Prognostic value of respiratory parameters for COVID-19 patients in the emergency department: results from the EC-COVID study.

While several studies have evaluated the prognostic weight of respiratory parameters in patients with COVID-19, few have focused on patients' clinical conditions at the first emergency department (ED) assessment. We analyzed a large cohort of ED patients recruited within the EC-COVID study over the year 2020, and assessed the association between key bedside respiratory parameters measured in room air (pO2, pCO2, pH, and respiratory rate [RR]) and hospital mortality, after adjusting for key confounding factors. Analyses were based on a multivariable logistic Generalized Additive Model (GAM). After excluding patients who did not perform a blood gas analysis (BGA) test in room air or with incomplete BGA results, a total of 2458 patients were considered in the analyses. Most patients were hospitalized on ED discharge (72.0%); hospital mortality was 14.3%. Strong, negative associations with hospital mortality emerged for pO2, pCO2 and pH (p-values: < 0.001, < 0.001 and 0.014), while a significant, positive association was observed for RR (p-value < 0.001). Associations were quantified with nonlinear functions, learned from the data. No cross-parameter interaction was significant (all p-values were larger than 0.10), suggesting a progressive, independent effect on the outcome as the value of each parameter departed from normality. Our results collide with the hypothesized existence of patterns of breathing parameters with specific prognostic weight in the early stages of the disease.

Risk Stratification in COVID-19 Pneumonia - Determining the Role of Lung Ultrasound.

LUS patterns of COVID-19 pneumonia have been described and shown to be characteristic. The aim of the study was to predict the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, using a score based on LUS findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational, retrospective study was conducted on patients admitted to Niguarda hospital with a diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia during the period of a month, from March 2nd to April 3rd 2020. Demographics, clinical, laboratory, and radiological findings were collected. LUS was performed in all patients. The chest was divided into 12 areas. The LUS report was drafted using a score from 0 to 3 with 0 corresponding to A pattern, 1 corresponding to well separated vertical artifacts (B lines), 2 corresponding to white lung and small consolidations, 3 corresponding to wide consolidations. The total score results from the sum of the scores for each area. The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation, no active further management, or death. The secondary outcome was discharge from the emergency room (ER). RESULTS: 255 patients were enrolled. 93.7 % had a positive LUS. ETI was performed in 43 patients, and 24 received a DNI order. The general mortality rate was 15.7 %. Male sex (OR 3.04, p = 0.014), cardiovascular disease and hypertension (OR 2.75, p = 0.006), P/F (OR 0.99, p < 0.001) and an LUS score > 20 (OR 2.52, p = 0.046) were independent risk factors associated with the primary outcome. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for an LUS score > 20 was performed with an AUC of 0.837. Independent risk factors associated with the secondary outcome were age (OR 0.96, p = 0.073), BMI (OR 0.87, p = 0,13), P/F (OR 1.03, p < 0.001), and LUS score < 10 (OR 20.9, p = 0.006). ROC curve analysis was performed using an LUS score < 10 with an AUC 0.967. CONCLUSION: The extent of lung abnormalities evaluated by LUS score is a predictor of a worse outcome, ETI, or death. Moreover, the LUS score could be an additional tool for the safe discharge of patient from the ER.

Therapeutic Approach to Hypertension Urgencies and Emergencies in the Emergency Room.

Hypertensive urgencies-emergencies are important and common events. They are defined as a severe elevation in BP, higher than 180/120 mmHg, associated or not with the evidence of new or worsening organ damage for emergencies and urgencies respectively. Anamnestic information, physical examination and instrumental evaluation determine the following management that could need oral (for urgencies) or intravenous (for emergencies) anti-hypertensives drugs. The choice of the specific drugs depend on the underlying causes of the crisis, patient's demographics, cardiovascular risk and comorbidities. For emergencies a maximum BP reduction of 20-25% within the first hour and then to 160/110-100 over next 2-6 h, is considered appropriate with a further gradual decrease over the next 24-48 h to reach normal BP levels. In the case of hypertensive urgencies, a gradual lowering of BP over 24-48 h with an oral medication is the best approach and an aggressive BP lowering should be avoided. Subsequent management with particular attention on chronic BP values control is important as the right treatment of the acute phase.