Sex- and age-related patterns in the use of analgesics in older patients in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of acute pain in older patients is a common challenge faced in emergency departments (EDs). Despite many studies that have investigated chronic analgesic use in the elderly, data on patterns of acute use, especially in EDs, of analgesics according to patient characteristics is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To investigate sex- and age-related patterns of analgesic use in the Spanish EDs and determine differences in age-related patterns according to patient sex. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of the Emergency Department and Elderly Needs (EDEN) multipurpose cohort. SETTING: Fifty-two Spanish EDs (17% of Spanish EDs covering 25% of Spanish population). PARTICIPANTS: All patients' ≥65 years attending ED during 1 week (April 1-7, 2019). Patient characteristics recorded included age, sex, chronic treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opiates, comorbidity, dependence, dementia, depression, ability to walk and previous falls. Analgesics used in the ED were categorized in three groups: non-NSAID non-opioids (mainly paracetamol and metamizole, PM), NSAIDs, and opiates. OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of analgesic use was quantified, and the relationship between sex and age and analgesic use (in general and for each analgesic group) was assessed by unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression and restricted cubic spline models. Interaction between sex and age was explored. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 573 patients, and 6678 (27.2%) received analgesics in the ED: 5551 (22.6%) PM, 1661 (6.8%) NSAIDs and 937 (3.8%) opiates (1312 received combinations). Analgesics were more frequently used in women (adjusted OR = 1.076, 95%CI = 1.014-1.142), as well as with NSAID (1.205, 1.083-1.341). Analgesic use increased with age, increasing PM and decreasing NSAIDs use. Opiate use remained quite constant across age and sex. Interaction of sex with age was present for the use of analgesics in general ( P  = 0.006), for PM ( P  < 0.001) and for opiates ( P  = 0.033), with higher use of all these analgesics in women. CONCLUSION: Use of analgesics in older individuals in EDs is mildly augmented in women and increases with age, with PM use increasing and NSAIDs decreasing with age. Conversely, opiate use is quite constant according to sex and age. Age-related patterns differ according to sex, with age-related curves of women showing higher probabilities than those of men to receive any analgesic, PM or opiates.

Are there differences in the relationship between respiratory rate and oxygen saturation between patients with COVID-19 and those without COVID-19? Insights from a cohort-based correlational study.

BACKGROUND: Physicians have observed patients with COVID-19 without respiratory distress despite marked hypoxaemia and extensive radiographic abnormalities, a controversial phenomenon called 'silent hypoxaemia'. We aimed to compare the relationship between RR and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) in patients with COVID-19 versus patients without COVID-19 when breathing air on admission. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicentre ED cohort correlational study.We used the Spanish Investigators on Emergency Situations TeAm network cohort of patients with COVID-19 admitted to 61 Spanish EDs between March and April 2020. The non-COVID-19 cohort included patients with lower respiratory tract bacterial infections admitted between January 2016 and April 2018.We built a multivariable linear model to investigate the independent predictive factors related to RR and a logistic multivariate regression model to analyse the presence of 'silent hypoxaemia'. RESULTS: We included 1094 patients with COVID-19 and 477 patients without COVID-19. On admission, RR was lower (20±7 vs 24±8/min, p<0.0001), while SpO2 higher (95±5% vs 90±7%, p<0.0001) in patients with COVID-19 versus patients without COVID-19. RR was negatively associated with SpO2 (RR decreasing with increasing age, beta=-0.37, 95% CI (-0.43; -0.31), p<0.0001), positively associated with age (RR increasing with increasing age, beta=0.05, 95% CI (0.03; 0.07), p<0.0001) and negatively associated with COVID-19 status (RR lower in patients with COVID-19, beta=-1.90, 95% CI (-2.65; -1.15), p<0.0001). The negative RR/SpO2 correlation differed between patients with COVID-19 aged <80 and ≥80 years old (p=0.04). Patients with COVID-19 aged ≥80 years old had lower RR than patients without COVID-19 aged ≥80 years old at SpO2 values <95% (22±7 vs 24±8/min, p=0.004). 'Silent hypoxaemia' defined as RR <20/min with SpO2 <95% was observed in 162 (14.8%) patients with COVID-19 and in 79 (16.6%) patients without COVID-19 (p=0.4). 'Silent hypoxaemia' was associated with age ≥80 years (OR=1.01 (1.01; 1.03), p<0.0001) but not with gender, comorbidities and COVID-19 status. CONCLUSION: The RR/SpO2 relationship before oxygen administration does not differ between patients with COVID-19 and those without COVID-19, except in elderly patients.

Emergency department management of atrial fibrillation: 2023 consensus from the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES), the Spanish Society of Cardiology (SEC), and the Spanish Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (SETH). / Manejo de la fibrilación auricular en los servicios de urgencias hospitalarios: actualización a 2023 del consenso de la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias (SEMES), la Sociedad Española de Cardiología (SEC) y la Sociedad Española de Trombosis y Hemostasia (SETH).

