A new clinical score for cranial CT in ED non-trauma patients: Definition and first validation.

INTRODUCTION: Well recognized guidelines are available for the use of cranial computed tomography (CCT) in traumatic patients, while no definitely accepted standards exists to for CCT in patients without history of head injury. The aim of this study is to propose an easy clinical score to stratify the need of CCT in emergency department (ED) patients with suspect non-traumatic intracranial pathology. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients presenting to the ED for neurological deficit, postural instability, acute headache, altered mental status, seizures, confusion, dizziness, vertigo, syncope, and pre-syncope. We build a score for positive CCT prediction by using a logistic regression model on clinical factors significant at univariate analysis. The score was validated on a population of prospectively observed patients. RESULTS: We reviewed clinical data of 1156 patients; positivity of CCT was 15.2%. Persistent neurological deficit, new onset acute headache, seizures and/or altered state of consciousness, and transient neurological disorders were independent predictors of positive CCT. We observed 508 patients in a validation prospective cohort; CCT was positive in 11.3%. Our score performed well in validation population with a ROC AUC of 0.787 (CI 95% 0.748-0.822). Avoiding CT in score 0 patients would have saved 82 (16.2%) exams. No patients with score 0 had a positive CCT findings; score sensitivity was 100.0 (CI 95% 93.7-100.0). CONCLUSIONS: A score for risk stratification of patients with suspect of intra-cranial pathology could reduce CT request in ED, avoiding a significant number of CCT while minimizing the risk of missing positive results.

Characteristic of IgA and IgG antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in an Italian referral COVID-19 Hospital.

INTRODUCTION: Antibody response plays a fundamental role in the natural history of infectious disease. A better understanding of the immune response in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection could be important for identifying patients at greater risk of developing a more severe form of disease and with a worse prognosis. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis to determine the presence and the levels of both anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA in a cohort of hospitalized patients with confirmed infection at different times in the natural history of the disease. Patients enrolled when admitted at the emergency department were prospectively followed up during hospital stay. RESULTS: Overall, 131 patients were considered with a total of 237 samples processed. Cross-sectional analysis showed that seroconversion for IgA seems to occur between days 6 and 15, while IgG response seems to occur slightly later, peaking at day 20 after symptoms onset. Both IgA and IgG were maintained beyond 2 months. Severe patients showed a higher IgA response compared with mild patients when analyzing optical density (8.3 versus 5.6, p < 0.001). Prospective analysis conducted on 55 patients confirmed that IgA appear slightly earlier than IgG. After stratifying for the severity of disease, both the IgA and IgG responses were more vigorous in severe cases. Moreover, while IgG tended to stabilize, there was a relevant decline after the first month of IgA levels in mild cases. CONCLUSION: IgA and IgG antibody response is closely related, although seroconversion for IgA occurs earlier. Both IgA and IgG are maintained beyond 2 months. Severe patients showed a more vigorous IgA and IgG response. IgA levels seem to decline after 1 month since the onset of symptoms in mild cases. Our results should be interpreted with cautions due to several limitations in our study, mainly the small number of cases, lack of data on viral load and clinical setting.

Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in COVID-19 Older Patients with Specifically Developed Scores.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Several scoring systems have been specifically developed for risk stratification in COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: We compared, in a cohort of confirmed COVID-19 older patients, three specifically developed scores with a previously established early warning score. Main endpoint was all causes in-hospital death. SETTING: This is a single-center, retrospective observational study, conducted in the Emergency Department (ED) of an urban teaching hospital, referral center for COVID-19. PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed the clinical records of the confirmed COVID-19 patients aged 60 years or more consecutively admitted to our ED over a 6-week period (March 1st to April 15th, 2020). A total of 210 patients, aged between 60 and 98 years were included in the study cohort. MEASUREMENTS: International Severe Acute Respiratory Infection Consortium Clinical Characterization Protocol-Coronavirus Clinical Characterization Consortium (ISARIC-4C) score, COVID-GRAM Critical Illness Risk Score (COVID-GRAM), quick COVID-19 Severity Index (qCSI), National Early Warning Score (NEWS). RESULTS: Median age was 74 (67-82) and 133 (63.3%) were males. Globally, 42 patients (20.0%) deceased. All the score evaluated showed a fairly good predictive value with respect to in-hospital death. The ISARIC-4C score had the highest area under ROC curve (AUROC) 0.799 (0.738-0.851), followed by the COVID-GRAM 0.785 (0.723-0.838), NEWS 0.764 (0.700-0.819), and qCSI 0.749 (0.685-0.806). However, these differences were not statistical significant. CONCLUSION: Among the evaluated scores, the ISARIC-4C and the COVID-GRAM, calculated at ED admission, had the best performance, although the qCSI had similar efficacy by evaluating only three items. However, the NEWS, already widely validated in clinical practice, had a similar performance and could be appropriate for older patients with COVID-19.

