Incidence, Clinical Characteristics, Risk Factors and Outcomes of Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients With COVID-19: Results of the UMC-19-S1010.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of knowledge about the real incidence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with COVID-19, their clinical characteristics, and their prognoses. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the incidence, clinical characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes of ACS in patients with COVID-19 in the emergency department. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all COVID-19 patients diagnosed with ACS in 62 Spanish emergency departments between March and April 2020 (the first wave of COVID-19). We formed 2 control groups: COVID-19 patients without ACS (control A) and non-COVID-19 patients with ACS (control B). Unadjusted comparisons between cases and control subjects were performed regarding 58 characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 110 patients with ACS in 74,814 patients with COVID-19 attending the ED (1.48% [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.21-1.78%]). This incidence was lower than that observed in non-COVID-19 patients (3.64% [95% CI 3.54-3.74%]; odds ratio [OR] 0.40 [95% CI 0.33-0.49]). The clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 associated with a higher risk of presenting ACS were: previous coronary artery disease, age ≥60 years, hypertension, chest pain, raised troponin, and hypoxemia. The need for hospitalization and admission to intensive care and in-hospital mortality were higher in cases than in control group A (adjusted OR [aOR] 6.36 [95% CI 1.84-22.1], aOR 4.63 [95% CI 1.88-11.4], and aOR 2.46 [95% CI 1.15-5.25]). When comparing cases with control group B, the aOR of admission to intensive care was 0.41 (95% CI 0.21-0.80), while the aOR for in-hospital mortality was 5.94 (95% CI 2.84-12.4). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of ACS in patients with COVID-19 attending the emergency department was low, around 1.48%, but could be increased in some circumstances. Patients with COVID-19 with ACS had a worse prognosis than control subjects with higher in-hospital mortality.

Pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19: incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and outcome.

AIMS: We investigated the incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with COVID-19 attending emergency departments (EDs), before hospitalization. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively reviewed all COVID-19 patients diagnosed with PE in 62 Spanish EDs (20% of Spanish EDs, case group) during the first COVID-19 outbreak. COVID-19 patients without PE and non-COVID-19 patients with PE were included as control groups. Adjusted comparisons for baseline characteristics, acute episode characteristics, and outcomes were made between cases and randomly selected controls (1:1 ratio). We identified 368 PE in 74 814 patients with COVID-19 attending EDs (4.92‰). The standardized incidence of PE in the COVID-19 population resulted in 310 per 100 000 person-years, significantly higher than that observed in the non-COVID-19 population [35 per 100 000 person-years; odds ratio (OR) 8.95 for PE in the COVID-19 population, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.51-9.41]. Several characteristics in COVID-19 patients were independently associated with PE, the strongest being D-dimer >1000 ng/mL, and chest pain (direct association) and chronic heart failure (inverse association). COVID-19 patients with PE differed from non-COVID-19 patients with PE in 16 characteristics, most directly related to COVID-19 infection; remarkably, D-dimer >1000 ng/mL, leg swelling/pain, and PE risk factors were significantly less present. PE in COVID-19 patients affected smaller pulmonary arteries than in non-COVID-19 patients, although right ventricular dysfunction was similar in both groups. In-hospital mortality in cases (16.0%) was similar to COVID-19 patients without PE (16.6%; OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65-1.42; and 11.4% in a subgroup of COVID-19 patients with PE ruled out by scanner, OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.97-2.27), but higher than in non-COVID-19 patients with PE (6.5%; OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.66-4.51). Adjustment for differences in baseline and acute episode characteristics and sensitivity analysis reported very similar associations. CONCLUSIONS: PE in COVID-19 patients at ED presentation is unusual (about 0.5%), but incidence is approximately ninefold higher than in the general (non-COVID-19) population. Moreover, risk factors and leg symptoms are less frequent, D-dimer increase is lower and emboli involve smaller pulmonary arteries. While PE probably does not increase the mortality of COVID-19 patients, mortality is higher in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients with PE.

Quality of the Triage of Children With Anaphylaxis at the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: Early recognition of symptoms is essential in anaphylaxis management. The Canadian Paediatric Emergency Triage and Acuity Scale prioritizes anaphylaxis to level I or II (resuscitation or emergency). We analyzed the accuracy of pediatric anaphylaxis triage. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of the triage charts (adaptation of the Canadian Paediatric Emergency Triage and Acuity Scale) of 137 children attended for anaphylaxis at our pediatric emergency department. Per triages' accuracy, charts were divided into TR1 (levels I-II) and TR2 (levels III-V), comparing demographics, initial triage level given by initial assessment (Paediatric Assessment Triangle), vital signs, observations recorded by the staff, and waiting times for physician. RESULTS: Forty-six (33.3%) were triaged correctly (TR1 group), and 91 (66.7%) were not. Median ages were similar (TR1: 5 years [interquartile range, 13.1 years] vs TR2: 4.5 years [interquartile range, 14.5 years]; P = 0.837). Initial triage level 5 was given by Paediatric Assessment Triangle to 69.5% of TR1 and 83% of TR2 cases (P = 0.001; likelihood ratio for TR2: 1.985 [95% confidence interval, 1.11-3.49]). Vital signs were normal in 71.7% of TR1 and 94.5% of TR2 patients (P < 0.001; likelihood ratio for TR2: 2.602 [95% confidence interval, 1.22-5.52]). Symptoms suggestive of anaphylaxis (mention of 2 different organs) were recorded in 45.6% of TR1 and 48.3% of TR2 charts (P = 0.08). Median waiting times were 3 minutes (interquartile range, 26 minutes) and 11 minutes (interquartile range, 111 minutes) for TR1 and TR2, respectively (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Current triage, based on severity perception, missed most of the cases. Anaphylaxis-defining symptoms were overlooked. Inaccurate triage delayed medical attention. Improving measures, such as emphasizing symptom recognition and defining anaphylaxis risk discriminators, is mandatory to improve their identification.