Systematic screening for pulmonary embolism using the YEARS algorithm in patients with suspected COVID-19 in the Emergency Department.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Luu IHY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8461006 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Systematic screening for pulmonary embolism using the YEARS algorithm in patients with suspected COVID-19 in the Emergency Department.
Luu Inge H Y IHY Kroon Féline P B FPB Buijs Jacqueline J Krdzalic Jasenko J de Kruif Martijn D MD Leers Math P G MPG Mostard Guy J M GJM Martens Remy J H RJH Mostard Remy L M RLM van Twist Daan J L DJL
Thrombosis research 20210924
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionIntubation of patients suspected of having coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is considered to be a high-risk procedure due to the aerosolization of viral particles. In an effort to minimize the risk of exposure and optimize patient care, we sought to develop, test, provide training, and implement a standardized algorithm for intubating these high-risk patients at our institution.MethodsWe developed an initial intubation algorithm, incorporating strategic use of equipment and incorporating emerging best practices. By combining simulation-based training sessions and rapid-cycle improvement methodology with physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists, and incorporating their feedback into the development, we were able to optimize the process prior to implementation. Training sessions also enabled the participants to practice the algorithm as a team. Upon completion of each training session, participants were invited to complete a brief online survey about their overall experience.ResultsAn algorithm and training system vetted by simulation and actual practice were developed. A training video and dissemination package were made available for other emergency departments to adopt. Survey results were overall positive, with 97.92% of participants feeling confident in their role in the intubation process, and many participants citing the usefulness of the multidisciplinary approach to the training.ConclusionA multidisciplinary, team-based approach to the development and training of a standardized intubation algorithm combining simulation and rapid-cycle improvement methodology is a useful, effective process to respond to rapidly evolving clinical information and experiences during a global pandemic.
| S-EPMC7390585 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Diagnosing concomitant pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients remains challenging. As such, PE may be overlooked. We compared the diagnostic yield of systematic PE-screening based on the YEARS-algorithm to PE-screening based on clinical gestalt in emergency department (ED) patients with COVID-19. Methods We included all ED patients who were admitted because of COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2021. Patients already receiving anticoagulant treatment were excluded. Up to April 7, 2020, the decision to perform CT-pulmonary angiography (CTPA) was based on physician’s clinical gestalt (clinical gestalt cohort). From April 7 onwards, systematic PE-screening was performed by CTPA if D-dimer level was ≥1000 ug/L, or ≥500 ug/L in case of ≥1 YEARS-item (systematic screening cohort). Results 1095 ED patients with COVID-19 were admitted. After applying exclusion criteria, 289 were included in the clinical gestalt and 574 in the systematic screening cohort. The number of PE diagnoses was significantly higher in the systematic screening cohort compared to the clinical gestalt cohort: 8.2% vs. 1.0% (3/289 vs. 47/574; p<0.001), even after adjustment for differences in patient characteristics (adjusted OR 8.45 (95%CI 2.61–27.42, p<0.001) for PE diagnosis). In multivariate analysis, D-dimer (OR 1.09 per 1000 μg/L increase, 95%CI 1.06–1.13, p<0.001) and CRP >100 mg/L (OR 2.78, 95%CI 1.37–5.66, p = 0.005) were independently associated with PE. Conclusion In ED patients with COVID-19, the number of PE diagnosis was significantly higher in the cohort that underwent systematic PE screening based on the YEARS-algorithm in comparison with the clinical gestalt cohort, with a number needed to test of 7.1 CTPAs to detect one PE.
| S-EPMC10035852 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPulmonary embolism (PE) is among the most severe cardiovascular disorders worldwide. Timely and appropriate diagnosis of PE remains an important step in reducing PE related mortality and morbidity.MethodsIn this retrospective single-center cohort study, we comprehensively compared the screening performances of several clinical scoring systems (Wells score [WS], Revised Geneva score [RGS], WS + d-Dimer [D-D], RGS + D-D, WS + PE rule-out criteria [PERC] and RGS + PERC) among PE suspected patients. Failure rates across different PE severity grades as well as overall sensitivity/specificity were considered in evaluating each screening strategy.ResultsA total of 3437 patients were included in this study and 698 of them were diagnosed with PE. Patients with and without PE were similar in demographics, while significantly different in respiration-related characteristics. Compared with WS or RGS alone, Integrating PERC or D-D with WS or RGS significantly decreased the failure rates across all PE severity grades, and increased the overall sensitivity from 88.5% and 87.2% to 96.3% and 94.8% (D-D) to 99.4% and 99.6% (PERC), respectively. However, compared with other four scoring approaches, using WS or RGS alone increased the specificity from 8.3% and 7.2%, 38.3% and 21.3%, to 63.5% and 34.8%, respectively, and increased the AUC from 0.54 to 0.54, 0.70 and 0.69, to 0.8 and 0.76, respectively. In general, all screening approaches achieved better performances among PE patients with respiratory distress compared to those without respiratory distress.ConclusionCombining PERC or D-D with WS or RGS, and the presence of respiratory distress provide significantly better PE rule-out performances.
