External validation of the CHEDDAR score for suspected pulmonary embolism in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in an independent cohort.

The accuracy of the classic scores that help stratify the pretest clinical probability of pulmonary embolism (PE) in SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) is low. Therefore, to estimate the risk of PE in these patients, a new set of guidelines must be established. The recently published CHEDDAR score proposes a new diagnostic strategy to reduce the use of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in non-critically ill SARS-COV-2 patients with suspected PE. According to the nomogram, patients are segregated into low-risk (< 182 points) or high-risk (≥ 182 points) based on the best cut-off value to discard PE in the original cohort. We aimed to externally validate this diagnostic strategy in an independent cohort. We analyzed data from two retrospective cohorts of hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients who underwent a CTPA due to suspicion for PE. CHEDDAR score was applied. As per the CHEDDAR nomogram, patients were classified as having a low or high clinical pre-test probability. Of the 270 patients included, 69 (25.5%) had PE. Applying the CHEDDAR score, 182 (67.4%) patients could have had PE excluded without imaging. Among 58 patients classified as having high clinical pre-test probability, 39 (67.2%) had PE. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and AUC were 56%, 90%, 67%, 85%, and 0.783 (95% CI 0.71-0.85), respectively. We provide external validation of the CHEDDAR score in an independent cohort. Even though the CHEDDAR score showed good discrimination capacity, caution is required in patients classified as having low clinical pre-test probability with a D-dimer value > 3000 ng/mL, and a RALE score ≥ 4.

Performance of 3 frailty scales for predicting adverse outcomes at 30 days in older patients discharged from emergency departments. / Rendimiento de tres escalas de fragilidad para predecir resultados adversos a 30 días en los pacientes mayores dados de alta en los servicios de urgencias.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the ability of 3 frailty scales (the Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS], the Functional Index - eMergency [FIM], and the Identification of Seniors at Risk [ISAR] scale) to predict adverse outcomes at 30 days in older patients discharged from hospital emergency departments (EDs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from the FRAIL-Madrid registry of patients aged 75 years or older who were discharged from Madrid EDs over a period of 3 months in 2018 and 2019. Frailty was defined by a CFS score over 4, a FIM score over 2, or an ISAR score over 3. The outcome variables were revisits to an ED, hospitalization, functional decline, death, and a composite variable of finding any of the previously named variables within 30 days of discharge. RESULTS: A total of 619 patients were studied. The mean (SD) age was 84 (7) years, and 59.1% were women. The CFS identified as frail a total of 339 patients (54.8%), the FIM 386 (62.4%), and the ISAR 301 (48.6%). An adverse outcome occurred within 30 days in 226 patients (36.5%): 21.5% revisited, 12.6% were hospitalized, 18.4% experienced functional decline, and 3.6% died. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were as follows: CFS, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.62-0.70; P = .022); FIM, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.71; P = .021), and ISAR, 0.64 (95% CI, 0.60-0.69; P = .023). Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) showed that frailty was an independent risk factor for presenting any of the named adverse outcomes: aOR for CFS >4, 3.18 (95% CI, 2.02-5.01), P .001; aOR for FIM > 2, 3.49 (95% CI, 2.15-5.66), P .001; and aOR for ISAR >3, 2.46 (95% CI, 1.60-3.79), P .001. CONCLUSION: All 3 scales studied - the CFS, the FIM and the ISAR - are useful for identifying frail older patients at high risk of developing an adverse outcome (death, functional decline, hospitalization, or revisiting the ED) within 30 days after discharge.

OBJETIVO: Comparar la capacidad de tres escalas de fragilidad, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Functional Index ­ eMergency (FIM) e Identification Senior at Risk (ISAR), para predecir resultados adversos (RA) a 30 días en los pacientes mayores dados de alta desde el servicio de urgencias hospitalario (SUH). METODO: Análisis secundario del registro FRAIL-Madrid que incluyó pacientes 75 años dados de alta de 10 SUH de Madrid durante un periodo de 3 meses entre 2018 y 2019. Se definió fragilidad como CFS 4, FIM 2 e ISAR 3. Las variables de resultado fueron revisita en urgencias, hospitalización, deterioro funcional, muerte y la variable compuesta por algún RA de los anteriores en los 30 días posteriores al alta del SUH. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 619 pacientes, la edad media fue de 84 años (DE 7), 59,1% eran mujeres. Hubo 339 pacientes (54,8%) identificados como frágiles en el SUH según CFS 4, 386 (62,4%) según FIM 2 y 301 (48,6%) según ISAR 3. Hubo 226 pacientes (36,5%) que presentaron algún RA a los 30 días tras el alta (21,5% revisita, 12,6% hospitalización,18,4% deterioro funcional y 3,6% muerte). El área bajo la curva (ABC) de la escala CFS fue de 0,66 (0,62-0,70; p = 0,022), de FIM 0,67 (0,62-0,71; p = 0,021) y de ISAR 0,64 (0,60-0,69; p = 0,023). La presencia de fragilidad fue un factor independiente de presentar algún RA a los 30 días tras el alta (CFS 4 ORa 3,18 [IC 95% 2,02-5,01, p 0,001], FIM 2 ORa 3,49 [IC 95% 2,15-5,66, p 0,001] e ISAR 3 ORa 2,46 [IC 95% 1,60-3,79, p 0,001]). CONCLUSIONES: Las tres escalas estudiadas ­CFS, FIM, ISAR­ son útiles y tienen una capacidad similar para identificar al paciente mayor frágil dado de alta del SUH con alto riesgo de presentar RA (muerte, deterioro funcional, hospitalización o revisita al SUH) a los 30 días.

