Impact of First Wave of COVID-19 Pandemic on Mortality at Emergency Department in Older Patients with COVID and Non-COVID Diagnoses.

INTRODUCTION: Mortality in emergency departments (EDs) is not well known. This study aimed to assess the impact of the first-wave pandemic on deaths accounted in the ED of older patients with COVID and non-COVID diseases. METHODS: We used data from the Emergency Department and Elderly Needs (EDEN) cohort (pre-COVID period) and from the EDEN-COVID cohort (COVID period) that included all patients ≥65 years seen in 52 Spanish EDs from April 1 to 7, 2019, and March 30 to April 5, 2020, respectively. We recorded patient characteristics and final destination at ED. We compared older patients in the pre-COVID period, with older patients with non-COVID and with COVID-19. ED-mortality (before discharge or hospitalization) is the prior outcome and is expressed as an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% interval confidence. RESULTS: We included 23,338 older patients from the pre-COVID period (aged 78.3 [8.1] years), 6,715 patients with non-COVID conditions (aged 78.9 [8.2] years) and 3,055 with COVID (aged 78.3 [8.3] years) from the COVID period. Compared to the older patients, pre-COVID period, patients with non-COVID and with COVID-19 were more often male, referred by a doctor and by ambulance, with more comorbidity and disability, dementia, nursing home, and more risk according to qSOFA, respectively (p < 0.001). Compared to the pre-COVID period, patients with non-COVID and with COVID-19 were more often to be hospitalized from ED (24.8% vs. 44.3% vs. 79.1%) and were more often to die in ED (0.6% vs. 1.2% vs. 2.2%), respectively (p < 0.001). Compared to the pre-COVID period, aOR for age, sex, comorbidity and disability, ED mortality in elderly patients cared in ED during the COVID period was 2.31 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.76-3.06), and 3.75 (95% CI: 2.77-5.07) for patients with COVID. By adding the variable qSOFA to the model, such OR were 1.59 (95% CI: 1.11-2.30) and 2.16 (95% CI: 1.47-3.17), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: During the early first pandemic wave of COVID-19, more complex and life-threatening older with COVID and non-COVID diseases were seen compared to the pre-COVID period. In addition, the need for hospitalization and the ED mortality doubled in non-COVID and tripled in COVID diagnosis. This increase in ED mortality is not only explained by the complexity or severity of the elderly patients but also because of the system's overload.

Impact of dementia on 30-, 180-, and 365-day mortality during the first pandemic wave in older adults seen in spanish emergency departments diagnosed with or without COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether dementia is an independent predictor of death after a hospital emergency department (ED) visit by older adults with or without a COVID-19 diagnosis during the first pandemic wave. METHOD: We used data from the EDEN-Covid (Emergency Department and Elderly Needs during Covid) cohort formed by all patients ≥65 years seen in 52 Spanish EDs from March 30 to April 5, 2020. The association of prior history of dementia with mortality at 30, 180 and 365 d was evaluated in the overall sample and according to a COVID-19 or non COVID diagnosis. RESULTS: We included 9,770 patients aged 78.7 ± 8.3 years, 51.1% men, 1513 (15.5%) subjects with prior history of dementia and 3055 (31.3%) with COVID-19 diagnosis. 1399 patients (14.3%) died at 30 d, 2008 (20.6%) at 180 days and 2456 (25.1%) at 365 d. The adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) for age, sex, comorbidity, disability and diagnosis for death associated with dementia were 1.16 (95% CI 1.01-1.34) at 30 d; 1.15 at 180 d (95% CI 1.03-1.30) and 1.19 at 365 d (95% CI 1.07-1.32), p < .001. In patients with COVID-19, the aHR were 1.26 (95% CI: 1.04-1.52) at 30 days; 1.29 at 180 d (95% CI: 1.09-1.53) and 1.35 at 365 d (95% CI: 1.15-1.58). CONCLUSION: Dementia in older adults attending Spanish EDs during the first pandemic wave was independently associated with 30-, 180- and 365-day mortality. This impact was lower when adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity and disability, and was greater in patients diagnosed with COVID-19.

