Perceived Hospital Preparedness Is Negatively Associated With Pandemic-Induced Psychological Vulnerability in Primary Care Employees: A Multicentre Cross-Sectional Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound negative impact on the psychological wellbeing of healthcare providers (HPs), but little is known about the factors that positively predict mental health of primary care staff during these dire situations. METHODS: We conducted an online questionnaire survey among 702 emergency department workers across 10 hospitals in Switzerland and Belgium following the first COVID-19 wave in 2020, to explore their psychological vulnerability, perceived concerns, self-reported impact and level of pandemic workplace preparedness. Participants included physicians, nurses, psychologists and nondirect care employees (administrative staff). We tested for predictors of psychological vulnerability through both an exploratory cross-correlation with rigorous correction for multiple comparisons and model-based path modelling. RESULTS: Findings showed that the self-reported impact of COVID-19 at work, concerns about contracting COVID-19 at work, and a lack of personal protective equipment were strong positive predictors of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress, and low Resilience. Instead, knowledge of the degree of preparedness of the hospital/department, especially in the presence of a predetermined contingency plan for an epidemic and training sessions about protective measures, showed the opposite effect, and were associated with lower psychological vulnerability. All effects were confirmed after accounting for confounding factors related to gender, age, geographical location and the role played by HPs in the hospital/department. CONCLUSIONS: Difficult working conditions during the pandemic had a major impact on the psychological wellbeing of emergency department HPs, but this effect might have been lessened if they had been informed about adequate measures for minimizing the risk of exposure.

Outpatient management of cancer-associated pulmonary embolism: A post-hoc analysis from the HOME-PE trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer-related pulmonary embolism (PE) is associated with poor prognosis. Some decision rules identifying patients eligible for home treatment categorize cancer patients at high risk of complications, precluding home treatment. We sought to assess the effectiveness and the safety of outpatient management of patients with low-risk cancer-associated PE. METHODS: In the HOME-PE trial, hemodynamically stable patients with symptomatic PE were randomized to either triaging with Hestia criteria or sPESI score. We analyzed 3 groups of low-risk PE patients: 47 with active cancer treated at home (group 1), 691 without active cancer treated at home (group 2), and 33 with active cancer as the only sPESI criterion qualifying them for hospitalization (group 3). The main outcome was the composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and all-cause death within 30 days after randomization. RESULTS: Patients treated at home had composite outcome rates of 4.3 % (2/47) for those with cancer vs. 1.0 % (7/691) for those without (odds ratio (OR) 4.98, 95%CI 1.15-21.49). Patients with cancer had rates of complications of 4.3 % when treated at home vs. 3.0 % (1/33) when hospitalized (OR 1.19, 95%CI 0.15-9.47). In multivariable analysis, active cancer was associated with an increased risk of complications for patients treated at home (OR 7.95; 95%CI 1.48-42.82). For patients with active cancer, home treatment was not associated with the primary outcome (OR 1.19, 95%CI 0.15-9.74). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients treated at home, active cancer was a risk factor for complications, but among patients with active cancer, home treatment was not associated with adverse outcomes.

Targeted prophylactic anticoagulation based on the TRiP(cast) score in patients with lower limb immobilisation: a multicentre, stepped wedge, randomised implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic anticoagulation in emergency department patients with lower limb trauma requiring immobilisation is controversial. The Thrombosis Risk Prediction for Patients with Cast Immobilisation-TRiP(cast)-score could identify a large subgroup of patients at low risk of venous thromboembolism for whom prophylactic anticoagulation can be safely withheld. We aimed to prospectively assess the safety of withholding anticoagulation for patients with lower limb trauma at low risk of venous thromboembolism, defined by a TRiP(cast) score of less than 7. METHODS: CASTING was a stepped-wedge, multicentre, cluster-randomised trial with blinded outcome assessment. 15 emergency departments in France and Belgium were selected and randomly assigned staggered start dates for switching from the control phase (ie, anticoagulation prescription according to the physician's usual practice) to the intervention phase (ie, targeted anticoagulation according to TRiP(cast) score: no prescription if score <7 and anticoagulation if score was ≥7). Patients were included if they presented to a participating emergency department with lower limb trauma requiring immobilisation for at least 7 days and were aged 18 years or older. The primary outcome was the 3-month cumulative rate of symptomatic venous thromboembolism during the intervention phase in patients with a TRiP(cast) score of less than 7. The targeted strategy was considered safe if this rate was less than 1% with an upper 95% CI of less than 2%. The primary analysis was performed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04064489). FINDINGS: Between June 16, 2020, and Sept 15, 2021, 15 clusters and 2120 patients were included. Of the 1505 patients analysed in the intervention phase, 1159 (77·0%) had a TRiP(cast) score of less than 7 and did not receive anticoagulant treatment. The symptomatic venous thromboembolism rate was 0·7% (95% CI 0·3-1·4, n=8/1159). There was no difference between the control and the intervention phases in the cumulative rate of symptomatic venous thromboembolism or in bleeding rates. INTERPRETATION: Patients with a TRiP(cast) score of less than 7 who are not receiving anticoagulation have a very low risk of venous thromboembolism. A large proportion of patients with lower limb trauma and immobilisation could safely avoid thromboprophylaxis. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health.

