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.

Influence of type of household on prognosis at one year in patients ≥65 years attending hospital emergency departments in Spain. The EDEN-6 study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the type of household is associated with prognosis at one year in patients ≥65 years of age discharged after medical consultation requiring emergency department care. METHODS: Data from the Emergency Department and Elder Needs (EDEN) cohort were used. This retrospective cohort included all patients ≥65 years of age seen in 52 Spanish emergency departments over one week (April 1-7, 2019) in whom the type of household was recorded and categorized as living at home alone, with relatives, with professional caregivers, or in a nursing home. Patient demographic and other baseline characteristics and management during the index emergency department episode were recorded and used to adjust the following 1-year outcomes: all-cause mortality, hospitalization and emergency department revisit. Associations between type of household and outcomes are expressed as adjusted hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals using living alone as the reference category. RESULTS: 13,442 patients with a median age of 79 years (interquartile range 72-86) were included; 56% were women, 12.2% of patients lived alone, 74.9% with relatives, 3.9% with a professional caregiver, and 9.1% in a nursing home. During the year following discharge, the mortality rate was 14.0%, the hospitalization rate 29.7%, and the emergency department revisit rate 59.3%. In the fully adjusted model, the risk of death was associated only with living in a nursing home (hazard ratio 1.366 (1.101-1.695)). On the other hand, the risk of hospitalization was lower in individuals living in nursing homes (hazard ratio 0.783 [0.676-0.907]) and at home with relatives (hazard ratio 0.897 [0.810-0.992]), while the risk of emergency department revisit was lower in individuals living in nursing homes (hazard ratio 0.826 [0.742-0.920]) or at home with caregivers (hazard ratio 0.856 [0.750-0.976]). CONCLUSION: The type of household was modestly associated with the one-year prognosis of patients ≥65 years of age discharged after attendance at an emergency department. Living in a nursing home is associated with an increased risk of death but a decreased risk of rehospitalization or emergency department revisit, while living at home with relatives or professional caregivers is associated only with a decreased risk of hospitalization and emergency department revisit, respectively.

Evaluation of the effect of intravenous nitroglycerine on short-term survival of patients with acute heart failure according to congestion and perfusion status at emergency department arrival.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated if the phenotypic classification of acute heart failure (AHF) based on the number of signs/symptoms of congestion and hypoperfusion at emergency department (ED) arrival identifies subgroups in which intravenous (IV) nitroglycerine (NTG) use improves short-term survival. METHODS: We included consecutive AHF patients diagnosed in 45 Spanish EDs, who were grouped according to phenotype severity. The main outcome was 30-day all-cause death. Propensity scores (PS) for NTG use were generated using variables associated with death. Analysis of interaction was performed in subgroups of patients based on congestion, hypoperfusion, age, sex, coronary artery disease (CAD), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and SBP. RESULTS: We analyzed 16 437 AHF patients (median = 83 years; women = 56%); 1882 received NTG (11.4%). In the whole cohort, the cumulative 30-day mortality in patients receiving NTG was higher (11.5% vs. 9.6%; unadjusted HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.04-1.36), but not in the PS-matched cohorts (1698 pairs of patients; 11.5% vs. 10.5%; HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.90-1.35). Mortality was increased in NTG-treated patients with mild congestion (HR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.19-3.67), especially in those without hypoperfusion (HR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.24-5.10). Interaction analysis of the PS-matched cohorts confirmed detrimental effects of NTG use in less congested patients, whereas beneficial effects were only observed in patients with decreased LVEF (<50% subgroup: HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.92; ≥50% subgroup: HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.66-2.56; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Phenotypical classification of AHF based on congestion/hypoperfusion at ED arrival does not identify subgroups of patients in whom IV-NTG would decrease mortality, although it could potentially be beneficial in those with LVEF of less than 50%. This hypothesis will have to be confirmed in the future. Conversely, our results suggest that IV-NTG may be harmful in patients with only mild clinical congestion.