Effect of Flu Vaccination on Severity and Outcome of Heart Failure Decompensations.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship of seasonal flu vaccination with the severity of decompensation and long-term outcomes of patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS: We analyzed 6147 consecutively enrolled patients with decompensated HF who presented to 33 Spanish emergency departments (EDs) during January and February of 2018 and 2019, grouped according to seasonal flu vaccination status. The severity of HF decompensation was assessed by the Multiple Estimation of Risk Based on the Emergency Department Spanish Score in Patients With Acute Heart Failure (MEESSI-AHF) + MEESSI scale, need of hospitalization and in-hospital all-cause mortality. The long-term outcomes analyzed were 90-day postdischarge adverse events and 90-day all-cause death. Associations between vaccination, HF decompensation severity and long-term outcomes were explored by unadjusted and adjusted logistic and Cox regressions by using 14 covariables that could act as potential confounders. RESULTS: Overall median (IQR) age was 84 (IQR = 77-89) years, and 56% were women. Vaccinated patients (n = 1139; 19%) were older, had more comorbidities and had worse baseline status, as assessed by New York Heart Association class and Barthel index, than did unvaccinated patients (n = 5008; 81%). Infection triggering decompensation was more common in vaccinated patients (50% vs 41%; P < 0.001). In vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, high or very-high risk decompensation was seen in 21.9% and 21.1%; hospitalization occurred in 72.5% and 73.7%; in-hospital mortality was 7.4% and 7.0%; 90-day postdischarge adverse events were 57.4% and 53.2%; and the 90-day mortality rate was 15.8% and 16.6%, respectively, with no significant differences between cohorts. After adjusting, vaccinated decompensated patients with HF had decreased odds for hospitalization (OR = 0.823, 95%CI = 0.709-0.955). CONCLUSION: In patients with HF, seasonal flu vaccination is associated with less severe decompensations.

Influence of Meteorological Temperature and Pressure on the Severity of Heart Failure Decompensations.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between ambient temperature and atmospheric pressure (AP) and the severity of heart failure (HF) decompensations. METHODS: We analysed patients coming from the Epidemioloy Acute Heart Failure Emergency (EAHFE) Registry, a multicentre prospective cohort study enrolling patients diagnosed with decompensated HF in 26 emergency departments (EDs) of 16 Spanish cities. We recorded patient and demographic data and maximum temperature (Tmax) and AP (APmax) the day before ED consultation. Associations between temperature and AP and severity endpoints were explored by logistic regression. We used restricted cubic splines to model continuous non-linear associations of temperature and AP with each endpoint. RESULTS: We analysed 16,545 patients. Daily Tmax and APmax (anomaly) of the day before patient ED arrival ranged from 0.8 to 41.6° and from - 61.7 to 69.9 hPa, respectively. A total of 12,352 patients (75.2%) were hospitalised, with in-hospital mortality in 1171 (7.1%). The probability of hospitalisation by HF decompensation showed a U-shaped curve versus Tmax and an increasing trend versus APmax. Regarding temperature, hospitalisation significantly increased from 20 °C (reference) upwards (25 °C: OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.04-1.21; 40 °C: 1.65, 1.13-2.40) and below 5.4 °C (5 °C: 1.21, 1.01-1.46). Concerning the mean AP of the city (anomaly = 0 hPa), hospitalisation increased when APmax (anomaly) was above + 7.0 hPa (atmospheric anticyclone; + 10 hPa: 1.14, 1.05-1.24; + 30 hPa: 2.02. 1.35-3.03). The lowest probability of mortality also corresponded to cold-mild temperatures and low AP, with a significant increased risk only found for Tmax above 24.3 °C (25 °C: 1.13, 1.01-1.27; 40 °C: 2.05, 1.15-3.64) and APmax (anomaly) above + 3.4 hPa (+ 10 hPa: 1.21, 1.07-1.36; + 30 hPa: 1.73, 1.06-2.81). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the main analysis results. CONCLUSION: Temperature and AP are independently associated with the severity of HF decompensations, with possible different effects on the need for hospitalisation and in-hospital mortality.

Effects of MIdazolam versus MOrphine in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: An analysis of MIMO trial.

