Plasma soluble suppression of tumorigenesis 2 measured in the emergency department for diagnosis and outcome prediction of sepsis: A single-center prospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The diagnostic and prognostic performance of soluble Suppression of Tumorigenicity 2 (sST2) in suspected septic patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) is largely unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were included in this prospective study if there was high suspicion of sepsis. The plasma level of sST2 was measured during initial ED evaluation. Outcomes were the evaluation of (1) sST2 diagnostic performance (alone and in combination with procalcitonin [PCT]), and (2) sST2 ability to predict 30-day and 90-day all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Among 569 patients included, 481 (84.5 %) had sepsis or septic shock. Plasma sST2 levels were more elevated in septic patients (159 [71-331] vs 50 [31-103] ng/mL, P < 0.001). The AUC of sST2 for sepsis diagnosis was lower than the AUC of PCT (0.76 vs 0.85, P = 0.03). The best cut-off for sST2 was 61.7 ng/mL, with a sensitivity of 79.9 % and a specificity of 70.6 %. sST2 was able to correctly reclassify septic patients with PCT <0.5 (NRI 28.9 % [P = 0.02]). sST2 level was an independent predictor of 30-day mortality in a model including clinical variables (aHR 2.03 [1.24-3.33], C-index 0.69).

CONCLUSION

sST2 could be a useful adjunct in diagnosing sepsis and in all-cause mortality prediction.

Clinical Presentation and Emergency Department Management Checkpoints of Acute Aortic Syndromes during the First Two Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has deeply affected the activity and patient flows of Emergency Departments (EDs), and concern for the worsening outcome of cardiovascular emergencies has been raised. However, the impact of COVID-19 on all subtypes of acute aortic syndromes (AASs) has not been evaluated so far. Cases of AASs managed in the ED of three hub hospitals in a large area of Northern Italy were retrospectively analyzed, comparing those registered during the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021) with corresponding pre-COVID-19 periods. A total of 124 patients with AAS were managed during the COVID-19 period vs. 118 pre-COVID-19 (p = 0.70), despite a -34.6% change in ED visits. Posterior chest pain at presentation was the only clinical variable with a different prevalence (46.0% vs. 32.2%, p = 0.03). Surgery and endovascular treatment rates were unchanged. Time intervals influenced by patient transfer to the hub center were longer during the COVID-19 period and longest during high viral circulation periods. Ninety-day mortality was unchanged, with a higher mortality trend during the pandemic surges. In conclusion, ED presentation and care of AASs were marginally affected by COVID-19, but efforts are needed to preserve efficient patient transfer to specialized centers and prevent mortality, especially during pandemic peaks.

Chest Pain in Cancer Patients: Prevalence of Myocardial Infarction and Performance of High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponins

Background

Little is known about patients with cancer presenting with acute chest discomfort to the emergency department (ED).

Objectives

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), outcomes, and the diagnostic utility of recommended diagnostic tools in this population.

Methods

Patients presenting with chest pain to the ED were prospectively enrolled in an international multicenter diagnostic study with central adjudication. Cancer status was assessed prospectively and additional cancer details retrospectively. Findings were externally validated in an independent multicenter cohort.

Results

Among 8,267 patients, 711 (8.6%) had cancer. Patients with cancer had a higher burden of cardiovascular risk factors and pre-existing cardiac disease. Total length of stay in the ED (5.2 hours vs 4.3 hours) and hospitalization rate (49.8% vs 34.3%) were both increased in patients with cancer (P < 0.001 for both). Among 8,093 patients eligible for the AMI analyses, those with cancer more often had final diagnoses of AMI (184 of 686 with cancer [26.8%] vs 1,561 of 7,407 without cancer [21.1%]; P < 0.001). In patients with cancer, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) but not high sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) concentration had lower diagnostic accuracy for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (for hs-cTnT, area under the curve: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.86-0.92] vs 0.94 [95% CI: 0.93-0.94] [P < 0.001]; for hs-cTnI, area under the curve: 0.93 [95% CI: 0.91-0.95] vs 0.95 [95% CI: 0.94-0.95] [P = 0.10]). In patients with cancer, the European Society of Cardiology 0/1-hour hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI algorithms maintained very high safety but had lower efficacy, with twice the number of patients remaining in the observe zone. Similar findings were obtained in the external validation cohort.

