Thirty and ninety days mortality predictive value of admission and in-hospital procalcitonin and mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin testing in patients with dyspnea. Results from the VERyfing DYspnea trial.

INTRODUCTION: Mid-regional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide (MR-proANP), procalcitonin (PCT), and mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) demonstrated usefulness for management of emergency department patients with dyspnea. METHODS: To evaluate in patients with dyspnea, the prognostic value for 30 and 90 days mortality and readmission of PCT, MR-proADM, and MR-proANP, a multicenter prospective study was performed evaluating biomarkers at admission, 24 and 72 hours after admission. Based on final diagnosis, patients were divided into acute heart failure (AHF), primary lung diseases, or both (AHF + NO AHF). RESULTS: Five hundred one patients were enrolled. Procalcitonin and MR-proADM values at admission and at 72 hours were significantly (P < .001) predictive for 30-day mortality: baseline PCT with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.70 and PCT at 72 hours with an AUC of 0.61; baseline MR-proADM with an AUC of 0.62 and MR-proADM at 72 hours with an AUC of 0.68. As for 90-day mortality, both PCT and MR-proADM baseline and 72 hours values showed a significant (P < .0001) predictive ability: baseline PCT with an AUC of 0.73 and 72 hours PCT with an AUC of 0.64; baseline MR-proADM with an AUC of 0.66 and 72 hours MR-proADM with an AUC of 0.71. In AHF, group biomarkers predicted rehospitalization and mortality at 90 days, whereas in AHF + NO AHF group, they predict mortality at 30 and 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: In patients admitted for dyspnea, assessment of PCT plus MR-proADM improves risk stratification and management. Combined use of biomarkers is able to predict in the total cohort both rehospitalization and death at 30 and 90 days.

SIMEU position paper on non-invasive respiratory support in COVID-19 pneumonia.

The rapid worldwide spread of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis has put health systems under pressure to a level never experienced before, putting intensive care units in a position to fail to meet an exponentially growing demand. The main clinical feature of the disease is a progressive arterial hypoxemia which rapidly leads to ARDS which makes the use of intensive care and mechanical ventilation almost inevitable. The difficulty of health systems to guarantee a corresponding supply of resources in intensive care, together with the uncertain results reported in the literature with respect to patients who undergo early conventional ventilation, make the search for alternative methods of oxygenation and ventilation and potentially preventive of the need for tracheal intubation, such as non-invasive respiratory support techniques particularly valuable. In this context, the Emergency Department, located between the area outside the hospital and hospital ward and ICU, assumes the role of a crucial junction, due to the possibility of applying these techniques at a sufficiently early stage and being able to rapidly evaluate their effectiveness. This position paper describes the indications for the use of non-invasive respiratory support techniques in respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19-related pneumonia, formulated by the Non-invasive Ventilation Faculty of the Italian Society of Emergency Medicine (SIMEU) on the base of what is available in the literature and on the authors' direct experience. Rationale, literature, tips & tricks, resources, risks and expected results, and patient interaction will be discussed for each one of the escalating non-invasive respiratory techniques: standard oxygen, HFNCO, CPAP, NIPPV, and awake self-repositioning. The final chapter describes our suggested approach to the failing patient.

Correlation between continuous Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) values and occurrence of Pneumothorax and Pneumomediastinum in SARS-CoV2 patients during non-invasive ventilation with Helmet.

BACKGROUND: Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure is a common complication of SARS-CoV2 related pneumonia, for which non-invasive ventilation (NIV) with Helmet Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) is widely used. The frequency of pneumothorax in SARS-CoV2 was reported in 0.95% of hospitalized patients in 6% of mechanically ventilated patients, and in 1% of a post-mortem case series. OBJECTIVES: Aim of our retrospective study was to investigate the incidence of pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum (PNX/PNM) in SARS-CoV2 pneumonia patients treated with Helmet CPAP. Moreover, we examined the correlation between PNX/PNM and Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) values. METHODS: We collected data from patients admitted to "Luigi Sacco" University Hospital of Milan from 2 February to 5 May 2020 with SARS-CoV2 pneumonia requiring CPAP. Patients, who need NIV with bi-level pressure or endotracheal intubation (ETI) for any reason except those who needed ETI after PNX/PNM, were excluded. Population was divided in two groups according to PEEP level used (≤10 cmH2O and >10 cmH20). RESULTS: 154 patients were enrolled. In the overall population, 42 patients (27%) were treated with High-PEEP (>10 cmH2O), and 112 with Low-PEEP (≤10 cmH2O). During hospitalization 3 PNX and 2 PNM occurred (3.2%). Out of these five patients, 2 needed invasive ventilation after PNX and died. All the PNX/PNM occurred in the High-PEEP group (5/37 vs 0/112, p<0,001). CONCLUSION: The incidence of PNX appears to be lower in SARS-CoV2 than SARS and MERS. Considering the association of PNX/PNM with high PEEP we suggest using the lower PEEP as possible to prevent these complications.

Emergency physician accuracy in interpreting electrocardiograms with potential ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Is it enough?

BACKGROUND: Electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation is widely performed by emergency physicians. We aimed to determine the accuracy of interpretation of potential ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) ECGs by emergency physicians. METHODS: Thirty-six ECGs resulted in putative STEMI diagnoses were selected. Participants were asked to focus on whether or not the ECG in question met the diagnostic criteria for an acutely blocked coronary artery causing a STEMI. Based on the coronary angiogram, a binary outcome of accurate versus inaccurate ECG interpretation was defined. We computed the overall sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) for ECG interpretation. Data on participant training level, working experience and place were collected. RESULTS: 135 participants interpreted 4603 ECGs. Overall sensitivity to identify 'true' STEMI ECGs was 64.5% (95%CI: 62.8-66.3); specificity in determining 'false' ECGs was 78% (95%CI: 76-80.1). Overall accuracy was modest (69.1, 95%CI: 67.8-70.4). Higher accuracy in ECG interpretation was observed for attending physicians, participants working in tertiary care hospitals and those more experienced. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of interpretation of potential STEMI ECGs was modest among emergency physicians. The study supports the notion that ECG interpretation for establishing a STEMI diagnosis lacks the necessary sensitivity and specificity to be considered a reliable 'stand-alone' diagnostic test.