ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19-12O-score has been validated to determine the risk of respiratory failure in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Our study aims to assess whether the score is effective in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia discharged from a hospital emergency department (HED) to predict readmission and revisit. METHOD: Retrospective cohort of patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia discharged consecutively from an HUS of a tertiary hospital, from January 7 to February 17, 2021, where we applied the COVID-19-12O -score, with a cut-off point of 9 points to define the risk of admission or revisit. The primary outcome variable was revisit with or without hospital readmission after 30 days of discharge from HUS. RESULTS: We included 77 patients, with a median age of 59 years, 63.6% men and Charlson index of 2. 9.1% had an emergency room revisit and 15.3% had a deferred hospital admission. The relative risk (RR) for emergency journal was 0.46 (0.04-4.62, 95% CI, p=0.452), and the RR for hospital readmission was 6.88 (1.20-39.49, 95% CI, p<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19-12O -score is effective in determining the risk of hospital readmission in patients discharged from HED with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, but is not useful for assessing the risk of revisit.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pneumonia , Male , Humans , Middle Aged , Female , Patient Discharge , SARS-CoV-2 , Retrospective Studies , Patient Readmission , Emergency Service, HospitalABSTRACT
Objective: The COVID-19-12O score has been validated for determining the risk of respiratory failure in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. This study aims to assess whether the score is effective for predicting readmissions and revisits in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia discharged from a hospital emergency department (HED). Method: This work is a retrospective cohort of consecutive patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia discharged from the HED of a tertiary hospital from January 7 to February 17, 2021. The COVID-19-12O score with a cut-off point of nine points was used to define the risk of admissions or revisits. The primary outcome variable was a revisit with or without hospital readmission after 30 days of discharge from the HED. Results: Seventy-seven patients were included. The median age was 59 years, 63.6% were men, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index was 2. A total of 9.1% had an emergency room revisit and 15.3% had a deferred hospital admission. The relative risk (RR) for an HED revisit was 0.46 (0.04-4.62, 95% CI p = 0.452) and the RR for hospital readmission was 6.88 (1.20-39.49, 95% CI, p < 0.005). Conclusions: The COVID-19-12O score is effective in determining the risk of hospital readmission in patients discharged from an HED with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, but is not useful for assessing the risk of revisit.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To analyze clinical, laboratory, and radiologic findings and final health outcomes in patients with pulmonary embolism and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To compare them to findings and outcomes in patients with pulmonary embolism without COVID-19. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Multicenter, observational, retrospective study in 4 Spanish hospital emergency departments (EDs) from January 15 to April 15, 2020. Cases were located by reviewing all ED requests for pulmonary computed tomography angiography (CTA) procedures. Clinical, laboratory, and radiologic findings; medical histories and comorbidity; risk factors; and outcomes were compared between the 2 groups of patients (with or without COVID-19). RESULTS: A total of 399 CTAs were ordered; 88 pulmonary embolisms were diagnosed, 28 of them (32%) in patients with COVID-19. This group had more men, and a history of thromboembolic disease was more common. We found no between-group differences in clinical presentation, laboratory, or radiologic findings; nor were there differences in final outcomes. In-hospital mortality was 7% (2 cases) in patients with COVID-19 and 17% (10 cases) in patients without the virus (odds ratio for death in patients with pulmonary embolism and COVID-19, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.08-1.89). CONCLUSION: We found no clinically important differences in the clinical, laboratory, or radiologic findings between patients with or without COVID-19 who were treated for pulmonary embolism in our hospital EDs. Final outcomes also did not differ.
OBJETIVO: Analizar las características clínicas, analíticas, radiológicas y los resultados finales de salud en una cohorte de pacientes con embolia pulmonar (EP) y COVID-19, y compararlas con un grupo de pacientes con EP sin COVID-19. METODO: Estudio multicéntrico, observacional y retrospectivo realizado en cuatro servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) españoles del 15 de enero al 15 de abril de 2020. La detección de EP se hizo mediante la revisión de todas las angiografías por tomografía computarizada (angioTC) pulmonares solicitadas desde los SUH. Se han analizado dos grupos de pacientes con EP, con o sin enfermedad por COVID-19, y se comparan las características clínicas, analíticas, radiológicas, antecedentes y comorbilidad, factores de riesgo y resultados finales. RESULTADOS: Se realizaron 399 angioTC y se diagnosticaron 88 EP, 28 (32%) en pacientes con COVID-19. Estos pacientes fueron con más frecuencia hombres y tenían más antecedentes de enfermedad tromboembólica previa. No hubo diferencias en la presentación clínica, características analíticas o radiológicas ni en los resultados finales entre ambos grupos. La mortalidad intrahospitalaria fue del 7% (2 casos) en pacientes COVID y del 17% (10 casos) en pacientes sin COVID (OR de muerte en pacientes COVID con EP: 0,38, IC 95%: 0,08-1,89). CONCLUSIONES: No se han observado diferencias clínicamente relevantes en las características clínicas, analíticas, radiológicas y los resultados finales de salud en una cohorte de pacientes con EP y COVID-19 respecto a los pacientes con EP sin esta enfermedad atendidos en los SUH.