OBJECTIVES: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent sustained arrhythmia managed in emergency departments, and the already high prevalence of this arrhythmia is increasing in Spain. This serious condition associated with increased mortality and morbidity has a negative impact on patient quality of life and the functioning of the health care system. The management of AF requires consideration of diverse clinical variables and a large number of possible therapeutic approaches, justifying action plans to coordinate the work of several medical specialties in the interest of providing appropriate care and optimizing resources. This consensus statement brings together recommendations for emergency department management of AF based on available evidence adapted to special circumstances. The statement was drafted by a multidisciplinary team of specialists from the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES), the Spanish Society of Cardiology (SEC), and the Spanish Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (SETH). Strategies for stroke prophylaxis, measures to bring heart rate and heart rhythm under control, and related diagnostic and logistic issues are discussed in detail.

OBJETIVO: La fibrilación auricular (FA) es la arritmia sostenida de mayor prevalencia en los servicios de urgencias (SU), y en España presenta una frecuentación elevada y creciente. Esta arritmia es una enfermedad grave, que incrementa la mortalidad y asocia una relevante morbilidad e impacto en la calidad de vida de los pacientes y en el funcionamiento de los servicios sanitarios. La diversidad de aspectos clínicos a considerar y el elevado número de opciones terapéuticas posibles justifican la implementación de estrategias de actuación coordinadas entre los diversos profesionales implicados, con el fin de incrementar la adecuación del tratamiento y optimizar el uso de recursos. Este documento, realizado por un grupo multidisciplinario de expertos en arritmias cardiacas miembros de la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias, la Sociedad Española de Cardiología y la Sociedad Española de Trombosis y Hemostasia, recoge las recomendaciones para el manejo de la FA en los SU hospitalarios, basadas en la evidencia disponible y adaptadas a las especiales circunstancias de los mismos. En él se analizan con detalle las estrategias de profilaxis tromboembólica, control de frecuencia y control del ritmo, y los aspectos logísticos y diagnósticos relacionados.

Manejo de la fibrilación auricular en los servicios de urgencias hospitalarios: actualización a 2023 del consenso de la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias (SEMES), la Sociedad Española de Cardiología (SEC) y la Sociedad Española de Trombosis y Hem / Emergency department management of atrial fibrillation: 2023 consensus from the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES), the Spanish Society of Cardiology (SEC), and the Spanish Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (SETH)

La fibrilación auricular (FA) es la arritmia sostenida de mayor prevalencia en los servicios de urgencias (SU), y en España presenta una frecuentación elevada y creciente. Esta arritmia es una enfermedad grave, que incrementa la mortalidad y asocia una relevante morbilidad e impacto en la calidad de vida de los pacientes y en el funcionamiento de los servicios sanitarios. La diversidad de aspectos clínicos a considerar y el elevado número de opciones terapéuticas posibles justifican la implementación de estrategias de actuación coordinadas entre los diversos profesionales implicados, con el fin de incrementar la adecuación del tratamiento y optimizar el uso de recursos. Este documento, realizado por un grupo multidisciplinario de expertos en arritmias cardiacas miembros de la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias, la Sociedad Española de Cardiología y la Sociedad Española de Trombosis y Hemostasia, recoge las recomendaciones para el manejo de la FA en los SU hospitalarios, basadas en la evidencia disponible y adaptadas a las especiales circunstancias de los mismos. En él se analizan con detalle las estrategias de profilaxis tromboembólica, control de frecuencia y control del ritmo, y los aspectos logísticos y diagnósticos relacionados. (AU)

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent sustained arrhythmia managed in emergency departments, and the already high prevalence of this arrhythmia is increasing in Spain. This serious condition associated with increased mortality and morbidity has a negative impact on patient quality of life and the functioning of the health care system. The management of AF requires consideration of diverse clinical variables and a large number of possible therapeutic approaches, justifying action plans to coordinate the work of several medical specialties in the interest of providing appropriate care and optimizing resources. This consensus statement brings together recommendations for emergency department management of AF based on available evidence adapted to special circumstances. The statement was drafted by a multidisciplinary team of specialists from the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES), the Spanish Society of Cardiology (SEC), and the Spanish Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (SETH). Strategies for stroke prophylaxis, measures to bring heart rate and heart rhythm under control, and related diagnostic and logistic issues are discussed in detail. (AU)

Decalogue to promote the implementation and improvement of recommendations for the early diagnosis of HIV in Emergency Departments.

Early diagnosis of HIV is still a challenge. Emergency Departments (EDs) suppose ideal settings for the early detection of HIV, since patients with high prevalence of hidden HIV infection are frequently attending those services. In 2020, the Spanish Society of Emergency and Emergency Medicine (SEMES) published a series of recommendations for the early diagnosis of patients with suspected HIV infection and their referral and follow-up in the EDs as part of its "Deja tu huella" program. However, the application of these recommendations has been very heterogeneous in our country. Considering this, the working group of the HIV hospital network led by the SEMES has motivated the drafting of a decalogue, with the aim of promoting the implementation and improvement of protocols for the early diagnosis of HIV in Spanish EDs.