Point-of-Care Ultrasound training in undergraduate education in the European Union: current situation and perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Given the widespread use of Point-of-Care UltraSound (PoCUS) in clinical practice, with ultrasound machines becoming more portable and affordable, recommendations and position statements from ultrasound societies now promote teaching PoCUS in the undergraduate curriculum. Nevertheless, surveys about PoCUS teaching in European medical schools are lacking. This survey aims to overview the current and future undergraduate PoCUS courses in the European Union (EU). RESULTS: A questionnaire was sent to medical schools in 26 of the 27 countries of the EU; Luxembourg is the only country without a medical school. The survey was completed by the dean or a member of the medical school with knowledge of the medical curriculum. Of the 58 medical schools from 19 countries that responded to the survey, 18 (31.0%) from 13 (68.4%) EU countries reported the existence of an undergraduate PoCUS curriculum and a further 16 (27.6%) from 12 (41.4%) EU countries intended to offer it in the future. No significant difference was observed between the current and future PoCUS curricula regarding its content and purpose. Less than 40 h of theoretical teaching is provided in all the medical schools and less than 40 h of practical training is provided in 12 (75%) of the 16 medical schools which answered this specific question. Of the 40 (69%) surveyed medical schools that do not currently teach PoCUS, 20 (50%) intend to offer PoCUS courses in the future. CONCLUSION: Although the lack of teaching hours in curricula suggests that most PoCUS courses are introductory in nature and that medical students are possibly not trained to become autonomous in clinical practice, evaluating the feasibility and impact of PoCUS teaching on clinical practice should be promoted. The medical schools that intend to develop this curriculum should be encouraged to implement validated tools to objectively assess their programs and students' performances.

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.

Evaluation of point-of-care ultrasound use in the diagnostic approach for right upper quadrant abdominal pain management in the emergency department: a prospective study.

Point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) is commonly used at the bedside in the emergency department (ED) as part of clinical examinations. Studies frequently investigate PoCUS diagnostic accuracy, although its contribution to the overall diagnostic approach is less often evaluated. The primary objective of this prospective, multicenter, cohort study was to assess the contribution of PoCUS to the overall diagnostic approach of patients with right upper quadrant abdominal pain. Two independent members of an adjudication committee, who were blind to the intervention, independently evaluated the diagnostic approaches before and after PoCUS for the same patient. The study included 62 patients admitted to the ED with non-traumatic right upper quadrant abdominal pain from September 1, 2022, to March 6, 2023. The contribution of PoCUS to the diagnostic approach was evaluated using a proportion test assuming that 75% of diagnostic approaches would be better or comparable with PoCUS. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests evaluated the impact of PoCUS on the mean number of differential diagnoses, planned treatments, and complementary diagnostic tests. Overall, 60 (97%) diagnostic approaches were comparable or better with PoCUS (χ2 = 15.9, p < 0.01). With PoCUS, the mean number of differential diagnoses significantly decreased by 2.3 (95% CI - 2.7 to - 1.5) (p < 0.01), proposed treatments by 1.3 (95% CI - 1.8 to - 0.9) (p < 0.01), and complementary diagnostic tests by 1.3 (95% CI - 1.7 to - 1.0) (p < 0.01). These findings show that PoCUS positively impacts the diagnostic approach and significantly decreases the mean number of differential diagnoses, treatments, and complementary tests.

