Dataset Information

Outpatient Management of Patients With COVID-19: Multicenter Prospective Validation of the Hospitalization or Outpatient Management of Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection Rule to Discharge Patients Safely.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Hospitalization or Outpatient Management of Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection (HOME-CoV) rule is a checklist of eligibility criteria for home treatment of patients with COVID-19, defined using a Delphi method.

Research question

Is the HOME-CoV rule reliable for identifying a subgroup of COVID-19 patients with a low risk of adverse outcomes who can be treated at home safely?

Study design and methods

We aimed to validate the HOME-CoV rule in a prospective, multicenter study before and after trial of patients with probable or confirmed COVID-19 who sought treatment at the ED of 34 hospitals. The main outcome was an adverse evolution, that is, invasive ventilation or death, occurring within the 7 days after patient admission. The performance of the rule was assessed by the false-negative rate. The impact of the rule implementation was assessed by the absolute differences in the rate of patients who required invasive ventilation or who died and in the rate of patients treated at home, between an observational and an interventional period after implementation of the HOME-CoV rule, with propensity score adjustment.

Results

Among 3,000 prospectively enrolled patients, 1,239 (41.3%) demonstrated a negative HOME-CoV rule finding. The false-negative rate of the HOME-CoV rule was 4 in 1,239 (0.32%; 95% CI, 0.13%-0.84%), and its area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 80.9 (95% CI, 76.5-85.2). On the adjusted populations, 25 of 1,274 patients (1.95%) experienced an adverse evolution during the observational period vs 12 of 1,274 patients (0.95%) during the interventional period: -1.00 (95% CI, -1.86 to -0.15). During the observational period, 858 patients (67.35%) were treated at home vs 871 patients (68.37%) during the interventional period: -1.02 (95% CI, -4.46 to 2.26).

Interpretation

A large proportion of patients treated in the ED with probable or confirmed COVID-19 have a negative HOME-CoV rule finding and can be treated safely at home with a very low risk of complications.

Trial registry

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04338841; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

SUBMITTER: Douillet D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8123410 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe objective was to define a safe strategy to exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 outpatients, without performing CT pulmonary angiogram (CTPA).MethodsCOVID-19 outpatients from 15 university hospitals who underwent a CTPA were retrospectively evaluated. D-Dimers, variables of the revised Geneva and Wells scores, as well as laboratory findings and clinical characteristics related to COVID-19 pneumonia, were collected. CTPA reports were reviewed for the presence of PE and the extent of COVID-19 disease. PE rule-out strategies were based solely on D-Dimer tests using different thresholds, the revised Geneva and Wells scores, and a COVID-19 PE prediction model built on our dataset were compared. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), failure rate, and efficiency were calculated.ResultsIn total, 1369 patients were included of whom 124 were PE positive (9.1%). Failure rate and efficiency of D-Dimer > 500 µg/l were 0.9% (95%CI, 0.2-4.8%) and 10.1% (8.5-11.9%), respectively, increasing to 1.0% (0.2-5.3%) and 16.4% (14.4-18.7%), respectively, for an age-adjusted D-Dimer level. D-dimer > 1000 µg/l led to an unacceptable failure rate to 8.1% (4.4-14.5%). The best performances of the revised Geneva and Wells scores were obtained using the age-adjusted D-Dimer level. They had the same failure rate of 1.0% (0.2-5.3%) for efficiency of 16.8% (14.7-19.1%), and 16.9% (14.8-19.2%) respectively. The developed COVID-19 PE prediction model had an AUC of 0.609 (0.594-0.623) with an efficiency of 20.5% (18.4-22.8%) when its failure was set to 0.8%.ConclusionsThe strategy to safely exclude PE in COVID-19 outpatients should not differ from that used in non-COVID-19 patients. The added value of the COVID-19 PE prediction model is minor.Key points• D-dimer level remains the most important predictor of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients. • The AUCs of the revised Geneva and Wells scores using an age-adjusted D-dimer threshold were 0.587 (95%CI, 0.572 to 0.603) and 0.588 (95%CI, 0.572 to 0.603). • The AUC of COVID-19-specific strategy to rule out pulmonary embolism ranged from 0.513 (95%CI: 0.503 to 0.522) to 0.609 (95%CI: 0.594 to 0.623).

