Derivation and validation of a risk-stratification model for patients with probable or proven COVID-19 in EDs: the revised HOME-CoV score.

BACKGROUND: The HOME-CoV (Hospitalisation or Outpatient ManagEment of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection) score is a validated list of uniquely clinical criteria indicating which patients with probable or proven COVID-19 can be treated at home. The aim of this study was to optimise the score to improve its ability to discriminate between patients who do and do not need admission. METHODS: A revised HOME-CoV score was derived using data from a previous prospective multicentre study which evaluated the original Home-CoV score. Patients with proven or probable COVID-19 attending 34 EDs in France, Monaco and Belgium between April and May 2020 were included. The population was split into a derivation and validation sample corresponding to the observational and interventional phases of the original study. The main outcome was non-invasive or invasive ventilation or all-cause death within 7 days following inclusion. Two threshold values were defined using a sensitivity of >0.9 and a specificity of >0.9 to identify low-risk and high-risk patients, respectively. The revised HOME-CoV score was then validated by retrospectively applying it to patients in the same EDs with proven or probable COVID-19 during the interventional phase. The revised HOME-CoV score was also tested against original HOME-CoV, qCSI, qSOFA, CRB65 and SMART-COP in this validation cohort. RESULTS: There were 1696 patients in the derivation cohort, of whom 65 (3.8%) required non-invasive ventilation or mechanical ventilation or died within 7 days and 1304 patients in the validation cohort, of whom 22 (1.7%) had a progression of illness. The revised score included seven clinical criteria. The area under the curve (AUC) was 87.6 (95% CI 84.7 to 90.6). The cut-offs to define low-risk and high-risk patients were <2 and >3, respectively. In the validation cohort, the AUC was 85.8 (95% CI 80.6 to 91.0). A score of <2 qualified 73% of patients as low risk with a sensitivity of 0.77 (0.55-0.92) and a negative predictive value of 0.99 (0.99-1.00). CONCLUSION: The revised HOME-CoV score, which does not require laboratory testing, may allow accurate risk stratification and safely qualify a significant proportion of patients with probable or proven COVID-19 for home treatment.

Biomarkers for the diagnosis and monitoring of nitrous oxide intoxication: objectives and methodology of the SFBC Working Group.

The recreational use of nitrous oxide (N2O) is an emerging public health issue. Chronic N2O abuse may result in various clinical symptoms, encompassing neurological, psychiatric and cardiovascular outcomes. Despite the difficulties for the laboratory investigation of N2O intoxication, there is currently no guidelines in France to help both clinicians and biologists use appropriate biomarkers for the diagnosis and monitoring of patients with clinical symptoms potentially related to N2O intoxication. A multi-disciplinary Working Group, carried out under the auspices of the French Society of Clinical Biology (SFBC) and in collaboration with the French Societies of Emergency Medicine (SFMU), Analytical Toxicology (SFTA), Hemostasis and Thrombosis (SFTH), Vitamins and Biofactors (SFVB), and the French Federation of Neurology (FFN), was recently implemented to elaborate practical guidelines. The methodology of the Working Group is based on the critical analysis of the literature, and raising concerns and objectives are grouped into five working packages. The present manuscript primarily aims to expound upon the methodology and objectives of the ongoing SFBC Working Group on N2O.

Guidelines for the management of urgent obstetric situations in emergency medicine, 2022

To provide recommendations on the management of urgent obstetrical emergencies outside the maternity ward. A group of 24 experts from the French Society of Emergency Medicine (SFMU), the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (SFAR) and the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF) was convened. Potential conflicts of interest were formally declared at the outset of the guideline development process, which was conducted independently of industry funding. The authors followed the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method to assess the level of evidence in the literature. The potential drawbacks of strong recommendations in the presence of low-level evidence were highlighted. Some recommendations with an insufficient level of evidence were not graded. Eight areas were defined: imminent delivery, postpartum haemorrhage (prevention and management), threat of premature delivery, hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, trauma, imaging, cardiopulmonary arrest, and emergency obstetric training. For each field, the expert panel formulated questions according to the PICO model (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes) and an extensive literature search was conducted. Analysis of the literature and formulation of recommendations were conducted according to the GRADE method. Fifteen recommendations on the management of obstetrical emergencies were issued by the SFMU/SFAR/CNGOF panel of experts, and 4 recommendations from formalised expert recommendations (RFE) established by the same societies were taken up to answer 4 PICO questions dealing with the pre-hospital context. After two rounds of voting and several amendments, strong agreement was reached for all the recommendations. For two questions (cardiopulmonary arrest and inter-hospital transfer), no recommendation could be made. There was significant agreement among the experts on strong recommendations to improve practice in the management of urgent obstetric complications in emergency medicine.