Thyroid and adrenal incidentalomas on chest CT: Prevalence, diagnostic work-up and outcomes in a cohort of COVID-19 suspected patients.

OBJECTIVE: Due to increased use of computed tomography (CT), prevalence of thyroid and adrenal incidentalomas is rising. Yet, previous studies on the outcomes of diagnostic work-up of incidentalomas are subjected to inclusion bias. Therefore, we aimed to investigate prevalence and outcomes of diagnostic work-up of thyroid and adrenal incidentalomas detected on chest CT in a less selected population of COVID-19 suspected patients. DESIGN: A retrospective, observational cohort study. METHODS: We included all COVID-19 suspected patients who underwent chest CT between March 2020 and March 2021. Radiology reports and medical records were reviewed for the presence and subsequent diagnostic work-up of thyroid and adrenal incidentalomas. RESULTS: A total of 1,992 consecutive COVID-19 patients were included (59.4% male, median age 71 years [IQR: 71-80]). Thyroid and adrenal incidentalomas were identified in 95 (4.8%) and 133 (6.7%) patients, respectively. Higher prevalence was observed with increasing age, among female patients and in patients with malignancy. Forty-four incidentalomas were further analyzed, but no malignancies were found. Only three lesions were hormonally active (1 thyrotoxicosis and 2 mild autonomous cortisol secretion). Diagnostic work-up did not lead to any change in clinical management in 97.7% of the analyzed patients. CONCLUSION: Prevalence rates of thyroid and adrenal incidentalomas on chest CT in a less selected COVID-19 cohort were 4.8% and 6.7%, respectively. Yet, as all incidentalomas turned out to be benign and only three lesions were (mildly) hormonally active, this raises the question whether intensive diagnostic work-up of incidentalomas is necessary in all patients.

Deferring diagnostic evaluation of suspected deep vein thrombosis using direct oral anticoagulant or low-molecular-weight heparin as a single dose anticoagulant: A prospective real-world study in a regionwide care pathway.

BACKGROUND: Patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT) are typically referred to the emergency department for immediate evaluation. To enhance efficiency, our hospital implemented a regional, general practitioner (GP)-driven DVT care pathway, deferring diagnostic evaluation to a scheduled outpatient DVT clinic appointment the following day. Patients receive a single dose anticoagulant from their GP to prevent thrombosis progression while awaiting diagnostic workup. This prospective study aimed to evaluate the safety and patient preferences regarding the DVT care pathway and the type of single dose anticoagulant (low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs. direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC)). METHODS: Patients enrolled in the DVT care pathway between June 2021 and July 2023 were eligible. Until July 2022, LMWH was administered, and thereafter, the protocol recommended DOAC as the single dose anticoagulant. Patients completed questionnaires, incorporating patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs), during their DVT clinic visit and after five days. The primary endpoint was bleeding events within 72 h of receiving the single dose anticoagulant. RESULTS: Of 460 included patients, 229 received LMWH and 231 received DOAC as the single dose anticoagulant. DVT was confirmed in 24.8 % of patients. No major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding were reported. LMWH was associated with more minor bleedings (22.3 % vs. DOAC 13.4 %), primarily attributed to injection site hematomas. Patients reported high satisfaction with the DVT care pathway (96.5 %) and generally preferred DOAC over LMWH. CONCLUSION: Deferring diagnostic evaluation for DVT using a single dose of either LMWH or DOAC in a real-world population is deemed safe. Considering practical advantages, patient preferences, and fewer skin hematomas, we favor DOACs as the single dose anticoagulant in this care pathway.

Deferring diagnostic evaluation for suspected deep venous thrombosis using a single dose of anticoagulant: Real-world data from a regionwide care pathway.