Rendimiento de tres escalas de fragilidad para predecir resultados adversos a 30 días en los pacientes mayores dados de alta en los servicios de urgencias / Performance of 3 frailty scales for predicting adverse outcomes at 30 days in older patients discharged from emergency departments

Objetivo: Comparar la capacidad de tres escalas de fragilidad, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Functional Index eMergency (FIM) e Identification Senior at Risk (ISAR), para predecir resultados adversos (RA) a 30 días en los pacientes mayores dados de alta desde el servicio de urgencias hospitalario (SUH). Método: Análisis secundario del registro FRAIL-Madrid que incluyó pacientes $ 75 años dados de alta de 10 SUH de Madrid durante un periodo de 3 meses entre 2018 y 2019. Se definió fragilidad como CFS $ 4, FIM $ 2 e ISAR $ 3. Las variables de resultado fueron revisita en urgencias, hospitalización, deterioro funcional, muerte y la variable compuesta por algún RA de los anteriores en los 30 días posteriores al alta del SUH. Resultados: Se incluyeron 619 pacientes, la edad media fue de 84 años (DE 7), 59,1% eran mujeres. Hubo 339 pacientes (54,8%) identificados como frágiles en el SUH según CFS $ 4, 386 (62,4%) según FIM $ 2 y 301 (48,6%) según ISAR $ 3. Hubo 226 pacientes (36,5%) que presentaron algún RA a los 30 días tras el alta (21,5% revisita, 12,6% hospitalización, 18,4% deterioro funcional y 3,6% muerte). El área bajo la curva (ABC) de la escala CFS fue de 0,66 (0,62-0,70; p = 0,022), de FIM 0,67 (0,62-0,71; p = 0,021) y de ISAR 0,64 (0,60-0,69; p = 0,023). La presencia de fragilidad fue un factor independiente de presentar algún RA a los 30 días tras el alta (CFS $ 4 ORa 3,18 [IC 95% 2,02-5,01, p < 0,001], FIM $ 2 ORa 3,49 [IC 95% 2,15-5,66, p < 0,001] e ISAR $ 3 ORa 2,46 [IC 95% 1,60-3,79, p < 0,001]). Conclusiones: Las tres escalas estudiadas –CFS, FIM, ISAR– son útiles y tienen una capacidad similar para identificar al paciente mayor frágil dado de alta del SUH con alto riesgo de presentar RA (muerte, deterioro funcional, hospitalización o revisita al SUH) a los 30 días. (AU)

Objective: To compare the ability of 3 frailty scales (the Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS], the Functional Index – eMergency [FIM], and the Identification of Seniors at Risk [ISAR] scale) to predict adverse outcomes at 30 days in older patients discharged from hospital emergency departments (EDs). Methods: Secondary analysis of data from the FRAIL-Madrid registry of patients aged 75 years or older who were discharged from Madrid EDs over a period of 3 months in 2018 and 2019. Frailty was defined by a CFS score over 4, a FIM score over 2, or an ISAR score over 3. The outcome variables were revisits to an ED, hospitalization, functionaldecline, death, and a composite variable of finding any of the previously named variables within 30 days of discharge. Results: A total of 619 patients were studied. The mean (SD) age was 84 (7) years, and 59.1% were women. The CFS identified as frail a total of 339 patients (54.8%), the FIM 386 (62.4%), and the ISAR 301 (48.6%). An adverse outcome occurred within 30 days in 226 patients (36.5%): 21.5% revisited, 12.6% were hospitalized, 18.4% experienced functional decline, and 3.6% died. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were as follows: CFS, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.62-0.70; P = .022); FIM, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.71; P = .021), and ISAR, 0.64 (95% CI, 0.60-0.69; P = .023). Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) showed that frailty was an independent risk factor for presenting anyof the named adverse outcomes: aOR for CFS >4, 3.18 (95% CI, 2.02-5.01), P < .001; aOR for FIM > 2, 3.49 (95% CI, 2.15-5.66), P < .001; and aOR for ISAR >3, 2.46 (95% CI, 1.60-3.79), P < .001. Conclusions: All 3 scales studied — the CFS, the FIM and the ISAR — are useful for identifying frail older patients at high risk of developing an adverse outcome (death, functional decline, hospitalization, or revisiting the ED) within 30 days after discharge. (AU)

