[Safety and efficacy profile of anticoagulant therapy in elderly patients discharged from the emergency room with a diagnosis of venous thromboembolic disease: a registry study.] / Profilo di sicurezza ed efficacia della terapia anticoagulante nel paziente anziano dimesso da pronto soccorso con diagnosi di malattia trombo-embolica venosa: uno studio di registro.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (Tev), clinically presenting as deep vein thrombosis (Tvp) or pulmonary embolism (EP), is globally the third most frequent acute cardiovascular syndrome. Reported data in literature show that the incidence of Tev is almost eight times higher in individuals aged >80 years than in the fifth decade of life. The mainstay of Tev management is anticoagulation, which should be initiated as soon as possible, provided there is no contraindication and weighing individual potential risks and benefits, in order to prevent further thrombosis and early or late complications. For decades, low molecular weight heparins (Lmwh) and vitamin K antagonists (Vkas) have been the gold standard of anticoagulation. Recently, direct oral anticoagulants (Doacs) revolutionized anticoagulation management in Tev. AIM: This real-world retrospective observational trial evaluated potential differences in safety and efficacy profiles between anticoagulation with Doacs and traditional therapy with Vkas, in the management of acute Tev in elderlies discharged from Emergency Department of Azienda ospedaliera Ordine Mauriziano in Torino. METHODS: A registry of patient evalued by the Doac-Tev ambulatory discharged by ED was compiled and analysed. RESULTS: In the population of this study (186 patients), there was a high compliance to anticoagulation, regardless the therapeutic regimen (Vka vs Doac). There was not a significant difference in the prevalence of mortality, bleeding, unplanned return to Emergency Department and in the composite safety outcome between anticoagulation regimens, with a tendency to higher rates of recurrent Tev in the Vkas group. CONCLUSIONS: A therapy with Doac in discharging elderly patient with Tev is safe and effective.

Clinical Presentation and Emergency Department Management Checkpoints of Acute Aortic Syndromes during the First Two Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has deeply affected the activity and patient flows of Emergency Departments (EDs), and concern for the worsening outcome of cardiovascular emergencies has been raised. However, the impact of COVID-19 on all subtypes of acute aortic syndromes (AASs) has not been evaluated so far. Cases of AASs managed in the ED of three hub hospitals in a large area of Northern Italy were retrospectively analyzed, comparing those registered during the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021) with corresponding pre-COVID-19 periods. A total of 124 patients with AAS were managed during the COVID-19 period vs. 118 pre-COVID-19 (p = 0.70), despite a -34.6% change in ED visits. Posterior chest pain at presentation was the only clinical variable with a different prevalence (46.0% vs. 32.2%, p = 0.03). Surgery and endovascular treatment rates were unchanged. Time intervals influenced by patient transfer to the hub center were longer during the COVID-19 period and longest during high viral circulation periods. Ninety-day mortality was unchanged, with a higher mortality trend during the pandemic surges. In conclusion, ED presentation and care of AASs were marginally affected by COVID-19, but efforts are needed to preserve efficient patient transfer to specialized centers and prevent mortality, especially during pandemic peaks.

After the first wave and beyond lockdown: long-lasting changes in emergency department visit number, characteristics, diagnoses, and hospital admissions.

The first wave (FW) of COVID-19 led to a rapid reduction in total emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions for other diseases. Whether this represented a transient "lockdown and fear" phenomenon, or a more persisting trend, is unknown. We divided acute from post-wave changes in ED flows, diagnoses, and hospital admissions, in an Italian city experiencing a FW peak followed by nadir. This multicenter, retrospective, cross-sectional study involved five general EDs of a large Italian city (January-August 2020). Percent changes were calculated versus 2019, using four 14-day periods (FW peak, early/mid/late post-wave). ED visits were 147,446 in 2020, versus 214,868 in 2019. During the FW peak, visits were reduced by 66.4% (P < 0.001). The drop was maximum during daytime (69.8%) and for pediatric patients (89.4%). Critical triage codes were unchanged. Reductions were found for all non-COVID-19 diagnoses. Non-COVID-19 hospital admissions were reduced by 39.5% (P < 0.001), involving all conditions except hematologic, metabolic/endocrine, respiratory diseases, and traumas. In the early, mid, and late post-wave periods, visits were reduced by 25.4%, 25.3% and 23.5% (all P < 0.001) respectively. In the late period, reduction was greater for female (27.9%) and pediatric patients (44.6%). Most critical triage codes were unchanged. Oncological, metabolic/endocrine, and hematological diagnoses were unchanged, while other diagnoses had persistent reductions. Non-COVID-19 hospital admissions were reduced by 12.8% (P = 0.001), 6.3% (P = 0.1) and 12.2% (P = 0.001), respectively. Reductions in ED flows, led by non-critical codes, persisted throughout the summer nadir of COVID-19. Hospital admissions for non-COVID-19 diseases had transient changes.

Lung Ultrasound-Implemented Diagnosis of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure in the ED: A SIMEU Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasonography (LUS) has emerged as a noninvasive tool for the differential diagnosis of pulmonary diseases. However, its use for the diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) still raises some concerns. We tested the hypothesis that an integrated approach implementing LUS with clinical assessment would have higher diagnostic accuracy than a standard workup in differentiating ADHF from noncardiogenic dyspnea in the ED. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective cohort study in seven Italian EDs. For patients presenting with acute dyspnea, the emergency physician was asked to categorize the diagnosis as ADHF or noncardiogenic dyspnea after (1) the initial clinical assessment and (2) after performing LUS ("LUS-implemented" diagnosis). All patients also underwent chest radiography. After discharge, the cause of each patient's dyspnea was determined by independent review of the entire medical record. The diagnostic accuracy of the different approaches was then compared. RESULTS: The study enrolled 1,005 patients. The LUS-implemented approach had a significantly higher accuracy (sensitivity, 97% [95% CI, 95%-98.3%]; specificity, 97.4% [95% CI, 95.7%-98.6%]) in differentiating ADHF from noncardiac causes of acute dyspnea than the initial clinical workup (sensitivity, 85.3% [95% CI, 81.8%-88.4%]; specificity, 90% [95% CI, 87.2%-92.4%]), chest radiography alone (sensitivity, 69.5% [95% CI, 65.1%-73.7%]; specificity, 82.1% [95% CI, 78.6%-85.2%]), and natriuretic peptides (sensitivity, 85% [95% CI, 80.3%-89%]; specificity, 61.7% [95% CI, 54.6%-68.3%]; n = 486). Net reclassification index of the LUS-implemented approach compared with standard workup was 19.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of LUS with the clinical evaluation may improve accuracy of ADHF diagnosis in patients presenting to the ED. TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinicaltrials.gov; No.: NCT01287429; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.