Medical and cardio-vascular emergency department visits during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020: is there a collateral damage? A retrospective routine data analysis.

BACKGROUND: In this retrospective routine data analysis, we investigate the number of emergency department (ED) consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 in Germany compared to the previous year with a special focus on numbers of myocardial infarction and acute heart failure. METHODS: Aggregated case numbers for the two consecutive years 2019 and 2020 were obtained from 24 university hospitals and 9 non-university hospitals in Germany and assessed by age, gender, triage scores, disposition, care level and by ICD-10 codes including the tracer diagnoses myocardial infarction (I21) and heart failure (I50). RESULTS: A total of 2,216,627 ED consultations were analyzed, of which 1,178,470 occurred in 2019 and 1,038,157 in 2020. The median deviation in case numbers between 2019 and 2020 was - 14% [CI (- 11)-(- 16)]. After a marked drop in all cases in the first COVID-19 wave in spring 2020, case numbers normalized during the summer. Thereafter starting in calendar week 39 case numbers constantly declined until the end of the year 2020. The decline in case numbers predominantly concerned younger [- 16%; CI (- 13)-(- 19)], less urgent [- 18%; CI (- 12)-(- 22)] and non-admitted cases [- 17%; CI (- 13)-(- 20)] in particular during the second wave. During the entire observation period admissions for chest pain [- 13%; CI (- 21)-2], myocardial infarction [- 2%; CI (- 9)-11] and heart failure [- 2%; CI (- 10)-6] were less affected and remained comparable to the previous year. CONCLUSIONS: ED visits were noticeably reduced during both SARS-CoV-2 pandemic waves in Germany but cardiovascular diagnoses were less affected and no refractory increase was noted. However, long-term effects cannot be ruled out and need to be analysed in future studies.

Choice of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test: challenges and key considerations for the future.

A plethora of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic tests are available, each with different performance specifications, detection methods, and targets. This narrative review aims to summarize the diagnostic technologies available and how they are best selected to tackle SARS-CoV-2 infection as the pandemic evolves. Seven key settings have been identified where diagnostic tests are being deployed: symptomatic individuals presenting for diagnostic testing and/or treatment of COVID-19 symptoms; asymptomatic individuals accessing healthcare for planned non-COVID-19-related reasons; patients needing to access emergency care (symptom status unknown); patients being discharged from healthcare following hospitalization for COVID-19; healthy individuals in both single event settings (e.g. airports, restaurants, hotels, concerts, and sporting events) and repeat access settings (e.g. workplaces, schools, and universities); and vaccinated individuals. While molecular diagnostics remain central to SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies, we have offered some discussion on the considerations for when other tools and technologies may be useful, when centralized/point-of-care testing is appropriate, and how the various additional diagnostics can be deployed in differently resourced settings. As the pandemic evolves, molecular testing remains important for definitive diagnosis, but increasingly widespread point-of-care testing is essential to the re-opening of society.

[University emergency departments in the corona pandemic-Results from the ReCovER registry]. / Universitäre Notaufnahmen in der Coronapandemie ­ Ergebnisse des ReCovER-Registers.

BACKGROUND: The current COVID-19 pandemic, despite the availability of rapid tests and the start of the vaccination campaign, continues to pose major challenges to emergency departments (ED). Structured collection of demographic, clinical, as well as treatment-related data provides the basis for establishing evidence-based processes and treatment concepts. AIM OF THE WORK: To present the systematic collection of clinical parameters in patients with suspected COVID-19 in the Registry for COVID-19 in the Emergency Room (ReCovER) and descriptive presentation of the first 1000 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from patients with suspected COVID-19, regardless of evidence of SARS-CoV­2 infection, are continuously entered into a web-based, anonymized registry in ED at six university hospitals. RESULTS: Between 19 May 2020 and 13 January 2021, 1000 patients were entered into the registry, of whom 594 patients (59.4%) were in the SARS-CoV­2 positive group (PG) and 406 patients (40.6%) were in the negative group (NG). Patients of the PG had significantly fewer pre-existing conditions and a significantly longer latency between symptom onset and presentation to the ED (median 5 vs. 3 days), were more likely to suffer from cough, myalgia, fatigue, and loss of smell/taste and had significantly higher oxygen requirements than NG patients. The rate of severe disease progression was significantly higher in the PG, and persistent symptoms were more common after discharge (11.1 vs. 4.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The multicenter collection of comprehensive clinical data on COVID-19 suspected cases in the ED allows analysis of aspects specific to the situation in Germany in particular. This is essential for a targeted review and adaptation of internationally published strategies.