Capacidad de diferentes reglas de decisión clínica para descartar tromboembolismo pulmonar en pacientes de 35 o menos años atendidos en servicios de urgencias: análisis post-hoc de tres cohortes prospectivas / Pulmonary embolism rule-out decision-making tools for patients aged 35 years or younger in hospital emergency departments: a post-hoc analysis of performance in 3 prospective cohorts

Objetivos: Evaluar la capacidad de la regla PERC (Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria) y la regla modificada por edad (PERC-35) para descartar tromboembolia pulmonar (TEP) en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) en pacientes # 35 años. El objetivo secundario fue analizar otras reglas de decisión clínica. Método: Análisis post-hoc de 3 estudios de cohorte europeos (PROPER, PERCEPIC y MODIGLIANI). Se incluyeron pacientes # 35 años con sospecha de TEP en SUH y con seguimiento a 3 meses. La seguridad y eficacia de PERC yPERC-35 se evaluaron con su tasa de error -no detectar TEP- y la proporción de pacientes con diagnóstico de TEP descartado. Se evaluó la seguridad y eficacia de las reglas YEARS y PEGeD. Resultados: Se analizaron 1.235 pacientes # 35 años. Hubo 22 (1,8%, IC 95%: 1,2-2,7) TEP diagnosticados a los 3 meses. Hubo 6 (1,0%, IC 95%: 0,5-2,2) y 5 (0,9%, IC 95%: 0,4-2,1) TEP no diagnosticados con las reglas PERC y PERC-35 respectivamente. Estas reglas permitieron descartar TEP en 591 (48,2%, IC 95%: 45,4- 51,0) y 554 (46,2%, IC 95%: 43,4- 49,0) respectivamente. La tasa de error de YEARS y PEGeD fue del 0,4% (IC 95%: 0,1- 1,1) y 0,5% (IC 95%: 0,2-1,2), con una eficacia similar. Conclusiones: En pacientes # 35 años, las reglas PERC y PERC-35 mostraron perfiles de seguridad y eficacia similares. Sin embargo, el amplio intervalo de confianza comunicado en este estudio no permite confirmar su seguridad. (AU)

Objectives: To assess the performance of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) and the age-modified PERC-35 tool in hospital emergency departments (EDs) for evaluating patients aged 35 years or younger. A secondary aim was to assess other decision-making criteria. Method: Post-hoc analysis of 3 European cohort studies. We included data for patients aged 35 years or younger suspected of PE who were followed for 3 months. The safety and efficacy of applying the PERC and PERC-35 were assessed with the diagnostic error rate (failure to detect PE) and the proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis of PE was ruled out. We also assessed the safety and efficacy of applying the YEARS and PEGeD criteria. Results: Data for 1235 patients aged 35 years or younger were analyzed. Twenty-two (1.8%; 95% CI, 1.2%-2.7%) PE cases were diagnosed at 3 months. Six (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.5%-2.2%) and 5 (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.4%-2.1%) PE cases were not diagnosed by the PERC and PERC-35 tools, respectively. These tools allowed PE to be ruled out in 591 (48.2%; 95% CI, 45.4%-51.0%) and 554 (46.2%; 95% CI, 43.4%-49.0%) cases, respectively. The error rates of the YEARS and PEGeD criteria, respectively, were 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.1%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.2%); their efficacy was similar. Conclusions: The safety and efficacy profiles of the PERC and PERC-35 algorithms were similar in patients aged 35 years or younger. However, the large confidence intervals we report do not allow us to confirm the safety of using the tools in patients in this age group. (AU)

Pulmonary embolism rule-out decision-making tools for patients aged 35 years or younger in hospital emergency departments: a post-hoc analysis of performance in 3 prospective cohorts. / Capacidad de diferentes reglas de decisión clínica para descartar tromboembolismo pulmonar en pacientes de 35 o menos años atendidos en servicios de urgencias: análisis post-hoc de tres cohortes prospectivas.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) and the age-modified PERC-35 tool in hospital emergency departments (EDs) for evaluating patients aged 35 years or younger. A secondary aim was to assess other decision-making criteria. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of 3 European cohort studies. We included data for patients aged 35 years or younger suspected of PE who were followed for 3 months. The safety and efficacy of applying the PERC and PERC-35 were assessed with the diagnostic error rate (failure to detect PE) and the proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis of PE was ruled out. We also assessed the safety and efficacy of applying the YEARS and PEGeD criteria. RESULTS: Data for 1235 patients aged 35 years or younger were analyzed. Twenty-two (1.8%; 95% CI, 1.2%-2.7%) PE cases were diagnosed at 3 months. Six (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.5%-2.2%) and 5 (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.4%-2.1%) PE cases were not diagnosed by the PERC and PERC-35 tools, respectively. These tools allowed PE to be ruled out in 591 (48.2%; 95% CI, 45.4%-51.0%) and 554 (46.2%; 95% CI, 43.4%-49.0%) cases, respectively. The error rates of the YEARS and PEGeD criteria, respectively, were 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.1%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.2%); their efficacy was similar. CONCLUSION: The safety and efficacy profiles of the PERC and PERC-35 algorithms were similar in patients aged 35 years or younger. However, the large confidence intervals we report do not allow us to confirm the safety of using the tools in patients in this age group.