Effect of EARLY administration of DEXamethasone in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia without acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and risk of development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (EARLY-DEX COVID-19): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are one of the few drugs that have shown a reduction in mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In the RECOVERY trial, the use of dexamethasone reduced 28-day mortality compared to standard care in hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or invasive mechanical ventilation. Evidence has shown that 30% of COVID-19 patients with mild symptoms at presentation will progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), particularly patients in whom laboratory inflammatory biomarkers associated with COVID-19 disease progression are detected. We postulated that dexamethasone treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia without additional oxygen requirements and at risk of progressing to severe disease might lead to a decrease in the development of ARDS and thereby reduce death. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicenter, randomized, controlled, parallel, open-label trial testing dexamethasone in 252 adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who do not require supplementary oxygen on admission but are at risk factors for the development of ARDS. Risk for the development of ARDS is defined as levels of lactate dehydrogenase > 245 U/L, C-reactive protein > 100 mg/L, and lymphocyte count of < 0.80 × 109/L. Eligible patients will be randomly assigned to receive either dexamethasone or standard of care. Patients in the dexamethasone group will receive a dose of 6 mg once daily during 7 days. The primary outcome is a composite of the development of moderate or more severe ARDS and all-cause mortality during the 30-day period following enrolment. DISCUSSION: If our hypothesis is correct, the results of this study will provide additional insights into the management and progression of this specific subpopulation of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia without additional oxygen requirements and at risk of progressing to severe disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04836780. Registered on 8 April 2021 as EARLY-DEX COVID-19.

Effect of corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19 early stage pneumonia and risk of disease progression: An uncharted territory.

Corticosteroids are one of the few drugs that have shown a reduction in mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In the RECOVERY trial, the use of dexamethasone reduced 28-day mortality compared to standard care in hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or invasive mechanical ventilation. No benefit in patients not requiring respiratory support at randomization was observed. However, we believe that the use of corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia might not be subject to a decision based solely on oxygen needs. Evidence has shown that 30% of COVID-19 patients in its initial phases will progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome, particularly patients in whom laboratory inflammatory biomarkers associated with COVID-19 disease progression are detected. We postulated that corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19 in its initial phases and risk of progressing to severe disease might lead to a decrease in the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome, and thereby reduce death.

Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Analysis of the Perception of Professionals of Emergency Medical Systems in Spain after the First Wave.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify the perceived problems by medical and nursing professionals that have arisen in the Spanish Emergency Medical Services (EMS) as a consequence of the first wave of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2/SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, as well as the measures or solutions adopted to manage those problems and improve response. METHOD: This was a cross-sectional study of quantitative and qualitative methodology ("mixed methods") using a self-administered questionnaire in 23 key informants of EMS of Spain selected by purposeful sampling, followed by the statistical analysis of both types of variables and an integration of the results in the discussion. RESULTS: Common problems had been identified in many EMS, as well as similar solutions in some of them. Among the former, the following had been found: lack of leadership and support from managers, initial shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE), lack of participation in decision making, initial lack of clinical protocols, and slowness and/or lack of adaptability of the system, among others. Among the solutions adopted: reinforcement of emergency call centers, development of specific coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) telephone lines and new resources, personal effort of professionals, new functions of EMS, support to other structures, and reinforcement of the role of nursing. CONCLUSION: The general perception among the respondents was that there was a lack of support and communication with health care managers and that the staff expertise was not used by policy makers to make decisions adapted to reality, also expressing the need to improve the capacity for analysis of the EMS response. Few respondents reported good overall satisfaction with their EMS response. The EMS adopted different types of measures to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Recommendations for end-of-life care by emergency health services. / Recomendaciones de cuidados al final de la vida en los servicios de urgencias.

TEXT: Emergency services' main purpose is to save lives, but that worthy mission cannot always be accomplished. When caring for patients toward the end of life, we have an ethical obligation to talk with them and their relatives to obtain consensus on treatment and possibly limit it or adjust management in accordance with the patient's condition. Emergency department protocols are necessary for optimizing care to provide the greatest possible comfort and control of symptoms in patients at the end of life to prevent unnecessary suffering and preserve dignity. This article sets out recommendations - including the principles and ethical standards that underlie them - so that emergency services can develop end-of-life care protocols for use in their own settings.

TEXTO: Los servicios de uUrgencias (SU) tienen como objetivo primordial salvar vidas, pero no debemos olvidar que esta misión encomiable no siempre es posible y, cuando se atienden pacientes en la última fase de la vida, existe la obligación ética de dialogar con ellos y sus familiares para conseguir un consenso y limitar o adecuar el manejo clínico de acuerdo a su situación vital. Con este objetivo, los SU deben tener protocolos de cuidados dirigidos a optimizar el confort y control de síntomas de los pacientes en la fase final de la vida, con el fin de evitar sufrimientos innecesarios y preservar su dignidad personal. El presente artículo expone las recomendaciones (con principios y normas específicas) que deben guiar la elaboración de protocolos de atención al final de la vida en urgencias, con el fin de que cada SU pueda elaborar sus propios protocolos.