Emergency department observation of patients with acute heart failure prior to hospital admission: impact on short-term prognosis. / Observación en urgencias previa a la hospitalización en pacientes con insuficiencia cardiaca aguda: impacto sobre el pronóstico a corto plazo.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze whether short-term outcomes are affected when patients diagnosed with acute heart failure (AHF) spend time in an emergency department observation unit (EDOU) before hospital admission. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Baseline and emergency episode data were collected for patients diagnosed with AHF in the EDs of 15 Spanish hospitals. We analyzed crude and adjusted associations between EDOU stay and 30-day mortality (primary outcome) and in-hospital mortality and a prolonged hospital stay of more than 7 days (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: A total of 6597 patients with a median (interquartile range) age of 83 (76-88 years) were studied. Fifty-five percent were women. All were hospitalized for AHF (50% in internal medicine wards, 23% in cardiology, 11% in geriatrics, and 16 in other specialties. Of these patients, 3241 (49%) had had EDOU stays and 3350 (51%) had been admitted immediately, with no EDOU stay. Having an EDOU stay was associated with female sex, dementia or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, long-term treatment with certain drugs for heart failure, greater baseline deterioration in function, and a higher degree of decompensation. Patients in the EDOU group were more often admitted to an internal medicine ward and had shorter stays; cardiology, geriatric, and intensive care admissions were less likely to have had an EDOU stay. Overall, 30-day mortality was 12.6% (13.7% in the EDOU group and 11.4% in the no-EDOU group; P = .004). In-hospital mortality was 10.4% overall (EDOU, 11.1% and no-EDOU, 9.6%; P = .044). Prolonged hospitalization occurred in 50.0% (EDOU, 48.7% and no-EDOU, 51.2%; P = .046). After adjusting for between-group differences, the EDOU stay was not associated with 30-day mortality (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.31). Odds ratios for associations between EDOU stay and in-hospital mortality and prolonged hospital stay, respectively, were 1.09 (95% CI, 0.92-1.29) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82-1.01). CONCLUSION: Although mortality higher in patients hospitalized for AHF who spend time in an EDO, the association seems to be accounted for by their worse baseline situation and the greater seriousness of the decompensation episode, not by time spent in the EDOU.

OBJETIVO: Analizar si la estancia en el área de observación de urgencias (AOU) de pacientes que han sido diagnosticados de insuficiencia cardiaca aguda (ICA) y que deben ingresar está asociada con algún cambio en la evolución a corto plazo. METODO: Se recogieron datos basales y clínicos de pacientes diagnosticados de ICA en el servicio de urgencias de 15 hospitales españoles. Se analizó la asociación cruda y ajustada de la estancia en el AOU previa a la hospitalización con mortalidad a 30 días (objetivo primario) y con mortalidad intrahospitalaria e ingreso prolongado (> 7 días) (objetivos secundarios). RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 6.597 pacientes (mediana = 83 años, RIC = 76-88; mujeres = 55%) hospitalizados por ICA (50% en medicina interna, 23% en cardiología, 11% en geriatría y 16% en otros servicios); de ellos, 3.241 (49%) permanecieron en observación en urgencias (grupo AOU) y 3.350 (51%) hospitalizaron sin observación previa (grupo no-AOU). La observación en urgencias se asoció con ser mujer, tener demencia o enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica, recibir crónicamente fármacos específicos para insuficiencia cardiaca, mayor deterioro funcional basal y mayor gravedad de la descompensación. El grupo AOU más frecuentemente hospitalizó en medicina interna y corta estancia, y menos frecuentemente en cardiología, geriatría y cuidados intensivos. La mortalidad a 30 días fue del 12,6% (AOU = 13,7%, no-AOU = 11,4%, p = 0,004); la mortalidad intrahospitalaria fue del 10,4% (AOU = 11,1%, no-AOU = 9,6%, p = 0,044) y el ingreso prolongado del 50,0% (AOU = 48,7%, no-AOU = 51,2%, p = 0,046). Tras ajustar por las diferencias entre grupos, la estancia en observación en urgencias no se asoció con mortalidad a 30 días (HR = 1,14, IC 95% = 0,99-1,31), mortalidad intrahospitalaria (OR = 1,09, IC 95% = 0,92-1,29) o estancia prolongada (OR = 0,91, IC 95% = 0,82-1,01). CONCLUSIONES: Aunque los pacientes hospitalizados por ICA que permanecen en observación en urgencias presentan mayor mortalidad, esta asociación parece explicarse por su peor situación de base y la mayor gravedad del episodio de descompensación y no por su paso por el AOU.

Quality of hospital emergency department care for patients with COVID-19 during the first wave in 2020: the CALUR-COVID-19 study. / Estudio CALUR-COVID-19: calidad asistencial en urgencias del proceso de atención a pacientes con COVID-19 durante el primer pico pandémico de 2020.

OBJECTIVES: To define quality of care indicators and care process standards for treating patients with COVID-19 in hospital emergency departments (EDs), to determine the level of adherence to standards during the first wave in 2020, and to detect factors associated with different levels of adherence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We selected care indicators and standards by applying the Delphi method. We then analyzed the level of adherence in the SIESTA cohort (registered by the Spanish Investigators in Emergency Situations Team). This cohort was comprised of patients with COVID-19 treated in 62 Spanish hospitals in March and April 2020. Adherence was compared according to pandemic-related ED caseload pressure, time periods during the wave (earlier and later), and age groups. RESULTS: Fourteen quality indicators were identified. Three were adhered to in less than 50% of the patients. Polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection was the indicator most often disregarded, in 29% of patients when the caseload was high vs 40% at other times (P .001) and in 30% of patients in the later period vs 37% in the earlier period (P = .04). Adherence to the following indicators was better in the later part of the wave: monitoring of oxygen saturation (100% vs 99%, P = .035), electrocardiogram monitoring in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine (87% vs 65%, P .001), and avoiding of lopinavir/ritonavir treatment in patients with diarrhea (79% vs 53%, P .001). No differences related to age groups were found. CONCLUSION: Adherence to certain quality indicators deteriorated during ED treatment of patients with COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic. Pressure from high caseloads may have exacerbated this deterioration. A learning effect led to improvement. No differences related to patient age were detected.