Conclusions

Patients with cancer have a substantially higher prevalence of AMI as the cause of chest pain. Length of ED stay and hospitalization rates are increased. The diagnostic performance of hs-cTnT and the efficacy of both the European Society of Cardiology 0/1-hour hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI algorithms is reduced. (Advantageous Predictors of Acute Coronary Syndromes Evaluation [APACE] Study; NCT00470587).

Combining glucose and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin in the early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction

Glucose is a universally available inexpensive biomarker, which is increased as part of the physiological stress response to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and may therefore help in its early diagnosis. To test this hypothesis, glucose, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) T, and hs-cTnI were measured in consecutive patients presenting with acute chest discomfort to the emergency department (ED) and enrolled in a large international diagnostic study (NCT00470587). Two independent cardiologists centrally adjudicated the final diagnosis using all clinical data, including serial hs-cTnT measurements, cardiac imaging and clinical follow-up. The primary diagnostic endpoint was index non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI). Prognostic endpoints were all-cause death, and cardiovascular (CV) death or future AMI, all within 730-days. Among 5639 eligible patients, NSTEMI was the adjudicated final diagnosis in 1051 (18.6%) patients. Diagnostic accuracy quantified using the area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC) for the combination of glucose with hs-cTnT and glucose with hs-cTnI was very high, but not higher versus that of hs-cTn alone (glucose/hs-cTnT 0.930 [95% CI 0.922-0.937] versus hs-cTnT 0.929 [95% CI 0.922-0.937]; glucose/hs-cTnI 0.944 [95% CI 0.937-0.951] versus hs-cTnI 0.944 [95% CI 0.937-0.951]). In early-presenters, a dual-marker strategy (glucose < 7 mmol/L and hs-cTnT < 5/hs-cTnI < 4 ng/L) provided very high and comparable sensitivity to slightly lower hs-cTn concentrations (cTnT/I < 4/3 ng/L) alone, and possibly even higher efficacy. Glucose was an independent predictor of 730-days endpoints. Our results showed that a dual marker strategy of glucose and hs-cTn did not increase the diagnostic accuracy when used continuously. However, a cutoff approach combining glucose and hs-cTn may provide diagnostic utility for patients presenting ≤ 3 h after onset of symptoms, also providing important prognostic information.

A 4C mortality score based dichotomic rule supports Emergency Department discharge of COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

For COVID-19 patients evaluated in the Emergency Department (ED), decision on hospital admission vs. home discharge is challenging. The 4C mortality score (4CMS) is a prognostication tool integrating key demographic/clinical/biochemical data validated for COVID-19 inpatients. We sought to derive and validate a dichotomic rule based on 4CMS identifying patients with mild outcomes, suitable for safe ED discharge.

METHODS

Derivation was performed in a prospective cohort of ED patients with suspected COVID-19 from two centers (April 2020). Validation was pursued in a prospective multicenter cohort of ED patients with confirmed COVID-19 from 6 centers (October 2020 to January 2021). Chest X-ray (CXR) images were independently scored. The primary composite outcome was all-cause 30-day mortality or hospital admission. Secondary outcomes were ED re-visit, oxygen therapy and ventilation.

RESULTS

In a derivation cohort of 838 ED patients with suspected COVID-19, 4CMS≤8 was associated with low outpatient mortality (0.4%) and was thus selected as a feasible discharge rule. In a validation cohort of 521 COVID-19 outpatients, the mean age was 51±17 years; 97 (18.6%) patients had ≥1 CXR infiltrate. The 4CMS had an AUC of 0.82 for the primary outcome and 0.93 for mortality, outperforming other scores (CURB-65, qCSI, qSOFA, NEWS) and CXR. In 474 (91%) patients with 4CMS≤8, the mortality rate was 0.2% and the hospital admission rate was 6.8%, versus 12.8% and 36.2% for 4CMS≥9 (P<0.001). CXR did not provide additional discrimination.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 outpatients with 4CMS≤8 have mild outcomes and can be safely discharged from the ED. [NCT0462918].