AIMS: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an important comorbidity in heart failure. The MIMO trial showed that patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE) treated with midazolam had fewer serious adverse events than those treated with morphine. In this post hoc analysis, we examined whether the presence/ absence of COPD modifies the reduced risk of midazolam over morphine. METHODS: Patients >18 years old clinically diagnosed with ACPE and with dyspnea and anxiety were randomized (1:1) at emergency department arrival to receive either intravenous midazolam or morphine. In this post hoc analysis, we calculated the relative risk (RR) of serious adverse events in patients with and without COPD. Calculating the CochranMantel-Haenszel interaction test, we evaluated if COPD modified the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam arm compared to morphine. RESULTS: Overall, 25 (22.5%) of the 111 patients randomized had a history of COPD. Patients with COPD were more commonly men with a history of previous episodes of heart failure, than participants without COPD. In the COPD group, the RR for the incidence of serious adverse events in the midazolam versus morphine arm was 0.36 (95%CI, 0.1-1.46). In the group without COPD, the RR was 0.44 (95%CI, 0.22-0.91). The presence of COPD did not modify the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam arm compared to morphine (p for interaction =0.79). CONCLUSIONS: The reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam group compared with morphine is similar in patients with and without COPD.

Hyperkalemia in acute heart failure: Short term outcomes from the EAHFE registry.

OBJECTIVE: Both hyperkalemia (HK) and Acute Heart Failure (AHF) are associated with increased short-term mortality, and the management of either may exacerbate the other. As the relationship between HK and AHF is poorly described, our purpose was to determine the relationship between HK and short-term outcomes in Emergency Department (ED) AHF. METHODS: The EAHFE Registry enrolls all ED AHF patients from 45 Spanish ED and records in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes. Our primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital death, with secondary outcomes of prolonged hospitalization (>7 days) and 7-day post-discharge adverse events (ED revisit, hospitalization, or death). Associations between serum potassium (sK) and outcomes were explored using logistic regression by restricted cubic spline (RCS) curves, with sK =4.0 mEq/L as the reference, adjusting by age, sex, comorbidities, patient baseline status and chronic treatments. Interaction analyses were performed for the primary outcome. RESULTS: Of 13,606 ED AHF patients, the median (IQR) age was 83 (76-88) years, 54% were women, and the median (IQR) sK was 4.5 mEq/L (4.3-4.9) with a range of 4.0-9.9 mEq/L. In-hospital mortality was 7.7%, with prolonged hospitalization in 35.9%, and a 7-day post-discharge adverse event rate of 8.7%. Adjusted in-hospital mortality increased steadily from sK ≥4.8 (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.01-1.80) to sK = 9.9 (8.41, 3.60-19.6). Non-diabetics with elevated sK had higher odds of death, while chronic treatment with mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists exhibited a mixed effect. Neither prolonged hospitalization nor post-discharge adverse events was associated with sK. CONCLUSION: In ED AHF, initial sK >4.8 mEq/L was independently associated with in-hospital mortality, suggesting that this cohort may benefit from aggressive HK treatment.

Impact of the MEESSI-AHF tool to guide disposition decision-making in patients with acute heart failure in the emergency department: a before-and-after study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of risk stratification using the MEESSI-AHF (Multiple Estimation of risk based on the Emergency department Spanish Score In patients with acute heart failure) scale to guide disposition decision-making on the outcomes of ED patients with acute heart failure (AHF), and assess the adherence of emergency physicians to risk stratification recommendations. METHODS: This was a prospective quasi-experimental study (before/after design) conducted in eight Spanish EDs which consecutively enrolled adult patients with AHF. In the pre-implementation stage, the admit/discharge decision was performed entirely based on emergency physician judgement. During the post-implementation phase, emergency physicians were advised to 'discharge' patients classified by the MEESSI-AHF scale as low risk and 'admit' patients classified as increased risk. Nonetheless, the final decision was left to treating emergency physicians. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were days alive and out of hospital, in-hospital mortality and 30-day post-discharge combined adverse event (ED revisit, hospitalisation or death). RESULTS: The pre-implementation and post-implementation cohorts included 1589 and 1575 patients, respectively (median age 85 years, 56% females) with similar characteristics, and 30-day all-cause mortality was 9.4% and 9.7%, respectively (post-implementation HR=1.03, 95% CI=0.82 to 1.29). There were no differences in secondary outcomes or in the percentage of patients entirely managed in the ED without hospitalisation (direct discharge from the ED, 23.5% vs 24.4%, OR=1.05, 95% CI=0.89 to 1.24). Adjusted models did not change these results. Emergency physicians followed the MEESSI-AHF-based recommendation on patient disposition in 70.9% of cases (recommendation over-ruling: 29.1%). Physicians were more likely to over-rule the recommendation when 'discharge' was recommended (56.4%; main reason: need for hospitalisation for a second diagnosis) than when 'admit' was recommended (12.8%; main reason: no appreciation of severity of AHF decompensation by emergency physician), with an OR for over-ruling the 'discharge' compared with the 'admit' recommendation of 8.78 (95% CI=6.84 to 11.3). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing the MEESSI-AHF risk stratification tool in the ED to guide disposition decision-making did not improve patient outcomes.

