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.

Association of Social Network Use With Increased Anxiety Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, and Emergency Medicine Teams: Cross-Sectional Web-Based Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Critical care teams are on the front line of managing the COVID-19 pandemic, which is stressful for members of these teams. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess whether the use of social networks is associated with increased anxiety related to the COVID-19 pandemic among members of critical care teams. METHODS: We distributed a web-based survey to physicians, residents, registered and auxiliary nurses, and nurse anesthetists providing critical care (anesthesiology, intensive care, or emergency medicine) in several French hospitals. The survey evaluated the respondents' use of social networks, their sources of information on COVID-19, and their levels of anxiety and information regarding COVID-19 on analog scales from 0 to 10. RESULTS: We included 641 respondents in the final analysis; 553 (86.3%) used social networks, spending a median time of 60 minutes (IQR 30-90) per day on these networks. COVID-19-related anxiety was higher in social network users than in health care workers who did not use these networks (median 6, IQR 5-8 vs median 5, IQR 3-7) in univariate (P=.02) and multivariate (P<.001) analyses, with an average anxiety increase of 10% in social network users. Anxiety was higher among health care workers using social networks to obtain information on COVID-19 than among those using other sources (median 6, IQR 5-8 vs median 6, IQR 4-7; P=.04). Social network users considered that they were less informed about COVID-19 than those who did not use social networks (median 8, IQR 7-9 vs median 7, IQR 6-8; P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that social networks contribute to increased anxiety in critical care teams. To protect their mental health, critical care professionals should consider limiting their use of these networks during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.