Acute aortic syndromes: An internist's guide to the galaxy

Acute aortic syndromes (AASs) are severe conditions defined by dissection, hemorrhage, ulceration or rupture of the thoracic aorta. AASs share etiological and pathophysiological features, including long-term aortic tissue degeneration and mechanisms of acute aortic damage. The clinical signs and symptoms of AASs are unspecific and heterogeneous, requiring large differential diagnosis. When evaluating a patient with AAS-compatible symptoms, physicians need to integrate clinical probability assessment, bedside imaging techniques such as point-of-care ultrasound, and blood test results such as d-dimer. The natural history of AASs is dominated by engagement of ischemic, coagulative and inflammatory pathways at large, causing multiorgan damage. Medical treatment, multiorgan monitoring and outcome prognostication are therefore paramount, with internal medicine playing a key role in non-surgical management of AASs.

Extending the no objective testing rules to patients triaged by the European Society of Cardiology 0/1-hour algorithms

AIMS

After rule-out of non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) with the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/1 h-algorithms, it is unclear which patients require further anatomical or functional cardiac testing. To test the safety and efficacy of the no-objective-testing (NOT)-rules after NSTEMI rule-out by the ESC 0/1 h-algorithms.

METHODS AND RESULTS

International, prospective, diagnostic multicentre study enrolling adult patients presenting with chest pain to the emergency department. Central adjudication of final diagnosis by two independent cardiologists using information including cardiac imaging. Primary endpoints were the safety and efficacy of the NOT-rules for the rule-out of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary endpoints included 365-day and 2-year MACE. Among 4804 and 4569 patients with available 0/1 h high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn)T-Elecsys or hs-cTnI-Architect concentrations, 2783 (58%) and 2252 (49%) were eligible for application of the NOT-rules after rule-out of NSTEMI by the ESC hs-cTnT/I-0/1h-algorithm. The first rule identified 26% of patients with a sensitivity of 100% (95%CI 98.3-100%) and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% (95% CI, n.c.). The second and third rules both identified 31% of patients with a sensitivity of 99.5% (95% CI 97.4-99.9%) and a NPV of 99.9% (95% CI 99.2-99.9%). Similar findings emerged for hs-cTnI. High safety was confirmed for rule-out of 365-day and 2-year MACE and proven to be superior to the HEART Score.

CONCLUSION

All three NOT-rules performed very well for rule-out of MACE. The third NOT-rule best balanced feasibility, safety, and efficacy by identifying nearly one out of three patients as low-risk and may not require further cardiac testing. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00470587.

Norepinephrine may improve survival of septic shock patients in a low-resource setting: a proof-of-concept study on feasibility and efficacy outside the Intensive Care Unit

Septic shock treatment in sub-Saharan African hospitals is challenging due to limited availability of ICUs, central venous catheters, vasopressors, and trained staff. We designed this proof-of-concept study to determine efficacy, safety, and feasibility of norepinephrine (NE) use in a non-intensive setting in a low-resource country, consisting in a peripheral infusion via a mechanical drop counter. Septic shock patients accessing a rural hospital in Uganda were included: the 2020 group (N = 12) was prospectively enrolled (Jan-Mar 2020) when NE was available; the 2019 group (N = 11) was retrospectively enrolled (Oct-Dec 2019). Enrollment was continuous to reduce selection bias. Basic clinical endpoints (noninvasive blood pressure, tissue perfusion, diuresis) defined shock control and the prognostic endpoint was survival at hospital discharge. Shock control at 6 and 12 hours was higher in the 2020 group (p = 0.012 for both). Survival at hospital discharge was 75% and 27.3%, respectively (p = 0.039). NE infusion was associated with a Hazard Ratio of 0.23 (p = 0.041) in a multivariate Cox model. No NE-induced adverse effects were detected. These preliminary results suggest that implementing NE infusion in a low-resource setting without ICU could be a safe and effective strategy in managing septic shock and that this approach could lead to a lower mortality rate.

Prognostic Value of Mid-Regional Proadrenomedullin Sampled at Presentation and after 72 Hours in Septic Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department: An Observational Two-Center Study

