Severity of emergency department presentations due to acute drug toxicity in Europe: a longitudinal analysis over a 6-year period (2014-2019) stratified by sex.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the severity of acute recreation drug toxicity presentations to emergency departments (EDs) in Europe has changed in recent years and to uncover potential sex differences. DESIGN: We analysed presentations to 36 EDs in 24 European countries relating to acute recreational drug toxicity, with separate analysis for presentations involving lone use of cannabis, cocaine, and heroin. As severity markers, we calculated rates of hospitalization, admission to ICU, intubation, and death by annual quarters between 2014 and 2019. Trends on severity over time were estimated by logistic regression. Differences between men and women were assessed by interaction. Sensitivity analysis was performed including only EDs that provided data for all 24 quarters. Analyses of intoxications taken altogether were adjusted by age and sex, while of lone intoxications being also adjusted by ethanol co-ingestion. RESULTS: There were 43 633 presentations (median age = 31 years, interquartile range = 25-40 years, men = 76.5%) resulting in 10 344 hospitalizations (23.9%), 2568 ICU admissions (5.9%), 1391 intubations (3.2%), and 171 deaths (0.39%). Hospitalization, ICU admission and death did not differ by sex, but intubation was more frequent in men (3.4% vs. 2.3%, P < 0.001). No significant changes in the severity of drug intoxications over time were found when considered altogether, neither for lone cannabis (n = 4264) nor cocaine (n = 3562). Conversely, significant increases in hospitalization [odds ratios (OR) = 1.023, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.004-1.041], ICU admission (OR = 1.080, 95% CI = 1.042-1.118) and in intubation (OR = 1.049, 95% CI = 1.001-1.099) were detected for lone heroin presentations (n = 1997). Sensitivity analysis (32 245 presentations, 14 EDs, 9 countries) confirmed the overall absence of changes in severity markers (except for death rate, which significantly decreased by quarter: OR = 0.968, 95% CI = 0.943-0.994). Additionally, it suggested an increased risk over time of intubation for cocaine (OR = 1.068, 95% CI = 1.009-1.130) and confirmed the increased risk of ICU admission for heroin (OR = 1.058, 95% CI = 1.013-1.105). Changes in severity over time did not differ according to sex in the main analysis of the whole cohort, while a significantly higher decrease in risk of death in men was found in the sensitivity analysis (OR = 0.894, 95% CI = 0.825-969 vs. OR = 0.949, 95% CI = 0.860-1.048; P interaction = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: The severity of presentations to European EDs remained mainly unchanged during 2014-2019, but the risk of death may have decreased. Conversely, intubation in lone cocaine and ICU admission in lone heroin intoxications have increased. Although men and women exhibited a similar pattern over the period for the majority of comparisons, our data suggest that women exhibited a smaller decrease of the overall risk of death.

Sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidity, and baseline functional status of older patients treated in emergency departments during the COVID-19 pandemic and associations with mortality: an analysis based on the EDENCOVID cohort. / Sociodemografía, comorbilidad y situación funcional basal de los pacientes mayores atendidos en urgencias durante la pandemia de COVID y su relación con la mortalidad: análisis a partir de la cohorte EDEN-Covid.

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.

Quality of hospital emergency department care for patients with COVID-19 during the first wave in 2020: the CALUR-COVID-19 study. / Estudio CALUR-COVID-19: calidad asistencial en urgencias del proceso de atención a pacientes con COVID-19 durante el primer pico pandémico de 2020.

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.

Estudio CALUR-COVID-19: calidad asistencial en urgencias del proceso de atención a pacientes con COVID-19 durante el primer pico pandémico de 2020

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.

Heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic: clinical, diagnostic, management, and organizational dilemmas.

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection pandemic has affected the care of patients with heart failure (HF). Several consensus documents describe the appropriate diagnostic algorithm and treatment approach for patients with HF and associated COVID-19 infection. However, few questions about the mechanisms by which COVID can exacerbate HF in patients with high-risk (Stage B) or symptomatic HF (Stage C) remain unanswered. Therefore, the type of HF occurring during infection is poorly investigated. The diagnostic differentiation and management should be focused on the identification of the HF phenotype, underlying causes, and subsequent tailored therapy. In this framework, the relationship existing between COVID and onset of acute decompensated HF, isolated right HF, and cardiogenic shock is questioned, and the specific management is mainly based on local hospital organization rather than a standardized model. Similarly, some specific populations such as advanced HF, heart transplant, patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD), or valve disease remain under investigated. In this systematic review, we examine recent advances regarding the relationships between HF and COVID-19 pandemic with respect to epidemiology, pathogenetic mechanisms, and differential diagnosis. Also, according to the recent HF guidelines definition, we highlight different clinical profile identification, pointing out the main concerns in understudied HF populations.

Pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19: incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and outcome.

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.

Safety and Revisit Related to Discharge the Sixty-one Spanish Emergency Department Medical Centers Without Hospitalization in Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia. A Prospective Cohort Study UMC-Pneumonia COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Information is needed on the safety and efficacy of direct discharge from the emergency department (ED) of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were to study the variables associated with discharge from the ED in patients presenting with COVID-19 pneumonia, and study ED revisits related to COVID-19 at 30 days (EDR30d). METHODS: Multicenter study of the SIESTA cohort including 1198 randomly selected COVID patients in 61 EDs of Spanish medical centers from March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2020. We collected baseline and related characteristics of the acute episode and calculated the adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for ED discharge. In addition, we analyzed the variables related to EDR30d in discharged patients. RESULTS: We analyzed 859 patients presenting with COVID-19 pneumonia, 84 (9.8%) of whom weredischarged from the ED. The variables independently associated with discharge were being a woman (aOR 1.890; 95%CI 1.176 3.037), age < 60 years (aOR 2.324; 95%CI 1.353-3.990), and lymphocyte count > 1200/mm3 (aOR 4.667; 95%CI 1.045-20.839). The EDR30d of the ED discharged group was 40.0%, being lower in women (aOR 0.368; 95%CI 0.142-0.953). A totalof 130 hospitalized patients died (16.8%) as did two in the group discharged from the ED (2.4%) (OR 0.121; 95%CI 0.029-0.498). CONCLUSION: Discharge from the ED in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia was infrequent and was associated with few variables of the episode. The EDR30d was high, albeit with a low mortality.

A case-control, multicentre study of consecutive patients with COVID-19 and acute (myo)pericarditis: incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics and outcomes.

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.

Incidence, Clinical Characteristics, Risk Factors and Outcomes of Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients With COVID-19: Results of the UMC-19-S1010.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of knowledge about the real incidence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with COVID-19, their clinical characteristics, and their prognoses. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the incidence, clinical characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes of ACS in patients with COVID-19 in the emergency department. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all COVID-19 patients diagnosed with ACS in 62 Spanish emergency departments between March and April 2020 (the first wave of COVID-19). We formed 2 control groups: COVID-19 patients without ACS (control A) and non-COVID-19 patients with ACS (control B). Unadjusted comparisons between cases and control subjects were performed regarding 58 characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 110 patients with ACS in 74,814 patients with COVID-19 attending the ED (1.48% [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.21-1.78%]). This incidence was lower than that observed in non-COVID-19 patients (3.64% [95% CI 3.54-3.74%]; odds ratio [OR] 0.40 [95% CI 0.33-0.49]). The clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 associated with a higher risk of presenting ACS were: previous coronary artery disease, age ≥60 years, hypertension, chest pain, raised troponin, and hypoxemia. The need for hospitalization and admission to intensive care and in-hospital mortality were higher in cases than in control group A (adjusted OR [aOR] 6.36 [95% CI 1.84-22.1], aOR 4.63 [95% CI 1.88-11.4], and aOR 2.46 [95% CI 1.15-5.25]). When comparing cases with control group B, the aOR of admission to intensive care was 0.41 (95% CI 0.21-0.80), while the aOR for in-hospital mortality was 5.94 (95% CI 2.84-12.4). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of ACS in patients with COVID-19 attending the emergency department was low, around 1.48%, but could be increased in some circumstances. Patients with COVID-19 with ACS had a worse prognosis than control subjects with higher in-hospital mortality.

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.

Incidence, Clinical Characteristics, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients With COVID-19: Results of the UMC-19-S12.

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.

A case-control analysis of stroke in COVID-19 patients: Results of unusual manifestations of COVID-19-study 11.

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.

Socio-Demographic Health Determinants Are Associated with Poor Prognosis in Spanish Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.

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.