OBJETIVO: Evaluar la capacidad de la regla PERC (Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria) y la regla modificada por edad (PERC-35) para descartar tromboembolia pulmonar (TEP) en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) en pacientes 35 años. El objetivo secundario fue analizar otras reglas de decisión clínica. METODO: Análisis post-hoc de 3 estudios de cohorte europeos (PROPER, PERCEPIC y MODIGLIANI). Se incluyeron pacientes 35 años con sospecha de TEP en SUH y con seguimiento a 3 meses. La seguridad y eficacia de PERC y PERC-35 se evaluaron con su tasa de error -no detectar TEP- y la proporción de pacientes con diagnóstico de TEP descartado. Se evaluó la seguridad y eficacia de las reglas YEARS y PEGeD. RESULTADOS: Se analizaron 1.235 pacientes 35 años. Hubo 22 (1,8%, IC 95%: 1,2-2,7) TEP diagnosticados a los 3 meses. Hubo 6 (1,0%, IC 95%: 0,5-2,2) y 5 (0,9%, IC 95%: 0,4-2,1) TEP no diagnosticados con las reglas PERC y PERC-35 respectivamente. Estas reglas permitieron descartar TEP en 591 (48,2%, IC 95%: 45,4- 51,0) y 554 (46,2%, IC 95%: 43,4- 49,0) respectivamente. La tasa de error de YEARS y PEGeD fue del 0,4% (IC 95%: 0,1- 1,1) y 0,5% (IC 95%: 0,2-1,2), con una eficacia similar. CONCLUSIONES: En pacientes 35 años, las reglas PERC y PERC-35 mostraron perfiles de seguridad y eficacia similares. Sin embargo, el amplio intervalo de confianza comunicado en este estudio no permite confirmar su seguridad.

Comparison between pupillometry and numeric pain rating scale for pain assessments in communicating adult patients in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: The adequate assessment of pain in the emergency department (ED) can be challenging. Two dynamic pupillary measures used in conscious subjects after a surgical procedure were previously shown to correlate to the magnitude of ongoing pain. The objective of this study was to test the ability of dynamic measures derived from pupillometry to evaluate pain intensity in conscious adult patients admitted to the ED. METHODS: This prospective, interventional, single-centre study was performed between August 2021 and January 2022 (NCT05019898). An assessment of self-reported pain intensity was performed on ED admission by the triage nurse using a numeric rating scale (NRS). This was followed by two dynamic measures derived from pupillometry that were previously correlated with pain perception: the pupillary unrest under ambient light (PUAL) and the pupillary light reflex (PLR). RESULTS: Among the 313 analysed patients, the median age was 41 years, and 52% were women. No correlation was found between self-reported pain ratings and PUAL (r = 0.007) or PLR (baseline diameter r = -0.048; decrease r = 0.024; latency r = 0.019; slope = -0.051). Similarly, the pupillometry measures could not discriminate patients with moderate to severe pain (defined as NRS ≥4). CONCLUSIONS: Pupillometry does not appear to be an effective tool to evaluate pain in the ED environment. Indeed, too many factors influencing the sympathetic system-and thus the dynamic pupillary measures-are not controllable in the ED. SIGNIFICANCE: Pupillometry does not appear to be an effective tool to evaluate pain in the ED environment. There are several possible explanations for these negative results. The factors influencing the sympathetic system-and thus the PD fluctuations-are controllable in the postoperative period but not in the ED (e.g. full bladder, hypothermia). In addition, numerous psychological phenomena can impact pupillometry measurements such as emotional reactions or cognitive tasks. These phenomena are particularly difficult to control in the ED environment.

