Search

The impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperglycemia on short-term prognosis in patients with acute heart failure (AHF) remains controversial as most data comes from series of hospitalized patients. Our purpose was to analyze outcomes in a nation-wide registry of AHF patients attended in emergency department (ED). ED AHF patients were prospectively enrolled, with the index event and the vulnerable post-discharge phase outcomes recorded. The influence of presenting hyperglycemia (> 180 mg/dL) and DM treatment on prognosis were also investigated. All results were adjusted (a) for baseline characteristics. Of 9192 enrolled AHF patients, 4544 (49,4%) were diabetic, with 24% of diabetics and 25.1% of non-diabetic (p = 0.247) directly discharged from the ED also included. Diabetics had higher rates of comorbidities, but were slightly younger and had lower in-hospital and 30 day all-cause mortality than non-diabetics (a-OR = 0.827, 95% CI = 0.690-0980; and a-HR = 0.850, 95% CI = 0.814-1.071, respectively). Conversely, hyperglycemia on-arrival was associated with increased in-hospital, and 30 day all-cause mortality, in both DM (a-OR = 1.933, 95% CI = 1.378-2.712, and a-HR = 1.590, 95% CI = 1.304-1.938, respectively) and non-DM patients (a-OR = 1.498, 95% CI = 1.175-1.909, and a-HR = 1.719, 95% CI = 1.306-2.264, respectively). However, during the vulnerable phase, diabetics had worse short-term outcomes, with higher rates of ED-revisit and rehospitalization. These worse outcomes seemed to be unrelated to the severity of DM. In patients with AHF attended in ED, diabetes was associated with lower index event case fatality, but higher rates of rehospitalization and re-consultation in the vulnerable post-discharge period. Conversely, hyperglycemia at hospital arrival was strongly associated with early mortality, regardless of diabetes status.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Composite endpoints are widely used but have several limitations. The Clinical Outcomes, HEalthcare REsource utilizatioN and relaTed costs (COHERENT) model is a new approach for visually displaying and comparing composite endpoints including all their components (incidence, timing, duration) and related costs. We aimed to assess the validity of the COHERENT model in a patient cohort. METHODS: A color graphic system displaying the percentage of patients in each clinical situation (vital status and location: at home, emergency department [ED] or hospital) and related costs at each time point during follow-up was created based on a list of mutually exclusive clinical situations coded in a hierarchical fashion. The system was tested in a cohort of 1126 patients with acute heart failure from 25 hospitals. The system calculated and displayed the time spent in each clinical situation and health care resource utilization-related costs over 30 days. RESULTS: The model illustrated the times spent over 30 days (2.12% in ED, 23.6% in index hospitalization, 2.7% in readmissions, 65.5% alive at home, and 6.02% dead), showing significant differences between patient groups, hospitals, and health care systems. The tool calculated and displayed the daily and cumulative health care-related costs over time (total, €4 895 070; mean, €144.91 per patient/d). CONCLUSIONS: The COHERENT model is a new, easy-to-interpret, visual display of composite endpoints, enabling comparisons between patient groups and cohorts, including related costs. The model may constitute a useful new approach for clinical trials or observational studies, and a tool for benchmarking, and value-based health care implementation.

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. 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. 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 (

OBJECTIVES: To describe routine diagnostic and therapeutic care processes and assignment of resources available for treating patients with acute heart failure (AHF) in Spanish hospital emergency departments (EDs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We surveyed the heads of all hospital EDs in the Spanish national health service concerning their routine diagnostic, therapeutic, and decision-making processes for treating patients with AHF. Questions also covered processes related to continuity of care for patients after discharge. Responses were grouped by hospital size and location (Spanish autonomous community) for comparison. RESULTS: Heads of 250 of the 282 EDs (89%) responded. Thirty-two percent had a cardiologist on call, and a specialized AHF unit was present in 35%. Such untis were present in more than half the EDs in the Community of Madrid and in Catalonia. Eighty-four percent of EDs measured natriuretic peptide (NP) levels, 80% carried out echocardiographic assessments (although only 24% reported that more than half their staff were trained to undertake echocardiography), and 64% had high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) systems. Only the Community of Valencia, Navarre, and La Rioja had the capacity for NP analysis, echocardiography, and HFNC therapy in 80% or more of their hospital EDs. Forty-six percent had admission protocols for patients with AHF, and 60% scheduled outpatient clinic appointments on discharge. Fifty-seven percent of the hospitals with AHF units had consensus-based protocols with their EDs, and 40% of them could schedule clinic appointments from the ED. Large hospitals had significantly better conditions with respect to some of these aspects of organization and care. CONCLUSION: There is room for improvement in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with AHF. We detected opportunities to ensure more effective continuity of care for these patients.