Prevalence, Related Factors and Association of Left Bundle Branch Block With Prognosis in Patients With Acute Heart Failure: a Simultaneous Analysis in 3 Independent Cohorts.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence, characteristics and association with prognosis of left bundle branch block (LBBB) in 3 different cohorts of patients with acute heart failure (AHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed 12,950 patients with AHF who were included in the EAHFE (Epidemiology Acute Heart Failure Emergency), RICA (National Heart Failure Registry of the Spanish Internal Medicine Society), and BASEL-V (Basics in Acute Shortness of Breath Evaluation of Switzerland) registries. We independently analyzed the relationship between baseline and clinical characteristics and the presence of LBBB and the potential association of LBBB with 1-year all-cause mortality and a 90-day postdischarge combined endpoint (Emergency Department reconsultation, hospitalization or death). The prevalence of LBBB was 13.5% (95% confidence interval: 12.9%-14.0%). In all registries, patients with LBBB more commonly had coronary artery disease and previous episodes of AHF, were taking chronic spironolactone treatment, had lower left ventricular ejection fraction and systolic blood pressure values and higher NT-proBNP levels. There were no differences in risk for patients with LBBB in any cohort, with adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for 1-year mortality in EAHFE/RICA/BASEL-V cohorts of 1.02 (0.89-1.17), 1.15 (0.95-1.38) and 1.32 (0.94-1.86), respectively, and for 90-day postdischarge combined endpoint of 1.00 (0.88-1.14), 1.14 (0.92-1.40) and 1.26 (0.84-1.89). These results were consistent in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Less than 20% of patients with AHF present LBBB, which is consistently associated with cardiovascular comorbidities, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and more severe decompensations. Nonetheless, after taking these factors into account, LBBB in patients with AHF is not associated with worse outcomes.

Incidence, clinical, risk factors and outcomes of Guillain-Barré in Covid-19.

We diagnosed 11 Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) cases among 71,904 COVID patients attended at 61 Spanish emergency departments (EDs) during the 2-month pandemic peak. The relative frequency of GBS among ED patients was higher in COVID (0.15‰) than non-COVID (0.02‰) patients (odds ratio [OR] = 6.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.18-12.5), as was the standardized incidence (9.44 and 0.69 cases/100,000 inhabitant-years, respectively, OR = 13.5, 95% CI = 9.87-18.4). Regarding clinical characteristics, olfactory-gustatory disorders were more frequent in COVID-GBS than non-COVID-GBS (OR = 27.59, 95% CI = 1.296-587) and COVID-non-GBS (OR = 7.875, 95% CI = 1.587-39.09) patients. Although COVID-GBS patients were more frequently admitted to intensive care, mortality was not increased versus control groups. Our results suggest SARS-CoV-2 could be another viral infection causing GBS. ANN NEUROL 2021;89:598-603.

Incidence, Clinical Characteristics, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients With COVID-19: Results of the UMC-19-S12.

OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated the incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGB) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), who were attending the emergency department (ED), before hospitalization. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all COVID-19 patients diagnosed with UGB in 62 Spanish EDs (20% of Spanish EDs, case group) during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 outbreak. We formed 2 control groups: COVID-19 patients without UGB (control group A) and non-COVID-19 patients with UGB (control group B). Fifty-three independent variables and 4 outcomes were compared between cases and controls. RESULTS: We identified 83 UGB in 74,814 patients with COVID-19 who were attending EDs (1.11%, 95% CI=0.88-1.38). This incidence was lower compared with non-COVID-19 patients [2474/1,388,879, 1.78%, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.71-1.85; odds ratio (OR)=0.62; 95% CI=0.50-0.77]. Clinical characteristics associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 patients presenting with UGB were abdominal pain, vomiting, hematemesis, dyspnea, expectoration, melena, fever, cough, chest pain, and dysgeusia. Compared with non-COVID-19 patients with UGB, COVID-19 patients with UGB more frequently had fever, cough, expectoration, dyspnea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, interstitial lung infiltrates, and ground-glass lung opacities. They underwent fewer endoscopies in the ED (although diagnoses did not differ between cases and control group B) and less endoscopic treatment. After adjustment for age and sex, cases showed a higher in-hospital all-cause mortality than control group B (OR=2.05, 95% CI=1.09-3.86) but not control group A (OR=1.14, 95% CI=0.59-2.19) patients. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of UGB in COVID-19 patients attending EDs was lower compared with non-COVID-19 patients. Digestive symptoms predominated over respiratory symptoms, and COVID-19 patients with UGB underwent fewer gastroscopies and endoscopic treatments than the general population with UGB. In-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients with UGB was increased compared with non-COVID patients with UGB, but not compared with the remaining COVID-19 patients.

Pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19: incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and outcome.

AIMS: We investigated the incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with COVID-19 attending emergency departments (EDs), before hospitalization. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively reviewed all COVID-19 patients diagnosed with PE in 62 Spanish EDs (20% of Spanish EDs, case group) during the first COVID-19 outbreak. COVID-19 patients without PE and non-COVID-19 patients with PE were included as control groups. Adjusted comparisons for baseline characteristics, acute episode characteristics, and outcomes were made between cases and randomly selected controls (1:1 ratio). We identified 368 PE in 74 814 patients with COVID-19 attending EDs (4.92‰). The standardized incidence of PE in the COVID-19 population resulted in 310 per 100 000 person-years, significantly higher than that observed in the non-COVID-19 population [35 per 100 000 person-years; odds ratio (OR) 8.95 for PE in the COVID-19 population, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.51-9.41]. Several characteristics in COVID-19 patients were independently associated with PE, the strongest being D-dimer >1000 ng/mL, and chest pain (direct association) and chronic heart failure (inverse association). COVID-19 patients with PE differed from non-COVID-19 patients with PE in 16 characteristics, most directly related to COVID-19 infection; remarkably, D-dimer >1000 ng/mL, leg swelling/pain, and PE risk factors were significantly less present. PE in COVID-19 patients affected smaller pulmonary arteries than in non-COVID-19 patients, although right ventricular dysfunction was similar in both groups. In-hospital mortality in cases (16.0%) was similar to COVID-19 patients without PE (16.6%; OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65-1.42; and 11.4% in a subgroup of COVID-19 patients with PE ruled out by scanner, OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.97-2.27), but higher than in non-COVID-19 patients with PE (6.5%; OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.66-4.51). Adjustment for differences in baseline and acute episode characteristics and sensitivity analysis reported very similar associations. CONCLUSIONS: PE in COVID-19 patients at ED presentation is unusual (about 0.5%), but incidence is approximately ninefold higher than in the general (non-COVID-19) population. Moreover, risk factors and leg symptoms are less frequent, D-dimer increase is lower and emboli involve smaller pulmonary arteries. While PE probably does not increase the mortality of COVID-19 patients, mortality is higher in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients with PE.

[Mild SARS-CoV-2 infection in vulnerable patients: implementation of a clinical pathway for early treatment]. / Infección leve por SARS-CoV-2 en pacientes vulnerables: implantación de una vía clínica de tratamiento precoz.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this report is to describe the clinical pathway for early treatment of patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and to evaluate the first results of its implementation. METHODS: This is a descriptive and retrospective study of the implementation of a clinical pathway of treatment in outpatients (January 1 to June 30 2022). Clinical pathway: detection and referral systems from Primary Care, Emergency services, hospital specialities and an automated detection system; clinical evaluation and treatment administration in the COVID-19 day-hospital and subsequent clinical follow-up. Explanatory variables: demographics, comorbidity, vaccination status, referral pathways and treatment administration. OUTCOME VARIABLES: hospitalization and death with 30 days, grade 2-3 toxicity related to treatment. RESULTS: Treatment was administered to 262 patients (53,4% women, median age 60 years). The treatment indication criteria were immunosupression (68,3%), and the combination of age, vaccination status and comorbidity in the rest47,3% of the patients s received remdesivir, 35,9% nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 13,4% sotrovimab and 2,4% combined treatment with a median of 4 days after symptom onset. Hospital admission was required for 6,1% of the patients, 3,8% related to progression COVID-19. No patient died. Toxicity grade 2-3 toxicity was reported in 18,7%, 89,8% dysgeusia and metallic tasted related nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Seven patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity. CONCLUSION: The creation and implementation of a clinical pathway for non-hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is effective and it allows early accessibility and equity of currently available treatments.