Temporal Trends in the Use of Computed Tomographic Pulmonary Angiography for Suspected Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Department : A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recently, validated clinical decision rules have been developed that avoid unnecessary use of computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVE: To measure any resulting change in CTPA use for suspected PE. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: 26 European EDs in 6 countries. PATIENTS: Patients with CTPA performed for suspected PE in the ED during the first 7 days of each odd month between January 2015 and December 2019. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end points were the CTPAs done for suspected PE in the ED and the number of PEs diagnosed in the ED each year adjusted to an annual census of 100 000 ED visits. Temporal trends were estimated using generalized linear mixed regression models. RESULTS: 8970 CTPAs were included (median age, 63 years; 56% female). Statistically significant temporal trends for more frequent use of CTPA (836 per 100 000 ED visits in 2015 vs. 1112 in 2019; P < 0.001), more diagnosed PEs (138 per 100 000 in 2015 vs. 164 in 2019; P = 0.028), a higher proportion of low-risk PEs (annual percent change [APC], 13.8% [95% CI, 2.6% to 30.1%]) with more ambulatory management (APC, 19.3% [CI, 4.1% to 45.1%]), and a lower proportion of intensive care unit admissions (APC, -8.9% [CI, -17.1% to -0.3%]) were observed. LIMITATION: Data were limited to 7 days every 2 months. CONCLUSION: Despite the recent validation of clinical decision rules to limit the use of CTPA, an increase in the CTPA rate along with more diagnosed PEs and especially low-risk PEs were instead observed. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None specific for this study.

Is gallbladder PoCUS diagnostic accuracy accessible to medical students after PoCUS training exclusively on healthy volunteers? A pilot randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) is increasingly used in clinical practice and is now included in many undergraduate curricula. Here, we aimed to determine whether medical students who participated in a PoCUS teaching program with several practical training sessions involving healthy volunteers could achieve a good level of diagnostic accuracy in identifying gallbladder pathologies. The intervention group (IG) was trained exclusively on volunteers with a healthy gallbladder, whereas the control group (CG) had access to volunteers with a pathological gallbladder as recommended in most PoCUS curricula. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty medical students were randomly assigned to the IG and CG. After completing the training program over 2 months, students were evaluated by three independent examiners. Students and examiners were blind to group allocation and study outcome. Sensitivity and specificity of students' PoCUS gallstone diagnosis were assessed. Secondary outcomes were students' confidence, image quality, acquisition time, and PoCUS skills. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity for gallstone diagnosis were, respectively, 0.85 and 0.97 in the IG and 0.80 and 0.83 in the CG. Areas under the curve (AUC) based on the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were 0.91 and 0.82 in the IG and CG, respectively, with no significant difference (p = 0.271) and an AUC difference of -0.092. No significant between-group difference was found for the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study showed that medical students can develop PoCUS diagnostic accuracy after training on healthy volunteers. If these findings are confirmed in a larger sample, this could favor the delivery of large practical teaching sessions without the need to include patients with pathology, thus facilitating PoCUS training for students.

Unexpected carboxyhemoglobin half-life during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest (CA) following CO poisoning (CO-induced CA) exposes patients to an extremely high risk of mortality and remains challenging to treat effectively. Terminal carboxyhemoglobin elimination half-life (COHbt1/2) is critically affected by ventilation, oxygen therapy, and cardiac output, which are severely affected conditions in cases of CA. CASE PRESENTATION: Asystole occurred in an 18-year-old woman after unintentional exposure to CO in her bathroom. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was started immediately, including mechanical ventilation with a fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) of 1.0 and external chest compressions with a LUCAS® device. CPR was stopped after 101 min, as it was unsuccessful. During this period, we calculated a COHbt1/2 of 40.3 min using a single compartmental model. CONCLUSIONS: This result suggests that prolongation of CPR time needed to back COHb at 10%, a level more compatible with successful return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), could be compatible with a realistic CPR time. Calculating COHbt1/2 during CPR may help with decision-making regarding the optimal duration of resuscitation efforts and further with HBO2 or ECLS. Further evidence-based data are needed to confirm this result.

