Home management of COVID-19 symptomatic patients: a safety study on COVID committed home medical teams.

To reduce the overburden in the hospital, during the COVID-19 pandemic, some "COVID Committed Home Medical Teams" (CCHTs) were created in Italy. These units consist of a small pool of general practitioners who aim to evaluate all patients with COVID-19 who require a medical examination directly at home. After the first visit (which can end with patient hospitalisation or home management), CCHTs periodically monitor the patients' clinical conditions and vital signs (usually a revaluation every 24-48 hours, except for a sudden worsening). However, this strategy - which reduces the pressure on hospitals - has never been evaluated for patient safety. Our study aims to determine whether a home-based monitoring and treatment strategy for non-severe COVID-19 patients was safe as direct hospital admission by the emergency department. We conducted a retrospective observational study about 1,182 patients admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 between September 2020 and April 2021, confronting in-hospital and 30-day mortality in both CCHT-referred (n=275) and directly admitted by emergency department (n=907). Patients assessed by the CCHT had lower in-hospital and 30-day mortality (18% vs 28%, p=0.001; and 20% vs 30%, p=0.002); but, in the propensity score matching comparison, there was no characteristic between the two groups turned out significantly different. CCHT did not correlate with in-hospital or 30-day mortality. CCHT is a safe strategy to reduce hospital overburden for COVID-19 during pandemic surges.

Development and Validation of the Acute PNeumonia Early Assessment Score for Safely Discharging Low-Risk SARS-CoV-2-Infected Patients from the Emergency Department.

A continuous demand for assistance and an overcrowded emergency department (ED) require early and safe discharge of low-risk severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected patients. We developed (n = 128) and validated (n = 330) the acute PNeumonia early assessment (aPNea) score in a tertiary hospital and preliminarily tested the score on an external secondary hospital (n = 97). The score's performance was compared to that of the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2). The composite outcome of either death or oral intubation within 30 days from admission occurred in 101 and 28 patients in the two hospitals, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of the aPNea model was 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.78-0.93) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.89) for the development and validation cohorts, respectively. The aPNea score discriminated low-risk patients better than NEWS2 at a 10% outcome probability, corresponding to five cut-off points and one cut-off point, respectively. aPNea's cut-off reduced the number of unnecessary hospitalizations without missing outcomes by 27% (95% CI, 9-41) in the validation cohort. NEWS2 was not significant. In the external cohort, aPNea's cut-off had 93% sensitivity (95% CI, 83-102) and a 94% negative predictive value (95% CI, 87-102). In conclusion, the aPNea score appears to be appropriate for discharging low-risk SARS-CoV-2-infected patients from the ED.

Acute kidney injury and single-dose administration of aminoglycoside in the Emergency Department: a comparison through propensity score matching.

Purpose: According to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, aminoglycosides (AG) can be administered together with a ß-lactam in patients with septic shock. Some authors propose administering a single dose of an AG combined with a ß-lactam antibiotic in septic patients to extend the spectrum of antibiotic therapy. The aim of this study has been to investigate whether a single shot of AG when septic patients present at the Emergency Department (ED) is associated with acute kidney injury (AKI). Methods: We retrospectively enrolled patients based on a 3-year internal registry of septic patients visited in the Emergency Department (ED) of Pordenone Hospital. We compared the patients treated with a single dose of gentamicin (in addition to the ß-lactam) and those who had not been treated to verify AKI incidence. Results: 355 patients were enrolled. The median age was 71 years (IQR 60-78). Less than 1% of the patients had a chronic renal disease. The most frequent infection source was the urinary tract (31%), followed by intra-abdominal and lower respiratory tract infections (15% for both). 131 patients received gentamicin. Unmatched data showed a significant difference between the two groups in AKI (79/131, 60.3% versus 102/224, 45.5%; p=0.010) and in infectious disease specialist's consultation (77/131, 59% versus 93/224, 41.5%; p=0.002). However, after propensity score matching, no significant difference was found. Conclusion: Our experience shows that a single-shot administration of gentamicin upon admission to the ED does not determine an increased incidence of AKI in septic patients.

Ceftobiprole and pneumonia in adults admitted to the emergency department is it time to assess a new therapeutic algorithm?

OBJECTIVE: Ceftobiprole is an advance generation cephalosporin which has broad-spectrum bacterial activity (both against Gram-positive and negative pathogens) and was approved for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and non-ventilated hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) in most European countries. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ceftobiprole in the treatment of pneumonia in a cohort of severely ill patients admitted to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: 1-year observational retrospective mono-centric study. Were defined two primary endpoints: first, to evaluate the clinical cure at the test-of-cure (TOC); the second, to evaluate the early improvement, defined as a reduction of symptoms and inflammatory parameters 72 hours after the start of treatment. The secondary endpoint is to evaluate the reduction of antibiotic "burden" using ceftobiprole despite standard of care in severe hospital-acquired pneumonia. RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 48 patients with severe pneumonia received ceftobiprole: twenty-two patients (45.8%) as empiric therapy, 9 (18.5%) as a de-escalation option from previous combination therapies, 13 patients (27.1%) as an escalation therapy from ceftriaxone or amoxicillin/clavulanate and four patients (8.3%) as a targeted therapy based on microbiological results. Ceftobiprole mean duration therapy was 10.2 days. Forty-six patients with severe pneumonia had an early clinical improvement 72 hours after the start of treatment (95.8%). In general, ceftobiprole was well tolerated; only one patient suspended the drug because of poor tolerability. The clinical cure at TOC was 85.4% and 30-days crude mortality was 10.4%. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that ceftobiprole is effective in severely ill patients with pneumonia at risk of poor outcomes.