Association between severity of pulmonary embolism and health-related quality of life.

Background: Health-related quality of life (QoL) impairment is common after pulmonary embolism (PE). Whether the severity of the initial PE has an impact on QoL is unknown. Objectives: To evaluate the association between severity of PE and QoL over time. Methods: We prospectively assessed PE-specific QoL using the Pulmonary Embolism Quality of Life (lower scores indicate better QoL) questionnaire and generic QoL using the Short Form 36 (higher scores indicate better QoL) questionnaire at baseline and 3 and 12 months in older patients with acute PE. We examined whether QoL differed by PE severity based on hemodynamic status, simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI), right ventricular function, and high-sensitivity troponin T in mixed-effects models, adjusting for known QoL predictors after PE. Results: Among 546 patients with PE (median age, 74 years), severe vs nonsevere PE based on the sPESI was associated with a worse PE-specific (adjusted mean Pulmonary Embolism Quality of Life score difference of 6.1 [95% CI, 2.4-9.8] at baseline, 7.6 [95% CI, 4.0-11.3] at 3 months, and 6.7 [95% CI, 2.9-10.4] at 12 months) and physical generic QoL (adjusted mean Short Form 36 Physical Component Summary score difference of -3.8 [95% CI, -5.5 to -2.1] at baseline, -4.8 [95% CI, -6.4 to -3.1] at 3 months, and -4.1 [95% CI, -5.8 to -2.3] at 12 months). Elevated troponin levels were also associated with lower PE-specific QoL at 3 months and lower physical generic QoL at 3 and 12 months. QoL did not differ by hemodynamic status or right ventricular function. Conclusion: Severe PE based on the sPESI was consistently associated with worse PE-specific and physical generic QoL over time as compared to nonsevere PE.

Adherence to 2020 ESC recommendations on physical activity in a population with different cardiovascular risk levels: A prospective population-based study from the CoLaus/PsyCoLaus study.

Introduction: In 2020, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommends 150 min of moderate or 75 min of vigorous-intensity PA per week. While general population PA adherence is suboptimal, its status among those with previous ASCVD or high ASCVD risk remains unknown. We aimed to assess objective adherence to ESC PA recommendations using accelerometer-based measurement among these populations. Methodology: We used data from the Swiss CoLaus|PsyCoLaus cohort study (2014-2016). PA was measured using a 14-day wrist accelerometer. Adherence was defined as > 80 % of recommended PA achievement. Adherence was investigated separately among participants with previous ASCVD and among cardiovascular risk groups (based on the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation SCORE-1 and more recent SCORE2) with simple and multivariable logistic regressions. Participants' characteristics were also evaluated as independent factors after adjustment. Results: We studied 1867 participants (median age: 61.2 years, 51.3 % female). ESC PA Adherence reached 55.5 % overall, and 37 % in those with previous ASCVD. Multivariable analysis showed no significant association between previous ASCVD or high cardiovascular risk and PA adherence (Odds ratio adjusted [ORa] 0.9, 95 % Confidence Interval [CI] 0.6-1.4 and ORa 0.7, 95 % CI 0.4-1.2, respectively). Age (≥60 years old), obesity, smoking, chronic renal disease, hypertension, diabetes and benzodiazepine use were significantly associated with lower likelihood of PA adherence in multivariable logistic regression. Conclusion: Adherence to ESC PA guidelines, particularly in participants with higher cardiovascular risk, was poor. Since PA adherence was associated with modifiable risk factors (e.g., obesity, smoking, and benzodiazepine use), maintained efforts to implement the ESC recommendations are advised.

Risk Assessment Models for Venous Thromboembolism in Medical Inpatients.