OBJETIVO: Definir indicadores de calidad y sus estándares para el proceso asistencial del paciente con COVID-19 en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH), así como determinar su grado de cumplimiento durante el primer pico pandémico e investigar si existieron diferencias en relación con diferentes factores. METODO: Siguiendo la metodología del Delphi, los autores seleccionaron los indicadores y sus estándares. Posteriormente, se analizó el grado de cumplimiento en la cohorte SIESTA, formada por pacientes COVID-19 de 62 SUH españoles atendidos en marzo y abril de 2020. Se comparó el cumplimiento de los indicadores según la presión asistencial generada por la pandemia en el SUH, el periodo asistencial y el grupo etario. RESULTADOS: Se definieron 14 indicadores. Tres de ellos se cumplieron en 50% de los pacientes. La realización de la reacción en cadena de la polimerasa (PCR) para el SARS-CoV-2 tuvo peor cumplimiento en SUH con alta presión (29% frente a 40%, p 0,001) y durante el periodo tardío (30% frente a 37%, p = 0,04). Durante el periodo tardío, mejoró la medida de saturación de oxígeno (100% frente a 99%, p = 0,035), la realización de electrocardiograma en pacientes tratados con hidroxicloroquina (87% frente a 65%, p 0,001) y la no administración de lopinavir-ritonavir en pacientes con diarrea (79% frente a 53%, p 0,001). No hubo diferencias en relación con el grupo etario. CONCLUSIONES: Durante el primer pico pandémico, diversos aspectos de la calidad de la atención a pacientes COVID-19 en los SUH españoles se vieron deteriorados. La presión asistencial pudo incrementar este deterioro. Hubo un efecto de aprendizaje que condicionó una mejora, pero no se observaron diferencias según la edad de los pacientes.

Estudio CALUR-COVID-19: calidad asistencial en urgencias del proceso de atención a pacientes con COVID-19 durante el primer pico pandémico de 2020 / Quality of hospital emergency department care for patients with COVID-19 during the first wave in 2020: the CALUR-COVID-19 study

Objetivo. Definir indicadores de calidad y sus estándares para el proceso asistencial del paciente con COVID-19 enservicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH), así como determinar su grado de cumplimiento durante el primer picopandémico e investigar si existieron diferencias en relación con diferentes factores.Método. Siguiendo la metodología del Delphi, los autores seleccionaron los indicadores y sus estándares.Posteriormente, se analizó el grado de cumplimiento en la cohorte SIESTA, formada por pacientes COVID-19 de 62SUH españoles atendidos en marzo y abril de 2020. Se comparó el cumplimiento de los indicadores según la presiónasistencial generada por la pandemia en el SUH, el periodo asistencial y el grupo etario.Resultados. Se definieron 14 indicadores. Tres de ellos se cumplieron en < 50% de los pacientes. La realización de lareacción en cadena de la polimerasa (PCR) para el SARS-CoV-2 tuvo peor cumplimiento en SUH con alta presión(29% frente a 40%, p < 0,001) y durante el periodo tardío (30% frente a 37%, p = 0,04). Durante el periodo tardío,mejoró la medida de saturación de oxígeno (100% frente a 99%, p = 0,035), la realización de electrocardiograma enpacientes tratados con hidroxicloroquina (87% frente a 65%, p < 0,001) y la no administración de lopinavir-ritonaviren pacientes con diarrea (79% frente a 53%, p < 0,001). No hubo diferencias en relación con el grupo etario.Conclusiones. Durante el primer pico pandémico, diversos aspectos de la calidad de la atención a pacientes COVID-19en los SUH españoles se vieron deteriorados. La presión asistencial pudo incrementar este deterioro. Hubo un efecto deaprendizaje que condicionó una mejora, pero no se observaron diferencias según la edad de los pacientes. (AU)

Objectives. To define quality of care indicators and care process standards for treating patients with COVID-19 inhospital emergency departments (EDs), to determine the level of adherence to standards during the first wave in2020, and to detect factors associated with different levels of adherence.Methods. We selected care indicators and standards by applying the Delphi method. We then analyzed the level ofadherence in the SIESTA cohort (registered by the Spanish Investigators in Emergency Situations Team). This cohort wascomprised of patients with COVID-19 treated in 62 Spanish hospitals in March and April 2020. Adherence was comparedaccording to pandemic-related ED caseload pressure, time periods during the wave (earlier and later), and age groups.Results. Fourteen quality indicators were identified. Three were adhered to in less than 50% of the patients.Polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection was the indicator most often disregarded, in 29% ofpatients when the caseload was high vs 40% at other times (P < .001) and in 30% of patients in the later period vs37% in the earlier period (P = .04). Adherence to the following indicators was better in the later part of the wave:monitoring of oxygen saturation (100% vs 99%, P = .035), electrocardiogram monitoring in patients treated withhydroxychloroquine (87% vs 65%, P < .001), and avoiding of lopinavir/ritonavir treatment in patients with diarrhea(79% vs 53%, P < .001). No differences related to age groups were found.Conclusions. Adherence to certain quality indicators deteriorated during ED treatment of patients with COVID-19during the first wave of the pandemic. Pressure from high caseloads may have exacerbated this deterioration. Alearning effect led to improvement. No differences related to patient age were detected. (AU)

[Translated article] Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) 2021 Update. Diagnosis and Treatment of COPD Exacerbation Syndrome.