Point-of-care testing for influenza in a university emergency department: A prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza is a burden for emergency departments (ED). The aim of this study was to investigate whether point-of-care (POC) PCR testing can be used to reduce staff sick days and improve diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate whether point-of-care (POC) PCR testing can be used to reduce staff sick days and improve diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. METHODS: Using a cross-over design, the cobas® Liat® Influenza A/B POC PCR test (Liat) was compared with standard clinical practice during the 2019/2020 influenza season. All adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with fever (≥38°C) and respiratory symptoms were included. Primary end points were the prevalence of influenza infections in the ED and staff sick days. Secondary end points were frequency of antiviral and antibacterial therapy, time between admission and test result or treatment initiation, patient disposition, ED length of stay (LOS), and for inpatients mortality and LOS. Nurses were interviewed about handling and integration of POC testing. The occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infections coincided with the second half of the study. RESULTS: A total of 828 patients were enrolled in the study. All 375 patients of the intervention group were tested with Liat, and 103 patients of them (27.6%) tested positive. During the intervention period, staff sick days were reduced by 34.4% (P = .023). Significantly, more patients in the intervention group received antiviral therapy with neuraminidase inhibitors (7.2% vs 3.8%, P = .028) and tested patients received antibiotics more frequently (40.0% vs 31.6%, P = .033). Patients with POC test were transferred to external hospitals significantly more often (5.6% vs 1.3%, P = .01). CONCLUSION: We conclude that POC testing for influenza is useful in the ED, especially if it is heavily frequented by patients with respiratory symptoms.

Which parameters support disposition decision in suspected COVID-19 cases in the emergency department (ED): a German clinical cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: One major goal of the emergency department (ED) is to decide, whether patients need to be hospitalised or can be sent home safely. We aim at providing criteria for these decisions without knowing the SARS-CoV-2 test result in suspected cases. SETTING: Tertiary emergency medicine. PARTICIPANTS: All patients were treated at the ED of the Charité during the pandemic peak and underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing. Patients with positive test results were characterised in detail and underwent a 14-day-follow-up. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Logistic regression and classification and regression tree (CART) analyses were performed to identify predictors (primary endpoint), which confirm safe discharge. The clinical endpoint was all-cause mortality or need for mechanical ventilation during index stay or after readmission. RESULTS: The primary test population of suspected COVID-19 consisted of n=1255 cases, 45.2% were women (n=567). Of these, n=110 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (8.8%). The median age of SARS-CoV-2-positive cases was 45 years (IQR: 33-66 years), whereas the median age of the group tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 was 42 years (IQR: 30-60 years) (p=0.096). 43.6% were directly admitted to hospital care.CART analysis identified the variables oxygen saturation (<95%), dyspnoea and history of cardiovascular (CV) disease to distinguish between high and low-risk groups. If all three variables were negative, most patients were discharged from ED, and the incidence of the clinical endpoint was 0%. The validation cohort confirmed the safety of discharge using these variables and revealed an incidence of the clinical endpoint from 14.3% in patients with CV disease, 9.4% in patients with dyspnoea and 18.2% in patients with O2 satuaration below 95%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on easily available variables like dyspnoea, oxygen saturation, history of CV disease, approximately 25% of patients subsequently confirmed with COVID-19 can be identified for safe discharge. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00023117.

