Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open ; 2020 Jul 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1898682

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess coinfection rates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with other respiratory infections on presentation. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of data from a 2 hospital academic medical centers and 2 urgent care centers during the initial 2 weeks of testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) , March 10, 2020 to March 23, 2020. Testing was targeted toward high-risk patients following US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines. Demographics include age group and sex. Laboratory test results included SARS-CoV-2, rapid influenza A/B, and upper respiratory pathogen nucleic acid detection. Patient demographics and coinfections are presented overall and by test results with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Complete laboratory results from the first 2 weeks of testing were available for 471 emergency department patients and 117 urgent care center patients who were tested for SARS-CoV. A total of 51 (8.7%) patients tested positive for COVID-19 with only 1 of these patients also testing positive for another respiratory infection. One of the patients positive for COVID-19 also tested positive for influenza A. Among the 537 patients who were screened and tested negative for COVID-19, there were 33 (6.1%) patients who tested positive in the upper respiratory pathogen nucleic acid detection test. CONCLUSION: In our study investigating coinfections among 51 patients testing positive for COVID-19, 1 patient also tested positive for influenza A. Although we found limited coinfections in our emergency department and urgent care center patient populations, further research is needed to assess potential coinfection in patients with COVID-19.

2.
PLoS One ; 16(3): e0248438, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1574763

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Accurate and reliable criteria to rapidly estimate the probability of infection with the novel coronavirus-2 that causes the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) and associated disease (COVID-19) remain an urgent unmet need, especially in emergency care. The objective was to derive and validate a clinical prediction score for SARS-CoV-2 infection that uses simple criteria widely available at the point of care. METHODS: Data came from the registry data from the national REgistry of suspected COVID-19 in EmeRgency care (RECOVER network) comprising 116 hospitals from 25 states in the US. Clinical variables and 30-day outcomes were abstracted from medical records of 19,850 emergency department (ED) patients tested for SARS-CoV-2. The criterion standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 required a positive molecular test from a swabbed sample or positive antibody testing within 30 days. The prediction score was derived from a 50% random sample (n = 9,925) using unadjusted analysis of 107 candidate variables as a screening step, followed by stepwise forward logistic regression on 72 variables. RESULTS: Multivariable regression yielded a 13-variable score, which was simplified to a 13-point score: +1 point each for age>50 years, measured temperature>37.5°C, oxygen saturation<95%, Black race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, household contact with known or suspected COVID-19, patient reported history of dry cough, anosmia/dysgeusia, myalgias or fever; and -1 point each for White race, no direct contact with infected person, or smoking. In the validation sample (n = 9,975), the probability from logistic regression score produced an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79-0.81), and this level of accuracy was retained across patients enrolled from the early spring to summer of 2020. In the simplified score, a score of zero produced a sensitivity of 95.6% (94.8-96.3%), specificity of 20.0% (19.0-21.0%), negative likelihood ratio of 0.22 (0.19-0.26). Increasing points on the simplified score predicted higher probability of infection (e.g., >75% probability with +5 or more points). CONCLUSION: Criteria that are available at the point of care can accurately predict the probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These criteria could assist with decisions about isolation and testing at high throughput checkpoints.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital/trends , Adult , Aged , Clinical Decision Rules , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Cough , Databases, Factual , Decision Trees , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Female , Fever , Humans , Male , Mass Screening , Middle Aged , Registries , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , United States/epidemiology
3.
J Emerg Med ; 61(4): 437-444, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1281456

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is a dearth of epidemiological data on ethnic disparities among older patients with COVID-19. The objective of this study was to characterize ethnic differences in clinical presentation and outcomes from COVID-19 among older U.S. adults. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study within two geriatric emergency departments (GEDs) at a large academic health system. One hundred patients 65 years or older who visited a GED between March 10, 2020 and August 9, 2020 and tested positive for COVID-19 were examined. Electronic medical records were used to determine presenting COVID-19-related symptoms, comorbidities, and clinical outcomes. Descriptive statistics are reported with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: In the overall sample, mean age was 75.9 years; 18% were 85 years or older; 50% were male; and 46.0% were Hispanic. Relative to non-Hispanic patients with COVID-19, Hispanic patients with COVID-19 had a higher percentage of shortness of breath (78.3% vs. 51.9%; difference: 26.4%; 95% CI 7.6-42.5%), pneumonia (82.6% vs. 50.0%; difference: 32.6%; 95% CI 14.1-47.9%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (13.0% vs. 1.9%; difference: 11.1%; 95% CI 0.7-23.9%), and acute kidney failure (41.3% vs. 22.2%; difference: 19.1%; 95% CI 0.9-36.0%). Rates of other poor outcomes, including hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, return visits to the GED within 30 days of discharge, or death, did not significantly differ between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary data show that older Hispanic patients relative to non-Hispanic patients with COVID-19 presenting to a GED did not experience worse outcomes, including hospitalization, ICU admission, 30-day return visits to the GED, or death.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Aged , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
4.
J Intensive Care Med ; 36(9): 1018-1024, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1255853

