Point-of-care ultrasonography for risk stratification of non-critical suspected COVID-19 patients on admission (POCUSCO): A prospective binational study.

BACKGROUND: Lung point-of-care ultrasonography (L-POCUS) is highly effective in detecting pulmonary peripheral patterns and may allow early identification of patients who are likely to develop an acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We hypothesized that L-POCUS performed within the first 48 hours of non-critical patients with suspected COVID-19 would identify those with a high-risk of worsening. METHODS: POCUSCO was a prospective, multicenter study. Non-critical adult patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were included and had L-POCUS performed within 48 hours following ED presentation. The lung damage severity was assessed using a previously developed score reflecting both the extension and the intensity of lung damage. The primary outcome was the rate of patients requiring intubation or who died within 14 days following inclusion. RESULTS: Among 296 patients, 8 (2.7%) met the primary outcome. The area under the curve (AUC) of L-POCUS was 0.80 [95%CI:0.60-0.94]. The score values which achieved a sensibility >95% in defining low-risk patients and a specificity >95% in defining high-risk patients were <1 and ≥16, respectively. The rate of patients with an unfavorable outcome was 0/95 (0%[95%CI:0-3.9]) for low-risk patients (score = 0), 4/184 (2.17%[95%CI:0.8-5.5]) for intermediate-risk patients (score 1-15) and 4/17 (23.5%[95%CI:11.4-42.4]) for high-risk patients (score ≥16). In confirmed COVID-19 patients (n = 58), the AUC of L-POCUS was 0.97 [95%CI:0.92-1.00]. CONCLUSION: L-POCUS performed within the first 48 hours following ED presentation allows risk-stratification of patients with non-severe COVID-19.

Cardiac Arrest Management in the Workplace: Improving but Not Enough?

The aim was to describe out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) occurring in the workplace of a large emergency network, and compare the evolution of their management in the last 15 years. A retrospective study based on data from the Northern Alps Emergency Network compared characteristics of OHCA between cases in and out the workplace, and between cases occurring from January 2004 to December 2010 and from January 2011 to December 2017. Among the 15,320 OHCA cases included, 320 occurred in the workplace (2.1%). They were more often in younger men, and happened more frequently in an area with access to public defibrillation, had more often a shockable rhythm, had a cardiopulmonary resuscitation started by a bystander more frequently, and had a better outcome. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation started by a bystander was the only chain of survival link that improved for cases occurring after December 2010. Workplace OHCA seems to be managed more effectively than others; however, only a slight survival improvement was observed, suggesting that progress is still needed.

What is the true place of the SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen test in the hospital setting? Lessons learned from real life.

To assist in the clinical management of patients and to support infection control, we tested the use of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) point-of-care antigen test (AgPOC) for unplanned hospitalization, coupled with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) using specimens collected at the same time upon arrival. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of the AgPOC in this specific use compared to NAAT for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, in the context of the low prevalence of infection. For 5 months (between two peaks in France of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic), all patients admitted who undertook the AgPOC/NAAT paired tests were included in the study. AgPOC performances were determined considering the clinical status and the delay of symptoms onset. NAAT and AgPOC results were available for 4425 subjects. AgPOC results showed a homogeneous specificity (>97%) but a low sensitivity at 45.8%. Considering the national guidelines, sensitivity dropped to 32.5% in cases of symptomatic patients with symptoms older than 5 days or more. This study shows the poor performance of AgPOC for entry screening of patients in hospitals. AgPOC may represent a useful tool in the hospital setting only if the use is restricted to patients with consistent symptoms less than 4 days old.

