Holy Shroud Exhibition 2010: health services during a 40-day mass-gathering event.

INTRODUCTION: Mass-gathering events require varying types and amounts of medical resources to deal with patient presentations as well as careful planning for environmental health management. The Holy Shroud Exhibition was hosted in Torino, Italy, between April and May 2010. The venue was a unique mass-gathering event which lasted several weeks. It was held in a limited area in the center of the city and it was attended by a large and heterogeneous population. A dedicated Health Care Service was created for the event. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of clinical presentations of patients who were managed by the Medical Services during the event. The main study outcomes included Patient Presentation Rate (PPR), type of injuries and illnesses, and the Transport to Hospital Rate (TTHR). RESULTS: The PPR and TTHR were both low (0.27 and 0.039 respectively). The majority of patients presented with low severity codes and no sudden cardiac death (SCD) or cardiac arrest occurred. Cardiac and trauma emergencies were most frequent categories of presentation. A number of pediatric patients (19.37%) were treated by the event Medical Service. Approximately two million persons participated in the 40-day event. CONCLUSION: The experience for this 40-day event supported having an on-site, organized, dedicated Medical Service that decreased overcrowding of the local Emergency Medical System and hospitals. It is recommended that, for such events, there be recruitment of emergency physicians with experience in mass-gathering events, recruitment of pediatricians, and training for professionals during the planning process.

Lung Ultrasound Improves Outcome Prediction over Clinical Judgment in COVID-19 Patients Evaluated in the Emergency Department.

In the Emergency Department (ED), the decision to hospitalize or discharge COVID-19 patients is challenging. We assessed the utility of lung ultrasound (LUS), alone or in association with a clinical rule/score. This was a multicenter observational prospective study involving six EDs (NCT046291831). From October 2020 to January 2021, COVID-19 outpatients discharged from the ED based on clinical judgment were subjected to LUS and followed-up at 30 days. The primary clinical outcome was a composite of hospitalization or death. Within 393 COVID-19 patients, 35 (8.9%) reached the primary outcome. For outcome prognostication, LUS had a C-index of 0.76 (95%CI 0.68−0.84) and showed good performance and calibration. LUS-based classification provided significant differences in Kaplan−Meier curves, with a positive LUS leading to a hazard ratio of 4.33 (95%CI 1.95−9.61) for the primary outcome. The sensitivity and specificity of LUS for primary outcome occurrence were 74.3% (95%CI 59.8−88.8) and 74% (95%CI 69.5−78.6), respectively. The integration of LUS with a clinical score further increased sensitivity. In patients with a negative LUS, the primary outcome occurred in nine (3.3%) patients (p < 0.001 vs. unselected). The efficiency for rule-out was 69.7%. In unvaccinated ED patients with COVID-19, LUS improves prognostic stratification over clinical judgment alone and may support standardized disposition decisions.

A 4C mortality score based dichotomic rule supports Emergency Department discharge of COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: For COVID-19 patients evaluated in the Emergency Department (ED), decision on hospital admission vs. home discharge is challenging. The 4C mortality score (4CMS) is a prognostication tool integrating key demographic/clinical/biochemical data validated for COVID-19 inpatients. We sought to derive and validate a dichotomic rule based on 4CMS identifying patients with mild outcomes, suitable for safe ED discharge. METHODS: Derivation was performed in a prospective cohort of ED patients with suspected COVID-19 from two centers (April 2020). Validation was pursued in a prospective multicenter cohort of ED patients with confirmed COVID-19 from 6 centers (October 2020 to January 2021). Chest X-ray (CXR) images were independently scored. The primary composite outcome was all-cause 30-day mortality or hospital admission. Secondary outcomes were ED re-visit, oxygen therapy and ventilation. RESULTS: In a derivation cohort of 838 ED patients with suspected COVID-19, 4CMS≤8 was associated with low outpatient mortality (0.4%) and was thus selected as a feasible discharge rule. In a validation cohort of 521 COVID-19 outpatients, the mean age was 51±17 years; 97 (18.6%) patients had ≥1 CXR infiltrate. The 4CMS had an AUC of 0.82 for the primary outcome and 0.93 for mortality, outperforming other scores (CURB-65, qCSI, qSOFA, NEWS) and CXR. In 474 (91%) patients with 4CMS≤8, the mortality rate was 0.2% and the hospital admission rate was 6.8%, versus 12.8% and 36.2% for 4CMS≥9 (P<0.001). CXR did not provide additional discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 outpatients with 4CMS≤8 have mild outcomes and can be safely discharged from the ED. [NCT0462918].

After the first wave and beyond lockdown: long-lasting changes in emergency department visit number, characteristics, diagnoses, and hospital admissions.