Recomendaciones de cuidados al final de la vida en los servicios de urgencias / Recommendations for end-of-life care by emergency health services

Los servicios de Urgencias (SU) tienen como objetivo primordial salvar vidas, pero no debemos olvidar que esta misión encomiable no siempre es posible y, cuando se atienden pacientes en la última fase de la vida, existe la obligación ética de dialogar con ellos y sus familiares para conseguir un consenso y limitar o adecuar el manejo clínico de acuerdo a su situación vital. Con este objetivo, los SU deben tener protocolos de cuidados dirigidos a optimizar el confort y control de síntomas de los pacientes en la fase final de la vida, con el fin de evitar sufrimientos innecesarios y preservar su dignidad personal. El presente artículo expone las recomendaciones (con principios y normas específicas) que deben guiar la elaboración de protocolos de atención al final de la vida en urgencias, con el fin de que cada SU pueda elaborar sus propios protocolos.

Emergency services’ main purpose is to save lives, but that worthy mission cannot always be accomplished. When caring for patients toward the end of life, we have an ethical obligation to talk with them and their relatives to obtain consensus on treatment and possibly limit it or adjust management in accordance with the patient’s condition. Emergency department protocols are necessary for optimizing care to provide the greatest possible comfort and control of symptoms in patients at the end of life to prevent unnecessary suffering and preserve dignity. This article sets out recommendations — including the principles and ethical standards that underlie them — so that emergency services can develop end-of-life care protocols for use in their own settings.

Antiplatelet therapy and outcome in COVID-19: the Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation Registry.

BACKGROUND: Standard therapy for COVID-19 is continuously evolving. Autopsy studies showed high prevalence of platelet-fibrin-rich microthrombi in several organs. The aim of the study was therefore to evaluate the safety and efficacy of antiplatelet therapy (APT) in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and its impact on survival. METHODS: 7824 consecutive patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in a multicentre international prospective registry (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation-COVID-19 Registry). Clinical data and in-hospital complications were recorded. Data on APT, including aspirin and other antiplatelet drugs, were obtained for each patient. RESULTS: During hospitalisation, 730 (9%) patients received single APT (93%, n=680) or dual APT (7%, n=50). Patients treated with APT were older (74±12 years vs 63±17 years, p<0.01), more frequently male (68% vs 57%, p<0.01) and had higher prevalence of diabetes (39% vs 16%, p<0.01). Patients treated with APT showed no differences in terms of in-hospital mortality (18% vs 19%, p=0.64), need for invasive ventilation (8.7% vs 8.5%, p=0.88), embolic events (2.9% vs 2.5% p=0.34) and bleeding (2.1% vs 2.4%, p=0.43), but had shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (8±5 days vs 11±7 days, p=0.01); however, when comparing patients with APT versus no APT and no anticoagulation therapy, APT was associated with lower mortality rates (log-rank p<0.01, relative risk 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.94). On multivariable analysis, in-hospital APT was associated with lower mortality risk (relative risk 0.39, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.48, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: APT during hospitalisation for COVID-19 could be associated with lower mortality risk and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, without increased risk of bleeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04334291.

Resultados a 30 días en los pacientes mayores frágiles con insuficiencia cardiaca aguda dados de alta desde urgencias o sus unidades vinculadas que cumplen los criterios de alto riesgo del estudio DEED FRAIL-AHF / Thirty-day outcomes in frail older patients discharged home from the emergency department with acute heart failure: effects of high-risk criteria identified by the DEED FRAIL-AHF trial

Objetivos: Estudiar el efecto a 30 días de los criterios de alto riesgo (CAR) en los mayores frágiles con insuficiencia cardiaca aguda (ICA) dados de alta desde urgencias o unidades vinculadas (URG_UV). Método: Análisis secundario del registro OAK-Discharge. Se seleccionaron pacientes frágiles $ 70 años con ICA dados de alta desde URG_UV. Los CAR se clasificaron en modificables (CAR_M) y no modificables (CAR_NM). Las variables de resultado fueron la compuesta cardiovascular (VC_CV) (revisita u hospitalización por ICA o mortalidad cardiovascular) y días vivos fuera del hospital (DVFH) a 30 días del alta. Resultados: Se incluyeron 380 pacientes con una edad media de 86 (DE 5,5) años, 61,2% mujeres. Un 65,1% tuvo CAR_M, 47,8% CAR_NM y 81,6% ambos. Ochenta y tres pacientes (21,8%) presentaron la VC_CV a 30 días. La media de DVFH a 30 días fue de 27,6 (DE 6,1) días. La presencia de CAR modificable, no modificable o ambos, se asoció más frecuentemente a la VC_CV a 30 días (25,0% vs 17,2%, p = 0,092; 27,6% vs 16,7%, p = 0,010; 24,7% vs15,2%, p = 0,098) y a menos DVFH a 30 días [26,9 (7,0) vs 28,4 (4,4), p = 0,011; 27,1 (7,0) vs 28,0 (5,0), p = 0,127; 27,1 (6,7) vs 28,8 (3,4), p = 0,005], respectivamente. Tras el análisis multivariante, los CAR_M se asociaron de forma independiente con menos DVFH a 30 días (diferencia absoluta ajustada –1,3 días; IC 95% –2,7 a –0,1) y los CAR_NM con más eventos en la VC_CV a 30 días (diferencia absoluta ajustada 10,4%; IC 95% 2,1% a 18,7%). (AU)