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We sought to identify clinical factors that predict extubation failure (reintubation) and its prognostic implications in critically ill COVID-19 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective, multi-center cohort study of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Multivariate competing risk models were employed to explore the rate of reintubation and its determining factors. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-one extubated patients were included (mean age, 61.0 years [±13.9]; 54.8% male). Reintubation occurred in 93 (33.1%). In multivariate analysis accounting for death, reintubation risk increased with age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04 per 1-year increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 -1.06), vasopressors (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.04-3.60), renal replacement (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.22-3.29), maximum PEEP (HR 1.07 per 1-unit increase, 95% CI 1.02 -1.12), paralytics (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.08-2.25) and requiring more than nasal cannula immediately post-extubation (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.37-3.50). Reintubation was associated with higher mortality (36.6% vs 2.1%; P < 0.0001) and risk of inpatient death after adjusting for multiple factors (HR 23.2, 95% CI 6.45-83.33). Prone ventilation, corticosteroids, anticoagulation, remdesivir and tocilizumab did not impact the risk of reintubation or death. CONCLUSIONS: Up to 1 in 3 critically ill COVID-19 patients required reintubation. Older age, paralytics, high PEEP, need for greater respiratory support following extubation and non-pulmonary organ failure predicted reintubation. Extubation failure strongly predicted adverse outcomes.


Subject(s)
Airway Extubation , COVID-19 , Aged , Cohort Studies , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
6.
J Emerg Med ; 59(6): 952-956, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1065314

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: As many businesses reopen after government-induced restrictions, many public agencies and private companies, such as banks, golf courses, and stores, are using temperature screening to assess for possible coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection both for patrons and for employees. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the frequency of a fever ≥100.4°F and other symptoms associated with COVID-19 among patients in the emergency department (ED) who were tested in the ED for the illness. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of data from patients who were tested for acute COVID-19 infection from March 10, 2020 through June 30, 2020 at two EDs within the same health care system. Data collected included temperature, the presence or recent history of COVID-19-related symptoms, and COVID-19 test results. Descriptive statistics are reported for presenting fever and other COVID-19-related symptoms alone and in combination with presenting fever. RESULTS: A total of 6894 patients were tested for COVID-19. Among these, 330 (4.8%) tested positive for active infection. Of these patients, 64 (19.4%) presented with a fever ≥100.4°F (≥38.0°C). Increasing the number of COVID-19-related symptoms in combination with a presenting fever ≥100.4°F increased the number of people who could be identified as having a COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: About a quarter of patients who were tested positive for COVID-19 in our ED did not have a fever at presentation ≥100.4°F. Using only temperature to screen for COVID-19 in the community setting will likely miss the majority of patients with active disease.


Subject(s)
Body Temperature/physiology , COVID-19/physiopathology , Thermometers/trends , COVID-19/diagnosis , Fever/diagnosis , Fever/physiopathology , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Mass Screening/standards , Mass Screening/statistics & numerical data , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies
7.
Eur J Haematol ; 106(2): 165-174, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-844367

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hypercoagulability may contribute to COVID-19 pathogenicity. The role of anticoagulation (AC) at therapeutic (tAC) or prophylactic doses (pAC) is unclear. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the impact on survival of different AC doses in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Retrospective, multi-center cohort study of consecutive COVID-19 patients hospitalized between March 13 and May 5, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 3480 patients were included (mean age, 64.5 years [17.0]; 51.5% female; 52.1% black and 40.6% white). 18.5% (n = 642) required intensive care unit (ICU) stay. 60.9% received pAC (n = 2121), 28.7% received ≥3 days of tAC (n = 998), and 10.4% (n = 361) received no AC. Propensity score (PS) weighted Kaplan-Meier plot demonstrated different 25-day survival probability in the tAC and pAC groups (57.5% vs 50.7%). In a PS-weighted multivariate proportional hazards model, AC was associated with reduced risk of death at prophylactic (hazard ratio [HR] 0.35 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.22-0.54]) and therapeutic doses (HR 0.14 [95% CI 0.05-0.23]) compared to no AC. Major bleeding occurred more frequently in tAC patients (81 [8.1%]) compared to no AC (20 [5.5%]) or pAC (46 [2.2%]) subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Higher doses of AC were associated with lower mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Prospective evaluation of efficacy and risk of AC in COVID-19 is warranted.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants , COVID-19 , Hemorrhage , Hospital Mortality , Intensive Care Units , SARS-CoV-2/metabolism , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , Disease-Free Survival , Female , Hemorrhage/blood , Hemorrhage/drug therapy , Hemorrhage/etiology , Hemorrhage/mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Propensity Score , Retrospective Studies , Survival Rate
8.
TH Open ; 4(3): e263-e270, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-809172