This article details the GesEPOC 2021 recommendations on the diagnosis and treatment of COPD exacerbation syndrome (CES). The guidelines propose a definition-based syndromic approach, a new classification of severity, and the recognition of different treatable traits (TT), representing a new step toward personalized medicine. The evidence is evaluated using GRADE methodology, with the incorporation of 6 new PICO questions. The diagnostic process comprises four stages: 1) establish a diagnosis of CES, 2) assess the severity of the episode, 3) identify the trigger, and 4) address TTs. This diagnostic process differentiates an outpatient approach, that recommends the inclusion of a basic battery of tests, from a more comprehensive hospital approach, that includes the study of different biomarkers and imaging tests. Bronchodilator treatment for immediate relief of symptoms is considered essential for all patients, while the use of antibiotics, systemic corticosteroids, oxygen therapy, and assisted ventilation and the treatment of comorbidities will vary depending on severity and possible TTs. The use of antibiotics will be indicated particularly if sputum color changes, when ventilatory assistance is required, in cases involving pneumonia, and in patients with elevated C-reactive protein (≥ 20 mg/L). Systemic corticosteroids are recommended in CES that requires admission and are suggested in moderate CES. These drugs are more effective in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/mm3. Acute-phase non-invasive mechanical ventilation is specified primarily for patients with CES who develop respiratory acidosis despite initial treatment.

A case-control, multicentre study of consecutive patients with COVID-19 and acute (myo)pericarditis: incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics and outcomes of acute (myo)pericarditis (AMP) in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Case-control, retrospective review, consecutive case inclusion performed in 62 Spanish EDs. All COVID-19 patients with AMP (cases) were compared in clinical characteristics and outcomes with COVID-19 without AMP (control group A) and non-COVID patients with AMP (control group B). We estimated unadjusted standardised incidence (SI, not adjusted by population's age/sex) of AMP in COVID-19 and non-COVID populations (per 100 000/year). RESULTS: We identified 67 AMP in COVID-19 patients (SI=56.5, OR with respect to non-COVID patients=4.43, 95% CI=3.98 to 4.94). Remarkably, COVID-19 cases presented with chest pain less frequently than non-COVID patients and had less typical ECG changes, higher NT-proBNP (N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide), more left and right ventricular dysfunction in echocardiography and more need of inotropic/vasopressor drugs. Admission to intensive care was higher than control group A (OR=3.22, 95% CI=1.43 to 7.23), and in-hospital mortality was higher than control group B (OR=7.75, 95% CI=2.77 to 21.7). CONCLUSION: AMP is unusual as a form of COVID-19 presentation (about 1‰ cases), but SI is more than fourfold higher than non-COVID population, and it is less symptomatic, more severe and has higher in-hospital mortality; therefore, rapid recognition, echocardiographic assessment of myopericardial inflammation/dysfunction and treatment with vasoactive drugs when needed are recommended in AMP in patients with COVID-19.

Actualización 2021 de la guía española de la EPOC (GesEPOC). Diagnóstico y tratamiento del síndrome de agudización de la EPOC / Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) 2021 Update Diagnosis and Treatment of COPD Exacerbation Syndrome

En este artículo se presentan las recomendaciones sobre el diagnóstico y tratamiento del síndrome de agudización de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) (SAE) de GesEPOC 2021. Como principales novedades, la guía propone una definición y aproximación sindrómica, una nueva clasificación de gravedad y el reconocimiento de diferentes rasgos tratables (RT), lo que supone un nuevo paso hacia la medicina personalizada. La evaluación de la evidencia se realiza mediante la metodología Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), con la incorporación de seis nuevas preguntas con enfoque paciente, intervención, comparación y resultados (PICO). El proceso diagnóstico comprende cuatro etapas: 1) establecer el diagnóstico del SAE, 2) valorar la gravedad del episodio, 3) identificar el factor desencadenante y 4) abordar los RT. En este proceso diagnóstico se diferencia una aproximación ambulatoria, en la que se recomienda incluir una batería básica de pruebas y una hospitalaria, más exhaustiva, en la que se contempla el estudio de diferentes biomarcadores y pruebas de imagen. El tratamiento broncodilatador destinado al alivio inmediato de los síntomas se considera esencial para todos los pacientes, mientras que el uso de antibióticos, corticoides sistémicos, oxigenoterapia, ventilación asistida o el tratamiento de las comorbilidades variará en función de la gravedad y de los posibles RT. El empleo de antibióticos estará especialmente indicado ante un cambio en el color del esputo, cuando se requiera asistencia ventilatoria, en los casos que cursen con neumonía y también para aquellos con proteína-C reactiva elevada (≥ 20 mg/L). Los corticoides sistémicos se recomiendan en el SAE que necesita ingreso y se sugieren en el SAE moderado. La eficacia de estos fármacos es mayor en pacientes con recuento de eosinófilos en sangre ≥ 300 células/mm3. La ventilación mecánica no invasiva en fase aguda se establece fundamentalmente para pacientes con SAE que cursen con acidosis respiratoria, a pesar del tratamiento inicial