Prevalence and characterization of forgoing care: comparison of two prospective multicentre cohorts between pre-COVID-19 era and a lockdown period.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about patients who forego healthcare, although it is an important provider of unfavorable health-related outcomes. Forgoing healthcare characterizes situations in which people do not initiate or interrupt a care process, even though they perceive the need for it, whether or not this need is medically proven. The aims of this study were to assess the prevalence and the determinants of patients who forego healthcare. The second aim was to compare the characteristics of patients who gave up healthcare during the French lockdown due to COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted two multicenter cross-sectional studies in 2017 and 2020 carried out in French patients presenting to the emergency departments. Patients who gave their consent to participate were interviewed with a standardized questionnaire. It consisted of two parts: epidemiological characteristics and health care refusal. A third part concerning the renunciation of care during the COVID-19 period was added to the second study period. RESULTS: A total of 1878 patients had completed the questionnaire during the interview with the physicians, 900 during the first period in 2017 (47.9%) and 978 (52.1%) during the second period. A total of 401/1878 patients reported not seeking care in the last 12 months (21.4% [95%CI: 19.5-23.3%]). In 2020, patients forewent care more during the confinement period than outside with different characteristics of the foregoing care populations. CONCLUSION: Forgoing care is common in a universal health care system such as France's and increased during the pandemic. Key public health messages targeted at the reasons for not seeking care must now be disseminated in order to combat this.

Risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism in mild and moderate COVID-19: A comparison of two prospective European cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Severely ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) i.e., deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. However, the VTE risk in patients with mild and moderate COVID-19, hospitalized or managed at home, remain uncertain. The aims of this study were to assess the rate and the risk factors symptomatic VTE, in patients with mild and moderate COVID-19 and to compare them to a cohort of similar patients without COVID-19. METHODS: Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) of participating centers for confirmed or probable mild or moderate COVID-19 and not having acute VTE were included. This COVID-19 cohort was retrospectively compared to a prospective cohort of similar ED patients using propensity score matching. The main outcome was the rate of symptomatic VTE within the 28 days after ED presentation. RESULTS: A total of 2292 patients were included in the COVID-19 cohort. The 28-day incidence of symptomatic VTE was 1.3% (n = 29/2292, 95%CI: 0.9 to 1.8), 2.3% (n = 20/866, 95%CI: 1.5 to 3.5) in moderate COVID-19 patients and 0.6% (n = 9/1426; 95%CI: 0.3 to 1.2) in mild COVID-19 patients managed as outpatients. An age over 65 years and hospitalization were independent risk factors of VTE. After adjustment, patients in the COVID-19 cohort had an absolute increase in over symptomatic VTE risk of +1.69% (95%CI, 0.88 to 2.51) versus patients in the comparison cohort (n = 1539). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with moderate COVID-19 presenting to the ED had a high risk of subsequent VTE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Ethics committee of the CHU of Angers (N°2020/87).

Interhospital transfer of COVID-19 patients treated with high-flow nasal oxygen therapy.

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, early intubation was recommended on the basis of worldwide observations of severe hypoxemia. However, some patients were ultimately able to benefit from high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and thus avoid intubation. During the "second wave" (September to December 2020 in France), some emergency departments implemented HFNC in patients with severe COVID-19. The question then arose regarding the transfer of these most serious patients to intensive care units (ICU) and of the respiratory modalities to be used during this transfer. To assess the feasibility of interhospital transfers of COVID-19 patients needing HFNC, we conducted a bi-centric prospective observational study of all medical transfers of patients needing HFNC with the Chambéry and Angers (France) mobile emergency and intensive care service (SMUR) during the "second wave" of the COVID-19 pandemic in France. Analysis of these 42 patients showed no significant variation in the respiratory requirements during the transfer. Overall, 52% of patients were intubated during their stay in ICU, including three patients intubated before or during transfer. Interhospital transfer with HFNC is very high-risk, and intubation remains indicated in the most unstable patients. However, 48% of patients benefited from HFNC and were thus able to avoid intubation during their transfer and ICU stay; for these patients, intubation would probably have been indicated in the absence of available HFNC techniques.

