Identification of COVID-19 patients at risk of hospital admission and mortality: a European multicentre retrospective analysis of mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin.

BACKGROUND: Mid-Regional pro-Adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) is an inflammatory biomarker that improves the prognostic assessment of patients with sepsis, septic shock and organ failure. Previous studies of MR-proADM have primarily focussed on bacterial infections. A limited number of small and monocentric studies have examined MR-proADM as a prognostic factor in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, however there is need for multicenter validation. An evaluation of its utility in predicting need for hospitalisation in viral infections was also performed. METHODS: An observational retrospective analysis of 1861 patients, with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by RT-qPCR, from 10 hospitals across Europe was performed. Biomarkers, taken upon presentation to Emergency Departments (ED), clinical scores, patient demographics and outcomes were collected. Multiclass random forest classifier models were generated as well as calculation of area under the curve analysis. The primary endpoint was hospital admission with and without death. RESULTS: Patients suitable for safe discharge from Emergency Departments could be identified through an MR-proADM value of ≤ 1.02 nmol/L in combination with a CRP (C-Reactive Protein) of ≤ 20.2 mg/L and age ≤ 64, or in combination with a SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) score < 2 if MR-proADM was ≤ 0.83 nmol/L regardless of age. Those at an increased risk of mortality could be identified upon presentation to secondary care with an MR-proADM value of > 0.85 nmol/L, in combination with a SOFA score ≥ 2 and LDH > 720 U/L, or in combination with a CRP > 29.26 mg/L and age ≤ 64, when MR-proADM was > 1.02 nmol/L. CONCLUSIONS: This international study suggests that for patients presenting to the ED with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, MR-proADM in combination with age and CRP or with the patient's SOFA score could identify patients at low risk where outpatient treatment may be safe.

The Fenice project to evaluate and improve the quality of healthcare in high-dependency care units: results after the first year.

High-Dependency care Units (HDUs) have been introduced worldwide as intermediate wards between Intensive Care Units (ICUs) and general wards. Performing a comparative assessment of the quality of care in HDU is challenging because there are no uniform standards and heterogeneity among centers is wide. The Fenice network promoted a prospective cohort study to assess the quality of care provided by HDUs in Italy. This work aims at describing the structural characteristics and admitted patients of Italian HDUs. All Italian HDUs affiliated to emergency departments were eligible to participate in the study. Participating centers reported detailed structural information and prospectively collected data on all admitted adult patients. Patients' data are presented overall and analyzed to evaluate the heterogeneity across the participating centers. A total of 12 HDUs participated in the study and enrolled 3670 patients. Patients were aged 68 years on average, had multiple comorbidities and were on major chronic therapies. Several admitted patients had at least one organ failure (39%). Mortality in HDU was 8.4%, raising to 16.6% in hospital. While most patients were transferred to general wards, a small proportion required ICU transfer (3.9%) and a large group was discharged directly home from the HDU (31%). The expertise of HDUs in managing complex and fragile patients is supported by both the available equipment and the characteristics of admitted patients. The limited proportion of patients transferred to ICUs supports the hypothesis of preventing of ICU admissions. The heterogeneity of HDU admissions requires further research to define meaningful patients' outcomes to be used by quality-of-care assessment programs.

Diagnosis and Acute Treatment of Ischemic Stroke.

Stroke is defined as an acute cerebrovascular accident characterized by an interruption of vascular supply lasting more than 24 hours. Therapeutic goal, reassumed at the well-known "time is brain", is strictly focused on achieving timely restoration of cerebral blood flow at risk of infarction to reduce neurological complications. Consequently, time to treatment is the most important determinant of the efficacy of reperfusion. Current guidelines strongly recommend the use of intravenous thrombolysis with tissue plasminogen activator and endovascular thrombectomy to reach that goal. These therapies allow to obtain 1.9 million neurons saved per each minute of onset-to-reperfusion time and 4.2 days of extra healthy life and are crucial in the reduction of mortality and morbidity of ischemic stroke. Multidisciplinary collaboration involving a coordinated prehospital management and stroke team composed of physicians with expertise in emergency medicine, neurologists, radiologists, nurses, technicians, and laboratory personnel are essential for rapid triage and should guide clinical decisions to deliver the appropriate reperfusion therapy for each patient.