The first wave (FW) of COVID-19 led to a rapid reduction in total emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions for other diseases. Whether this represented a transient "lockdown and fear" phenomenon, or a more persisting trend, is unknown. We divided acute from post-wave changes in ED flows, diagnoses, and hospital admissions, in an Italian city experiencing a FW peak followed by nadir. This multicenter, retrospective, cross-sectional study involved five general EDs of a large Italian city (January-August 2020). Percent changes were calculated versus 2019, using four 14-day periods (FW peak, early/mid/late post-wave). ED visits were 147,446 in 2020, versus 214,868 in 2019. During the FW peak, visits were reduced by 66.4% (P < 0.001). The drop was maximum during daytime (69.8%) and for pediatric patients (89.4%). Critical triage codes were unchanged. Reductions were found for all non-COVID-19 diagnoses. Non-COVID-19 hospital admissions were reduced by 39.5% (P < 0.001), involving all conditions except hematologic, metabolic/endocrine, respiratory diseases, and traumas. In the early, mid, and late post-wave periods, visits were reduced by 25.4%, 25.3% and 23.5% (all P < 0.001) respectively. In the late period, reduction was greater for female (27.9%) and pediatric patients (44.6%). Most critical triage codes were unchanged. Oncological, metabolic/endocrine, and hematological diagnoses were unchanged, while other diagnoses had persistent reductions. Non-COVID-19 hospital admissions were reduced by 12.8% (P = 0.001), 6.3% (P = 0.1) and 12.2% (P = 0.001), respectively. Reductions in ED flows, led by non-critical codes, persisted throughout the summer nadir of COVID-19. Hospital admissions for non-COVID-19 diseases had transient changes.

Lung ultrasound integrated with clinical assessment for the diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: Although acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a common cause of dyspnoea, its diagnosis still represents a challenge. Lung ultrasound (LUS) is an emerging point-of-care diagnostic tool, but its diagnostic performance for ADHF has not been evaluated in randomized studies. We evaluated, in patients with acute dyspnoea, accuracy and clinical usefulness of combining LUS with clinical assessment compared to the use of chest radiography (CXR) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in conjunction with clinical evaluation. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a randomized trial conducted in two emergency departments. After initial clinical evaluation, patients with acute dyspnoea were classified by the treating physician according to presumptive aetiology (ADHF or non-ADHF). Patients were subsequently randomized to continue with either LUS or CXR/NT-proBNP. A new diagnosis, integrating the results of both initial assessment and the newly obtained findings, was then recorded. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical usefulness of LUS and CXR/NT-proBNP approaches were calculated. A total of 518 patients were randomized. Addition of LUS had higher accuracy [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.95] than clinical evaluation alone (AUC 0.88) in identifying ADHF (P < 0.01). In contrast, use of CXR/NT-proBNP did not significantly increase the accuracy of clinical evaluation alone (AUC 0.87 and 0.85, respectively; P > 0.05). The diagnostic accuracy of the LUS-integrated approach was higher then that of the CXR/Nt-proBNP-integrated approach (AUC 0.95 vs. 0.87, p < 0.01). Combining LUS with the clinical evaluation reduced diagnostic errors by 7.98 cases/100 patients, as compared to 2.42 cases/100 patients in the CXR/Nt-proBNP group. CONCLUSION: Integration of LUS with clinical assessment for the diagnosis of ADHF in the emergency department seems to be more accurate than the current diagnostic approach based on CXR and NT-proBNP.

Lung Ultrasound-Implemented Diagnosis of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure in the ED: A SIMEU Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasonography (LUS) has emerged as a noninvasive tool for the differential diagnosis of pulmonary diseases. However, its use for the diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) still raises some concerns. We tested the hypothesis that an integrated approach implementing LUS with clinical assessment would have higher diagnostic accuracy than a standard workup in differentiating ADHF from noncardiogenic dyspnea in the ED. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective cohort study in seven Italian EDs. For patients presenting with acute dyspnea, the emergency physician was asked to categorize the diagnosis as ADHF or noncardiogenic dyspnea after (1) the initial clinical assessment and (2) after performing LUS ("LUS-implemented" diagnosis). All patients also underwent chest radiography. After discharge, the cause of each patient's dyspnea was determined by independent review of the entire medical record. The diagnostic accuracy of the different approaches was then compared. RESULTS: The study enrolled 1,005 patients. The LUS-implemented approach had a significantly higher accuracy (sensitivity, 97% [95% CI, 95%-98.3%]; specificity, 97.4% [95% CI, 95.7%-98.6%]) in differentiating ADHF from noncardiac causes of acute dyspnea than the initial clinical workup (sensitivity, 85.3% [95% CI, 81.8%-88.4%]; specificity, 90% [95% CI, 87.2%-92.4%]), chest radiography alone (sensitivity, 69.5% [95% CI, 65.1%-73.7%]; specificity, 82.1% [95% CI, 78.6%-85.2%]), and natriuretic peptides (sensitivity, 85% [95% CI, 80.3%-89%]; specificity, 61.7% [95% CI, 54.6%-68.3%]; n = 486). Net reclassification index of the LUS-implemented approach compared with standard workup was 19.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of LUS with the clinical evaluation may improve accuracy of ADHF diagnosis in patients presenting to the ED. TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinicaltrials.gov; No.: NCT01287429; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.