Acute phase characteristics and long-term complications of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 cohort: a large single-centre study.

BACKGROUND: To compare the severity of pulmonary embolism (PE) and the long-term complications between patients with and without COVID-19, and to investigate whether the tools for risk stratification of death are valid in this population. METHODS: We retrospectively included hospitalized patients with PE from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2022. Comparisons for acute episode characteristics, risk stratification of the PE, outcomes, and long-term complications were made between COVID and non-COVID patients. RESULTS: We analyzed 116 (27.5%) COVID patients and 305 (72.4%) non-COVID patients. In patients with COVID-19, the traditional risk factors for PE were absent, and the incidence of deep vein thrombosis was lower. COVID patients showed significantly higher lymphocyte count, lactate dehydrogenase, lactic acid, and D-dimer levels. COVID patients had PE of smaller size (12.3% vs. 25.5% main pulmonary artery, 29.8% vs. 37.1% lobar, 44.7% vs. 29.5% segmental and 13.2% vs. 7.9% subsegmental, respectively; p < 0.001), less right ventricular dysfunction (7.7% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.007) and higher sPESI score (1.66 vs. 1.11; p < 0.001). The need for mechanical ventilation was significantly higher in COVID patients (8.6% vs. 1.3%; p < 0.001); However, the in-hospital death was less (5.2% vs. 10.8%; p = 0.074). The incidence of long-term complications was lower in COVID cohort (p < 0.001). PE severity assessed by high sPESI and intermediate and high-risk categories were independently associated with in-hospital mortality in COVID patients. CONCLUSION: The risk of in-hospital mortality and the incidence of long-term complications were lower in COVID-19. The usual tools for risk stratification of PE are valid in COVID patients.

Protocol for assessing mortality reduction with the early use of noninvasive ventilation in prehospital emergency services: A multicentre, observational cohort study in Madrid, Spain.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) has become one of the most prevalent serious pathologies encountered in the emergency medical service (EMS). In hospital settings, noninvasive ventilation (NIV) therapy prevents complications from more aggressive treatments for that condition. However, the scarce evidence on the benefits of NIV in prehospital EMS (i.e., during transport to the hospital) is inconclusive. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the administration of NIV during prehospital EMS in cases of ARF reduces in-hospital mortality compared with starting NIV on arrival to in-patient EMS. METHODS: This is a multicentre, observational, prospective cohort study. We recruited a total of 317 patients from the Madrid region (Spain) who were prescribed NIV for their ARF using a nonprobabilistic consecutive sampling method. Analyses of the main outcome (in-hospital mortality) and secondary outcomes (length of hospital stay, readmissions, percentage of intensive care unit admissions, and cost-effectiveness) will include descriptive analyses of patients' characteristics, as well as bivariate and multivariate analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis. DISCUSSION: This study will provide data on NIV management in prehospital and in-patient EMS in patients with ARF. Results will contribute to the existing evidence on the benefits of NIV in the context of prehospital EMS while underlining the importance of a standardized formal training for physicians and nurses working in prehospital and in-patient EMSs. CONCLUSION: The VentilaMadrid study will provide valuable data on the clinical factors of patients receiving NIV in prehospital EMS. Further, were our hypothesis to be confirmed, our results would strongly suggest that the administration of NIV in prehospital EMS by medical and nursing profesionals formally trained in the technique reduces mortality and improves prognoses.