The HEFESTOS scale was developed in 14 Spanish primary care centres and validated in 9 primary care centres of other European countries. It showed good performance to predict death/hospitalisation during the first 30 days after an episode of acute heart failure (AHF), with c-statistics of 0.807/0.730 in the derivation/validation cohorts. We evaluated this scale in the emergency department (ED) setting, comparing it to the EHMRG and MEESSI scales in the ED and the EFFECT and GWTG scales in hospitalised patients, to predict 30-day outcomes, including death and hospitalisation. Consecutive AHF patients were enrolled in 34 Spanish EDs in January-February 2016, 2018, and 2019 with variables needed to calculate outcome scores. Thirty-day hospitalisation/death (together and separately) and post-discharge combined adverse event (ED revisit or hospitalisation for AHF or all-cause death) were determined for patients discharged home after ED care. Predictive capacity was assessed by c-statistic with 95% confidence intervals. Of 10,869 patients, 4,044 were included (median age: 83 years, 54% women). The performance of HEFESTOS was modest for 30-day hospitalisation/death, c-statistic=0.656 (0.637-0.675), hospitalisation, 0.650 (0.631-0.669), and death, 0.610 (0.576-0.644). Of 1,034 patients with scores for the 5 scales, HEFESTOS had the numerically highest c-statistic for hospitalisation/death at 30 days, 0.666 (0.627-0.704), vs. MEESSI= 0.650 (0.612-0.687, p=0.51), EFFECT=0.633 (0.595-0.672, p=0.21), GWTG=0.618 (0.578-0.657, p=0.06) and EHMRG=0.617 (0.577-0.704, p=0.07). Similar modest performances were observed for predicting hospitalisation [ranging from HEFESTOS=0.656 (0.618-0.695) to GWTG=0.603 (0.564-0.643)]. Conversely, prediction of 30-day death was good with the MEESSI=0.787 (0.728-845), EFFECT=0.754 (0.691-0.818) and GWTG=0.749 (0.689-0.809) scales, and modest with EHMRG=0.649 (0.581-0.717) and HEFESTOS=0.610 (0.538-0.683). Although the HEFESTOS scale was numerically better for predicting 30-day hospitalisation/death in ED AHF patients, its modest performance precludes routine use. Only 30-day mortality was adequately predicted by some scales, with the MEESSI achieving the best results.

Background/Purpose: We investigated the incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics and outcomes of acute pancreatitis (AP) in patients with COVID-19 attending the emergency department (ED), before hospitalization. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all COVID patients diagnosed with AP in 62 Spanish EDs (20% of Spanish EDs, COVID-AP) during the COVID outbreak. We formed two control groups: COVID patients without AP (COVID-non-AP) and non-COVID patients with AP (non-COVID-AP). Unadjusted comparisons between cases and controls were performed regarding 59 baseline and clinical characteristics and four outcomes. Results: We identified 54 AP in 74 814 patients with COVID-19 attending the ED (frequency = 0.72 parts per thousand, 95% CI = 0.54-0.94 parts per thousand). This frequency was lower than in non-COVID patients (2231/1 388 879, 1.61 parts per thousand, 95% CI = 1.54-1.67; OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.34-0.58). Etiology of AP was similar in both groups, being biliary origin in about 50%. Twenty-six clinical characteristics of COVID patients were associated with a higher risk of developing AP: abdominal pain (OR = 59.4, 95% CI = 23.7-149), raised blood amylase (OR = 31.8; 95% CI = 1.60-632) and vomiting (OR = 15.8, 95% CI = 6.69-37.2) being the strongest, and some inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, platelets, D-dimer) were more increased. Compared to non-COVID-AP, COVID-AP patients differed in 23 variables; the strongest ones related to COVID symptoms, but less abdominal pain was reported, pancreatic enzymes raise was lower, and severity (estimated by BISAP and SOFA score at ED arrival) was higher. The in-hospital mortality (adjusted for age and sex) of COVID-AP did not differ from COVID-non-AP (OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.45-245) but was higher than non-COVID-AP (OR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.35-4.48). Conclusions: Acute pancreatitis as presenting form of COVID-19 in the ED is unusual (