Strategies to safely rule out pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 outpatients: a multicenter retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to define a safe strategy to exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 outpatients, without performing CT pulmonary angiogram (CTPA). METHODS: COVID-19 outpatients from 15 university hospitals who underwent a CTPA were retrospectively evaluated. D-Dimers, variables of the revised Geneva and Wells scores, as well as laboratory findings and clinical characteristics related to COVID-19 pneumonia, were collected. CTPA reports were reviewed for the presence of PE and the extent of COVID-19 disease. PE rule-out strategies were based solely on D-Dimer tests using different thresholds, the revised Geneva and Wells scores, and a COVID-19 PE prediction model built on our dataset were compared. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), failure rate, and efficiency were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 1369 patients were included of whom 124 were PE positive (9.1%). Failure rate and efficiency of D-Dimer > 500 µg/l were 0.9% (95%CI, 0.2-4.8%) and 10.1% (8.5-11.9%), respectively, increasing to 1.0% (0.2-5.3%) and 16.4% (14.4-18.7%), respectively, for an age-adjusted D-Dimer level. D-dimer > 1000 µg/l led to an unacceptable failure rate to 8.1% (4.4-14.5%). The best performances of the revised Geneva and Wells scores were obtained using the age-adjusted D-Dimer level. They had the same failure rate of 1.0% (0.2-5.3%) for efficiency of 16.8% (14.7-19.1%), and 16.9% (14.8-19.2%) respectively. The developed COVID-19 PE prediction model had an AUC of 0.609 (0.594-0.623) with an efficiency of 20.5% (18.4-22.8%) when its failure was set to 0.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The strategy to safely exclude PE in COVID-19 outpatients should not differ from that used in non-COVID-19 patients. The added value of the COVID-19 PE prediction model is minor. KEY POINTS: • D-dimer level remains the most important predictor of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients. • The AUCs of the revised Geneva and Wells scores using an age-adjusted D-dimer threshold were 0.587 (95%CI, 0.572 to 0.603) and 0.588 (95%CI, 0.572 to 0.603). • The AUC of COVID-19-specific strategy to rule out pulmonary embolism ranged from 0.513 (95%CI: 0.503 to 0.522) to 0.609 (95%CI: 0.594 to 0.623).

Diagnostic Strategy for Suspected Pulmonary Embolism in Emergency Departments Based on the 4-Level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score: Study Protocol of SPEED&PEPS Trial.

Introduction: Several strategies have been devised to safely limit the use of thoracic imaging in patients suspected of pulmonary embolism (PE). However, they are based on different rules for clinical probability (CP) assessment, rendering their combination difficult. The four-level pulmonary embolism probability score (4PEPS) allows the combination of all other strategies using a single CP assessment. Methods and analysis: Pragmatic cluster-randomized trial in 20 EDs. Patients with suspected PE will be included and followed for 90 days (number of patients to be included: 2560, 1280 in each arm). Ten centers will be allocated to the control group where physicians will be free to do as they see fit but they will be given the recommendation to apply a validated strategy. Ten centers will be allocated to the interventional group where the physicians will be given the recommendation to apply the 4PEPS strategy. The primary objective will be to demonstrate that the application of the 4PEPS strategy by the emergency physicians, in comparison to current practices, (i) does not increase the risk of serious events related to diagnostic strategies and (ii) significantly reduces the use of thoracic imaging. Ethics and dissemination: The study will be submitted for approval to an institutional ethics review board for all participating centers. If successful, the SPEED&PEPS trial will have an important impact for patients suspected of PE limiting their irradiation and for public health in substantial savings in terms of the direct cost of diagnostic investigations and the indirect cost of hospitalizations due to waiting times or delayed harmful effects. Funding: This work is funded by a French Public Health grant (PREPS-N 2019). The funding source plays no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation or the writing of the manuscript. Trial registration: ongoing. Trial status: not started.