Importance: Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for medical inpatients at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Risk assessment models (RAMs) have been developed to stratify VTE risk, but a prospective head-to-head comparison of validated RAMs is lacking. Objectives: To prospectively validate an easy-to-use RAM, the simplified Geneva score, and compare its prognostic performance with previously validated RAMs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study was conducted from June 18, 2020, to January 4, 2022, with a 90-day follow-up. A total of 4205 consecutive adults admitted to the general internal medicine departments of 3 Swiss university hospitals for hospitalization for more than 24 hours due to acute illness were screened for eligibility; 1352 without therapeutic anticoagulation were included. Exposures: At admission, items of 4 RAMs (ie, the simplified and original Geneva score, the Padua score, and the IMPROVE [International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism] score) were collected. Patients were stratified into high and low VTE risk groups according to each RAM. Main Outcomes and Measures: Symptomatic VTE within 90 days. Results: Of 1352 medical inpatients (median age, 67 years [IQR, 54-77 years]; 762 men [55.4%]), 28 (2.1%) experienced VTE. Based on the simplified Geneva score, 854 patients (63.2%) were classified as high risk, with a 90-day VTE risk of 2.6% (n = 22; 95% CI, 1.7%-3.9%), and 498 patients (36.8%) were classified as low risk, with a 90-day VTE risk of 1.2% (n = 6; 95% CI, 0.6%-2.6%). Sensitivity of the simplified Geneva score was 78.6% (95% CI, 60.5%-89.8%) and specificity was 37.2% (95% CI, 34.6%-39.8%); the positive likelihood ratio of the simplified Geneva score was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.03-1.52) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.28-1.18). In head-to-head comparisons, sensitivity was highest for the original Geneva score (82.1%; 95% CI, 64.4%-92.1%), while specificity was highest for the IMPROVE score (70.4%; 95% CI, 67.9%-72.8%). After adjusting the VTE risk for thromboprophylaxis use and site, there was no significant difference between the high-risk and low-risk groups based on the simplified Geneva score (subhazard ratio, 2.04 [95% CI, 0.83-5.05]; P = .12) and other RAMs. Discriminative performance was poor for all RAMs, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranging from 53.8% (95% CI, 51.1%-56.5%) for the original Geneva score to 58.1% (95% CI, 55.4%-60.7%) for the simplified Geneva score. Conclusions and Relevance: This head-to-head comparison of validated RAMs found suboptimal accuracy and prognostic performance of the simplified Geneva score and other RAMs to predict hospital-acquired VTE in medical inpatients. Clinical usefulness of existing RAMs is questionable, highlighting the need for more accurate VTE prediction strategies.

Core stories of physicians on a Swiss internal medicine ward during the first COVID-19 wave: a qualitative exploration.

INTRODUCTION: The first COVID-19 wave (2020), W1, will remain extraordinary due to its novelty and the uncertainty on how to handle the pandemic. To understand what physicians went through, we collected narratives of frontline physicians working in a Swiss university hospital during W1. METHODS: Physicians in the Division of Internal Medicine of Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV) were invited to send anonymous narratives to an online platform, between 28 April and 30 June 2020. The analysed material consisted of 13 written texts and one audio record. They were examined by means of a narrative analysis based on a holistic content approach, attempting to identify narrative highlights, referred to as foci, in the texts. RESULTS: Five main foci were identified: danger and threats, acquisition of knowledge and practices, adaptation to a changing context, commitment to the profession, and sense of belonging to the medical staff. In physicians' narratives, danger designated a variety of rather negative feelings and emotions, whereas threats were experienced as being dangerous for others, but also for oneself. The acquisition of knowledge and practices focus referred to the different types of acquisition that took place during W1. The narratives that focused on adaptation reflected how physicians coped with W1 and private or professional upheavals. COVID-19 W1 contributed to revealing a natural commitment (or not) of physicians towards the profession and patients, accompanied by the concern of offering the best possible care to all. Lastly, sense of belonging referred to the team and its reconfiguration during W1. CONCLUSIONS: Our study deepens the understanding of how physicians experienced the pandemic both in their professional and personal settings. It offers insights into how they prepared and reacted to a pandemic. The foci reflect topics that are inherent to a physician's profession, whatever the context. During a pandemic, these foundational elements are particularly challenged. Strikingly, these topics are not studied in medical school, thus raising the general question of how students are prepared for the medical profession.