Catching Those Who Fall Through the Cracks: Integrating a Follow-Up Process for Emergency Department Patients with Incidental Radiologic Findings

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Abnormal findings unrelated to the indication for testing are identified on emergency department (ED) imaging studies. We report the design and implementation of an electronic health record-based interdisciplinary referral system and our experience from the first 13 months of ensuring that patients with incidental radiology findings were connected with the appropriate outpatient surveillance.

METHODS

Our informatics team standardized the contemporaneous reporting of critical radiology alerts using our ED trackboard and created a companion follow-up request form for the treating ED clinicians to complete. The forms were routed to nurse case managers, who arranged follow-ups based on the findings and clinical significance. The primary outcome was the proportion of ED patient visits with identified incidental findings that had documented communication of the incidental findings and surveillance plans.

RESULTS

Over the first 13 months after implementation, 932 ED patient visits had critical radiology alert referrals, for a total of 982 incidental findings. The primary outcome (confirmed post-ED communication and documented follow-up plan) was attained in 888 (95.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 93.9% to 96.6%) ED patient visits with confirmed post-ED communication and documented follow-up plans. The team was unable to contact or confirm follow-up with 44 (4.7%, 95% CI 3.4 to 6.1) patients by telephone or through the health care system's electronic communication tools.

CONCLUSION

We report the implementation of a standardized notification and referral system for ED patients with incidental radiology findings. The development of a reliable notification and follow-up system is an important patient safety intervention given the opportunity to potentially identify undiagnosed malignancies.

POS1234 DMARD DISRUPTION, INCREASED DISEASE ACTIVITY, AND PROLONGED SYMPTOM DURATION AFTER ACUTE COVID-19 AMONG PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC DISEASE: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY

Background

Systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD) patients may be at risk for disease flare and prolonged symptom duration after COVID-19, perhaps related to DMARD disruption and immune activation.

Objectives

To describe DMARD disruption and identify differences in SARD activity among patients with and without prolonged COVID-19 symptom duration.

Methods

We identified all SARD patients with confirmed COVID-19 at the Mass General Brigham healthcare system in Boston, USA; prospective recruitment is ongoing. Surveys were used to collect demographics, clinical characteristics, DMARD disruption, COVID-19 course, and SARD disease activity before and after COVID-19. The survey included validated instruments measuring disease activity, pain, fatigue, functional status, and respiratory quality of life. Prolonged symptom duration was defined as COVID-19 symptoms lasting ≥28 days. We compared differences in patient-reported measures between those with and without prolonged symptoms.

Results

We analyzed survey responses from 174 COVID-19 survivors with SARDs (mean age 52±16 years, 81% female, 80% White). The most common SARDs were RA (40%) and SLE (14%). Fifty-one percent of the 127 respondents on any DMARD reported a disruption to their regimen at COVID-19 onset (Figure 1). Among individual DMARDs, 56-77% were reported to have any change, except for hydroxychloroquine (23%) and rituximab (46%). SARD flare after COVID-19 was reported by 41% of respondents (Table 1). Patient global assessment of SARD activity was worse after COVID-19 (mean 7.6±2.3 before vs. 6.6±2.9 after COVID-19, p<0.001). Prolonged symptom duration was reported by 45% of participants. Those with prolonged symptoms had a higher initial COVID-19 symptom count (median 7 vs. 4, p<0.001) and were more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 (28% vs. 17%, p=0.001). Respondents experiencing prolonged symptom duration had higher disease activity on RAPID3 (p=0.007) as well as more pain (p<0.001) and fatigue (p=0.03) compared to those without prolonged symptoms.

Table 1.

Acute COVID-19 course, SARD flare/activity, and patient-reported outcomes among COVID-19 survivors with SARDs.

All COVID-19 survivors with SARDs (n=174)Prolonged symptom duration ≥28 days (n=78)No prolonged symptom duration/(n=96)p-value (prolonged vs. not)Acute COVID-19 courseCOVID-19 symptom duration, days, median [IQR]14 [9, 29]46 [30, 65]11 [7, 14]<0.0001Initial symptom count, median [IQR]6 [3, 8]7 [6, 9]4 [2, 7]<0.001Hospitalized, n (%)38 (22)22 (28)16 (17)0.001SARD flare/activitySelf-reported SARD flare after COVID-19, n (%)71 (41)38 (49)33 (34)0.15Disease activity by RAPID3, median [IQR]9 [4, 14]11.2 [6, 16]7 [3, 13]0.0067RAPID3 categorical score, n (%)0.13Remission (0)11 (7)4 (5)7 (7)Near remission (0.3-1.0)23 (14)5 (7)18 (19)Low severity (1.3-2.0)26 (15)10 (14)16 (17)Moderate severity (2.3-4.0)55 (33)27 (36)28 (29)High severity (4.3-10.0)54 (32)28 (38)26 (27)Patient-reported outcomesPain by SF-MPQ, median [IQR]2 [1, 2]2 [1, 2]1 [0, 2]0.0008Fatigue by FSI, median [IQR]53 [27, 84]66 [31, 91.5]43 [26, 76]0.031mHAQ, median [IQR]0.125 [0, 0.38]0.25 [0, 0.75]0.125 [0, 0.38]0.11Respiratory quality of life by SGRQ, global [IQR]15 [4, 29]16 [4, 36]10 [4, 26]0.49

