational Retrospective Study on Hospitalized Patients in Rome, Italy.

Respiratory tract infections account for high morbidity and mortality around the world. Fragile patients are at high risk of developing complications such as pneumonia and may die from it. Limited information is available on the extent of the circulation of respiratory viruses in the hospital setting. Most knowledge relates to influenza viruses (FLU) but several other viruses produce flu-like illness. The study was conducted at the University Hospital Policlinico Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy. Clinical and laboratory data from hospitalized patients with respiratory tract infections during the period October 2016-March 2019 were analysed. The retrospective analysis included 17 viral agents detected by FilmArray test and clinical data from medical records and hospital discharge sheets. Models were adjusted for relevant confounders such as clinical severity and risk of death, socio-demographic characteristics and surgical procedures. From a total of 539 specimens analysed, 180 (33.39%) were positive for one or more respiratory viruses. Among them, 83 (46.1 %) were positive for influenza viruses (FLU), 36 (20%) rhino/enteroviruses (RHV/EV), 17 (9.44%) human coronaviruses (HCOV-229E, -HKU1, -NL63, and -OC43), 17 (9.44%) respiratory syncytial virus, 15 (8.33%) human metapneumovirus (HMPV), 8 (4.44%) parainfluenza viruses (PIV) and 4 (2.22%) adenoviruses (ADV). The distribution of viral agents varied across age groups and month of detection. The positive specimens were from 168 patients [102 M, 66 F; median age (range): 64 years (19-93)]. Overall, 40% of them had a high-grade clinical severity and a 27% risk of death; 27 patients died and 22 of them (81.5%) had received a clinical diagnosis of pneumonia. Respiratory viral infections may have a severe course and a poor prognosis in hospitalized patients, due to underlying comorbidities. Monitoring the circulation of respiratory viruses in hospital settings is important to improve diagnosis, prevention and treatment.