Adaptation of ED design layout during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to describe the organisational changes in French EDs in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with regard to architectural constraints and compare with the recommendations of the various bodies concerning the structural adjustments to be made in this context. METHODS: As part of this cross-sectional study, all heads of emergency services or their deputies were contacted to complete an electronic survey. This was a standardised online questionnaire consisting of four parts: characteristics of the responding centre, creation of the COVID-19 zone and activation of the hospital's emergency operations plan, flow and circulation of patients and, finally, staff management. Each centre was classified according to its workload related to COVID-19 and its size (university hospital centre, high-capacity hospital centre and low-capacity hospital centre). The main endpoint was the frequency of implementation of international guidelines for ED organisation. RESULTS: Between 11 May and 20 June 2020, 57 French EDs completed the online questionnaire and were included in the analysis. Twenty-eight EDs were able to separate patient flows into two zones: high and low viral density (n=28/57, 49.1%). Of the centres included, 52.6% set up a specific triage area for patients with suspected COVID-19 (n=30/57). Whereas, in 15 of the EDs (26.3%), the architecture made it impossible to increase the surface area of the ED. CONCLUSION: All EDs have adapted, but many of the changes recommended for the organisation of ED could not be implemented. ED architecture constrains adaptive capacities in the context of COVID-19.

Outpatient Management of Patients With COVID-19: Multicenter Prospective Validation of the Hospitalization or Outpatient Management of Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection Rule to Discharge Patients Safely.

BACKGROUND: The Hospitalization or Outpatient Management of Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection (HOME-CoV) rule is a checklist of eligibility criteria for home treatment of patients with COVID-19, defined using a Delphi method. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is the HOME-CoV rule reliable for identifying a subgroup of COVID-19 patients with a low risk of adverse outcomes who can be treated at home safely? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We aimed to validate the HOME-CoV rule in a prospective, multicenter study before and after trial of patients with probable or confirmed COVID-19 who sought treatment at the ED of 34 hospitals. The main outcome was an adverse evolution, that is, invasive ventilation or death, occurring within the 7 days after patient admission. The performance of the rule was assessed by the false-negative rate. The impact of the rule implementation was assessed by the absolute differences in the rate of patients who required invasive ventilation or who died and in the rate of patients treated at home, between an observational and an interventional period after implementation of the HOME-CoV rule, with propensity score adjustment. RESULTS: Among 3,000 prospectively enrolled patients, 1,239 (41.3%) demonstrated a negative HOME-CoV rule finding. The false-negative rate of the HOME-CoV rule was 4 in 1,239 (0.32%; 95% CI, 0.13%-0.84%), and its area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 80.9 (95% CI, 76.5-85.2). On the adjusted populations, 25 of 1,274 patients (1.95%) experienced an adverse evolution during the observational period vs 12 of 1,274 patients (0.95%) during the interventional period: -1.00 (95% CI, -1.86 to -0.15). During the observational period, 858 patients (67.35%) were treated at home vs 871 patients (68.37%) during the interventional period: -1.02 (95% CI, -4.46 to 2.26). INTERPRETATION: A large proportion of patients treated in the ED with probable or confirmed COVID-19 have a negative HOME-CoV rule finding and can be treated safely at home with a very low risk of complications. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04338841; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory support during COVID-19 pandemic: a frugal approach from bench to bedside.