This article details the GesEPOC 2021 recommendations on the diagnosis and treatment of COPD exacerbation syndrome (CES). The guidelines propose a definition-based syndromic approach, a new classification of severity, and the recognition of different treatable traits (TT), representing a new step toward personalized medicine. The evidence is evaluated using GRADE methodology, with the incorporation of 6 new PICO questions. The diagnostic process comprises four stages: 1) establish a diagnosis of CES, 2) assess the severity of the episode, 3) identify the trigger, and 4) address TTs. This diagnostic process differentiates an outpatient approach, that recommends the inclusion of a basic battery of tests, from a more comprehensive hospital approach, that includes the study of different biomarkers and imaging tests. Bronchodilator treatment for immediate relief of symptoms is considered essential for all patients, while the use of antibiotics, systemic corticosteroids, oxygen therapy, and assisted ventilation and the treatment of comorbidities will vary depending on severity and possible TTs. The use of antibiotics will be indicated particularly if sputum color changes, when ventilatory assistance is required, in cases involving pneumonia, and in patients with elevated C-reactive protein (≥ 20 mg/L). Systemic corticosteroids are recommended in CES that requires admission and are suggested in moderate CES. These drugs are more effective in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/mm3. Acute-phase non-invasive mechanical ventilation is specified primarily for patients with CES who develop respiratory acidosis despite initial treatment.

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.

Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) 2021 Update Diagnosis and Treatment of COPD Exacerbation Syndrome. / Actualización 2021 de la guía española de la EPOC (GesEPOC). Diagnóstico y tratamiento del síndrome de agudización de la EPOC.

This article details the GesEPOC 2021 recommendations on the diagnosis and treatment of COPD exacerbation syndrome (CES). The guidelines propose a definition-based syndromic approach, a new classification of severity, and the recognition of different treatable traits (TT), representing a new step toward personalized medicine. The evidence is evaluated using GRADE methodology, with the incorporation of 6 new PICO questions. The diagnostic process comprises four stages: 1) establish a diagnosis of CES, 2) assess the severity of the episode, 3) identify the trigger, and 4) address TTs. This diagnostic process differentiates an outpatient approach, that recommends the inclusion of a basic battery of tests, from a more comprehensive hospital approach, that includes the study of different biomarkers and imaging tests. Bronchodilator treatment for immediate relief of symptoms is considered essential for all patients, while the use of antibiotics, systemic corticosteroids, oxygen therapy, and assisted ventilation and the treatment of comorbidities will vary depending on severity and possible TTs. The use of antibiotics will be indicated particularly if sputum color changes, when ventilatory assistance is required, in cases involving pneumonia, and in patients with elevated C-reactive protein (≥ 20 mg/L). Systemic corticosteroids are recommended in CES that requires admission and are suggested in moderate CES. These drugs are more effective in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/mm3. Acute-phase non-invasive mechanical ventilation is specified primarily for patients with CES who develop respiratory acidosis despite initial treatment.

A case-control analysis of stroke in COVID-19 patients: Results of unusual manifestations of COVID-19-study 11.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the incidence, predictor variables, clinical characteristics, and stroke outcomes in patients with COVID-19 seen in emergency departments (EDs) before hospitalization. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all COVID-19 patients diagnosed with stroke during the COVID-19 outbreak in 62 Spanish EDs. We formed two control groups: COVID-19 patients without stroke (control A) and non-COVID-19 patients with stroke (control B). We compared disease characteristics and four outcomes between cases and controls. RESULTS: We identified 147 strokes in 74,814 patients with COVID-19 seen in EDs (1.96‰, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.66‰ to 2.31‰), being lower than in non-COVID-19 patients (6,541/1,388,879, 4.71‰, 95% CI = 4.60‰ to 4.83‰; odds ratio [OR] = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.49). The estimated that standardized incidences of stroke per 100,000 individuals per year were 124 and 133 for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 individuals, respectively (OR = 0.93 for COVID patients, 95% CI = 0.87 to 0.99). Baseline characteristics associated with a higher risk of stroke in COVID-19 patients were hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and previous cerebrovascular and coronary diseases. Clinically, these patients more frequently presented with confusion, decreased consciousness, and syncope and higher D-dimer concentrations and leukocyte count at ED arrival. After adjustment for age and sex, the case group had higher hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates (but not mortality) than COVID-19 controls without stroke (OR = 3.41, 95% CI = 1.27 to 9.16; and OR = 3.79, 95% CI = 1.69 to 8.50, respectively) and longer hospitalization and greater in-hospital mortality than stroke controls without COVID-19 (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.24 to 1.94; and OR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.37 to 2.30, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of stroke in COVID-19 patients presenting to EDs was lower than that in the non-COVID-19 reference sample. COVID-19 patients with stroke had greater need for hospitalization and ICU admission than those without stroke and longer hospitalization and greater in-hospital mortality than non-COVID-19 patients with stroke.