Incidence, Clinical Characteristics, Risk Factors and Outcomes of Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients With COVID-19: Results of the UMC-19-S1010.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of knowledge about the real incidence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with COVID-19, their clinical characteristics, and their prognoses. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the incidence, clinical characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes of ACS in patients with COVID-19 in the emergency department. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all COVID-19 patients diagnosed with ACS in 62 Spanish emergency departments between March and April 2020 (the first wave of COVID-19). We formed 2 control groups: COVID-19 patients without ACS (control A) and non-COVID-19 patients with ACS (control B). Unadjusted comparisons between cases and control subjects were performed regarding 58 characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 110 patients with ACS in 74,814 patients with COVID-19 attending the ED (1.48% [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.21-1.78%]). This incidence was lower than that observed in non-COVID-19 patients (3.64% [95% CI 3.54-3.74%]; odds ratio [OR] 0.40 [95% CI 0.33-0.49]). The clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 associated with a higher risk of presenting ACS were: previous coronary artery disease, age ≥60 years, hypertension, chest pain, raised troponin, and hypoxemia. The need for hospitalization and admission to intensive care and in-hospital mortality were higher in cases than in control group A (adjusted OR [aOR] 6.36 [95% CI 1.84-22.1], aOR 4.63 [95% CI 1.88-11.4], and aOR 2.46 [95% CI 1.15-5.25]). When comparing cases with control group B, the aOR of admission to intensive care was 0.41 (95% CI 0.21-0.80), while the aOR for in-hospital mortality was 5.94 (95% CI 2.84-12.4). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of ACS in patients with COVID-19 attending the emergency department was low, around 1.48%, but could be increased in some circumstances. Patients with COVID-19 with ACS had a worse prognosis than control subjects with higher in-hospital mortality.

A case-control, multicentre study of consecutive patients with COVID-19 and acute (myo)pericarditis: incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics and outcomes of acute (myo)pericarditis (AMP) in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Case-control, retrospective review, consecutive case inclusion performed in 62 Spanish EDs. All COVID-19 patients with AMP (cases) were compared in clinical characteristics and outcomes with COVID-19 without AMP (control group A) and non-COVID patients with AMP (control group B). We estimated unadjusted standardised incidence (SI, not adjusted by population's age/sex) of AMP in COVID-19 and non-COVID populations (per 100 000/year). RESULTS: We identified 67 AMP in COVID-19 patients (SI=56.5, OR with respect to non-COVID patients=4.43, 95% CI=3.98 to 4.94). Remarkably, COVID-19 cases presented with chest pain less frequently than non-COVID patients and had less typical ECG changes, higher NT-proBNP (N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide), more left and right ventricular dysfunction in echocardiography and more need of inotropic/vasopressor drugs. Admission to intensive care was higher than control group A (OR=3.22, 95% CI=1.43 to 7.23), and in-hospital mortality was higher than control group B (OR=7.75, 95% CI=2.77 to 21.7). CONCLUSION: AMP is unusual as a form of COVID-19 presentation (about 1‰ cases), but SI is more than fourfold higher than non-COVID population, and it is less symptomatic, more severe and has higher in-hospital mortality; therefore, rapid recognition, echocardiographic assessment of myopericardial inflammation/dysfunction and treatment with vasoactive drugs when needed are recommended in AMP in patients with COVID-19.

