Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
1.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-318985

ABSTRACT

Background: Seasonal influenza is a burden for emergency departments. 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 to 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 endpoints were prevalence of influenza infections in the ED and staff sick days. Secondary endpoints 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 in-patients 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, 103 of them (27.6%) tested positive. During the intervention period staff sick days were reduced by 34.4% (p=0.023). Significantly more patients in the intervention group received antiviral therapy with neuraminidase-inhibitors (7.2% vs. 3.8%, p=0.028) and tested patients received antibiotics more frequently (40.0% vs. 31.6%, p=0.033). Patients with POC test were transferred to external hospitals significantly more often (5.6% vs. 1.3%, p=0.01). Conclusion: We conclude that POC testing for influenza is useful in the ED, especially if it is heavily frequented by patients with respiratory symptoms.

2.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis ; 102(4): 115637, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1635537

ABSTRACT

Patients in need of urgent inpatient treatment were recruited prospectively. A rapid point of care polymerase chain reaction test (POC-PCR; Liat®) for SARS-CoV2 was conducted in the Emergency Department (ED) and a second PCR-test from the same swab was ordered in the central laboratory (PCR). POC-PCR analyzers were digitally integrated in the laboratory information system. Overall, 160 ED patients were included. A valid POC-PCR-test result was available in 96.3% (n = 154) of patients. N = 16 patients tested positive for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Corona Virus 2 (10.0%). The POC PCR test results were available within 102 minutes (median, interquartile range: 56-211), which was significantly earlier compared to the central laboratory PCR (811 minutes; interquartile range: 533-1289, P < 0.001). The diagnostic accuracy of the POC-PCR test was 100%. The implementation and digital laboratory information system integration was successfully done. Staff satisfaction with the POC process was high. The POC-PCR testing in the ED is feasible and shows a very high diagnostic performance. Trial registration: DRKS00019207.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Point-of-Care Systems , COVID-19/diagnosis , Cohort Studies , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Inpatients , Polymerase Chain Reaction , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
3.
Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed ; 2021 Sep 01.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1380415

ABSTRACT

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.

4.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 15(5): 608-617, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1169808

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Influenza, Human , Point-of-Care Testing , Academic Medical Centers , Adult , COVID-19 , Emergency Service, Hospital , Female , Humans , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Universities
5.
BMJ Open ; 11(3): e044853, 2021 03 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1166495

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Decision Making , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , Cohort Studies , Cough/etiology , Dyspnea/etiology , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Female , Fever/etiology , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2
6.
PLoS One ; 16(2): e0246956, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1085151

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Fractures, Bone/epidemiology , Quarantine/statistics & numerical data , Trauma Centers/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/prevention & control , Fractures, Bone/classification , Fractures, Bone/etiology , Germany , Hospitals, University/statistics & numerical data , Humans
9.
Dtsch Arztebl Int ; 117(33-34): 545-552, 2020 08 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-846177

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Emergencies/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , COVID-19 , Germany/epidemiology , Humans
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL