Apnoeic oxygenation was associated with decreased desaturation rates during rapid sequence intubation in multiple Australian and New Zealand emergency departments.

Apnoeic oxygenation (ApOx) has been demonstrated to reduce the incidence of desaturation, although evidence of benefit has been conflicting depending on the technique used. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of desaturation between patients who received ApOx via conventional nasal cannula (NC) and those who did not, using a large, multicentre airway registry. METHODS: This study is an analysis of 24 months of prospectively collected data in the Australia and New Zealand Emergency Department Airway Registry (June 2013-June 2015). The registry includes information on all intubated adults from 43 emergency departments. Patients intubated during cardiac arrest (n=393), those who received active ventilation prior to the first intubation attempt (n=486), and where the use of ApOx was not recorded either way (n=312) were excluded. The proportion of patients who desaturated (Sa02 <93) in the group that received ApOx and those that did not were compared. To evaluate the association of ApOx with patient desaturation, a logistic regression model based on factors expected to influence desaturation was performed. RESULTS: Of 2519 patients analysed, 1669 (66.3%) received ApOx via NC while 850 (33.7%) did not. Desaturation in the cohort receiving ApOx was 10.4% compared with standard care (no ApOx) 13.7%. ApOx had a protective effect for desaturation (OR 0.71 95% CI 0.53 to 0.95). Single intubation attempt was associated with reduced risk of desaturation of (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.17); this was increased on second attempt (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68). Desaturation was also associated with the physician recording that they had anticipated a difficult airway (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.48). CONCLUSION: This large multicentre registry study provides evidence that ApOx delivered through a conventional NC is associated with a lower incidence of desaturation in patients undergoing rapid sequence intubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12613001052729.

A 10-fold and greater increase in D-dimer at admission in COVID-19 patients is highly predictive of pulmonary embolism in a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 patients present with both elevated D-dimer and a higher incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE). This single-centre retrospective observational study investigated the prevalence of early PE in COVID-19 patients and its relation to D-dimer at presentation. METHODS: The study included 1038 COVID-19-positive patients, with 1222 emergency department (ED) attendances over 11 weeks (16 March to 31 May 2020). Computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) for PE was performed in 123 patients within 48 h of ED presentation, of whom 118 had D-dimer results. The remaining 875 attendances had D-dimer performed. RESULTS: CTPA performed in 11.8% of patients within 48 h of ED presentation confirmed PE in 37.4% (46/123). Thrombosis was observed at all levels of pulmonary vasculature with and without right ventricular strain. In the CTPA cohort, patients with PE had significantly higher D-dimer, prothrombin time, C-reactive protein, troponin, total bilirubin, neutrophils, white cell count and lower albumin compared with non-PE patients. However, there was no difference in the median duration of inpatient stay or mortality. A receiver operator curve analysis demonstrated that D-dimer could discriminate between PE and non-PE COVID-19 patients (area under the curve of 0.79, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, 43% (n = 62/145) of patients with D-dimer >5000 ng/ml had CTPA with PE confirmed in 61% (n = 38/62), that is, 26% of >5000 ng/ml cohort. The sensitivity and specificity were related to D-dimer level; cutoffs of 2000, 3000, 4000, and 5000 ng/ml, respectively, had a sensitivity of 93%, 90%, 90% and 86%, and a specificity of 38%, 54%, 59% and 68%, and if implemented, an additional 229, 141, 106 and 83 CTPAs would be required. CONCLUSION: Our data suggested an increased PE prevalence in COVID-19 patients attending ED with an elevated D-dimer, and patients with levels >5000 ng/ml might benefit from CTPA to exclude concomitant PE.

COVID-19 and Pulmonary Emboli: A Case Series and Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: There is recent evidence that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection results in a prothrombotic state that may increase the risk of venous thromboembolism. Both COVID-19 infection and pulmonary emboli can present with dyspnoea, tachypnoea, hypoxaemia and an elevated D-dimer. Identifying a pulmonary embolus in a patient with COVID-19 and differentiating it from the typical clinical and biochemical features of COVID-19 is challenging. CASE REPORTS: We report four cases, and reviewed two further cases in the literature, of a pulmonary embolus in patients who presented to the emergency department with COVID-19 and no other risk factor for a pulmonary embolus. CONCLUSION: We identified a series of atypical features that should raise suspicion for a pulmonary embolus: pleuritic chest pain; haemoptysis; atrial fibrillation; tachycardia; hypotension; late onset deterioration; evidence of right heart strain; or a disproportionally elevated D-dimer in comparison to ferritin.

Diagnostic accuracy of X-ray versus CT in COVID-19: a propensity-matched database study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the diagnostic accuracy of common imaging modalities, chest X-ray (CXR) and CT, for diagnosis of COVID-19 in the general emergency population in the UK and to find the association between imaging features and outcomes in these patients. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of electronic patient records. SETTING: Tertiary academic health science centre and designated centre for high consequence infectious diseases in London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 1198 patients who attended the emergency department with paired reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) swabs for SARS-CoV-2 and CXR between 16 March and 16 April 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of CXR and CT for diagnosis of COVID-19 using the British Society of Thoracic Imaging reporting templates. Reference standard was any RT-PCR positive naso-oropharyngeal swab within 30 days of attendance. ORs of CXR in association with vital signs, laboratory values and 30-day outcomes were calculated. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of CXR for COVID-19 diagnosis were 0.56 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.60) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.65), respectively. For CT scans, these were 0.85 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.90) and 0.50 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.60), respectively. This gave a statistically significant mean increase in sensitivity with CT of 29% (95% CI 19% to 38%, p<0.0001) compared with CXR. Specificity was not significantly different between the two modalities.CXR findings were not statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully associated with vital signs, laboratory parameters or 30-day outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: CT has substantially improved diagnostic performance over CXR in COVID-19. CT should be strongly considered in the initial assessment for suspected COVID-19. This gives potential for increased sensitivity and considerably faster turnaround time, where capacity allows and balanced against excess radiation exposure risk.