BACKGROUND: We describe a frugal approach (focusing on needs, performance, and costs) to manage a massive influx of COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) using the Boussignac valve protected by a filter ("Filter Frugal CPAP", FF-CPAP) in and out the ICU. METHODS: (1) A bench study measured the impact of two filters with different mechanical properties on CPAP performances, and pressures were also measured in patients. (2) Non-ICU healthcare staff working in COVID-19 intermediate care units were trained with a video tutorial posted on a massive open online course. (3) A clinical study assessed the feasibility and safety of using FF-CPAP to maintain oxygenation and manage patients out of the ICU during a massive outbreak. RESULTS: Bench assessments showed that adding a filter did not affect the effective pressure delivered to the patient. The resistive load induced by the filter variably increased the simulated patient's work of breathing (6-34%) needed to sustain the tidal volume, depending on the filter's resistance, respiratory mechanics and basal inspiratory effort. In patients, FF-CPAP achieved pressures similar to those obtained on the bench. The massive training tool provided precious information on the use of Boussignac FF-CPAP on COVID-19 patients. Then 85 COVID-19 patients with ICU admission criteria over a 1-month period were studied upon FF-CPAP initiation for AHRF. FF-CPAP significantly decreased respiratory rate and increased SpO2. Thirty-six (43%) patients presented with respiratory indications for intubation prior to FF-CPAP initiation, and 13 (36%) of them improved without intubation. Overall, 31 patients (36%) improved with FF-CPAP alone and 17 patients (20%) did not require ICU admission. Patients with a respiratory rate > 32 breaths/min upon FF-CPAP initiation had a higher cumulative probability of intubation (p < 0.001 by log-rank test). CONCLUSION: Adding a filter to the Boussignac valve does not affect the delivered pressure but may variably increase the resistive load depending on the filter used. Clinical assessment suggests that FF-CPAP is a frugal solution to provide a ventilatory support and improve oxygenation to numerous patients suffering from AHRF in the context of a massive outbreak.

Point-of-care ultrasonography for risk stratification of non-critical COVID-19 patients on admission (POCUSCO): a study protocol of an international study.

INTRODUCTION: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, early identification of patients who are likely to get worse is a major concern. Severity mainly depends on the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with a predominance of subpleural lesions. Lung point-of-care ultrasonography (L-POCUS) is highly effective in detecting pulmonary peripheral patterns and may be appropriate for examining patients with COVID-19. We suggest that L-POCUS performed during the initial examination may identify patients with COVID-19 who are at a high risk of complicated treatment or unfavourable evolution. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Point-of-care ultrasonography for risk stratification of non-critical COVID-19 patients on admission is a prospective, multicentre study. Adult patients visiting the emergency department (ED) of participating centres for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are assessed for inclusion. Included patients have L-POCUS performed within 48 hours following ED admission. The severity of lung damage is assessed using the L-POCUS score based on 36 points for ARDS. Apart from the L-POCUS score assessment, patients are treated as recommended by the WHO. For hospitalised patients, a second L-POCUS is performed at day 5±3. A follow-up is carried out on day 14, and the patient's status according to the Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement for COVID-19 from the WHO is recorded.The primary outcome is the rate of patients requiring intubation or who are dead from any cause during the 14 days following inclusion. We will determine the area under the ROC curve of L-POCUS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by the French and Belgian Ethics Committees and is carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The study is funding by a grant from the French Health Ministry, and its findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04338100.

Definition and Validation of a Risk-Stratification Model for Probable or Proven COVID-19 Patients in Emergency Departments: The Revised HOME-CoV Score. (preprint)

The HOME-CoV rule is a list of clinical criteria defined by experts’ consensus, qualifying patients with probable or proven COVID-19 for home treatment when negative. The aims were to define and validate a revised HOME-CoV score, optimizing the original rule. Definition of the revised HOME-CoV score using logistic regression in a prospective multicenter cohort and validation in another cohort of patients who presented to the emergency department with proven or probable COVID-19. The main outcome was non-invasive or invasive ventilation or all-cause death within the 7 days following inclusion. Two threshold values were defined using a sensitivity of > 0.9 and a specificity of > 0.9 to identify low-risk patients and high-risk patients, respectively. The revised HOME-CoV score included seven clinical criteria. In the definition cohort (n=1696), the AUC was 87.6 (95% CI 84.7 to 90.6). The cutoffs to define low-risk and high-risk patients were <2 and >3, respectively. In the validation cohort (n=1304), the AUC was 85.8 (95% CI 80.6 to 91.0) and 85.5 (95% CI 76.8 to 94.1) in the subgroup of patients with positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV2. A score of < 2 qualified 73% of patients as low risk with a sensitivity of 0.84 (0.66-0.95) and a negative predictive value of 0.99 (0.99-1.00). The revised HOME-CoV score compared favorably with the original rule and other models. The revised HOME-CoV score may allow accurate risk stratification and safely qualify for home treatment, a significant proportion of patients with probable or proven COVID-19.