RAPID3, Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3; SF-MPQ, Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire; FSI, Fatigue Symptom Inventory; mHAQ, modified Health Assessment Questionnaire; SGRQ, Saint George’s Respiratory Questionnaire.

Figure 1.

Frequency of baseline DMARD use and proportion with any disruption at COVID-19 onset.

Conclusion

DMARD disruption, SARD flare, and prolonged symptoms were common in this prospective study of COVID-19 survivors with SARDs. Those with prolonged COVID-19 symptom duration, defined as ≥28 days, had higher SARD activity, more pain, and more fatigue compared to those without prolonged symptoms. These findings suggest that post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 may have a large impact on underlying SARD activity and quality of life.

Disclosure of Interests

Michael Di Iorio: None declared, Claire Cook: None declared, Kathleen Vanni: None declared, Naomi Patel Consultant of: Receives consulting fees from FVC Health unrelated to this work., Kristin D’Silva: None declared, Xiaoqing Fu: None declared, Jiaqi Wang: None declared, Lauren Prisco: None declared, Emily Kowalski: None declared, Alessandra Zaccardelli: None declared, Lily Martin: None declared, Grace Qian: None declared, Tiffany Hsu: None declared, Zachary Wallace Consultant of: Receives consulting fees from Viela Bio, Zenas BioPharma, and MedPace unrelated to this work., Grant/research support from: Receives research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi., Jeffrey Sparks Consultant of: Receives consultant fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer unrelated to this work., Grant/research support from: Receives research support from Bristol Myers Squibb.

POS0522 PREVALENCE OF BRONCHIECTASIS IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Background:

Bronchiectasis is a known extra-articular manifestation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and can lead to decreased quality of life as well as increased risk for infection and mortality. Understanding the burden of bronchiectasis in RA may lead to a better understanding of pathogenesis and improved management. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prevalence of bronchiectasis in RA.

Objectives:

We investigated the prevalence of RA-related bronchiectasis (RA-BR) using a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods:

We followed the PRISMA-P 2015 guideline for systematic reviews and registered this analysis (ID#199080) on PROSPERO. We queried PubMed and EMBASE databases using the search strategy “rheumatoid arthritis; AND; bronchiectasis” as of July 31, 2020. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were assessed for study eligibility by two independent abstractors. Exclusion criteria included: (1) non-primary literature (i.e., review articles, editorials); (2) case reports involving less than 5 patients; (3) published in a language other than English; (4) did not relate to both RA and bronchiectasis; and (5) studies not involving humans (e.g., mouse models). After the initial screen, we conducted a full text review to verify that inclusion criteria were met: (1) reported frequency of RA-BR and denominator of all RA patients in the study sample. Data including type of study design, method of RA-BR detection, and RA characteristics were extracted by two independent abstractors. We performed meta-analyses using random effects models to estimate prevalence of RA-BR among RA overall and restricted to retrospective or prospective studies.

Results:

Out of a total of 208 studies, 37 studies were identified that reported frequency of RA-BR among RA. The included studies had heterogeneous methods to identify RA-BR that were based on either clinical or research chest computed tomography (CT) imaging and had varying methods to adjudicate images. Some studies focused on patients with respiratory symptoms or suspected RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD). There were a total of 8,646 patients with RA, and 612 were identified as having RA-BR. The pooled overall prevalence of RA-BR in the random effects meta-analysis was 18.2% (95%CI 13.3-23.7%, Figure 1). Among prospective studies (n=24), the prevalence of RA-BR in the meta-analysis was 20.7% (95% CI 14.7-27.4%). Among retrospective studies (n=13) reporting RA-BR, the prevalence was 14.5% (95% CI 7.2-23.7%). Prevalence was lowest in retrospective studies where RA-BR was identified through clinical care (e.g., two large retrospective studies that investigated 4,000 and 1,129 RA patients reported RA-BR prevalence of 0.6% and 2.7%, respectively). The two largest prospective studies that incorporated a research protocol performing chest CT imaging on all enrolled patients investigated 150 and 332 patients with RA and reported a RA-BR prevalence of 8.0% and 9.6%, respectively. Smaller studies of both study design types generally reported higher prevalence of RA-BR.

