Assessment of physicians' resilience level during the COVID-19 pandemic.

We aim to assess physicians' level of resilience and define factors that improve or decrease the resilience level during the COVID-19 pandemic. Physicians from hospitals located in areas with different COVID-19 caseload levels, were invited to participate in a national e-survey between April and May 2020. Study participants were mainly emergency physicians, and anaesthesiologists, infectious disease consultants, and intensive care. The survey assessed participant's characteristics, factors potentially associated with resilience, and resilience using the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (RISC-25), with higher scores indicative of greater resilience. Factors associated with the resilience score were assessed using a multivariable linear regression. Of 451 responding physicians involved in the care of COVID-19 patients, 442 were included (98%). Age was 36.1 ± 10.3 years and 51.8% were male; 63% worked in the emergency department (n = 282), 10.4% in anesthesiology (n = 46), 9.9% in infectious disease department (n = 44), 4.8% in intensive care unit (n = 21) or other specialties (n = 49). The median RISC-25 score was at 69 (IQR 62-75). Factors associated with higher RISC scores were anesthesia as a specialty, parenthood, no previous history of anxiety or depression and nor increased anxiety. To conclude, this study is the first to characterize levels of resilience among physicians involved in COVID-19 unit. Our data points to certain protective characteristics and some detrimental factors, such as anxiety or depression, that could be amenable to remediating or preventing strategies to promote resilience and support caregivers in a pandemic.

Venous thromboembolism risk stratification for patients with lower limb trauma and cast or brace immobilization.

BACKGROUND: Thromboprophylaxis for patients with non-surgical isolated lower-limb trauma requiring immobilization is a matter of debate. Our aim was to develop and validate a clinical risk- stratification model based on Trauma, Immobilization and Patients' characteristics (the TIP score). METHODS: The TIP score criteria and the cut-off were selected by a consensus of international experts (n = 27) using the Delphi method. Retrospective validation was performed in a population-based case-control study (MEGA study). The potential score's impact in anticoagulant treatment was assessed in a prospective single-center observational cohort study. FINDINGS: After four successive rounds, 30 items constituting the TIP score were selected: thirteen items for trauma, three for immobilization and 14 for patient characteristics were selected, each rated on a scale of 1 to 3. In the validation database, the TIP score had an AUC of 0·77 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.85). Using the cut-off proposed by the experts (≥5) and assuming a prevalence of 1·8%, the TIP scores had a sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive values of 89·9%, 30·7% and 99·4% respectively. In the prospective cohort, 84·2% (165/196) of all the patients concerned who presented at the emergency department had a low VTE risk not requiring thromboprophylaxis according to their TIP scores. The 3-month rate of symptomatic VTE was 1/196 [95% CI 0.1-2.8] this patient was in the sub-group TIP score ≥5. CONCLUSION: For patients with non-surgical lower-limb trauma and orthopedic immobilization, the TIP score allows an individual VTE risk-assessment and shows promising results in guiding thromboprophylaxis.

Outpatient management of pulmonary embolism.

Despite clear potential benefits of outpatient care, most patients suffering from pulmonary embolism (PE) are currently hospitalized due to the fear of possible adverse events. Nevertheless, some teams have increased or envisage to increase outpatient treatment or early discharge. We performed a narrative systematic review of studies published on this topic. We identified three meta-analyses and 23 studies, which involved 3671 patients managed at home (n=3036) or discharged early (n=535). Two main different approaches were applied to select patients eligible for outpatient in recent prospective studies, one based on a list of pragmatic criteria as the HESTIA rule, the other adding severity criteria (i.e. risk of death) as the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Criteria (PESI) or simplified PESI. In all these studies, a specific follow-up was performed for patients managed at home involving a dedicated team. The overall early (i.e. between 1 to 3 months) complication rate was low, <2% for thromboembolic recurrences or major bleedings and <3% for deaths with no evidence in favour of one selection strategy or another. Outpatient management appears to be feasible and safe for many patients with PE. In the coming years, outpatient treatment may be considered as the first line management for hemodynamically stable PE patients, subject to the respect of simple eligibility criteria and on the condition that a specific procedure for outpatient care is developed in advance.

Safety of multidetector computed tomography pulmonary angiography to exclude pulmonary embolism in patients with a likely pretest clinical probability.

Essentials Safety of computed tomography (CTPA) to exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) in all patients is debated. We analysed the outcome of PE-likely outpatients left untreated after negative CTPA alone. The 3-month venous thromboembolic risk in these patients was very low (0.6%; 95% CI 0.2-2.3). Multidetector CTPA alone safely excludes PE in patients with likely clinical probability. SUMMARY: Background In patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) classified as having a likely or high pretest clinical probability, the need to perform additional testing after a negative multidetector computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) finding remains a matter of debate. Objectives To assess the safety of excluding PE by CTPA without additional imaging in patients with a likely pretest probability of PE. Patients/Methods We retrospectively analyzed patients included in two multicenter management outcome studies that assessed diagnostic algorithms for PE diagnosis. Results Two thousand five hundred and twenty-two outpatients with suspected PE were available for analysis. Of these 2522 patients, 845 had a likely clinical probability as assessed by use of the simplified revised Geneva score. Of all of these patients, 314 had the diagnosis of PE excluded by a negative CTPA finding alone without additional testing, and were left without anticoagulant treatment and followed up for 3 months. Two patients presented with a venous thromboembolism (VTE) during follow-up. Therefore, the 3-month VTE risk in likely-probability patients after a negative CTPA finding alone was 2/314 (0.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2-2.3%). Conclusions In outpatients with suspected PE and a likely clinical probability as assessed by use of the simplified revised Geneva score, CTPA alone seems to be able to safely exclude PE, with a low 3-month VTE rate, which is similar to the VTE rate following the gold standard, i.e. pulmonary angiography.

Net clinical benefit of hospitalization versus outpatient management of patients with acute pulmonary embolism.

Essentials Clinical benefit of hospitalization vs. outpatient treatment in pulmonary embolism (PE) is unknown. We performed a propensity matched cohort study of hemodynamically stable PE patients. Regardless of the risk assessment, hospitalized patients had the highest rate of adverse event. If confirmed, ambulatory care of normotensive PE patients may be preferred whenever possible. SUMMARY: Background The decision to hospitalize or not patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is controversial. Despite the advantages of close monitoring, hospitalization by itself may lead to in-hospital complications and potentially worsen the prognosis of PE patients. Objectives To determine the net clinical benefit of hospitalization vs. outpatient management of normotensive patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Methods Retrospective cohort propensity score analysis (radius marching with replacement). Hemodynamically stable PE patients treated as outpatients or inpatients were matched to balance out differences for 28 patient characteristics and known risk factors for adverse events. The primary outcome was the rate of adverse events at 14 days, including recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding or death. Results Among 1127 eligible patients, 1081 were included in the matched cohort, 576 treated as inpatients and 505 as outpatients. The 14-day rate of adverse events was 13.0% for inpatients and 3.3% for outpatients (adjusted OR, 5.07; 95% CI, 1.68-15.28). The 3-month rate was 21.7% for inpatients and 6.9% for outpatients (OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 2.62-9.17). In the high-risk subgroup (Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index class III-V; n = 597), the 14-day rate of adverse events was 16.5% for hospitalized patients vs. 4.5% for outpatients (OR, 4.16; 95% CI, 1.2-14.35). Conclusion Outpatient treatment of hemodynamically stable PE patients seems to be associated with a lower rate of adverse events than hospitalization and, if confirmed, may be considered as first-line management in patients not requiring specific in-hospital care, regardless of their initial risk stratification, if proper outpatient care can be provided.