The prognostic value of mid-regional proADM (MR-proADM) in septic patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) is not well established. In this prospective observational study enrolling septic patients evaluated in two EDs, MR-proADM was measured at arrival (t0) and after 72 h (t72). MR-proADM%change was calculated as follows: (MR-proADMt72h − MR-proADMt0)/MR-proADMt0. In total, 147 patients were included in the study, including 109 with a final diagnosis of sepsis and 38 with septic shock, according to the Sepsis-3 criteria. The overall 28-day mortality (outcome) rate was 12.9%. The AUC for outcome prognostication was 0.66 (95% CI 0.51–0.80) for MR-proADMt0, 0.77 (95% CI 0.63–0.92) for MR-proADMt72 and 0.74 (95% CI 0.64–0.84) for MR-proADM%change. MR-proADMt0 ≥ 2.78 nmol/L, MR-proADMt72 ≥ 2.7 nmol/L and MR-proADM%change ≥ −15.2% showed statistically significant log-rank test results and sensitivity/specificity of 81/65%, 69/80% and 75/70% respectively. In regression analysis, MR-proADM%change was a significant outcome predictor both in univariate and multivariate analysis, after adjustment for age, SOFA and APACHEII scores, providing up to 80% of added prognostic value. In conclusion, time trends of MR-proADM may provide additional insights for patient risk stratification over single sampling. MR-proADM levels sampled both at presentation and after 72 h predicted 28-day survival in septic patients presenting to the ED.

After the first wave and beyond lockdown: long-lasting changes in emergency department visit number, characteristics, diagnoses, and hospital admissions

The first wave (FW) of COVID-19 led to a rapid reduction in total emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions for other diseases. Whether this represented a transient "lockdown and fear" phenomenon, or a more persisting trend, is unknown. We divided acute from post-wave changes in ED flows, diagnoses, and hospital admissions, in an Italian city experiencing a FW peak followed by nadir. This multicenter, retrospective, cross-sectional study involved five general EDs of a large Italian city (January-August 2020). Percent changes were calculated versus 2019, using four 14-day periods (FW peak, early/mid/late post-wave). ED visits were 147,446 in 2020, versus 214,868 in 2019. During the FW peak, visits were reduced by 66.4% (P < 0.001). The drop was maximum during daytime (69.8%) and for pediatric patients (89.4%). Critical triage codes were unchanged. Reductions were found for all non-COVID-19 diagnoses. Non-COVID-19 hospital admissions were reduced by 39.5% (P < 0.001), involving all conditions except hematologic, metabolic/endocrine, respiratory diseases, and traumas. In the early, mid, and late post-wave periods, visits were reduced by 25.4%, 25.3% and 23.5% (all P < 0.001) respectively. In the late period, reduction was greater for female (27.9%) and pediatric patients (44.6%). Most critical triage codes were unchanged. Oncological, metabolic/endocrine, and hematological diagnoses were unchanged, while other diagnoses had persistent reductions. Non-COVID-19 hospital admissions were reduced by 12.8% (P = 0.001), 6.3% (P = 0.1) and 12.2% (P = 0.001), respectively. Reductions in ED flows, led by non-critical codes, persisted throughout the summer nadir of COVID-19. Hospital admissions for non-COVID-19 diseases had transient changes.

Diagnostic accuracy of physician's gestalt in suspected COVID-19: Prospective bicentric study

Objectives

Physicians’ gestalt is central in the diagnostic pipeline of suspected COVID‐19, due to the absence of a single tool allowing conclusive rule in or rule out. The aim of this study was to estimate the diagnostic test characteristics of physician's gestalt for COVID‐19 in the emergency department (ED), based on clinical findings or on a combination of clinical findings and bedside imaging results.

Methods

From April 1 to April 30, 2020, patients with suspected COVID‐19 were prospectively enrolled in two EDs. Physicians prospectively dichotomized patients in COVID‐19 likely or unlikely twice: after medical evaluation of clinical features (clinical gestalt [CG]) and after evaluation of clinical features and results of lung ultrasound or chest x‐ray (clinical and bedside imaging–integrated gestalt [CBIIG]). The final diagnosis was adjudicated after independent review of 30‐day follow‐up data.

Results

Among 838 ED enrolled patients, 193 (23%) were finally diagnosed with COVID‐19. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of CG and CBIIG for COVID‐19 were 80.8% and 91.6% (p < 0.01), 82.9% and 91.4% (p = 0.01), and 78.6% and 91.8% (p < 0.01), respectively. CBIIG had similar AUC and sensitivity to reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) for SARS‐CoV‐2 on the first nasopharyngeal swab per se (93.5%, p = 0.24; and 87%, p = 0.17, respectively). CBIIG plus RT‐PCR had a sensitivity of 98.4% for COVID‐19 (p < 0.01 vs. RT‐PCR alone) compared to 95.9% for CG plus RT‐PCR (p = 0.05).