Reliability and limits of transport-ventilators to safely ventilate severe patients in special surge situations.

BACKGROUND: Intensive Care Units (ICU) have sometimes been overwhelmed by the surge of COVID-19 patients. Extending ICU capacity can be limited by the lack of air and oxygen pressure sources available. Transport ventilators requiring only one O2 source may be used in such places. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performances of four transport ventilators and an ICU ventilator in simulated severe respiratory conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two pneumatic transport ventilators, (Oxylog 3000, Draeger; Osiris 3, Air Liquide Medical Systems), two turbine transport ventilators (Elisee 350, ResMed; Monnal T60, Air Liquide Medical Systems) and an ICU ventilator (Engström Carestation-GE Healthcare) were evaluated on a Michigan test lung. We tested each ventilator with different set volumes (Vtset = 350, 450, 550 ml) and compliances (20 or 50 ml/cmH2O) and a resistance of 15 cmH2O/l/s based on values described in COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Volume error (percentage of Vtset) with P0.1 of 4 cmH2O and trigger delay during assist-control ventilation simulating spontaneous breathing activity with P0.1 of 4 cmH2O and 8 cmH2O were measured. RESULTS: Grouping all conditions, the volume error was 2.9 ± 2.2% for Engström Carestation; 3.6 ± 3.9% for Osiris 3; 2.5 ± 2.1% for Oxylog 3000; 5.4 ± 2.7% for Monnal T60 and 8.8 ± 4.8% for Elisee 350. Grouping all conditions (P0.1 of 4 cmH2O and 8 cmH2O), trigger delay was 50 ± 11 ms, 71 ± 8 ms, 132 ± 22 ms, 60 ± 12 and 67 ± 6 ms for Engström Carestation, Osiris 3, Oxylog 3000, Monnal T60 and Elisee 350, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In surge situations such as COVID-19 pandemic, transport ventilators may be used to accurately control delivered volumes in locations, where only oxygen pressure supply is available. Performances regarding triggering function are acceptable for three out of the four transport ventilators tested.

Outpatient management or hospitalization of patients with proven or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection: the HOME-CoV rule.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and overloaded hospitals, a central issue is the need to define reliable and consensual criteria for hospitalization or outpatient management in mild cases of COVID-19. Our aim was to define an easy-to-use clinical rule aiming to help emergency physicians in hospitalization or outpatient management decision-making for patients with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (the HOME-CoV rule). The Delphi method was used to reach a consensus of a large panel of 51 experts: emergency physicians, geriatricians, infectious disease specialists, and ethical consultants. A preliminary list of eligible criteria was compiled based on a literature review. Four rounds of anonymized expert consultations were performed. The experts were asked to score each item as relevant, possibly relevant and non-relevant, as major or minor, and to choose the cut-off. They were also able make suggestions and remarks. Eight criteria constituting the HOME-CoV were selected: six correspond to the severity of clinical signs, one to the clinical course (clinically significant worsening within the last 24 h), and the last corresponds to the association of a severe comorbidity and an inadequate living context. Hospitalization is deemed necessary if a patient meets one or more of the criteria. In the end, 94.4% of the experts agreed with the defined rule. Thanks to the Delphi method, an absolute consensus was obtained of a large panel of experts on the HOME-CoV rule, a decision-making support mechanism for clinicians to target patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 requiring hospitalization.Trial registration: NCT04338841.