OBJECTIVES: To describe the sociodemographic characteristics, drug use patterns, and the severity of drug overdoses treated in hospital emergency departments according to the registry of the Spanish Research Network on Drugs in Hospital Emergency Departments (REDUrHE project), and to identify differences between patterns on weekdays and weekends/national holidays. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eleven hospitals participated in the REDUrHE project, studying consecutive patients with symptoms of drug overdose over a 24-month period. The drugs implicated were extracted from clinical records or toxicology reports. An overdose was considered severe if management required intubation, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or admission to the intensive care unit, or if in-hospital death occurred (composite event). Each of these variables was also analyzed by itself. RESULTS: A total of 4526 patients were studied (2218 [49%] on weekends/holidays; 2308 [51%] on workdays). The mean (SD) age was 33 (11) years, and 75.5% were men. The most commonly used drugs were cocaine (47.8%), paciencannabis (44.4%), amphetamine derivatives (25.5%), benzodiazepines (8.8%), and opioids (7.3%). Patients treated on weekends/holidays were younger (32.1 vs 33.1 years on weekdays, P = .006), and they were more often taken to the hospital in an ambulance (60.5% vs 57.3%, P = .035). Hospitals in large cities (Barcelona and Madrid) saw more patients on weekends/holidays (55.8%). Major tourist destinations (the Balearic and Canary Islands) saw fewer patients on weekends/holidays (44.7%, P .001). Alcohol was ingested along with a drug by 58.2%; this combination was more common on weekends/holidays (in 63.3% vs 52.9% on weekdays, P .001), and 39.4% used more than 1 drug. Use of more than 1 drug was less common on weekends (in 37.6% vs 41.2%, P = .013). Opioid emergencies were also less frequent on weekends (6.0% vs 8.6%, P = .001), when gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) overdoses were more common (5.8% vs 3.6%, P .001). Severity indicators were present (the composite event) more often on weekends (in 3.6% vs 2.2%, P = .006). Likewise, weekends saw more intubations (in 2.3% vs 1.0%, P = .001) and intensive care unit admissions (2.4% vs 1.6%, P = .047). Twelve patients (0.3%) died; mortality was similar on weekends (0.2%) and weekdays (0.3%) (P = .826). After adjusting for age, sex, combined use of alcohol, and type of drug, the risk of the severe-event composite was greater on weekends (odds ratio, 1.569; 95% CI, 1.088-2.263). CONCLUSION: Weekend and holiday emergencies due to drug overdoses are more frequent in large city hospitals. Weekend emergencies share certain distinctive characteristics: patients are younger, alcohol more often is ingested with drugs but multiple-drug combinations are less common, and GHB is used more often while opioids are used less often. Severe poisonings occur more often on weekends and holidays.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the demographic characteristics and comorbidities of patients with COVID-19 who died in Spanish hospitals during the 2020 pandemic based on whether they were or were not admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) prior to death. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of COVID-19 patients who died during hospitalization included by 62 Spanish emergency departments in the SIESTA cohort. We collected the demographic characteristics and comorbidities, determined both individually and estimated globally by the Charlson index (ChI). Independent factors related to ICU admission were identified and different analyses of sensitivity were performed to contrast the consistency of the findings of the principal analysis. RESULTS: We included the 338 patients from the SIESTA cohort that died during hospitalization. Of these, 77 (22.8%) were admitted to an ICU before dying. After multivariate adjustment, 3 out of the 20 basal characteristics analyzed in the present study were independently associated with ICU admission: dementia (no patients with dementia who died were admitted to the ICU: OR = 0, 95%CI = not calculable), active cancer (OR = 0.07; 95%CI = 0.02-0.21) and age (< 70 years: OR = 1, reference; 70-74 years: OR = 0.21; 95%CI = 0.08-0.54; 75-79 years: OR = 0.21; 95%CI = 0.08-0.54; = 80 years: OR = 0.02; 95%CI = 0.01-0.05). The probability of ICU admission significantly increased in parallel to the ChI, even after adjustment for age (ChI 0 points: OR = 0, reference; ChI 1 point: OR = 0.36; 95%CI = 0.16-0.83; ChI 2 points: OR = 0.36; 95%CI = 0.16-0.83; ChI >2 points: OR = 0.09; 95%CI = 0.04-0.23). The sensitivity analyses showed no gross differences compared to the principal analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The profile of COVID-19 patients who died without ICU admission is similar to that observed in the usual medical practice before the pandemic. The basal characteristics limiting their admission were age and global burden due to comorbidity, especially dementia and active cancer.