Medium-term serostatus in Spanish case series recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The medium-term serologic response of SARS-CoV-2 infection recovered individuals is not well known. The aims were to quantify the incidence of seropositive failure in the medium term in a cohort of patients with different COVID-19 severity and to analyze its associated factors. Patients who had recovered from mild and severe forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection in an Academic Spanish hospital (March 12-May 2, 2020), were tested for total anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 test; Roche Diagnostics GmbH). The non-seropositive status (seropositive failure) incidence (95% CI) was determined. Associations were tested by multiple logistic regression in a global cohort and severe pneumonia subpopulation. Of 435 patients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, a serological test was carried out in 325: 210 (64.6%) had severe pneumonia (hospitalized patients), 51 (15.7%) non-severe pneumonia (managed as outpatients), and 64 (19.7%) mild cases without pneumonia. After a median (IQR) of 76 days (70-83) from symptom onset, antibody responses may not consistently develop or reach levels sufficient to be detectable by antibody tests (non-seropositive incidence) in 6.9% (95% CI, 4.4-10.6) and 20.3% (95% CI, 12.2-31.7) of patients with and without pneumonia, respectively. Baseline independent predictors of seropositive failure were higher leukocytes and fewer days of symptoms before admission, while low glomerular filtrate and fever seem associated with serologic response. Age, comorbidity or immunosuppressive therapies (corticosteroids, tocilizumab) did not influence antibody response. In the medium-term, SARS-CoV-2 seropositive failure is not infrequent in COVID-19 recovered patients. Age, comorbidity or immunosuppressive therapies did not influence antibody response.

Socio-Demographic Health Determinants Are Associated with Poor Prognosis in Spanish Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Social vulnerability is a known determinant of health in respiratory diseases. Our aim was to identify whether there are socio-demographic factors among COVID-19 patients hospitalized in Spain and their potential impact on health outcomes during the hospitalization. METHODS: A multicentric retrospective case series study based on administrative databases that included all COVID-19 cases admitted in 19 Spanish hospitals from 1 March to 15 April 2020. Socio-demographic data were collected. Outcomes were critical care admission and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: We included 10,110 COVID-19 patients admitted to 18 Spanish hospitals (median age 68 (IQR 54-80) years old; 44.5% female; 14.8% were not born in Spain). Among these, 779 (7.7%) cases were admitted to critical care units and 1678 (16.6%) patients died during the hospitalization. Age, male gender, being immigrant, and low hospital saturation were independently associated with being admitted to an intensive care unit. Age, male gender, being immigrant, percentile of average per capita income, and hospital experience were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Social determinants such as residence in low-income areas and being born in Latin American countries were associated with increased odds of being admitted to an intensive care unit and of in-hospital mortality. There was considerable variation in outcomes between different Spanish centers.

Incidence, clinical characteristics, risk factors and outcomes of meningoencephalitis in patients with COVID-19.

We investigated the incidence, clinical characteristics, risk factors, and outcome of meningoencephalitis (ME) in patients with COVID-19 attending emergency departments (ED), before hospitalization. We retrospectively reviewed all COVID patients diagnosed with ME in 61 Spanish EDs (20% of Spanish EDs, COVID-ME) during the COVID pandemic. We formed two control groups: non-COVID patients with ME (non-COVID-ME) and COVID patients without ME (COVID-non-ME). Unadjusted comparisons between cases and controls were performed regarding 57 baseline and clinical characteristics and 4 outcomes. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biochemical and serologic findings of COVID-ME and non-COVID-ME were also investigated. We identified 29 ME in 71,904 patients with COVID-19 attending EDs (0.40‰, 95%CI=0.27-0.58). This incidence was higher than that observed in non-COVID patients (150/1,358,134, 0.11‰, 95%CI=0.09-0.13; OR=3.65, 95%CI=2.45-5.44). With respect to non-COVID-ME, COVID-ME more frequently had dyspnea and chest X-ray abnormalities, and neck stiffness was less frequent (OR=0.3, 95%CI=0.1-0.9). In 69.0% of COVID-ME, CSF cells were predominantly lymphocytes, and SARS-CoV-2 antigen was detected by RT-PCR in 1 patient. The clinical characteristics associated with a higher risk of presenting ME in COVID patients were vomiting (OR=3.7, 95%CI=1.4-10.2), headache (OR=24.7, 95%CI=10.2-60.1), and altered mental status (OR=12.9, 95%CI=6.6-25.0). COVID-ME patients had a higher in-hospital mortality than non-COVID-ME patients (OR=2.26; 95%CI=1.04-4.48), and a higher need for hospitalization (OR=8.02; 95%CI=1.19-66.7) and intensive care admission (OR=5.89; 95%CI=3.12-11.14) than COVID-non-ME patients. ME is an unusual form of COVID presentation (<0.5‰ cases), but is more than 4-fold more frequent than in non-COVID patients attending the ED. As the majority of these MEs had lymphocytic predominance and in one patient SARS-CoV-2 antigen was detected in CSF, SARS-CoV-2 could be the cause of most of the cases observed. COVID-ME patients had a higher unadjusted in-hospital mortality than non-COVID-ME patients.

