Comparison of Patients Infected With Delta Versus Omicron COVID-19 Variants Presenting to Paris Emergency Departments : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: At the end of 2021, the B.1.1.529 SARS-CoV-2 variant (Omicron) wave superseded the B.1.617.2 variant (Delta) wave. OBJECTIVE: To compare baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Delta variant versus the Omicron variant in the emergency department (ED). DESIGN: Retrospective chart reviews. SETTING: 13 adult EDs in academic hospitals in the Paris area from 29 November 2021 to 10 January 2022. PATIENTS: Patients with a positive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result for SARS-CoV-2 and variant identification. MEASUREMENTS: Main outcome measures were baseline clinical and biological characteristics at ED presentation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 3728 patients had a positive RT-PCR test result for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period; 1716 patients who had a variant determination (818 Delta and 898 Omicron) were included. Median age was 58 years, and 49% were women. Patients infected with the Omicron variant were younger (54 vs. 62 years; difference, 8.0 years [95% CI, 4.6 to 11.4 years]), had a lower rate of obesity (8.0% vs. 12.5%; difference, 4.5 percentage points [CI, 1.5 to 7.5 percentage points]), were more vaccinated (65% vs. 39% for 1 dose and 22% vs. 11% for 3 doses), had a lower rate of dyspnea (26% vs. 50%; difference, 23.6 percentage points [CI, 19.0 to 28.2 percentage points]), and had a higher rate of discharge home from the ED (59% vs. 37%; difference, 21.9 percentage points [-26.5 to -17.1 percentage points]). Compared with Delta, Omicron infection was independently associated with a lower risk for ICU admission (adjusted difference, 11.4 percentage points [CI, 8.4 to 14.4 percentage points]), mechanical ventilation (adjusted difference, 3.6 percentage points [CI, 1.7 to 5.6 percentage points]), and in-hospital mortality (adjusted difference, 4.2 percentage points [CI, 2.0 to 6.5 percentage points]). LIMITATION: Patients with COVID-19 illness and no SARS-CoV-2 variant determination in the ED were excluded. CONCLUSION: Compared with the Delta variant, infection with the Omicron variant in patients in the ED had different clinical and biological patterns and was associated with better in-hospital outcomes, including higher survival. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Acute icteric hepatitis as the first isolated symptom of COVID-19.

Patients with COVID-19 may be asymptomatic or present with extrarespiratory symptoms, such as liver injury. It has been reported that 22.5%-46.2% of patients have moderate elevation of liver enzymes. To our knowledge, acute hepatitis has never been described as an isolated symptom of COVID-19 in a previously healthy patient. We report the case of a 53-year-old patient with COVID-19 whose first clinical presentation was acute icteric hepatitis, several days before the development of others symptoms. During the pandemic, we suggest that patients with acute hepatitis be considered as COVID-19 suspects, tested and isolated.

Point-of-care testing: false elevation of cardiac troponin I assayed in the emergency department.

In October 2007, an 18-year-old woman with no cardiac history was admitted to the emergency department for a major epigastric pain. The chest pain led to assay cardiac troponin I (cTnI) with the emergency department point-of-care testing analyzer (Stratus CS), which disclosed a value of 0.70 ng/mL, discordant with the atypical clinical presentation and the noncontributive electrocardiography. The biologist contacted for biological advice controlled cTnI with an Access II, which disclosed a value less than 0.04 ng/mL. These findings were confirmed with the discordant results of a new sample assayed on both analyzers. The interference of heterophilic antibodies (HAs) was suspected because these antianimal antibodies may lead to analytical errors in sandwich immunoassays using animal sources of immunoglobulins and can cause false-positive results. In this case, the HAs bind to the capture antibody and the conjugate antibody, simulating cTnI. The diagnosis of HA involvement was confirmed using Heterophilic Blocking Tube, a device that contains a blocking reagent composed of specific binders that attach HA. After treatment in Heterophilic Blocking Tube, the cTnI concentration measured by the Stratus CS decreased from 0.62 to 0.05 ng/mL. Finally, potentially invasive test or this patient's unnecessary hospitalization in cardiology was avoided. Our experience supports that collaboration between staffs of laboratories and medical departments owning point-of-care testing analyzers is essential to avoid mistaken diagnosis linked to analytical interferences and to ensure quality of results assayed outside the laboratory.