Aims The effect of early administration of intravenous (IV) furosemide in the emergency department (ED) on short-term outcomes of acute heart failure (AHF) patients remains controversial, with one recent Japanese study reporting a decrease of in-hospital mortality and one Korean study reporting a lack of clinical benefit. Both studies excluded patients receiving prehospital IV furosemide and only included patients requiring hospitalization. To assess the impact on short-term outcomes of early IV furosemide administration by emergency medical services (EMS) before patient arrival to the ED. Methods and results In a secondary analysis of the Epidemiology of Acute Heart Failure in Emergency Departments (EAHFE) registry of consecutive AHF patients admitted to Spanish EDs, patients treated with IV furosemide at the ED were classified according to whether they received IV furosemide from the EMS (FAST-FURO group) or not (CONTROL group). In-hospital all-cause mortality, 30-day all-cause mortality, and prolonged hospitalization (>10 days) were assessed. We included 12 595 patients (FAST-FURO = 683; CONTROL = 11 912): 968 died during index hospitalization [7.7%; FAST-FURO = 10.3% vs. CONTROL = 7.5%; odds ratio (OR) = 1.403, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.085–1.813; P = 0.009], 1269 died during the first 30 days (10.2%; FAST-FURO = 13.4% vs. CONTROL = 9.9%; OR = 1.403, 95% CI = 1.146–1.764; P = 0.004), and 2844 had prolonged hospitalization (22.8%; FAST-FURO = 25.8% vs. CONTROL = 22.6%; OR = 1.189, 95% CI = 0.995–1.419; P = 0.056). FAST-FURO group patients had more diabetes mellitus, ischaemic cardiomyopathy, peripheral artery disease, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and severe decompensations, and had a better New York Heart Association class and had less atrial fibrillation. After adjusting for these significant differences, early IV furosemide resulted in no impact on short-term outcomes: OR = 1.080 (95% CI = 0.817–1.427) for in-hospital mortality, OR = 1.086 (95% CI = 0.845–1.396) for 30-day mortality, and OR = 1.095 (95% CI = 0.915–1.312) for prolonged hospitalization. Several sensitivity analyses, including analysis of 599 pairs of patients matched by propensity score, showed consistent findings. Conclusion Early IV furosemide during the prehospital phase was administered to the sickest patients, was not associated with changes in short-term mortality or length of hospitalization after adjustment for several confounders.

BACKGROUND Recent reports of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) developing pneumothorax correspond mainly to case reports describing mechanically ventilated patients. The real incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcome of spontaneous pneumothorax (SP) as a form of COVID-19 presentation remain to be defined. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do the incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of SP in patients with COVID-19 attending EDs differ compared with COVID-19 patients without SP and non-COVID-19 patients with SP? STUDY DESIGN AND METHOD: This case-control study retrospectively reviewed all patients with COVID-19 diagnosed with SP (case group) in 61 Spanish EDs (20% of Spanish EDs) and compared them with two control groups: COVID-19 patients without SP and non-COVID-19 patients with SP. The relative frequencies of SP were estimated in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients in the ED, and annual standardized incidences were estimated for both populations. Comparisons between case subjects and control subjects included 52 clinical, analytical, and radiologic characteristics and four outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 40 occurrences of SP in 71,904 patients with COVID-19 attending EDs (0.56 parts per thousand; 95% CI, 0.40% 0 -0.76 parts per thousand). This relative frequency was higher than that among non-COVID-19 patients (387 of 1,358,134, 0.28 parts per thousand; 95% CI, 0.26 parts per thousand 0 -0.32 parts per thousand; OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.41-2.71). The standardized incidence of SP was also higher in patients with COVID-19 (34.2 vs 8.2/100,000/year; OR, 4.19; 95% CI, 3.64-4.81). Compared with COVID-19 patients without SP, COVID-19 patients developing SP more frequently had dyspnea and chest pain, low pulse oximetry readings, tachypnea, and increased leukocyte count. Compared with non-COVID-19 patients with SP, case subjects differed in 19 clinical variables, the most prominent being a higher frequency of dysgeusia/ anosmia, headache, diarrhea, fever, and lymphopenia (all with OR > 10). All the outcomes measured, including in-hospital death, were worse in case subjects than in both control groups. INTERPRETATION: SP as a form of COVID-19 presentation at the ED is unusual (< 1 parts per thousand cases) but is more frequent than in the non-COVID-19 population and could be associated with worse outcomes than SP in non-COVID-19 patients and COVID-19 patients without SP.