Evaluation of the "hemoptysis" item in clinical decision rules for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Hemoptysis is not common in pulmonary embolism (PE) and lacks specificity for its diagnosis. However, this item is present in different validated scores that estimate the clinical probability of PE. The relevance of this item in clinical decision rules (CDRs) is not clearly established. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of removing the "hemoptysis" item from the PERC, YEARS, and PEGeD CDR in patients with low clinical probability of PE. DESIGN: This was a post hoc analysis of two European prospective cohorts, which included 2968 patients presenting to the ED with a low clinical probability of PE (PROPER and PERCEPIC) and a 3-month follow-up. The primary endpoint was the false-negative rate of a CDR score without the hemoptysis item. Secondary endpoints included the potential reduction of chest imaging if the item hemoptysis was to be removed and risk stratification of the Geneva and Wells scores without the hemoptysis item. RESULTS: Of 2968 patients included (mean ± SD age 46 ± 18 years, 53% female), 87 patients (3%) had a PE diagnosed at 3 months. A total of 2908 were followed-up at 3 months and analyzed. Using the PERC rule with and without the hemoptysis item, there were 13 and 14 missed cases of PE, respectively (failure rate 0.45% [95% CI 0.25%-0.78%] and 0.48% [95% CI 0.27%-0.82%]). Using the YEARS strategy, there were 11 missed PE cases with or without the hemoptysis item (false-negative rate 0.57% [95% CI 0.30%-1.05%]). With the PERC and YEARS rule, removing the hemoptysis item would have led to a 1% reduction in chest imaging. The PEGeD strategy was not modified by the removal of the hemoptysis item. CONCLUSIONS: The hemoptysis item could be safely removed from the PERC, YEARS, and PEGeD CDRs. However, there was no subsequent clinically relevant reduction of chest imaging.

Procedural Sedation With Dexmedetomidine in Combination With Ketamine in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is an alternative agent for procedural sedation in the emergency department thanks to its ability to maintain hemodynamic and respiratory stability. Dexmedetomidine must, however, be combined with a powerful analgesic. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the quality and safety of procedural sedation using the combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine for patients undergoing painful procedures in the emergency department. METHODS: This prospective interventional single-center study was conducted in an academic emergency department of an urban hospital in Brussels, Belgium. Patients received a bolus injection of 1 µg/kg dexmedetomidine over 10 min and then a continuous infusion of 0.6 µg/kg/h followed by a bolus of 1 mg/kg ketamine. The painful procedure was carried out 1 min later. The level of pain was evaluated with a numerical rating scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximal pain). The level of patient comfort for the procedure was measured using a comfort scale. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included. Overall, 90% of patients felt little or no pain (n = 29 of 30) or discomfort (n = 28 of 30) during the procedure. One patient experienced apnea with desaturation, which was resolved by a jaw-thrust maneuver. Although 23% of patients had significant arterial hypertension, none required drug treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine provides conscious sedation, bringing comfort and pain relief to patients in optimal conditions for respiratory and hemodynamic safety. However, sedation and recovery times are longer than with conventional drug combinations. The dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination should therefore be recommended for nonurgent procedures and fragile patients.

Efficacy of HEAR and HEART score to rule out major adverse cardiac events in patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain: study protocol of the eCARE stepped-wedge randomised control trial.

INTRODUCTION: Current guidelines for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) on ECG are based on serial troponin measurements. A clinical tool able to identify very low-risk patients who could forgo a troponin test and low-risk patients requiring only one troponin measurement would be of great interest. To do so, the HEAR and HEART score, standing for history, ECG, age, risk factors±troponin were prospectively assessed, but not combined and implemented in clinical practice. The objective of the eCARE study is to assess the impact of implementing a diagnostic strategy based on a HEAR score <2 or a HEART score <4 (HEAR-T strategy) to rule out non-STEMI without or with a single troponin measurement in patients presenting to the ED with chest pain without obvious diagnosis after physical examination and an ECG. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Stepped-wedge cluster-randomised control trial in 10 EDs. Patients with non-traumatic chest pain and no formal diagnosis were included and followed for 30 days. In the interventional phase, the doctor will be asked not to perform a troponin test to look for an acute coronary if the HEAR score is <2 and not to perform an additional troponin test if the HEAR score is ≥2 and HEART score is <4. The main endpoint is the non-inferiority of the rates of major adverse cardiac events occurring between a patient's discharge and the 30-day follow-up against current recommended guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by an institutional review board for all participating centres. If successful, the eCARE study will cover a gap in the evidence, proving that it is safe and efficient to rule out the hypothesis of an acute myocardial infarction in some selected very low-risk patients or based on a single troponin measurement in some low-risk patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04157790.

Contemporary management of acute pulmonary embolism.

This review examines the recent progress in the initial management of pulmonary embolism (PE). Diagnostic strategies allowing the safe decrease of imaging testing have been proposed. New modalities of catheter-based interventions have emerged for hemodynamically unstable PE patients. For normotensive PE patients, direct oral anticoagulant treatment has become the new norm and a large proportion of patients are eligible for home treatment.