Conclusions

In suspected COVID‐19, CG and CBIIG have fair diagnostic accuracy, in line with physicians’ gestalt for other acute conditions. Negative RT‐PCR plus low probability based on CBIIG can rule out COVID‐19 with a relatively low number of false‐negative cases.

Development and Validation of a Simplified Probability Assessment Score Integrated With Age-Adjusted d-Dimer for Diagnosis of Acute Aortic Syndromes

Background

When acute aortic syndromes (AASs) are suspected, pretest clinical probability assessment and d‐dimer (DD) testing are diagnostic options allowing standardized care. Guidelines suggest use of a 12‐item/3‐category score (aortic dissection detection) and a DD cutoff of 500 ng/mL. However, a simplified assessment tool and a more specific DD cutoff could be advantageous.

Methods and Results

In a prospective derivation cohort (n=1848), 6 items identified by logistic regression (thoracic aortic aneurysm, severe pain, sudden pain, pulse deficit, neurologic deficit, hypotension), composed a simplified score (AORTAs) assigning 2 points to hypotension and 1 to the other items. AORTAs≤1 and ≥2 defined low and high clinical probability, respectively. Age‐adjusted DD was calculated as years/age × 10 ng/mL (minimum 500). The AORTAs score and AORTAs≤1/age‐adjusted DD rule were validated in 2 patient cohorts: a high‐prevalence retrospective cohort (n=1035; 22% AASs) and a low‐prevalence prospective cohort (n=447; 11% AASs) subjected to 30‐day follow‐up. The AUC of the AORTAs score was 0.729 versus 0.697 of the aortic dissection detection score (P=0.005). AORTAs score assessment reclassified 16.6% to 25.1% of patients, with significant net reclassification improvement of 10.3% to 32.7% for AASs and −8.6 to −17% for alternative diagnoses. In both cohorts, AORTAs≥2 had superior sensitivity and slightly lower specificity than aortic dissection detection ≥2. In the prospective validation cohort, AORTAs≤1/age‐adjusted DD had a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 48.6%, and an efficiency of 43.3%.

Conclusions

AORTAs is a simplified score with increased sensitivity, improved AAS classification, and minor trade‐off in specificity, amenable to integration with age‐adjusted DD for diagnostic rule‐out.

Systematic Review of Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score Plus D-dimer for Diagnostic Rule-out Of Suspected Acute Aortic Syndromes

OBJECTIVES

In patients at low clinical probability of acute aortic syndromes (AASs), decision on advanced aortic imaging is cumbersome. Integration of the aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS) with D-dimer (DD) provides a potential pipeline for standardized diagnostic rule-out. We systematically reviewed and summarized supporting data.

METHODS

Cross-sectional studies assessing integration of ADD-RS with DD for diagnosis of AASs were identified on MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web Of Science databases. Two reviewers independently screened articles, assessed quality, and extracted data. The quality of design and reporting was evaluated with the QUADAS-2 and STARD tools. Individual patient data were obtained, to allow analysis of both conventional (500 ng/mL) and age-adjusted (DD_age-adj ) DD cutoffs. Data were summarized for four diagnostic strategies combining ADD-RS = 0 or ≤ 1, with DD < 500 ng/mL or < DD_age-adj . The statistical heterogeneity of the diagnostic variables was estimated with Higgins' I² . Pooled values were calculated for variables showing nonsignificant heterogeneity.

RESULTS

After screening of 680 studies, four articles (including a total of 3,804 patients) met inclusion criteria. One prospective study provided a low risk of bias/applicability concerns, while methodologic limitations were found in the other three retrospective studies. Statistical heterogeneity was negligible for sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio (LR) values and significant for specificity and positive LR values of all diagnostic strategies. Pooled sensitivity was 99.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 99.3% to 100%, I²  = 0) for ADD-RS = 0 and DD < 500 ng/mL or < DD_age-adj , 98.9% (95% CI = 97.9% to 99.9%, I²  = 0) for ADD-RS ≤ 1 and DD < 500 ng/mL, and 97.6% (95% CI = 96.3% to 98.9%, I²  = 0) for ADD-RS ≤ 1 and DD < DD_age-adj .

CONCLUSIONS

Despite methodologic limitations, integration of ADD-RS = 0 or ≤ 1 with DD < 500 ng/mL shows negligible heterogeneity and consistently high sensitivity across studies, thus supporting reliability for diagnostic rule-out of AASs. Data supporting ADD-RS = 0 plus DD_age-adj appear preliminary and require further scrutiny.