Outcomes of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction discharged on treatment with neurohormonal antagonists after an episode of decompensation.

AIMS: To analyze the frequency with which patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) discharged after an acute heart failure (AHF) episode are treated with antineurohormonal drugs (ANHD), the variables related to ANHD prescription and their relationship with outcomes. METHODS: We included consecutive HFpEF patients (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%) discharged after an AHF episode from 45 Spanish hospitals whose chronic medications and treatment at discharge were available. Patients were classified according to whether they were discharged with or without ANHD, including beta-blockers (BB), renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibitors (RAASi) and mineralcorticosteroid-receptor antagonists (MRA). Co-primary outcomes consisted of 1-year all-cause mortality and 90-day combined adverse event (revisit to emergency department -ED-, hospitalization due to AHF or all-cause death). Secondary outcomes were 90-day adverse events taken individually. Adjusted associations of ANHD treatment with outcomes were calculated. RESULTS: We analyzed 3,305 patients with HFpEF (median age: 83, 60% women), 2,312 (70%) discharged with ANHD. The ANHD most frequently prescribed was BB (45.8%). The 1-year mortality was 26.9% (adjusted HR for ANHD patients:1.17, 95%CI=0.98-1.38) and the 90-day combined adverse event was 54.4% (HR=1.14, 95%CI=0.99-1.31). ED revisit was significantly increased by ANHD (HR=1.15, 95%CI=1.01-1.32). MRA and BB were associated with worse results in some co-primary or secondary endpoints, while RAASi (alone) reduced 90-day hospitalization (HR=0.73, 98%CI=0.56-0.96). CONCLUSION: 70% of HFpEF patients are discharged with ANHD after an AHF episode. ANHD do not seem to reduce mortality or adverse events in HFpEF patients, only RAASi could provide some benefits, reducing the risk of hospitalization for AHF.

[ENCOVUR-2 study: Analysis of the protocols of action, management and availability of intensive care resources for patients with severe COVID-19 attended in spanish Emergency Departments during the first peak of the pandemic.] / Análisis de los protocolos y recursos de cuidados críticos para pacientes con COVID-19 atendidos en Servicios de Urgencias españoles en la primera ola pandémica.

OBJECTIVE: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the availability of a critical care bed was insufficient. The aim of this work was to evaluate the presence of protocols, management in the emergency department (ED) and the availability of intensive care unit (ICU) beds for severe COVID-19 patients attended in Spanish hospital EDs during the first peak of the 2020 pandemic. METHODS: Questionnaire collecting data regarding ED care in March-April 2020 aimed at all Spanish public health care EDs. The respondents were the Chiefs of EDs. The variables of interest were: 1) Presence and of compliance with ED protocols for decision making and adequacy of therapeutic effort; 2) management of COVID-19 patients with non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) or high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in the ED; and 3) ICU bed accessibility for ED patients. The results were compared based on the characteristics of the hospital, impact of the pandemic and autonomous community. A descriptive and inferential analysis of the variables studied was performed using the chi-square test and analysis of variance. RESULTS: A total of 246 questionnaires (89%) were received. Protocols were available in 136 EDs (57.1%). Globally, the protocol was applied in >95% of the EDs, although this was less frequent (76%) in EDs with high impact of the pandemic. 53% of the EDs managed patients with severe COVID-19 with NIMV/HFNC in the ED itself, and 19.4% suffered from lack of ICU beds. The lack of ICU beds for severe COVID-19 patients in the ED significantly differed among periods, and more marked in hospitals with ICU and with high pandemic impact. CONCLUSIONS: It is needed to generalize the implementation of protocols in EDs for the management of severe COVID-19 patients and improve the capacity of the ICUs to homogeneously adjust to the needs.

OBJETIVO: Durante la primera oleada de la pandemia por COVID-19 la disponibilidad de una cama de críticos fue insuficiente. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la existencia de protocolos, el manejo en Urgencias y la disponibilidad de camas en las Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos (UCI) para pacientes graves por COVID-19 atendidos en los Servicios de Urgencias Hospitalarias (SUH) españoles durante la primera ola pandémica de 2020. METODOS: Se realizó una encuesta que recabó datos referentes a marzo-abril de 2020 de los SUH españoles del Sistema Público de Salud. El encuestado fue el responsable del SUH. Las variables de interés fueron: 1) Existencia y grado de cumplimiento en el SUH de los protocolos para la toma de decisiones y la adecuación del esfuerzo terapéutico; 2) manejo en el SUH de pacientes con COVID-19 mediante ventilación mecánica no invasiva (VMNI) u oxigenoterapia con cánula nasal de alto flujo (CNAF); y 3) accesibilidad a una cama de UCI. Se compararon los resultados según características hospitalarias, impacto de la pandemia y comunidad autónoma. Se realizó un análisis descriptivo e inferencial de las variables estudiadas mediante test de ji cuadrado y análisis de la varianza. RESULTADOS: Se recibieron 246 encuestas (89%) y 136 SUH (57,1%) dispusieron de protocolo propio. El 95% de los SUH aplicaron el protocolo siempre o con alguna excepción, aunque significativamente menos (76%) en los de mayor impacto pandémico. El 53% de los SUH manejaron pacientes graves por COVID-19 con VMNI/CNAF. El 19,4% de los SUH tuvo insuficiencia de camas de críticos (la mayor parte del tiempo o con cierta frecuencia), mayor en los SUH con alto impacto pandémico y con diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre periodos. CONCLUSIONES: Debería generalizarse la adopción de protocolos para el manejo de pacientes graves por COVID-19 y ajustar la capacidad de las UCI a las necesidades de cada momento de forma homogénea.

