Update on the risk stratification of acute symptomatic pulmonary thromboembolism

Characteristics and outcomes of sepsis patients with and without COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to describe and compare clinical characteristics and outcomes in critically ill septic patients with and without COVID-19.

METHODS

From February 2020 to March 2021, patients from surgical and medical ICUs at the University Hospital Dresden were screened for sepsis. Patient characteristics and outcomes were assessed descriptively. Patient survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Associations between in-hospital mortality and risk factors were modeled using robust Poisson regression, which facilitates derivation of adjusted relative risks.

RESULTS

In 177 ICU patients treated for sepsis, COVID-19 was diagnosed and compared to 191 septic ICU patients without COVID-19. Age and sex did not differ significantly between sepsis patients with and without COVID-19, but SOFA score at ICU admission was significantly higher in septic COVID-19 patients. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in COVID-19 patients with 59% compared to 29% in Non-COVID patients. Statistical analysis resulted in an adjusted relative risk for in-hospital mortality of 1.74 (95%-CI=1.35-2-24) in the presence of COVID-19 compared to other septic patients. Age, procalcitonin maximum value over 2 ng/ml, need for renal replacement therapy, need for invasive ventilation and septic shock were identified as additional risk factors for in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 was identified as independent risk factor for higher in-hospital mortality in sepsis patients. The need for invasive ventilation and renal replacement therapy as well as the presence of septic shock and higher PCT should be considered to identify high-risk patients.

Acute pulmonary embolism: appropriateness of emergency department management according to clinical guidelines

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To evaluate the frequency of acute pulmonary embolism, the use of clinical probability scores, and the appropriateness of the management of patients for whom computed tomography angiography (CTA) was requested from the emergency department for suspected acute pulmonary embolism.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study of CTA studies requested from the emergency department to rule out acute pulmonary embolism. We analyzed clinical variables and the explicit use of clinical probability scores. We determined the appropriateness of management according to the Wells Score and Geneva Score and the simplified versions of these two scores, calculated retrospectively.

RESULTS

We included 534 patients (52.8% women; mean age, 73 years). The frequency of acute pulmonary embolism was 23.0% and the Wells Score was explicitly used in 15.2%. The appropriateness of the management varied depending on the clinical probability score used to assess it (54.5%-75.8%) and on whether the standard D-dimer or age-adjusted D-dimer was used.

CONCLUSIONS

The failure to use the Wells Scores in all cases does not necessarily imply inappropriate management, and the performance of global clinical judgment can be similar to that of clinical probability scores; however, specific studies are necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

Home treatment of venous thromboembolism disease

Despite the potential benefits of outpatient care, most patients with pulmonary embolisms are treated in hospitals for fear of possible adverse events. However, there is a wealth of scientific evidence from studies covering more than 4000 outpatients, which has led the current clinical practice guidelines to recommend early discharge or outpatient treatment when a low risk of death or complications has been confirmed, when there are no comorbidities or aggravating processes present to warrant hospitalisation and when appropriate monitoring and treatment are observed. This approach minimises the complications that can arise in hospitals and represents considerable cost savings. When selecting these patients, the use of prognostic tools such as the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), its simplified version (sPESI) and the Hestia Criteria are of paramount importance. Using these tools, the short-term outcomes (30-90days) show low mortality (in general <3%) and a low incidence of other complications (rate of recurrence and major bleeding <2%). Based on the available evidence, outpatient treatment can be considered the most appropriate strategy at this time for most hemodynamically stable patients with pulmonary embolisms.