[Mispositioned central line with catheterization of partial anomalous pulmonary venous return]. / Voie centrale mal positionnée avec cathétérisme d'un retour veineux pulmonaire anormal partiel.

Central venous access is common practice in intensive care, anesthesia and emergency departments. It is, however, a delicate technical procedure, prone to complications. We present a case report on the placement of a left jugular central venous line in the emergency room, which was thought to be a routine procedure. However, the operator observed arterial blood during sampling, and the central line was described as poorly positioned on the control X-ray. After verification and other examinations, the existence of a vertical vein was discovered in this patient, connecting the left superior pulmonary vein to the brachiocephalic trunk. A poorly positioned central venous line can therefore lead to the discovery of asympomatic congenital vascular anomalies, unrelated to the clinical context. This case study illustrates the various tools available to ensure the correct position of a central venous line, and their clinical implications.

La mise en place d'une voie veineuse centrale est de pratique courante aux soins intensifs, en anesthésie et aux urgences. Il s'agit cependant d'un acte technique relativement invasif, délicat et potentiellement sujet à complications. Nous présentons un cas clinique relatant la mise en place d'une voie veineuse centrale jugulaire gauche en salle de déchocage, manœuvre réputée banale. Cependant, l'opérateur objective visuellement du sang d'allure artérielle lors du prélèvement sanguin sur le cathéter. En outre, l'imagerie par radiographie thoracique décrit une malposition de ce dispositif. Après vérifications et examens complémentaires, nous découvrons finalement l'existence d'une veine verticale chez ce patient, reliant la veine pulmonaire supérieure gauche au tronc brachio-céphalique. Une voie veineuse centrale, apparemment mal positionnée, peut, dès lors, conduire à la découverte d'anomalies vasculaires congénitales asymptomatiques, sans lien nécessaire avec le contexte clinique sous-jacent. Ce cas clinique nous permet d'aborder les différents outils à notre disposition actuelle afin de déterminer le positionnement adéquat d'une voie veineuse centrale et les implications cliniques qui en découlent.

Derivation and validation of a risk-stratification model for patients with probable or proven COVID-19 in EDs: the revised HOME-CoV score.

BACKGROUND: The HOME-CoV (Hospitalisation or Outpatient ManagEment of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection) score is a validated list of uniquely clinical criteria indicating which patients with probable or proven COVID-19 can be treated at home. The aim of this study was to optimise the score to improve its ability to discriminate between patients who do and do not need admission. METHODS: A revised HOME-CoV score was derived using data from a previous prospective multicentre study which evaluated the original Home-CoV score. Patients with proven or probable COVID-19 attending 34 EDs in France, Monaco and Belgium between April and May 2020 were included. The population was split into a derivation and validation sample corresponding to the observational and interventional phases of the original study. The main outcome was non-invasive or invasive ventilation or all-cause death within 7 days following inclusion. Two threshold values were defined using a sensitivity of >0.9 and a specificity of >0.9 to identify low-risk and high-risk patients, respectively. The revised HOME-CoV score was then validated by retrospectively applying it to patients in the same EDs with proven or probable COVID-19 during the interventional phase. The revised HOME-CoV score was also tested against original HOME-CoV, qCSI, qSOFA, CRB65 and SMART-COP in this validation cohort. RESULTS: There were 1696 patients in the derivation cohort, of whom 65 (3.8%) required non-invasive ventilation or mechanical ventilation or died within 7 days and 1304 patients in the validation cohort, of whom 22 (1.7%) had a progression of illness. The revised score included seven clinical criteria. The area under the curve (AUC) was 87.6 (95% CI 84.7 to 90.6). The cut-offs to define low-risk and high-risk patients were <2 and >3, respectively. In the validation cohort, the AUC was 85.8 (95% CI 80.6 to 91.0). A score of <2 qualified 73% of patients as low risk with a sensitivity of 0.77 (0.55-0.92) and a negative predictive value of 0.99 (0.99-1.00). CONCLUSION: The revised HOME-CoV score, which does not require laboratory testing, may allow accurate risk stratification and safely qualify a significant proportion of patients with probable or proven COVID-19 for home treatment.

Triaging acute pulmonary embolism for home treatment by Hestia or simplified PESI criteria: the HOME-PE randomized trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to compare the Hestia rule vs. the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) for triaging patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for home treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Normotensive patients with PE of 26 hospitals from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland were randomized to either triaging with Hestia or sPESI. They were designated for home treatment if the triaging tool was negative and if the physician-in-charge, taking into account the patient's opinion, did not consider that hospitalization was required. The main outcomes were the 30-day composite of recurrent venous thrombo-embolism, major bleeding or all-cause death (non-inferiority analysis with 2.5% absolute risk difference as margin), and the rate of patients discharged home within 24 h after randomization (NCT02811237). From January 2017 through July 2019, 1975 patients were included. In the per-protocol population, the primary outcome occurred in 3.82% (34/891) in the Hestia arm and 3.57% (32/896) in the sPESI arm (P = 0.004 for non-inferiority). In the intention-to-treat population, 38.4% of the Hestia patients (378/984) were treated at home vs. 36.6% (361/986) of the sPESI patients (P = 0.41 for superiority), with a 30-day composite outcome rate of 1.33% (5/375) and 1.11% (4/359), respectively. No recurrent or fatal PE occurred in either home treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: For triaging PE patients, the strategy based on the Hestia rule and the strategy based on sPESI had similar safety and effectiveness. With either tool complemented by the overruling of the physician-in-charge, more than a third of patients were treated at home with a low incidence of complications.