Socio-Demographic Health Determinants Are Associated with Poor Prognosis in Spanish Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Social vulnerability is a known determinant of health in respiratory diseases. Our aim was to identify whether there are socio-demographic factors among COVID-19 patients hospitalized in Spain and their potential impact on health outcomes during the hospitalization. METHODS: A multicentric retrospective case series study based on administrative databases that included all COVID-19 cases admitted in 19 Spanish hospitals from 1 March to 15 April 2020. Socio-demographic data were collected. Outcomes were critical care admission and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: We included 10,110 COVID-19 patients admitted to 18 Spanish hospitals (median age 68 (IQR 54-80) years old; 44.5% female; 14.8% were not born in Spain). Among these, 779 (7.7%) cases were admitted to critical care units and 1678 (16.6%) patients died during the hospitalization. Age, male gender, being immigrant, and low hospital saturation were independently associated with being admitted to an intensive care unit. Age, male gender, being immigrant, percentile of average per capita income, and hospital experience were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Social determinants such as residence in low-income areas and being born in Latin American countries were associated with increased odds of being admitted to an intensive care unit and of in-hospital mortality. There was considerable variation in outcomes between different Spanish centers.

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.

Actualización 2021 de la guía española de la EPOC (GesEPOC). Diagnóstico y tratamiento del síndrome de agudización de la EPOC [Pré-print]

En este artículo se presentan las recomendaciones sobre el diagnóstico y tratamiento del síndrome de agudización de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) (SAE) de GesEPOC 2021. Como principales novedades, la guía propone una definición y aproximación sindrómica, una nueva clasificación de gravedad y el reconocimiento de diferentes rasgos tratables (RT), lo que supone un nuevo paso hacia la medicina personalizada. La evaluación de la evidencia se realiza mediante la metodología Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), con la incorporación de seis nuevas preguntas con enfoque paciente, intervención, comparación y resultados (PICO). El proceso diagnóstico comprende cuatro etapas: 1) establecer el diagnóstico del SAE, 2) valorar la gravedad del episodio, 3) identificar el factor desencadenante y 4) abordar los RT. En este proceso diagnóstico se diferencia una aproximación ambulatoria, en la que se recomienda incluir una batería básica de pruebas y una hospitalaria, más exhaustiva, en la que se contempla el estudio de diferentes biomarcadores y pruebas de imagen. El tratamiento broncodilatador destinado al alivio inmediato de los síntomas se considera esencial para todos los pacientes, mientras que el uso de antibióticos, corticoides sistémicos, oxigenoterapia, ventilación asistida o el tratamiento de las comorbilidades variará en función de la gravedad y de los posibles RT. El empleo de antibióticos estará especialmente indicado ante un cambio en el color del esputo, cuando se requiera asistencia ventilatoria, en los casos que cursen con neumonía y también para aquellos con proteína-C reactiva elevada (≥ 20 mg/L). Los corticoides sistémicos se recomiendan en el SAE que necesita ingreso y se sugieren en el SAE moderado. La eficacia de estos fármacos es mayor en pacientes con recuento de eosinófilos en sangre ≥ 300 células/mm3. La ventilación mecánica no invasiva en fase aguda se establece fundamentalmente para pacientes con SAE que cursen con acidosis respiratoria, a pesar del tratamiento inicial.

This article details the GesEPOC 2021 recommendations on the diagnosis and treatment of COPD exacerbation syndrome (CES). The guidelines propose a definition-based syndromic approach, a new classification of severity, and the recognition of different treatable traits (TT), representing a new step toward personalized medicine. The evidence is evaluated using GRADE methodology, with the incorporation of 6 new PICO questions. The diagnostic process comprises four stages: 1) establish a diagnosis of CES, 2) assess the severity of the episode, 3) identify the trigger, and 4) address TTs. This diagnostic process differentiates an outpatient approach, that recommends the inclusion of a basic battery of tests, from a more comprehensive hospital approach, that includes the study of different biomarkers and imaging tests. Bronchodilator treatment for immediate relief of symptoms is considered essential for all patients, while the use of antibiotics, systemic corticosteroids, oxygen therapy, and assisted ventilation and the treatment of comorbidities will vary depending on severity and possible TTs. The use of antibiotics will be indicated particularly if sputum color changes, when ventilatory assistance is required, in cases involving pneumonia, and in patients with elevated C-reactive protein (≥ 20 mg/L). Systemic corticosteroids are recommended in CES that requires admission and are suggested in moderate CES. These drugs are more effective in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/mm3. Acute-phase non-invasive mechanical ventilation is specified primarily for patients with CES who develop respiratory acidosis despite initial treatment.