Objectives: To study the effect of high-risk criteria on 30-day outcomes in frail older patients with acute heart failure (AHF) discharged from an emergency department (ED) or an ED’s observation and short-stay areas. Methods.:Secondary analysis of discharge records in the Older AHF Key Data registry. We selected frail patients (aged > 70 years) discharged with AHF from EDs. Risk factors were categorized as modifiable or nonmodifiable. The outcomes were a composite endpoint for a cardiovascular event (revisits for AHF, hospitalization for AHF, or cardiovascular death) and the number of days alive out-of-hospital (DAOH) within 30 days of discharge. Results: We included 380 patients with a mean (SD) age of 86 (5.5) years (61.2% women). Modifiable risk factors were identified in 65.1%, nonmodifiable ones in 47.8%, and both types in 81.6%. The 30-day cardiovascular composite endpoint occurred in 83 patients (21.8%). The mean 30-day DAOH observed was 27.6 (6.1) days. High-risk factors were present more often in patients who developed the cardiovascular event composite endpoint: the rates for patients with modifiable, nonmodifiable, or both types of risk were, respectively, as follows in comparison with patients not at high risk: 25.0% vs 17.2%, P = .092; 27.6% vs 16.7%, P = .010; and 24.7% vs 15.2%, P = .098). The 30-day DAOH outcome was also lower for at-risk patients, according to type of risk factor present: modifiable, 26.9 (7.0) vs 28.4 (4.4) days, P = .011; nonmodifiable, 27.1 (7.0) vs 28.0 (5.0) days, P = .127; and both, 27.1 (6.7) vs28.8 (3.4) days, P = .005). After multivariate analysis, modifiable risk remained independently associated with fewer days alive (adjusted absolute difference in 30-day DAOH, –1.3 days (95% CI, –2.7 to –0.1 days). Nonmodifiable factors were associated with increased risk for the 30-day cardiovascular composite endpoint (adjusted absolute difference, 10.4%; 95% CI, –2.1% to 18.7%). (AU)

Thirty-day outcomes in frail older patients discharged home from the emergency department with acute heart failure: effects of high-risk criteria identified by the DEED FRAIL-AHF trial. / Resultados a 30 días en los pacientes mayores frágiles con insuficiencia cardiaca aguda dados de alta desde urgencias o sus unidades vinculadas que cumplen los criterios de alto riesgo del estudio DEED FRAIL-AHF.

OBJECTIVES: To study the effect of high-risk criteria on 30-day outcomes in frail older patients with acute heart failure (AHF) discharged from an emergency department (ED) or an ED's observation and short-stay areas. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Secondary analysis of discharge records in the Older AHF Key Data registry. We selected frail patients (aged > 70 years) discharged with AHF from EDs. Risk factors were categorized as modifiable or nonmodifiable. The outcomes were a composite endpoint for a cardiovascular event (revisits for AHF, hospitalization for AHF, or cardiovascular death) and the number of days alive out-of-hospital (DAOH) within 30 days of discharge. RESULTS: We included 380 patients with a mean (SD) age of 86 (5.5) years (61.2% women). Modifiable risk factors were identified in 65.1%, nonmodifiable ones in 47.8%, and both types in 81.6%. The 30-day cardiovascular composite endpoint occurred in 83 patients (21.8%). The mean 30-day DAOH observed was 27.6 (6.1) days. Highrisk factors were present more often in patients who developed the cardiovascular event composite endpoint: the rates for patients with modifiable, nonmodifiable, or both types of risk were, respectively, as follows in comparison with patients not at high risk: 25.0% vs 17.2%, P = .092; 27.6% vs 16.7%, P = .010; and 24.7% vs 15.2%, P = .098). The 30-day DAOH outcome was also lower for at-risk patients, according to type of risk factor present: modifiable, 26.9 (7.0) vs 28.4 (4.4) days, P = .011; nonmodifiable, 27.1 (7.0) vs 28.0 (5.0) days, P = .127; and both, 27.1 (6.7) vs 28.8 (3.4) days, P = .005). After multivariate analysis, modifiable risk remained independently associated with fewer days alive (adjusted absolute difference in 30-day DAOH, -1.3 days (95% CI, -2.7 to -0.1 days). Nonmodifiable factors were associated with increased risk for the 30-day cardiovascular composite endpoint (adjusted absolute difference, 10.4%; 95% CI, -2.1% to 18.7%). CONCLUSION: Risk factors are common in frail elderly patients with AHF discharged home from hospital ED areas. Their presence is associated with a worse 30-day prognosis.