Project description:BackgroundTo date, the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) rule for identifying children who are at very low risk of clinically-important traumatic brain injuries after minor head trauma has not been validated prospectively in an independent population. Our goal was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the PECARN clinical decision rule in a French pediatric population in multiple clinical settings.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, prospective, non-interventional cohort study of patients with minor head trauma who presented to three emergency departments in France. We enrolled patients younger than 16 years of age seeking a consultation within 24 h of head trauma with Glasgow Coma Scale scores of 14-15.ResultsDuring the study period, we included 1499 children of which 421 (28 %) were under 2 years of age, and 955 (64 %) were male. A cranial computed tomography (CT) scan was performed on 76 patients (5.1 %). Of the 1499 included patients, 9 children (0.6 %) had a clinically-important traumatic brain injury, and none were classified as very low risk by the PECARN rule. In our study, the sensitivity of this clinical decision rule was 100 % (95 % CI 66.4 to 100 %), the specificity was 69.9 % (95 % CI 67.5 to 72.2 %) and the negative predictive value was 100 % (95 % CI 99.7 to 100 %).DiscussionOur study confirmed the good predictive performances of the PECARN clinical decision rule for minor head trauma in children. The PECARN rule performed similarly to our study and to its internal validation study.ConclusionsWe conducted an external validation study of the PECARN clinical decision rule for the detection of clinically-important traumatic brain injuries in children with minor head trauma, according to the methodological standards. The PECARN rule successfully identified all patients with clinically-important traumatic brain injuries, with a limited use of CT scans. Conducting a broad validation study with a large cohort is a prerequisite to provide sufficient statistical power before authorizing its implementation and generalization.Trial registrationThis study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with identifier number: NCT02752711 on April 27, 2016.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The HEART Pathway (history, ECG, age, risk factors, and initial troponin) is an accelerated diagnostic protocol designed to identify low-risk emergency department patients with chest pain for early discharge without stress testing or angiography. The objective of this study was to determine whether implementation of the HEART Pathway is safe (30-day death and myocardial infarction rate <1% in low-risk patients) and effective (reduces 30-day hospitalizations) in emergency department patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. METHODS:A prospective pre-post study was conducted at 3 US sites among 8474 adult emergency department patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. Patients included were ≥21 years old, investigated for possible acute coronary syndrome, and had no evidence of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction on ECG. Accrual occurred for 12 months before and after HEART Pathway implementation from November 2013 to January 2016. The HEART Pathway accelerated diagnostic protocol was integrated into the electronic health record at each site as an interactive clinical decision support tool. After accelerated diagnostic protocol integration, ED providers prospectively used the HEART Pathway to identify patients with possible acute coronary syndrome as low risk (appropriate for early discharge without stress testing or angiography) or non-low risk (appropriate for further in-hospital evaluation). The primary safety and effectiveness outcomes, death, and myocardial infarction (MI) and hospitalization rates at 30 days were determined from health records, insurance claims, and death index data. RESULTS:Preimplementation and postimplementation cohorts included 3713 and 4761 patients, respectively. The HEART Pathway identified 30.7% as low risk; 0.4% of these patients experienced death or MI within 30 days. Hospitalization at 30 days was reduced by 6% in the postimplementation versus preimplementation cohort (55.6% versus 61.6%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.87). During the index visit, more MIs were detected in the postimplementation cohort (6.6% versus 5.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.12-1.65). Rates of death or MI during follow-up were similar (1.1% versus 1.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-1.33). CONCLUSIONS:HEART Pathway implementation was associated with decreased hospitalizations, increased identification of index visit MIs, and a very low death and MI rate among low-risk patients. These findings support use of the HEART Pathway to identify low-risk patients who can be safely discharged without stress testing or angiography. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02056964.

Project description:BackgroundOutpatient parenteral antibiotic treatment (OPAT) programs are increasingly used to manage infective endocarditis (IE), but current criteria for indicating OPAT are markedly conservative. We aimed to investigate whether more liberal criteria for indicating OPAT in IE can be safely used.MethodsThis was a prospective multicenter nationwide cohort study (2008-2018). Rates of readmission, recurrences, and 1-year mortality were compared between hospital-based antibiotic treatment (HBAT) and OPAT. Risk factors for readmission and mortality in OPAT patients were investigated by logistic regression. Patients did not fulfill OPAT-GAMES (Grupos de Apoyo al Manejo de la Endocarditis en ESpaña) criteria if they had any of the following: cirrhosis, severe central nervous system emboli, undrained abscesses, severe conditions requiring cardiac surgery in nonoperable patients, severe postsurgical complications, highly difficult-to-treat microorganisms, or intravenous drug use.ResultsA total of 2279 HBAT patients and 1268 OPAT patients were included. Among OPAT patients, 307 (24.2%) did not fulfill OPAT-GAMES criteria. Overall, OPAT patients presented higher rates of readmission than HBAT patients (18.2% vs 14.4%; P = .004), but no significant differences were found in the propensity analysis. Patients not fulfilling OPAT-GAMES criteria presented significantly higher rates of readmission than HBAT and OPAT-GAMES (23.8%, 14.4%, 16.4%; P < .001), whereas no significant differences were found in mortality (5.9%, 8%, 7.4%; P = .103) or recurrences (3.9%, 3.1%, 2.5%; P = .546). Not fulfilling OPAT-GAMES criteria was associated with higher risk of readmission (odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.03-1.97; P = .03), whereas cardiac surgery was associated with lower risk (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53-0.98; P = .03).ConclusionsOPAT-GAMES criteria allow identification of IE patients at higher risk of long-term complications to whom OPAT cannot be safely administered.