Resumen Fundamento Describir el número de consultas, total y por COVID-19, atendidas en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) españoles durante marzo y abril de 2020, compararlo con el mismo periodo del año anterior, cuantificar el cambio de actividad asistencial e investigar la posible influencia del tamaño del hospital y de la seroprevalencia provincial de COVID-19. Métodos Estudio transversal. Se envió una encuesta a todos los responsables de SUH españoles del sistema público de salud sobre el número de consultas atendidas durante marzo y abril de 2019 y de 2020. Se calculó el cambio de actividad asistencial por comunidad autónoma, y se comparó en función del tamaño del hospital y del impacto provincial de la pandemia. Resultados Participaron el 66% de los 283 SUH. Se observó un descenso del 49,2% de las consultas totales (solo los SUH de Castilla-La Mancha mostraron un descenso inferior al 30%) y del 60% de las consultas no-COVID-19 (solo los SUH de Asturias y Extremadura mostraron un descenso inferior al 50%). el cambio de actividad asistencial no difirió en función del tamaño del hospital, pero sí en relación al impacto provincial de la pandemia, con una correlación directa respecto al descenso de actividad no-COVID-19 (a mayor impacto, mayor descenso; R2 = 0,05; p = 0,002) e inversa en relación a la actividad global (a mayor impacto, menor descenso; R2 = 0,05; p = 0,002). Conclusiones Durante la primera ola pandémica descendió el número de consultas en los SUH, si bien dicho descenso no se explica únicamente por la incidencia local de la pandemia.

BACKGROUND: Recent reports of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) developing pneumothorax correspond mainly to case reports describing mechanically ventilated patients. The real incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcome of spontaneous pneumothorax (SP) as a form of COVID-19 presentation remain to be defined. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do the incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of SP in patients with COVID-19 attending EDs differ compared with COVID-19 patients without SP and non-COVID-19 patients with SP? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This case-control study retrospectively reviewed all patients with COVID-19 diagnosed with SP (case group) in 61 Spanish EDs (20% of Spanish EDs) and compared them with two control groups: COVID-19 patients without SP and non-COVID-19 patients with SP. The relative frequencies of SP were estimated in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients in the ED, and annual standardized incidences were estimated for both populations. Comparisons between case subjects and control subjects included 52 clinical, analytical, and radiologic characteristics and four outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 40 occurrences of SP in 71,904 patients with COVID-19 attending EDs (0.56‰; 95% CI, 0.40‰-0.76‰). This relative frequency was higher than that among non-COVID-19 patients (387 of 1,358,134, 0.28‰; 95% CI, 0.26‰-0.32‰; OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.41-2.71). The standardized incidence of SP was also higher in patients with COVID-19 (34.2 vs 8.2/100,000/year; OR, 4.19; 95% CI, 3.64-4.81). Compared with COVID-19 patients without SP, COVID-19 patients developing SP more frequently had dyspnea and chest pain, low pulse oximetry readings, tachypnea, and increased leukocyte count. Compared with non-COVID-19 patients with SP, case subjects differed in 19 clinical variables, the most prominent being a higher frequency of dysgeusia/anosmia, headache, diarrhea, fever, and lymphopenia (all with OR > 10). All the outcomes measured, including in-hospital death, were worse in case subjects than in both control groups. INTERPRETATION: SP as a form of COVID-19 presentation at the ED is unusual (< 1‰ cases) but is more frequent than in the non-COVID-19 population and could be associated with worse outcomes than SP in non-COVID-19 patients and COVID-19 patients without SP.