BACKGROUND: Patients with suspected deep venous thrombosis (DVT) are typically referred to the emergency department (ED) for immediate evaluation. However, this often contributes to ED overcrowding and necessitates round-the-clock sonographic examinations. Therefore, we implemented a regionwide care pathway for deferring diagnostic workup of suspected DVT until the following day. Patients receive a single anticoagulant dose from their general practitioner (GP) to prevent progression of DVT in the interval between referral and diagnostic evaluation. The next day, patients undergo comprehensive evaluation at our outpatient DVT clinic, including venous ultrasound. This retrospective study aims to provide real-world data on the safety of this care pathway regarding the occurrence of bleeding complications and pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: We included all GP-referred patients with suspected DVT in 2018 and 2019. Patients with absolute contraindications to deferred evaluation or anticoagulation were excluded. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of bleeding complications. Secondary endpoints included PE events and all-cause mortality within seven days following DVT evaluation. RESULTS: Among 1,024 included patients, DVT was confirmed in 238 patients (23.2%) and superficial thrombophlebitis in 98 patients (9.6%). No bleeding events were recorded in patients in whom DVT was ruled out. PE was confirmed in eight patients on the same day as DVT evaluation (0.8%, 95%CI 0.4-1.6) and in six patients within seven days following DVT evaluation (0.6%, 0.2-1.3%). No deaths occurred during this timeframe. CONCLUSION: This real-world study observed a very low incidence of bleeding complications and PE events, indicating that this care pathway of deferred DVT workup is safe and may offer a more streamlined diagnostic approach for patients with suspected DVT.

Pulmonary embolism in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: Short- and long-term clinical outcomes.

Introduction: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a frequent complication in COVID-19. However, the influence of PE on the prognosis of COVID-19 remains unclear as previous studies were affected by misclassification bias. Therefore, we evaluated a cohort of COVID-19 patients whom all underwent systematic screening for PE (thereby avoiding misclassification) and compared clinical outcomes between patients with and without PE. Materials and methods: We included all COVID-19 patients who were admitted through the ED between April 2020 and February 2021. All patients underwent systematic work-up for PE in the ED using the YEARS-algorithm. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality and ICU admission. We also evaluated long-term outcomes including PE occurrence within 90 days after discharge and one-year all-cause mortality. Results: 637 ED patients were included in the analysis. PE was diagnosed in 46 of them (7.2%). The occurrence of the primary outcome did not differ between patients with PE and those without (28.3% vs. 26.9%, p = 0.68). The overall rate of PE diagnosed in-hospital (after an initial negative PE screening in the ED) and in the first 90 days after discharge was 3.9% and 1.2% respectively. One-year all-cause mortality was similar between patients with and without PE (26.1% vs. 24.4%, p = 0.83). Conclusions: In a cohort of COVID-19 patients who underwent systematic PE screening in the ED, we found no differences in mortality rate and ICU admissions between patients with and without PE. This may indicate that proactive PE screening, and thus timely diagnosis and treatment of PE, may limit further clinical deterioration and associated mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Systematic screening versus clinical gestalt in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing concomitant pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients remains challenging. As such, PE may be overlooked. We compared the diagnostic yield of systematic PE-screening based on the YEARS-algorithm to PE-screening based on clinical gestalt in emergency department (ED) patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We included all ED patients who were admitted because of COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2021. Patients already receiving anticoagulant treatment were excluded. Up to April 7, 2020, the decision to perform CT-pulmonary angiography (CTPA) was based on physician's clinical gestalt (clinical gestalt cohort). From April 7 onwards, systematic PE-screening was performed by CTPA if D-dimer level was ≥1000 ug/L, or ≥500 ug/L in case of ≥1 YEARS-item (systematic screening cohort). RESULTS: 1095 ED patients with COVID-19 were admitted. After applying exclusion criteria, 289 were included in the clinical gestalt and 574 in the systematic screening cohort. The number of PE diagnoses was significantly higher in the systematic screening cohort compared to the clinical gestalt cohort: 8.2% vs. 1.0% (3/289 vs. 47/574; p<0.001), even after adjustment for differences in patient characteristics (adjusted OR 8.45 (95%CI 2.61-27.42, p<0.001) for PE diagnosis). In multivariate analysis, D-dimer (OR 1.09 per 1000 µg/L increase, 95%CI 1.06-1.13, p<0.001) and CRP >100 mg/L (OR 2.78, 95%CI 1.37-5.66, p = 0.005) were independently associated with PE. CONCLUSION: In ED patients with COVID-19, the number of PE diagnosis was significantly higher in the cohort that underwent systematic PE screening based on the YEARS-algorithm in comparison with the clinical gestalt cohort, with a number needed to test of 7.1 CTPAs to detect one PE.