Figure 1.

Pooled prevalence of RA-related bronchiectasis in RA among all studies identified (n=37).

Conclusion:

The prevalence of RA-BR in this systematic review and meta-analysis was 18.2%, emphasizing that bronchiectasis is a common extra-articular feature of RA. However, some studies may have identified subclinical RA-BR through research imaging or RA-BR may have been secondary to RA-ILD. Future studies should standardize methods to identify RA-BR cases and investigate the natural history and clinical course given the relatively high prevalence that we report.

Disclosure of Interests:

Lily Martin: None declared, Lauren Prisco: None declared, Weixing Huang: None declared, Gregory McDermott: None declared, Nancy Shadick Consultant of: Consultant < 5K Bristol-Myers Squibb, Grant/research support from: BMS Amgen Lilly, Mallinckrodt, and Sanofi, Tracy Doyle Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim (<5K), Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb and Genentech, Jeffrey Sparks Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Optum, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb

POS1174 HYPERINFLAMMATION AND CLINICAL OUTCOMES FOR PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC RHEUMATIC DISEASES HOSPITALIZED FOR COVID-19: A COMPARATIVE COHORT STUDY

Background:

COVID-19 can induce a hyperinflammatory state resulting in cytokine storm, which can lead to poor outcomes. Patients with systemic rheumatic diseases may be at increased risk for respiratory failure with COVID-19. Therefore, we investigated the relationship between rheumatic disease, hyperinflammation, and clinical outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Objectives:

To compare laboratory values, hyperinflammation, and clinical outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 rheumatic patients and matched comparators.

Methods:

We performed a comparative cohort study of patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 requiring hospitalization between 3/1/20-7/7/20 at a large health care system. We compared each systemic rheumatic disease case to up to 5 matched (by age, sex, and date of +SARS-CoV-2 PCR) comparators without systemic rheumatic disease. We extracted laboratory values from their hospitalization to compare peaks/troughs of individual laboratory results by case status and derived the COVID-19-associated hyperinflammation score (cHIS), a composite of 6 laboratory domains (0-6, ≥2 indicating hyperinflammation), as previously developed1. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate ORs for COVID-19 outcomes by hyperinflammation and case status.

Results:

We identified 57 hospitalized rheumatic disease cases (mean age 67 years, 67% female) and 232 matched comparators hospitalized with PCR-confirmed COVID-19. Among cases, 26 (46%) had rheumatoid arthritis and 14 (25%) had systemic lupus erythematosus. Most cases (34, 60%) had active rheumatic disease. At baseline, 15 (27%) of cases were treated with biologic DMARDs, and 32 (56%) were using glucocorticoids. We analyzed 39,900 total laboratory results (median 85 per patient). Cases had higher peak neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (9.6 vs 7.8, p=0.02), LDH (421 vs 345 U/L, p=0.04), creatinine (1.2 vs 1.0 mg/dL, p=0.01), and BUN (31 vs 23 mg/dL, p=0.03) than comparators but similar peak CRP (149 vs 116 mg/L, p=0.11, Figure 1). Cases had higher peak median cHIS (3 vs 2, p=0.01). Peak cHIS ≥2 had higher odds of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (OR 3.45, 95%CI 1.98-5.99), mechanical ventilation (OR 66.0, 95%CI 9.0-487.8), and mortality (OR 16.4, 95%CI 4.8-56.4) compared to cHIS <2 (Table 1). Cases had increased risk of ICU admission (OR 2.0, 95%CI 1.1-3.7) and mechanical ventilation (OR 2.7, 95%CI 1.4-5.2) than comparators.

Table 1.

Associations of peak cHIS and systemic rheumatic disease with COVID-19 hospitalization outcomes

Intensive care unit admissionMechanical ventilationDeath%Adjusted OR (95%CI)%Adjusted OR (95%CI)%Adjusted OR (95%CI)Hospitalization outcomes by hyperinflammation on cHIS1cHIS <2 (n=112)21%1.0 (Ref)1%1.0 (Ref)3%1.0 (Ref)cHIS ≥2 (n=177)48%3.5 (2.0-6.0)37%66.2 (9.0-487.8)27%16.4 (4.8-56.4)Hospitalization outcomes by rheumatic disease statusComparators (n=232)30%1.0 (Ref)19%1.0 (Ref)16%1.0 (Ref)Rheumatic cases (n=57)51%1.87 (1.03-3.40)39%2.46 (1.30-4.67)21%1.32 (0.61-2.88)

Matching factors: age, sex, and date of +PCR.

1Adjusted for age, sex, and case status.

2Adjusted for race, smoking, comorbidities, and body mass index.

cHIS, COVID-19-associated hyperinflammation score; CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Conclusion:

Patients with systemic rheumatic disease hospitalized for COVID-19 had higher risk for hyperinflammation, kidney injury, and mechanical ventilation than non-rheumatic comparators. We validated the cHIS in our cohort, which was strongly associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes. These findings highlight that hospitalized patients with rheumatic diseases may be vulnerable to poor COVID-19 outcomes.

References:

[1]Webb BJ et al. Clinical criteria for COVID-19-associated hyperinflammatory syndrome. Lancet Rheumatol. 2020 Dec;2(12):e754-e763.

Disclosure of Interests:

Tiffany Hsu: None declared, Kristin D’Silva: None declared, Naomi Serling-Boyd: None declared, Jiaqi Wang: None declared, Alisa Mueller: None declared, Xiaoqing Fu: None declared, Lauren Prisco: None declared, Lily Martin: None declared, Kathleen Vanni: None declared, Alessandra Zaccardelli: None declared, Claire Cook: None declared, Hyon Choi Consultant of: Dr. Choi reports consultancy fees from Takeda, Selecta, GlaxoSmithKline, and Horizon, Grant/research support from: Dr. Choi reports research support from AstraZeneca., Yuqing Zhang: None declared, Ellen Gravallese: None declared, Zachary Wallace Consultant of: Dr. Wallace reports consulting fees from Viela Bio and MedPace., Grant/research support from: Dr. Wallace reports research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia., Jeffrey Sparks Consultant of: Dr. Sparks reports consultancy fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer., Grant/research support from: Dr. Sparks reports research support from Amgen and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Early predictive factors on mortality in head injured patients: a retrospective analysis of 112 traumatic brain injured patients

AIM

Early hyperglycemia is a feature of traumatic brain injured (TBI) patients. The aim of our study was to analyze the impact of early hyperglycemia on in-ICU mortality in isolated TBI and its correlations with other factors responsible for secondary injury.

METHODS

We studied admission values (AV) and worse values in the first 48 hours (WV 48 h) of 112 ICU TBI patients (mortality 29.6%) of blood glucose (BG), base excess (BE), mean arterial pressure (MAP), PaO2/FiO2 ratio and serum hemoglobin (Hb). Predictive strength as the area under the receiver operating curves (AUROC) and correlation between all variables were calculated.

RESULTS

Data are expressed as median, 1st-3rd quartile. Both BG AV (147.5, 126-182 mg/dL; AUROC 0.716, P=0.0002) and WV 48 h (156.5, 132-192 mg/dL; AUROC 0.721, P=0.0001) are predictive of mortality. AV and WV 48 h are respectively: PaO2/FiO2 (366.8, 237.2-477.6 vs. 320, 214.4-426; P=0.05), MAP (90, 80-100.5 vs. 75, 66-83 mmHg; P<0.0001) and Hb (11.4, 9.7-13.1 vs. 10.6, 9-12.2 g/dL; P<0.02). BG AV and WV 48 h correlates with: age (r=0.419, P<0.0001 and r=0.489, P<0.0001), PaO2/FiO2 AV (r -0.223, P<0.03 and r -0.236, P<0.02), PaO2/FiO2 WV 48 h (r -0.215, P<0.03 and r -0.279, P<0.005) and MAP WV 48 h (r -0.216, P<0.03 and r -0.261, P<0.007).

CONCLUSION

Early hyperglycemia is a major predictor of mortality and correlates with other factors responsible for secondary injury. Early hyperglycemia seems to be a marker of inflammatory reaction responsible for early cardiovascular and respiratory impairment.

[Solitary ulcer of the rectum: a report of a clinical case associated with rectal prolapse]

Solitary ulcer of the rectum is an unusual condition occurring more often in young adults. Unfortunately the term is rather confusing, since the lesion may not necessarily be solitary, nor be confined to the rectum; moreover, it may be polypoid rather than ulcerating. The etiology is uncertain, but chronic constipation and fecal impaction could play a role. Today most authors believe solitary ulcer syndrome is a distinct clinical inflammatory manifestation associated with rectal prolapse. Surgical treatment of the prolapse is usually followed by a recovery of the solitary rectal ulcer.

[Cannulation of the thoracic duct during central venous catheterization]

A case of inadvertent thoracic duct catheterization during transjugular central venous cannulation is reported. The clinical manifestations as well as the difficulties encountered in recognizing such a complication are analyzed. So, the necessity to obtain a radiographic confirmation of central venous catheter site is strengthened.