OBJETIVO: Estudiar el efecto a 30 días de los criterios de alto riesgo (CAR) en los mayores frágiles con insuficiencia cardiaca aguda (ICA) dados de alta desde urgencias o unidades vinculadas (URG_UV). METODO: Análisis secundario del registro OAK-Discharge. Se seleccionaron pacientes frágiles 70 años con ICA dados de alta desde URG_UV. Los CAR se clasificaron en modificables (CAR_M) y no modificables (CAR_NM). Las variables de resultado fueron la compuesta cardiovascular (VC_CV) (revisita u hospitalización por ICA o mortalidad cardiovascular) y días vivos fuera del hospital (DVFH) a 30 días del alta. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 380 pacientes con una edad media de 86 (DE 5,5) años, 61,2% mujeres. Un 65,1% tuvo CAR_M, 47,8% CAR_NM y 81,6% ambos. Ochenta y tres pacientes (21,8%) presentaron la VC_CV a 30 días. La media de DVFH a 30 días fue de 27,6 (DE 6,1) días. La presencia de CAR modificable, no modificable o ambos, se asoció más frecuentemente a la VC_CV a 30 días (25,0% vs 17,2%, p = 0,092; 27,6% vs 16,7%, p = 0,010; 24,7% vs 15,2%, p = 0,098) y a menos DVFH a 30 días [26,9 (7,0) vs 28,4 (4,4), p = 0,011; 27,1 (7,0) vs 28,0 (5,0), p = 0,127; 27,1 (6,7) vs 28,8 (3,4), p = 0,005], respectivamente. Tras el análisis multivariante, los CAR_M se asociaron de forma independiente con menos DVFH a 30 días (diferencia absoluta ajustada ­1,3 días; IC 95% ­2,7 a ­0,1) y los CAR_NM con más eventos en la VC_CV a 30 días (diferencia absoluta ajustada 10,4%; IC 95% 2,1% a 18,7%). CONCLUSIONES: Los CAR son frecuentes en los mayores frágiles con ICA dados de alta desde URG_UV y su presencia se asocia a peores resultados a 30 días tras alta.

Prehospital triage for mass casualty incidents using the META method for early surgical assessment: retrospective validation of a hospital trauma registry.

BACKGROUND: In mass casualty incidents (MCI), death usually occurs within the first few hours and thus early transfer to a trauma centre can be crucial in selected cases. However, most triage systems designed to prioritize the transfer to hospital of these patients do not assess the need for surgery, in part due to inconclusive evidence regarding the value of such an assessment. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the capacity of a new triage system-the Prehospital Advanced Triage Method (META)-to identify victims who could benefit from urgent surgical assessment in case of MCI. METHODS: Retrospective, descriptive, observational study of a multipurpose cohort of patients included in the severe trauma registry of the Gregorio Marañón University General Hospital (Spain) between June 1993 and December 2011. All data were prospectively evaluated. All patients were evaluated with the META system to determine whether they met the criteria for urgent transfer. The META defines patients in need of urgent surgical assessment: (a) All penetrating injuries to head, neck, torso and extremities proximal to elbow or knee, (b) Open pelvic fracture, (c) Closed pelvic fracture with mechanical or haemodynamic instability and (d) Blunt torso trauma with haemodynamic instability. Patients who fulfilled these criteria were designated as "Urgent Evacuation for Surgical Assessment" (UESA) cases; all other cases were designated as non-UESA. The following variables were assessed: patient status at the scene; severity scales [RTS, Shock index, MGAP (Mechanism, Glasgow coma scale, Age, pressure), GCS]; need for surgery and/or interventional procedure to control bleeding (UESA); and mortality. The two groups (UESA vs. non-UESA) were then compared. RESULTS: A total of 1882 cases from the database were included in the study. Mean age was 39.2 years and most (77%) patients were male. UESA patients presented significantly worse on-scene hemodynamic parameters (systolic blood pressure and heart rate) and greater injury severity (RTS, shock index, and MGAP scales). No differences were observed for respiratory rate, need for orotracheal intubation, or GCS scores. The anatomical injuries of patients in the UESA group were less severe but these patients had a greater need for urgent surgery and higher mortality rates. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the META triage classification system could be beneficial to help identify patients with severe trauma and/or in need of urgent surgical assessment at the scene of injury in case of MCI. These findings demonstrate that, in this cohort, the META fulfils the purpose for which it was designed.

Value of Exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO) And Eosinophilia During the Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Requiring Hospital Admission.

The aim of this study was to analyze whether FeNO levels in acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) with hospital admission have better diagnostic value than eosinophilia in blood, and to evaluate its usefulness in predicting a better clinical response. An observational prospective study of patients with AECOPD was carried out. FeNO determinations were made on arrival at the emergency room (ER), at discharge and during stability 3-6 months after discharge. Co-morbidities, bronchodilators, inhaled (IGC) and systemic (SGC) glucocorticoids, eosinophils, systemic inflammation markers (procalcitonin, C-reactive protein), eosinophil cationic protein, and total IgE were collected. Fifty consecutive patients (92% men, mean age 75 ± 6 years) were included in this study. Phenotypes were 26% Asthma-COPD Overlap Syndrome (ACOS), 42% chronic bronchitis (CB) and 32% emphysema. ACOS patients showed significantly higher levels of FeNO (73 ppb) and eosinophils (508 cells/mm3) than the rest (CB: 23 ppb, 184 cells/mm3, emphysema: 27 ppb, 159 cells/mm3; p < 0.05). A significant correlation between FeNO levels measured in ER and eosinophils was observed (r = 0.7; p < 0.001), but not at discharge or in stable phase. No significant association was found with parameters of systemic inflammation and mean stay. In conclusion, the determination of FeNO in AECOPD does not offer advantages over the evaluation of eosinophilia. These parameters rise at arrival in ER, descend at discharge, and remain unchanged in the stable phase. Both present similar diagnostic utility and are able to better identify the ACOS phenotype, which helps select a population that could benefit from a glucocorticoids therapy.