Reduced utility of early procalcitonin and blood culture determination in patients with febrile urinary tract infections in the emergency department.

To investigate the prognostic role of procalcitonin (PCT) assessment and blood culture (BC) acquisition in the emergency department (ED) in patients with urinary tract infection (UTI) or urosepsis. We enrolled patients admitted for UTI to our ED over a 10-year period. Mortality and in hospital length of stay (LOS) were compared between patients with UTI or urosepsis who had sampling for PCT levels and BC taken in the ED (ePCT group-eBC group) and those who had not (no-ePCT group-no-eBC group). 1029 patients were analyzed, 52.7% of which were female. Median age was 77 [65-83]; 139 patients (13.5%) had complicated UTI. Median LOS was 10 [7-17] days. In the ePCT group, LOS was 10 [7-16] days, vs. 10 [7-17] (p = 0.428) in the no-ePCT group. In the eBC group, LOS was 10 [6-16] days vs. 10 [7-17] days (p = 0.369) in the no-eBC group. The overall mortality rate was 6.6%. The mortality rate was not affected by early PCT determination (6% in the ePCT group vs. 6.9% in the no-ePCT group, p = 0.584). Similarly, the mortality rate was not different in the eBC group as compared to the no-eBC group (5.4% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.415). Performance of ePCT or eBC testing made no significant difference in terms of improvement of mortality rates in septic patients (11.4% vs. 7.2%; p = 0.397 and 8.8% vs. 9.8%; p = 0.845, respectively). The prognostic relevance of early evaluation of PCT and BC in the ED of patients with febrile UTI appears limited. In complicated UTI patients, PCT and BC testing may be more appropriate in the context of improving antibiotic stewardship, or as an integral component of PCT-guided standardized protocols.

Lung Ultrasound Findings Are Associated with Mortality and Need for Intensive Care Admission in COVID-19 Patients Evaluated in the Emergency Department.

Lung ultrasound (LUS) has recently been advocated as an accurate tool to diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. However, reports on its use are based mainly on hypothesis studies, case reports or small retrospective case series, while the prognostic role of LUS in COVID-19 patients has not yet been established. We conducted a prospective study aimed at assessing the ability of LUS to predict mortality and intensive care unit admission of COVID-19 patients evaluated in a tertiary level emergency department. Patients in our sample had a median of 6 lung areas with pathologic findings (inter-quartile range [IQR]: 6, range: 0-14), defined as a score different from 0. The median rate of lung areas involved was 71% (IQR: 64%, range: 0-100), while the median average score was 1.14 (IQR: 0.93, range: 0-3). A higher rate of pathologic lung areas and a higher average score were significantly associated with death, with an estimated difference of 40.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4%-68%, p = 0.01) and of 0.47 (95% CI: 0.06-0.93, p = 0.02), respectively. Similarly, the same parameters were associated with a significantly higher risk of intensive care unit admission with estimated differences of 29% (95% CI: 8%-50%, p = 0.008) and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.05-0.93, p = 0.02), respectively. Our study indicates that LUS is able to detect COVID-19 pneumonia and to predict, during the first evaluation in the emergency department, patients at risk for intensive care unit admission and death.