Search

Background: It is uncertain whether fluid administration can improve patients with systemic venous congestion and haemodynamic instability. This study aimed to describe the changes in systemic venous congestion and peripheral perfusion parameters induced by a fluid challenge in these patients, and to analyse the influence of the fluid responsiveness status on these changes. Methods: The study is a single-centre prospective cohort study of 36 critically ill ICU patients with haemodynamic instability and a maximum vena cava diameter ≥ 20 mm. Changes in cardiac index during a fluid challenge (4 mL/kg of lactated Ringer's solution during 5 min) assessed by pulse contour analysis, central venous pressure, ultrasound systemic congestion parameters (portal venous flow pulsatility index, supra hepatic and intrarenal venous Doppler), and peripheral perfusion parameters (capillary refill time and peripheral perfusion index) were assessed in the overall population. All these data were compared between patients presenting a cardiac index increase > 10% during the fluid challenge (fluid responders) and the others (fluid non-responders). Results: Twenty-eight (78%) patients were admitted for postoperative care following cardiac surgery; their mean ± SD left ventricular ejection fraction was 42 ± 9% and right ventricular dysfunction was found in at least 61% of the patients. The mean ± SD SOFA score was 9 ± 3. Thirteen (36%) patients were fluid responders. The fluid challenge administration induced a significant increase in portal pulsatility index, VExUS score, and central venous pressure without significant difference of these changes between fluid responders and non-responders. No significant change in perfusion parameters was observed. Conclusion: Fluid administration in patients with haemodynamic instability and systemic venous congestion worsens venous congestion regardless of the fluid responsiveness status, without improving perfusion parameters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• In this retrospective analysis of patients with PE diagnosed in the ED from two cohorts in Spain and France, patients with COVID exhibited PEs of less severity. • However, COVID was associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. • This study suggests that the usual tools for risk stratification, specifically the sPESI and RVD, are still valid in COVID patients, while the size of a PE is not valid in this particular population infected by SARS-CoV-2. To compare the severity of pulmonary embolism (PE) between patients with and without COVID, and to assess the association between severity and in-hospital-mortality. We performed an analysis of 549 COVID (71.3% PCR-confirmed) and 439 non-COVID patients with PE consecutively included by 62 Spanish and 16 French emergency departments. PE-severity was assessed by size, the presence of right ventricular dysfunction (RVD), and the sPESI. The association of PE-severity and in-hospital-mortality was assessed both in COVID and non-COVID patients, and the interaction of COVID status and PE severity/outcome associations was also evaluated. COVID patients had PEs of smaller size (43% vs 56% lobar or larger, 42% vs. 35% segmental and 13% vs. 9% subsegmental, respectively; p = 0.01 for trend), less RVD (22% vs. 16%, p = 0.02) and lower sPESI (p = 0.03 for trend). Risk of in-hospital death was higher in COVID patients (12.8% vs. 5.3%, p < 0.001). PE-severity assessed by RVD and sPESI was independently associated with in-hospital-mortality in COVID patients, while PE size and sPESI were significantly associated with in-hospital-mortality in non-COVID. COVID status showed a significant interaction in the association of PE size and outcome (p = 0.01), with OR for in-hospital mortality in COVID and non-COVID patients with lobar or larger PE of 0.92 (95%CI=0.19–4.47) and 4.47 (95%CI=1.60–12.5), respectively. Sensitivity analyses using only PCR-confirmed COVID cases confirmed these results. COVID patients present a differential clinical picture, with PE of less severity than in non-COVID patients. An increased sPESI was associated with the risk of mortality in both groups but, PE size did not seem to be associated with in-hospital mortality in COVID patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Annales Françaises de Médecine d'Urgence is the property of John Libbey Eurotext Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Introduction: Risk stratification allows outpatient management of low-risk pulmonary embolism (PE). Here, we carry out an evaluation of the professional practices on the emergency management of low-risk PE, after selection with the sPESI score., Material and Method: All patients admitted to the emergency department of Chambéry hospital, with a final diagnosis of PE are analyzed. The PE of score sPESI at 0 are included, in the absence of contraindications. Ninety-day follow-up is done. The objective is to evaluate the proportion of ambulatory care for low-risk patients., Results: Eighty PE were diagnosed in 2016, 28 with sPESI score at 0 and 3 patients excluded. Of the 25 inclusions, 6 patients had signs of right ventricular dysfunction and were therefore hospitalized. The remaining 19 were eligible for outpatient care but only 8 of them stayed less than 24hours in the hospital., Discussion: The sPESI score is a decision support tool for outpatient management but should not be used alone. The search for right ventricular dysfunction seems important here., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Advanced heart failure incidence is in progression. Palliative care access remains difficult due to its unpredictable course. The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics of patients admitted in Cardiology Intensive Care Unit for advanced heart failure who received palliative care and compare them to the whole population of acute heart failure hospitalized in the same period., Patients and Methods: The patients hospitalized for acute heart failure were retrospectively included from 2009 to 2013. We identified among them those who received palliative care. Specific caring was decided in pluridisciplinary meeting., Results: On 940 patients included, 42 patients (4.5%) receive palliative care. Ischemic heart disease was the main etiology (n=19; 45.2%). Right ventricular dysfunction (n=34; 80.9%) was associated with supra-ventricular arrhythmia (n=28; 66.7%). Twenty-eight patients (57.1%) have died in hospital, 9 (21.4%) were referred to a palliative care unit and 8 (19.1%) was discharged or referred to a rehabilitation center. Time between inclusion and death was 6 days on average. Intra-hospital mortality in control group was 6.8%., Conclusion: Palliative care in cardiology is uncommon and has often been too late because of its poor adaptability to advanced heart failure. It is, as consequence, necessary to identify the prognostic factors of these patients in order to propose a personalized care and to adjust the intensity of care ahead of the terminal evolution of heart failure., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)