Hiperfrecuentación en Atención Primaria e hiperfrecuentadores en Urgencias / Frequent attenders in Primary Health Care Centres and frequent attenders in Emergency Departments

OBJETIVO: Identificar factores predictores de hiperfrecuentación en Atención Primaria (AP) en una muestra de pacientes hiperfrecuentadores (HF) en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH). DISEÑO: Estudio observacional retrospectivo multicéntrico. PARTICIPANTES: Se seleccionaron pacientes mayores de 14 años HF en el SUH entre el 1 de enero y el 31 de diciembre de 2013. Emplazamiento: se reclutaron pacientes atendidos en los SUH de 17 hospitales públicos de la Comunidad de Madrid. MÉTODO: Se recogieron variables relativas a la visita índice del SUH. Se analizó la muestra en función de ser o no HF en AP. Se considera HF al paciente que realizó al menos 10 visitas en cada nivel asistencial durante un año. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 1.284 pacientes HF en SUH. Se analizaron 423 (32,9%) HF en AP con 16 visitas (RIC 12-25) frente a 861 (67,1%) pacientes no HF en AP con 4 visitas (RIC 2-6). Factores independientes predictores de HF en AP fueron la edad > 65 años (OR: 1,51; IC 95%: 1,07-2,13; p = 0,019), el deterioro cognitivo (OR: 1,63; IC 95%: 1,01-2,65; p = 0,049), el número de fármacos ≥3 (OR: 1,56; IC 95%: 1,06-2,30; p = 0,025) y vivir en la comunidad frente a vivir institucionalizado o en la calle (OR: 3,05; IC 95%: 1,14-8,16; p = 0,026). CONCLUSIONES: En una muestra de pacientes HF en los SUH, el hecho de ser mayor de 65 años, tomar 3 o más fármacos, presentar deterioro cognitivo y vivir en la comunidad se consideran factores predictores de ser HF también en AP

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of frequent attenders (HF) in Primary Health Care (PHC) centres in a sample of frequent attenders (HF) in Emergency Departments (ED). DESIGN: This was an observational, retrospective, multicentre cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: The HF patients were selected from patients seen in the ED between January 1 and December 31, 2013. Setting Patients were recruited from 17 public hospitals of the Community of Madrid, Spain. METHOD: Variables on the index visit to the ED were collected. The sample was analysed in terms of being or not being an HF user in PHC. An HF user is considered a patient who made at least 10 visits in each level of care for a year. RESULTS: A total of 1284 HF patients were included. An analysis was performed on 423 (32.9%) HF users in ED with 16 (12-25) visits to PHC vs. 861 (67.1%) non-HF users in ED, with 4 (2-6) visits to PHC. Independent predictors of HF in PHC: over 65 years (OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.07-2.13; P=.019), cognitive impairment (OR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.01-2.65; P = .049), taking > 3 drugs (OR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.06-2.30; P = .025), and living in the community vs. nursing home or homeless (OR: 3.05; 95% CI: 1.14-8.16; P = .026). CONCLUSIONS: Among HF patients in the ED, the fact that of being over 65 years, taking 3 or more drugs, suffering cognitive impairment, and living in the community, are also considered to be predictors of HF in PHC

[Frequent attenders in Primary Health Care Centres and frequent attenders in Emergency Departments]. / Hiperfrecuentación en Atención Primaria e hiperfrecuentadores en Urgencias.

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of frequent attenders (HF) in Primary Health Care (PHC) centres in a sample of frequent attenders (HF) in Emergency Departments (ED). DESIGN: This was an observational, retrospective, multicentre cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: The HF patients were selected from patients seen in the ED between January 1 and December 31, 2013. Setting Patients were recruited from 17 public hospitals of the Community of Madrid, Spain. METHOD: Variables on the index visit to the ED were collected. The sample was analysed in terms of being or not being an HF user in PHC. An HF user is considered a patient who made at least 10 visits in each level of care for a year. RESULTS: A total of 1284 HF patients were included. An analysis was performed on 423 (32.9%) HF users in ED with 16 (12-25) visits to PHC vs. 861 (67.1%) non-HF users in ED, with 4 (2-6) visits to PHC. Independent predictors of HF in PHC: over 65 years (OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.07-2.13; P=.019), cognitive impairment (OR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.01-2.65; P=.049), taking >3 drugs (OR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.06-2.30; P=.025), and living in the community vs. nursing home or homeless (OR: 3.05; 95% CI: 1.14-8.16; P=.026). CONCLUSIONS: Among HF patients in the ED, the fact that of being over 65 years, taking 3or more drugs, suffering cognitive impairment, and living in the community, are also considered to be predictors of HF in PHC.

Predictive capacity of a multimarker strategy to determine short-term mortality in patients attending a hospital emergency Department for acute heart failure. BIO-EAHFE study.