Lung Ultrasound Integration in Assessment of Patients with Noncritical COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Performing lung ultrasound during the clinical assessment of patients with suspicion of noncritical COVID-19 may increase the diagnostic rate of pulmonary involvement over other diagnostic techniques used in routine clinical practice. This study aims to compare complications (readmissions, emergency department [ED] visits, and length of outpatient follow-up) in the first 30 days after ED discharge in patients with confirmed COVID-19 who were managed with versus without lung ultrasound. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, observational, analytical study in noncritical patients with confirmed respiratory disease due to SARS-CoV-2, assessed in the ED of a tertiary Spanish hospital in March and April 2020. We compared 2 cohorts, differentiated by the use of lung ultrasound as a diagnostic tool. Complications were assessed (hospital admissions, ED revisits and days of outpatient follow-up) at 30 days postdischarge. RESULTS: Of the 88 included patients, 31% (n = 27) underwent an initial lung ultrasound, while 61 (68%) did not. In 82.5% of the patients evaluated with ultrasound, the most predominant areas affected were the posterobasal regions, in the form of focalized and confluent B-lines; 70.4% showed pleural irregularity in these same areas. Use of the lung ultrasound was associated with a greater probability of hospital admission (odds ratio 5.63, 95% confidence interval 3.31 to 9.57; p < 0.001). However, it was not significantly associated with mortality or short-term complications. CONCLUSIONS: Lung ultrasound could identify noncritical patients with lung impairment due to SARS-CoV-2, in whom other tests used routinely show no abnormalities. However, it has not shown a prognostic value in these patients and could generate a higher percentage of hospital admissions. More studies are still needed to demonstrate the clear benefit of this use.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T 30 days all-come mortality in patients with acute heart failure. A Propensity Score-Matching Analysis Based on the EAHFE Registry. TROPICA4 Study.

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure (AHF) patients with high troponin levels have a worse prognosis. High-sensitive troponin T (hs-TnT) has been used as a tool to stratify prognosis in many scales but always as a qualitative and not as a quantitative variable. OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to determine the best hs-TnT cut-off for prediction of 30-day all-cause mortality. METHODS: The EAHFE registry, a prospective follow-up cohort of patients with AHF, was analysed. We performed a propensity score analysis of the optimal hs-TnT cut-off point previously determined by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: Of the 13 791 patients in the EAHFE cohort, we analysed 3190 patients in whom hs-TnT determination was available. The area under the ROC curve for 30-day all-cause mortality was 0.70 (CI95% 0.68 to 0.71; P < .001), establishing an optimal cut-off of hs-TnT of 35 ng/L. The sensitivity and specificity of this cut-off were 76.2 and 55.5%, respectively, with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 95.3%. A propensity score was made with 34 variables showing differences based on the cut-off of 35 ng/L for hs-TnT. In the analysis of the population obtained with the propensity score, patients with hs-TnT > 35 ng/L showed a greater 30-day all-cause mortality, with a HR of 2.95 (CI95% 1.83-4.75; P < .001). External validation reported similar results. CONCLUSIONS: An hs-TnT value of 35 ng/L is an adequate cut-off to evaluate the prediction of 30-day all-cause mortality with a NPV of 95.3%.

Frequency of five unusual presentations in patients with COVID-19: results of the UMC-19-S1.

Despite SARS-CoV-19 infection has a stereotypical clinical picture, isolated cases with unusual manifestations have been reported, some of them being well-known to be triggered by viral infections. However, the real frequency in COVID-19 is unknown. Analysing data of 63 822 COVID patients attending 50 Spanish emergency department (ED) during the COVID outbreak, before hospitalisation, we report frequencies of (myo)pericarditis (0.71‰), meningoencephalitis (0.25‰), Guillain-Barré syndrome (0.13‰), acute pancreatitis (0.71‰) and spontaneous pneumothorax (0.57‰). Compared with general ED population, COVID patients developed more frequently Guillain-Barré syndrome (odds ratio (OR) 4.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.09-9.90), spontaneous pneumothorax (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.40-2.79) and (myo)pericarditis (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.07-1.97), but less frequently pancreatitis (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.33-0.60).