RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Assessment of suicidal risk is one of the most challenging tasks faced by health professionals, notably in emergency care. We compared telephone suicide risk assessment at prehospital Emergency Medical Services Dispatch Center (EMS-DC), with subsequent face-to-face evaluation at Psychiatric Emergency Service (PES), using French national Risk-Urgency-Danger standards (RUD). METHOD: Data were collected for all suicidal adult patients (N = 80) who were addressed by EMS-DC to PES between December 2018 and August 2019 and benefited from RUD assessment at both services. Suicidal risk was given a score of 1, 2, 3 or 4, in order of severity. RESULTS: Mean of the differences between the RUD score at EMS-DC and PES was -0.825 (SD = 1.19), and was found to be significant (p < 0.01). The average time between RUD assessments was 420 min (SD = 448) and was negatively correlated with the difference in the RUD score (r = -0.295, p = 0.008). Associated suicide attempt increased the odds of a decrease in the RUD score (OR = 2.989; 95% CI = 1.141-8.069; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Telephone evaluation of suicidal risk using RUD at EMS-DC yielded moderately higher scores than those obtained by a subsequent face-to face evaluation at PES, with this difference partially explained by the time between assessments, and by clinical and contextual factors.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 is the receptor that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) uses for entry into lung cells. Because ACE-2 may be modulated by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), there is concern that patients treated with ACEIs and ARBs are at higher risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. AIM: This study sought to analyze the association of COVID-19 pneumonia with previous treatment with ACEIs and ARBs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 684 consecutive patients hospitalized for suspected COVID-19 pneumonia and tested by polymerase chain reaction assay. Patients were split into two groups, according to whether (group 1, n = 484) or not (group 2, n = 250) COVID-19 was confirmed. Multivariable adjusted comparisons included a propensity score analysis. RESULTS: The mean age was 63.6 ± 18.7 years, and 302 patients (44%) were female. Hypertension was present in 42.6% and 38.4% of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.28). Treatment with ARBs was more frequent in group 1 than group 2 (20.7% vs. 12.0%, respectively; odds ratio [OR] 1.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-2.98; P = 0.004). No difference was found for treatment with ACEIs (12.7% vs. 15.7%, respectively; OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.52-1.26; P = 0.35). Propensity score-matched multivariable logistic regression confirmed a significant association between COVID-19 and previous treatment with ARBs (adjusted OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.38-4.04; P = 0.002). Significant interaction between ARBs and ACEIs for the risk of COVID-19 was observed in patients aged > 60 years, women, and hypertensive patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that ACEIs and ARBs are not similarly associated with COVID-19. In this retrospective series, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia more frequently had previous treatment with ARBs compared with patients without COVID-19.