OBJECTIVE: A multimarker strategy may help determine the prognosis of patients with acute heart failure (AHF). The aim of this study was to evaluate the capacity of mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MRproADM), copeptin and interleukin-6 (IL-6) combined with conventional clinical and biochemical markers to predict the 30-day mortality of patients with AHF. METHODS: We performed an observational, multicenter, prospective study of patients attended in the emergency department (ED) for AHF. We collected clinical and biochemical data as well as comorbidities and biomarker values. The endpoint variable was mortality at 7, 14, 30, 90 and 180days. The clinical model included: gender, age, blood pressure values, hemoglobin, sodium <135mmol/L and estimated glomerular filtration <60mL/min/1.73m2. We made receiver operating curves (ROC) curves, and areas under the curve (AUC) and survival analysis for each model and calculated the hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: A total of 547 individuals were included: 55.6% were women with a mean age of 79.9 (9.5) years. Copeptin alone showed greater discriminatory power for 30-mortality [AUC 0.70 (0.62-0.78)]. The AUC for 30-day mortality of the clinical model plus copeptin and NTproBNP was 0.75 (0.67-0.83), being better than the clinical model alone with 0.67 (0.58-0.76; p=0.19). The discriminatory power of the different biomarkers alone, in combination or together with the clinical model decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of a clinical model with copeptin and NTproBNP, which are available in the ED, is able to prognose early mortality in patients with an episode of AHF.

Proyecto FIDUR: pacientes hiperfrecuentadores fidelizados en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios / Loyal frequent users of hospital emergency departments: the FIDUR Project

Objetivos: Describir las características del paciente hiperfrecuentador (HF) en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) y analizar si existen diferencias en función de la distribución de revisitas durante el periodo de estudio. Método: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo que seleccionó a pacientes mayores de 14 años que frecuentaron el SUH al menos en 10 ocasiones en 2013. Se reclutaron pacientes de 17 hospitales públicos de la Comunidad de Madrid (CM). Se recogieron variables relativas a la visita índice y visitas sucesivas. Se analizó la muestra en función del número de trimestres (TM) en el que se reparten las revisitas. Resultados: Se incluyeron 2.340 pacientes con una edad media de 54 (DE 21) años, 1.361 (58,2%) fueron mujeres, 1.160 (50,0%) no presentaban comorbilidad, 1.366 (58,2%) consumían tóxicos y 25 (1,1%) vivían en la calle. En la visita índice, 2.038 (87,1%) acudieron por un problema de salud reciente, 289 (12,4%) fueron hospitalizados, 60 (2,6%) concentraron sus revisitas en un solo TM, 335 (14,3%) en 2 TM, 914 (39,1%) las repartieron en 3 TM y 1.005 (42,9%) en 4 TM. En el grupo de pacientes cuyas revisitas se reparten en mayor número de TM observamos que aumenta la edad (> 65 años), la comorbilidad y la polifarmacia (p < 0,001), el deterioro cognitivo (p = 0,039) y la dependencia (p = 0,007), así como la hospitalización en la visita índice (p < 0,001). A medida que las revisitas se concentran en un menor número de TM, aumenta la proporción de mujeres (p = 0,012), determinados diagnósticos (p < 0,001) y la coincidencia entre el motivo de las revisitas y la visita índice (p = 0,012). Conclusiones: El paciente HF tiene unas características determinadas y acude a urgencias de una forma homogénea a lo largo del año (fidelizado). A medida que las revisitas se dispersan más, se objetivan pacientes con mayor complejidad y que consumen más recursos en la visita índice (AU)

Objectives: To describe the characteristics of frequent users of hospital emergency departments and analyze whether characteristics varied in relation to how revisits were distributed over the course of the year studied. Methods: Retrospective study of patients over the age of 14 years who were treated in a hospital emergency department at least 10 times in 2013. Patients were identified in 17 public hospitals in the Spanish autonomous community of Madrid. Data related to the first and successive visits were gathered and analyzed by quarter year. Results: We included 2340 patients with a mean (SD) age of 54 (21) years. A total of 1361 (58.%) were women, 1160 (50%) had no concomitant diseases, 1366 (58.2%) were substance abusers, and 25 (1.1%) were homeless. During the first visit, 2038 (87.1%) complained of a recent health problem, and 289 (12.4%) were admitted. Sixty (2.6%) patients concentrated their revisits in a single quarters 335 (14.3%) in 2 quarters, 914 (39.1%) in 3, and 1005 (42.9%) in 4. Patients whose revisits were distributed over more quarters were older (> 65 years), had more concomitant conditions, were on more medications (P < .001), showed cognitive impairment (P = .039), and were more functionally dependent (P = .007). They were also more likely to have been hospitalized on the first visit (P < .001). Patients whose revisits were concentrated in fewer quarters were more often women (P = .012) and more likely to have a specific diagnosis (P < .001) and revisit for a reason related to the initial visit (P = .012). Conclusions: Our study shows that the frequent user has specific characteristics and loyally comes to the same emergency department over the course of a year. Patients whose revisits are dispersed over a longer period have more complex problems and use more resources during their initial visit (AU)