Cardiovascular biomarkers in patients with COVID-19.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has increased awareness that severe acute respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) may have profound effects on the cardiovascular system. COVID-19 often affects patients with pre-existing cardiac disease, and may trigger acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), venous thromboembolism (VTE), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and acute heart failure (AHF). However, as COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory infectious disease, there remain substantial uncertainty and controversy whether and how cardiovascular biomarkers should be used in patients with suspected COVID-19. To help clinicians understand the possible value as well as the most appropriate interpretation of cardiovascular biomarkers in COVID-19, it is important to highlight that recent findings regarding the prognostic role of cardiovascular biomarkers in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are similar to those obtained in studies for pneumonia and ARDS in general. Cardiovascular biomarkers reflecting pathophysiological processes involved in COVID-19/pneumonia and its complications have a role evaluating disease severity, cardiac involvement, and risk of death in COVID-19 as well as in pneumonias caused by other pathogens. First, cardiomyocyte injury, as quantified by cardiac troponin concentrations, and haemodynamic cardiac stress, as quantified by natriuretic peptide concentrations, may occur in COVID-19 as in other pneumonias. The level of those biomarkers correlates with disease severity and mortality. Interpretation of cardiac troponin and natriuretic peptide concentrations as quantitative variables may aid in risk stratification in COVID-19/pneumonia and also will ensure that these biomarkers maintain high diagnostic accuracy for AMI and AHF. Second, activated coagulation as quantified by D-dimers seems more prominent in COVID-19 as in other pneumonias. Due to the central role of endothelitis and VTE in COVID-19, serial measurements of D-dimers may help physicians in the selection of patients for VTE imaging and the intensification of the level of anticoagulation from prophylactic to slightly higher or even therapeutic doses.

Impact of the COVID-19 shutdown on orthopedic trauma numbers and patterns in an academic Level I Trauma Center in Berlin, Germany.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of drastic shutdown measures worldwide. While quarantine, self-isolation and shutdown laws helped to effectively contain and control the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the impact of COVID-19 shutdowns on trauma care in emergency departments (EDs) remains elusive. METHODS: All ED patient records from the 35-day COVID-19 shutdown (SHUTDOWN) period were retrospectively compared to a calendar-matched control period in 2019 (CTRL) as well as to a pre (PRE)- and post (POST)-shutdown period in an academic Level I Trauma Center in Berlin, Germany. Total patient and orthopedic trauma cases and contacts as well as trauma causes and injury patterns were evaluated during respective periods regarding absolute numbers, incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and risk ratios (RRs). FINDINGS: Daily total patient cases (SHUTDOWN vs. CTRL, 106.94 vs. 167.54) and orthopedic trauma cases (SHUTDOWN vs. CTRL, 30.91 vs. 52.06) decreased during the SHUTDOWN compared to the CTRL period with IRRs of 0.64 and 0.59. While absolute numbers decreased for most trauma causes during the SHUTDOWN period, we observed increased incidence proportions of household injuries and bicycle accidents with RRs of 1.31 and 1.68 respectively. An RR of 2.41 was observed for injuries due to domestic violence. We further recorded increased incidence proportions of acute and regular substance abuse during the SHUTDOWN period with RRs of 1.63 and 3.22, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: While we observed a relevant decrease in total patient cases, relative proportions of specific trauma causes and injury patterns increased during the COVID-19 shutdown in Berlin, Germany. As government programs offered prompt financial aid during the pandemic to individuals and businesses, additional social support may be considered for vulnerable domestic environments.

SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid immunoassay for diagnosis of COVID-19 in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: In the emergency department (ED) setting, rapid testing for SARS-CoV-2 is likely associated with advantages to patients and healthcare workers, for example, enabling early but rationale use of limited isolation resources. Most recently, several SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests (AGTEST) became available. There is a growing need for data regarding their clinical utility and performance in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the real life setting EDs. METHODS: We implemented AGTEST (here: Roche/SD Biosensor) in all four adult and the one paediatric EDs at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin in our diagnostic testing strategy. Test indication was limited to symptomatic suspected COVID-19 patients. Detailed written instructions on who to test were distributed and testing personnel were trained in proper specimen collection and handling. In each suspected COVID-19 patient, two sequential deep oro-nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained for viral tests. The first swab was collected for nucleic acid testing through SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcriptase (rt)-PCR diagnostic panel (PCRTEST) in the central laboratory. The second swab was collected to perform the AGTEST. Analysis of routine data was prospectively planned and data were retrieved from the medical records after the inclusion period in the adult or paediatric ED. Diagnostic performance was calculated using the PCRTEST as reference standard. False negative and false positive AGTEST results were analysed individually and compared with viral concentrations derived from the calibrated PCRTEST. RESULTS: We included n = 483 patients including n = 202 from the paediatric ED. N = 10 patients had to be excluded due to missing data and finally n = 473 patients were analysed. In the adult cohort, the sensitivity of the AGTEST was 75.3 (95%CI: 65.8/83.4)% and the specificity was 100 (95%CI: 98.4/100)% with a SARS-CoV-2 prevalence of 32.8%; the positive predictive value was 100 (95%CI: 95.7/100)% and the negative predictive value 89.2 (95%CI: 84.5/93.9)%. In the paediatric cohort, the sensitivity was 72.0 (95%CI: 53.3/86.7)%, the specificity was 99.4 (95%CI:97.3/99.9)% with a prevalence of 12.4%; the positive predictive value was 94.7 (95%CI: 78.3/99.7)% and the negative predictive value was 96.2 (95%CI:92.7/98.3)%. Thus, n = 22 adult and n = 7 paediatric patients showed false negative AGTEST results and only one false positive AGTEST occurred, in the paediatric cohort. Calculated viral concentrations from the rt-PCR lay between 3.16 and 9.51 log10 RNA copies/mL buffer. All false negative patients in the adult ED cohort, who had confirmed symptom onset at least seven days earlier had less than 5 × 105 RNA copies/mL buffer. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the use of AGTEST among symptomatic patients in the emergency setting is useful for the early identification of COVID-19, but patients who test negative require confirmation by PCRTEST and must stay isolated until this result becomes available. Adult patients with a false negative AGTEST and symptom onset at least one week earlier have typically a low SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentration and are likely no longer infectious.

Medical Emergencies During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we investigate the number of emergency room consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 in Germany compared to figures from the previous year. METHODS: Case numbers from calendar weeks 1 through 22 of the two consecutive years 2019 and 2020 were obtained from 29 university hospitals and 7 non-university hospitals in Germany. Information was also obtained on the patients' age, sex, and urgency, along with the type of case (outpatient/inpatient), admitting ward, and a small number of tracer diagnoses (I21, myocardial infarction; J44, COPD; and I61, I63, I64, G45, stroke /TIA), as well as on the number of COVID-19 cases and of tests performed for SARS-CoV-2, as a measure of the number of cases in which COVID-19 was suspected or at least included in the differential diagnoses. RESULTS: A total of 1 022 007 emergency room consultations were analyzed, of which 546 940 took place in 2019 and 475 067 in 2020. The number of consultations with a positive test for the COVID-19 pathogen was 3122. The total number of emergency room consultations in the observation period was 13% lower in 2020 than in 2019, with a maximum drop by 38% coinciding with the highest number of COVID-19 cases (calendar week 14; 572 cases). After the initiation of interpersonal contact restrictions in 2020, there was a marked drop in COVID-19 case numbers, by a mean of -240 cases per week per emergency room (95% confidence interval [-284; -128]). There was a rise in case numbers thereafter, by a mean of 17 patients per week [14; 19], and the number of cases of myocardial infarction returned fully to the level seen in 2019. CONCLUSION: In Germany, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant drop in medical emergencies of all kinds presenting to the nation's emergency departments. A recovery effect began to be seen as early as calendar week 15, but the levels seen in 2019 were not yet reached overall by calendar week 22; only the prevalence of myocardial infarction had renormalized by then. The reasons for this require further investigation.