A randomised clinical trial of awake prone positioning in COVID-19 suspects with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Background: Awake prone position (APP) has been reported to improve oxygenation in patients with COVID-19 disease and to reduce the requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation for patients requiring support with high flow nasal cannula. There is conflicting data for patients requiring lower-level oxygen support. Research question: Does APP reduce escalation of oxygen support in COVID-19 patients requiring supplementary oxygen?The primary outcome was defined as an escalation of oxygen support from simple supplementary oxygen (NP, HM, NRB) to NIV (CPAP or BiPAP), HFNC or IMV; OR from NIV (CPAP or BiPAP) or HFNC to IMV by day30. Study design: Two center, prospective, non-blind, randomised controlled trial. Patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 pneumonia requiring ≥ 5 liters/min oxygen to maintain saturations ≥ 94 % were randomised to either APP or control group. The APP group received a 3-h APP session three times per day for three days. Results: Between 9 May and July 13, 2021, 89 adults were screened and 61 enrolled, 31 to awake prone position and 30 controls. There was no difference in the primary outcome, 7 (22.6 %) patients randomised to APP and 9 (30.0 %) controls required escalation of oxygen support (OR 0.68 (0.22-2.14), P = 0.51). There were no differences in any secondary outcomes, in APP did not improve oxygenation. Interpretation: In COVID-19 patients, the use of APP did not prevent escalation of oxygen support from supplementary to invasive or non-invasive ventilation or improve patient respiratory physiology. Trial registration: NCT04853979 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Prognostic accuracy of qSOFA score, SIRS criteria, and EWSs for in-hospital mortality among adult patients presenting with suspected infection to the emergency department (PASSEM) Multicenter prospective external validation cohort study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Early identification of a patient with infection who may develop sepsis is of utmost importance. Unfortunately, this remains elusive because no single clinical measure or test can reflect complex pathophysiological changes in patients with sepsis. However, multiple clinical and laboratory parameters indicate impending sepsis and organ dysfunction. Screening tools using these parameters can help identify the condition, such as SIRS, quick SOFA (qSOFA), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), or Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS). We aim to externally validate qSOFA, SIRS, and NEWS/NEWS2/MEWS for in-hospital mortality among adult patients with suspected infection who presenting to the emergency department. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PASSEM study is an international prospective external validation cohort study. For 9 months, each participating center will recruit consecutive adult patients who visited the emergency departments with suspected infection and are planned for hospitalization. We will collect patients' demographics, vital signs measured in the triage, initial white blood cell count, and variables required to calculate Charlson Comorbidities Index; and follow patients for 90 days since their inclusion in the study. The primary outcome will be 30-days in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome will be intensive care unit (ICU) admission, prolonged stay in the ICU (i.e., ≥72 hours), and 30- as well as 90-days all-cause mortality. The study started in December 2021 and planned to enroll 2851 patients to reach 200 in-hospital death. The sample size is adaptive and will be adjusted based on prespecified consecutive interim analyses. DISCUSSION: PASSEM study will be the first international multicenter prospective cohort study that designated to externally validate qSOFA score, SIRS criteria, and EWSs for in-hospital mortality among adult patients with suspected infection presenting to the ED in the Middle East region. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05172479).

Q-DEPICT: Qatar Determining Emergency Physician Incidence of COVID-Positive Testing.

Despite protective measures such as personal protective equipment (PPE) and a COVID airway management program (CAMP), some emergency physicians will inevitably test positive for COVID. We aim to develop a model predicting weekly numbers of emergency physician COVID converters to aid operations planning. The data were obtained from the electronic medical record (EMR) used throughout the national healthcare system. Hamad Medical Corporation's internal emergency medicine workforce data were used as a source of information on emergency physician COVID conversion and numbers of emergency physicians completing CAMP training. The study period included the spring and summer months of 2020 and started on March 7 and ran for 21 whole weeks through July 31. Data were extracted from the system's EMR database into a spreadsheet (Excel, Microsoft, Redmond, USA). The statistical software used for all analyses and plots was Stata (version 16.1 MP, StataCorp, College Station, USA). All data definitions were made a priori. A total of 35 of 250 emergency physicians (14.0%, 95% CI 9.9%-19.9%) converted to a positive real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) during the study's 21-week period. Of these. only two were hospitalized for having respiratory-only disease, and none required respiratory support. Both were discharged within a week of admission. The weekly number of newly COVID-positive emergency physicians was zero and was seen in eight of 21 (38.1%) weeks. The peak weekly counts of six emergency physicians with new COVID-positive were seen in week 14. The mean weekly number of newly COVID-positive emergency physicians was 1.7 ± 1.9, and the median was 1 (IQR, 0 to 3). This study demonstrates that in the State of Qatar's Emergency Department (ED) system, knowing only four parameters allows the reliable prediction of the number of emergency physicians likely to convert COVID PCR tests within the next week. The results also suggest that attention to the details of minimizing endotracheal intubation (ETI) risk can eliminate the expected finding of the association between ETI numbers and emergency physician COVID numbers.

Randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin for virologic cure of non-severe Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine (HC) ± azithromycin (AZ) is widely used for Covid-19. The Qatar Prospective RCT of Expediting Coronavirus Tapering (Q-PROTECT) aimed to assess virologic cure rates of HC±AZ in cases of low-acuity Covid-19. METHODS: Q-PROTECT employed a prospective, placebo-controlled design with blinded randomization to three parallel arms: placebo, oral HC (600 mg daily for one week), or oral HC plus oral AZ (500 mg day one, 250 mg daily on days two through five). At enrollment, non-hospitalized participants had mild or no symptoms and were within a day of Covid-19 positivity by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). After six days, intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of the primary endpoint of virologic cure was assessed using binomial exact 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and χ2 testing. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04349592, trial status closed to new participants.). FINDINGS: The study enrolled 456 participants (152 in each of three groups: HC+AZ, HC, placebo) between 13 April and 1 August 2020. HC+AZ, HC, and placebo groups had 6 (3·9%), 7 (4·6%), and 9 (5·9%) participants go off study medications before completing the medication course (p = 0·716). Day six PCR results were available for all 152 HC+AZ participants, 149/152 (98·0%) HC participants, and 147/152 (96·7%) placebo participants. Day six ITT analysis found no difference (p = 0·821) in groups' proportions achieving virologic cure: HC+AZ 16/152 (10·5%), HC 19/149 (12·8%), placebo 18/147 (12·2%). Day 14 assessment also showed no association (p = 0·072) between study group and viral cure: HC+AZ 30/149 (20·1%,), HC 42/146 (28·8%), placebo 45/143 (31·5%). There were no serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: HC±AZ does not facilitate virologic cure in patients with mild or asymptomatic Covid-19. FUNDING: The study was supported by internal institutional funds of the Hamad Medical Corporation (government health service of the State of Qatar).

Do physiological scoring and a novel point of care metabolic screen predict 48-h outcome in admissions from the emergency department resuscitation area?

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the performance of a widely used physiological score [Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS)] and a novel metabolic score (derived from a blood gas) in predicting outcome in emergency department patients. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We carried out a prospective observational study using a convenience sample of 200 patients presenting to the resuscitation area of an inner-city teaching hospital over 4 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We looked primarily at whether either score predicted new organ failure at 48 h. Our secondary outcome measures were escalation of care and mortality at 48 h. RESULTS: In univariate analysis, MEWS and the metabolic score predicted 48-h organ failure [odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.35, P=0.009, and OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.015-1.56, P<0.001, respectively]. Both MEWS and the metabolic score predicted 48-h death (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.02-1.71, P=0.03, and OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.18-2.06, P=0.002, respectively) in univariate analysis. Neither predicted 48-h escalation of care. The metabolic score remained statistically significant at predicting organ failure or death after controlling for MEWS parameters (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.13-1.62, P=0.001, and OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.13-2.69, P=0.01, respectively). In contrast, MEWS was no longer associated with these outcomes; however, our study has small participant numbers. CONCLUSION: This pilot data suggest that a blood gas-derived metabolic score on emergency department arrival may be superior to MEWS at predicting organ failure and death at 48 h.

Emergency department procedural sedation: the London experience.

AIM: The aim of this study was to develop a procedural sedation guideline and an audit tool to identify the medications chosen, the incidence of predefined adverse events and the factors associated with their occurrence. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study using a standardized proforma. We obtained data on patient demographics, the procedure performed, the drugs used and the dosages and predefined adverse events. Our target population was adult patients attending three urban UK teaching hospital Emergency Departments (EDs) over a 12-month period. We included all patients who were to undergo procedural sedation in the ED. RESULTS: Data were obtained on 414 patients. The majority of procedures were reductions of fractures and dislocations (89%). Midazolam was the sedative agent used most commonly (45%), and morphine was the most frequently used analgesic agent (36%). Overall 10% of sedations involved predefined complications (95% confidence interval: 7.1-12.9). There were no cases of airway obstruction requiring intervention; no patients showed clinical evidence of aspiration and no patient required intubation. Procedural success was 96%. Propofol was associated with fewer adverse events (95% confidence interval: 0.024-0.572), as well as higher procedural success. CONCLUSION: Procedural sedation and analgesia can be safely and effectively performed in the ED by appropriately trained emergency physicians.