Performance of a SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid immunoassay in patients admitted to the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: Given the ongoing pandemic emergency, there is a need to identify SARS CoV-2 infection in various community settings. Rapid antigen testing is spreading worldwide, but diagnostic accuracy is extremely variable. Our study compared a microfluidic rapid antigen test with a reference molecular assay in patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) of a general hospital from October 2020 to January 2021. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs collected in patients with suspected COVID-19 and in patients with no symptoms suggesting COVID-19, but requiring hospitalization, were obtained. RESULTS: 792 patients of median age 71 years were included. With a prevalence of 21%, the results showed: 68.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 60.9-75.5) sensitivity; 95.2% (95% CI: 93.1-96.7) specificity; 79.2% (95% CI: 71.4-85.3) positive predictive value (PPV); 91.9% (95% CI: 89.5-93.9) negative predictive value; 3.8 (95% CI: 2.7-5.3) positive likelihood ratio (LR+); and 0.09 (95% CI: 0.07-0.1) negative likelihood ratio (LR-). In the symptomatic subgroup, sensitivity increased to 81% (95% CI: 70.3-88.6) and PPV to 96.9% (95% CI: 88.5-99.5), along with an LR+ of 32 (95% CI: 8.2-125.4). CONCLUSIONS: The new rapid antigen test showed an overall excellent diagnostic performance in a challenging situation, such as that of an ED during the COVID-19 emergency.

Single-Breath Counting Test Predicts Non-Invasive Respiratory Support Requirements in Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia.

The use of non-invasive respiratory strategies (NIRS) is crucial to improve oxygenation in COVID-19 patients with hypoxemia refractory to conventional oxygen therapy. However, the absence of respiratory symptoms may delay the start of NIRS. The aim of this study was to determine whether a simple bedside test such as single-breath counting test (SBCT) can predict the need for NIRS in the 24 h following the access to Emergency Department (ED). We performed a prospective observational study on 120 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. ROC curves were used to analyze factors which might predict NIRS requirement. We found that 36% of patients had normal respiratory rate and did not experience dyspnea at rest. 65% of study population required NIRS in the 24 h following the access to ED. NIRS-requiring group presented lower PaO2/FiO2 (235.09 vs. 299.02), SpO2/FiO2 ratio (357.83 vs. 431.07), PaCO2 (35.12 vs. 40.08), and SBCT (24.46 vs. 30.36) and showed higher incidence of dyspnea at rest (57.7% vs. 28.6%). Furthermore, SBCT predicted NIRS requirement even in the subgroup of patients without respiratory symptoms (AUC = 0.882, cut-off = 30). SBCT might be a valuable tool for bedside assessment of respiratory function in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and might be considered as an early clinical sign of impending respiratory deterioration.

Venous Thrombo-Embolism in Hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 Patients Treated with Three Different Anticoagulation Protocols: Prospective Observational Study.

The purpose of this study is to assess thrombotic risk in CoViD-19/pneumonia patients with acute respiratory failure and to compare populations treated with three different antithrombotic prophylaxis protocols. The primary outcome is to analyze the prevalence of thrombotic events in hospitalized patients, while the secondary outcome is to analyze the correlation between different anticoagulation targets with thrombotic events. All patients referred to our hospital for acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia between 18 and 31 May 2020 were included. Seventy-four patients were enrolled (44 men and 30 women, average age 68.6). Diagnosis of venous thromboembolism was made in 21 cases (28.4%) and thrombotic events were associated with positive pressure ventilation support (p = 0.024) and hospitalization in ICU (p < 0.0001). These patients presented higher levels of D-dimer (p < 0.0001) and their hospital length of stay was >16 days longer. Forty-seven out of 74 patients (63.5%) received intermediate or therapeutic dose of anticoagulation, while twenty-seven patients (34.5%) received standard antithrombotic prophylaxis. The analysis showed that an intermediate or therapeutic dose of anticoagulation did not decrease the prevalence of thrombotic events. On the other hand, six patients reported severe hemorrhagic complications. Despite intermediate or therapeutic-dose of anticoagulation, a high number of patients with acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 developed thrombotic complications.

Organizational determinants of hospital stay: establishing the basis of a widespread action on more efficient pathways in medical units.

Given the high hospital costs, the increasing clinical complexity and the overcrowding of emergency departments, it is crucial to improve the efficiency of medical admissions. We aimed at isolating organizational drivers potentially targetable through a widespread improvement action. We studied all medical admissions in a large tertiary referral hospital from January 1st to December 31st, 2018. Data were retrieved from the administrative database. Available information included age, sex, type (urgent or elective) and Unit of admission, number of internal transfers, main ICD-9 diagnosis, presence of cancer among diagnoses, surgical or medical code, type of discharge, month, day and hour of admission and discharge. National Ministry of Health database was used for comparisons. 8099 admissions were analyzed. Urgent admissions (80.5% of the total) were responsible for longer stays and were the object of the multivariate analysis. The variables most influencing length-of-stay (LOS) were internal transfers and assisted discharge: they contributed, respectively, to 62% and 40% prolongation of LOS. Also, the daily and weekly kinetics of admission accounted for a significant amount of variation in LOS. Long admissions (≥ 30 days) accounted for the 15.5% of total bed availability. Type of discharge and internal transfers were again among the major determinants. A few factors involved in LOS strictly depend on the organizational environment and are potentially modifiable. Re-engineering should be focused on making more efficient internal and external transitions and at ensuring continuity of the clinical process throughout the day and the week.