ABSTRACT

A hypercoagulable state has been described in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Others have reported a survival advantage with prophylactic anticoagulation (pAC) and therapeutic anticoagulation (tAC), but these retrospective analyses have important limitations such as confounding by indication. We studied the impact of tAC and pAC compared with no anticoagulation (AC) on time to death in COVID-19. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 127 deceased COVID-19 patients and compared time to death in those who received tAC ( n = 67), pAC ( n = 47), and no AC ( n = 13). Median time to death was longer with higher doses of AC (11 days for tAC, 8 days for pAC, and 4 days for no AC, p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, AC was associated with longer time to death, both at prophylactic (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15 to 0.58; p < 0.001) and therapeutic doses (HR = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.32; p < 0.001) compared with no AC. Bleeding rates were similar among tAC and remaining patients (19 vs. 18%; p = 0.877). In deceased COVID-19 patients, AC was associated with a delay in death in a dose-dependent manner. Randomized trials are required to prospectively investigate the benefit and safety of higher doses of AC in this population.

9.
West J Emerg Med ; 21(5): 1114-1117, 2020 Jul 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-791819

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has seriously impacted clinical research operations in academic medical centers due to social distancing measures and stay-at-home orders. The purpose of this paper is to describe the implementation of a program to continue clinical research based out of an emergency department (ED) using remote research associates (RA). METHODS: Remote RAs were trained and granted remote access to the electronic health record (EHR) by the health system's core information technology team. Upon gaining access, remote RAs used a dual-authentication process to gain access to a host-based, firewall-protected virtual network where the EHR could be accessed to continue screening and enrollment for ongoing studies. Study training for screening and enrollment was also provided to ensure study continuity. RESULTS: With constant support and guidance available to establish this EHR access pathway, the remote RAs were able to gain access relatively independently and without major technical troubleshooting. Each remote RA was granted access and trained on studies within one week and self-reported a high degree of program satisfaction, EHR access ease, and study protocol comfort through informal evaluation surveys. CONCLUSIONS: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we virtualized a clinical research program to continue important ED-based studies.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Biomedical Research/organization & administration , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Electronic Health Records , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Research Personnel/organization & administration , Academic Medical Centers/organization & administration , COVID-19 , California , Humans , Medical Informatics , Program Development , SARS-CoV-2
10.
West J Emerg Med ; 21(3): 503-506, 2020 03 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-26108

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: On March 10, 2020, the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic due to widespread infection of the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). We report the preliminary results of a targeted program of COVID-19 infection testing in the ED in the first 10 days of its initiation at our institution. METHODS: We conducted a review of prospectively collected data on all ED patients who had targeted testing for acute COVID-19 infection at two EDs during the initial 10 days of testing (March 10-19, 2020). During this initial period with limited resources, testing was targeted toward high-risk patients per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines. Data collected from patients who were tested included demographics, clinical characteristics, and test qualifying criteria. We present the data overall and by test results with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: During the 10-day study period, the combined census of the study EDs was 2157 patient encounters. A total of 283 tests were ordered in the ED. The majority of patients were 18-64 years of age, male, non-Hispanic white, had an Emergency Severity Index score of three, did not have a fever, and were discharged from the ED. A total of 29 (10.2%) tested positive. Symptoms-based criteria most associated with COVID-19 were the most common criteria identified for testing (90.6%). All other criteria were reported in 5.51-43.0% of persons being tested. Having contact with a person under investigation was significantly more common in those who tested positive compared to those who tested negative (63% vs 24.5%, respectively). The majority of patients in both results groups had at least two qualifying criteria for testing (75.2%). CONCLUSION: In this review of prospectively collected data on all ED patients who had targeted testing for acute COVID-19 infection at two EDs in the first 10 days of testing, we found that 10.2% of those tested were identified as positive. The continued monitoring of testing and results will help providers understand how COVID-19 is progressing in the community.


Subject(s)
Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus/isolation & purification , Emergency Service, Hospital , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Adolescent , Adult , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Female , Fever , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United States , World Health Organization , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL