[Revisit after discharge from the emergency department in a cohort of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and analysis based on the healthcare resource used for follow-up. RESALSEVID study]. / Análisis de la evolucion tras el alta de urgencias en pacientes con neumonía por COVID-19 en función del recurso sanitario utilizado para el seguimiento: estudio RESALSEVID.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 pneumonia is a manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection and in most cases involves hospital admission. There are recommendations according to which these patients can be discharged without hospital admission, but there is no evidence regarding the revisit and the most appropriate type of follow-up. The objective of the RESALSEVID study was to investigate the variables associated with the 30-day revisit (Rev30d) in a group of patients discharged directly from 4 emergency departments (ED) with COVID-19 pneumonia, and analyze whether there were differences based on 4 different tracking devices. METHOD: Analysis of a prospective cohort of patients discharged directly from the ED with COVID-19 pneumonia in 4 hospital with different models of follow-up at discharge (primary care, hospitalization at home [HaH] phone and in person, HaH phone, hospital phone). RESULTS: Five hundred twenty patients were included, with a mean age of 50.1 years and 51% men. Rev30d was 18.3% and was related only to immunosuppression, odds ratio 4.49 (95% confidence interval 1.10-18.24); p=0.022. There was no difference in Rev30d based on the follow-up model used at discharge from the ED. CONCLUSIONS: There are some recommendations that allow the safe discharge of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, with no differences in Rev30d depending on the type of follow-up.

Análisis de la evolucion tras el alta de urgencias en pacientes con neumonía por COVID19 en función del recurso sanitario utilizado para el seguimiento: Estudio RESALSEVID Revisit after discharge from the emergency department in a cohort of patients with COVID19 pneumonia and analysis based on the healthcare resource used for follow-up. RESALSEVID study

Introducción: la neumonía COVID19 es una manifestación de la infección por SARS-CoV-2 y en la mayoría de casos supone ingreso hospitalario. Existen recomendaciones según las cuales se puede dar de alta a estos pacientes sin precisar ingreso hospitalario, pero no hay evidencia en relación a la revisita y el tipo de seguimiento más adecuado. El objetivo del estudio RESALSEVID fue investigar las variables asociadas a la revisita a los 30 días (Rev30d) en un grupo de pacientes dados de alta directamente en 4 servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) con neumonía COVID19, y analizar si existieron diferencias en función de 4 dispositivos de seguimiento diferentes. Método: análisis de una cohorte prospectiva de pacientes dados de alta directamente desde urgencias con neumonía COVID19 en 4 SUH con diferentes modelos de seguimiento al alta (atención primaria, hospitalización a domicilio [HaD] telefónico y presencial, HaD telefónico, telefónico hospitalario). Resultados: se incluyeron 520 pacientes, con una media de edad de 50,1 años y 51% varones. La Rev30d fue del 18,3% y se relacionó únicamente con la inmunosupresión, odds ratio 4,49 (intervalo de confianza del 95% 1,10 – 18,24);p=0,022. No hubo ninguna diferencia en la Rev30d en función del modelo de seguimiento utilizado al alta de urgencias. Conclusiones: existen una serie de recomendaciones que permiten dar de alta de manera segura a pacientes con neumonía COVID19, no existiendo diferencias en la Rev30d en función del tipo de seguimiento.

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.

Incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics and outcomes of deep venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 attending the Emergency Department: results of the UMC-19-S8.

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: A higher incidence of venous thromboembolism [both pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis (DVT)] in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been described. But little is known about the true frequency of DVT in patients who attend emergency department (ED) and are diagnosed with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics and outcomes of DVT in patients with COVID-19 attending the ED before hospitalization. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all COVID patients diagnosed with DVT in 62 Spanish EDs (20% of Spanish EDs, case group) during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 outbreak. We compared DVT-COVID-19 patients with COVID-19 without DVT patients (control group). Relative frequencies of DVT were estimated in COVID and non-COVID patients visiting the ED and annual standardized incidences were estimated for both populations. Sixty-three patient characteristics and four outcomes were compared between cases and controls. RESULTS: We identified 112 DVT in 74 814 patients with COVID-19 attending the ED [1.50‰; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.23-1.80‰]. This relative frequency was similar than that observed in non-COVID patients [2109/1 388 879; 1.52‰; 95% CI, 1.45-1.69‰; odds ratio (OR) = 0.98 [0.82-1.19]. Standardized incidence of DVT was higher in COVID patients (98,38 versus 42,93/100,000/year; OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 2.03-2.38). In COVID patients, the clinical characteristics associated with a higher risk of presenting DVT were older age and having a history of venous thromboembolism, recent surgery/immobilization and hypertension; chest pain and desaturation at ED arrival and some analytical disturbances were also more frequently seen, d-dimer >5000 ng/mL being the strongest. After adjustment for age and sex, hospitalization, ICU admission and prolonged hospitalization were more frequent in cases than controls, whereas mortality was similar (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.77-2.45). CONCLUSIONS: DVT was an unusual form of COVID presentation in COVID patients but was associated with a worse prognosis.

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.