| S-EPMC11335811 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe primary objective was to quantify the prognostic association between various D-dimer thresholds and 30-day PE diagnosis among emergency department (ED) patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsThis was a retrospective study of patients enrolled in the Canadian COVID-19 ED Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) registry from March 1, 2020 to July 2, 2021. We included consecutive adults (≥ 18 years) presenting to 49 EDs with chest pain, shortness of breath, hypoxia, syncope, presyncope, or hemoptysis who were tested for both SARS-CoV-2 and D-dimer at index ED visit. The primary outcome measure was the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value of D-dimer test thresholds for the outcome of 30-day PE diagnosis.ResultsAmong 10,837 patients included in our study, 404 (3.7%) were diagnosed with PE at 30-days. A standard D-Dimer threshold of 500 ng/mL had a sensitivity of 97.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95.8-99.0%), specificity of 40.9% (95% CI 39.9-41.8%), and negative predictive value of 99.8% (95% CI 99.6-99.9%). An age-adjusted D-dimer threshold had a sensitivity of 96.0% (95% CI 93.6-97.7%), specificity of 48.5% (95% CI 47.5-49.4%), and negative predictive value of 99.7% (95% CI 99.5-99.8%). D-dimer testing had slightly lower prognostic performance among SARS-CoV-2 positive compared to SARS-CoV-2 negative patients in predicting 30-day PE diagnosis.ConclusionsAmong ED patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2, the standard 500 ng/mL and age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds were comparable for the prediction of PE at 30-days. The prognostic performance of D-dimer was lower among SARS-CoV-2 positive patients.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT04702945.
| S-EPMC9838465 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Around 42,000 children suffer from severe sepsis each year in the US alone, resulting in significant morbidity, mortality and billion dollar expenditures in the US healthcare system. Sepsis recognition is a clinical challenge in children. Biomarkers are needed to tailor appropriate antimicrobial therapies and improve risk stratification. The goal of this study was to determine if gene expression profiles from peripheral blood were associated with pathogen type and sepsis severity in children treated for suspected sepsis.
2020-01-01 | GSE119217 | GEO
Project description:ObjectivesWhile our understanding of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has evolved, uncertainty remains regarding utility of previously established pulmonary embolism (PE) screening guidelines in patients with COVID-19. Many studies have investigated the efficacy of D-dimer (DD) screenings for patients with COVID-19 admitted to inpatient services, but few have evaluated patients in the emergency department (ED). The purpose of this study was to investigate utility of DD threshold for PE screening in patients with COVID-19 presenting to the ED.MethodsThis was a retrospective, multicenter cohort including patients presenting to three EDs between March 1, 2020 and February 1, 2021 who tested positive for COVID-19 during ED visit or in 60 days prior to presentation and had DD ordered in ED. Patients were grouped by those who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) to evaluate for PE and those who did not, and descriptive statistics were performed. Those who underwent CTPA were further divided into PE-positive and PE-negative groups. The discriminative ability of DD in predicting PE in patients with COVID-19 was analyzed using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.ResultsA total of 570 patients with COVID-19 were included in the study, of which 107 underwent CTPA to evaluate for PE. History of diabetes, elevated glucose, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, elevated white blood cell count, elevated platelets, elevated respiratory rate, and lower temperature were associated with increased risk for PE. Compared to those without PE, patients with PE were significantly more likely to be hospitalized (100% vs. 82%, p = 0.020) and admitted to the ICU (64% vs. 24%, p = 0.002). Those with PE had a significantly higher median DD value (21,177 ng/mL) compared to PE-negative group (952 ng/mL, p < 0.001). The ROC curve for DD in predicting PE had an area under the curve of 0.91 (95% confidence interval [0.84, 0.98]). In our study population, the optimal DD threshold for predicting PE was 1815 ng/mL (sensitivity 93% and specificity 80%). A conservative threshold of 1089 ng/mL could be used with sensitivity 100% and specificity 58%.ConclusionDD is often elevated in patients with COVID-19, regardless of PE. While the classically used DD cutoff is 500 ng/mL, our study demonstrated a threshold of 1089 ng/mL safely predicted PE in patients with COVID-19 .
| S-EPMC11255020 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: In December 2019, an invasive viral outbreak, the Corona Virus Disease 19 spread to the whole world. An international cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate how healthcare workers in Emergency departments dealt with this pandemic. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to 180 healthcare workers around the world during May and June of the year 2020. Results: A total of 134 HCW from 23 countries responded with a majority of Emergency physicians (36.8%). The PCR testing is available in 72.9% of the hospitals. Different architectural strategies were used to isolate suspected cases in the Emergency department (ED). Half of the institutions would not allow visitors, while the other half, restricted visiting hours and the number of visitors. Triage for suspected patients relied in 82.8% on symptoms. Almost 98% of HCW used a combination of mask, gloves, gown and face shield. Around 65% of the HCW have a tendency to discharge more patients from the ED than what they were used to. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic made a major change within the emergency departments worldwide.
| S-EPMC9098677 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To analyze the risk factors for pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients infected with COVID-19. METHODS:We conducted an observational, retrospective study. Patients with severe infection with COVID-19 and suspected PE were included. RESULTS:Patients with higher levels of D-dimer and those requiring intubation were at a higher risk of developing PE. Higher D-dimer levels were associated with a greater probability of PE 3, 6, 9 and 12 days after determining D-dimer levels with an OR of 1.7, 2.0, 2.4 and 2.4, respectively. CONCLUSION:In conclusion, patients infected with COVID-19 requiring OTI with higher levels of D-dimer have an increased risk of developing PE.
| S-EPMC7219417 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo identify which level of D-dimer would allow the safe exclusion of pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department (ED).MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted on the COVID database of Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP). COVID-19 patients who presented at the ED of AP-HP hospitals between March 1 and May 15, 2020, and had CTPA following D-dimer dosage within 48h of presentation were included. The D-dimer sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for different D-dimer thresholds, as well as the false-negative and failure rates, and the number of CTPAs potentially avoided.ResultsA total of 781 patients (mean age 62.0 years, 53.8% men) with positive RT-PCR for SARS-Cov-2 were included and 60 of them (7.7%) had CTPA-confirmed PE. Their median D-dimer level was significantly higher than that of patients without PE (4,013 vs 1,198 ng·mL-1, p < 0.001). Using 500 ng·mL-1, or an age-adjusted cut-off for patients > 50 years, the sensitivity and the NPV were above 90%. With these thresholds, 17.1% and 31.5% of CTPAs could have been avoided, respectively. Four of the 178 patients who had a D-dimer below the age-adjusted cutoff had PE, leading to an acceptable failure rate of 2.2%. Using higher D-dimer cut-offs could have avoided more CTPAs, but would have lowered the sensitivity and increased the failure rate.ConclusionThe same D-Dimer thresholds as those validated in non-COVID outpatients should be used to safely rule out PE.Key points• The median D-dimer level was significantly higher in COVID-19 patients with PE as compared to those without PE (4,013 ng·mL-1 vs 1,198 ng·mL-1 respectively, p < 0.001). • Using 500 ng·mL-1, or an age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off to exclude pulmonary embolism, the sensitivity and negative predictive value were above 90%. • Higher cut-offs would lead to a reduction in the sensitivity below 85% and an increase in the failure rate, especially for patients under 50 years.
| S-EPMC8739682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE), the literature suggests the overuse of computerized tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) and underuse of clinical decision rules before imaging request. This study determined the potential for avoidable CTPA using the modified Wells score (mWS) and D-dimer assay in patients with suspected PE.MethodsThis hospital-based retrospective study analyzed the clinical data of 661 consecutive patients with suspected PE who underwent CTPA in the emergency department of a tertiary hospital for the use of a clinical prediction rule (mWS) and D-dimer assay. The score was calculated retrospectively from the available data in the files of patients who did not have a documented clinical prediction rule. Overuse (avoidable) CTPA was defined as D-dimer negativity and PE unlikely for this study.ResultsOf 661 patients' data examined, clinical prediction rules were documented in 15 (2.3%). In total, 422 patients (63.8%) had required information on modified Wells criteria and D-dimer assays and were included for further analysis. PE on CTPA was present in 22 (5.21%) of PE unlikely (mWS ≤4) and 1 (0.24%) of D-dimer negative patients. Thirty patients (7.11%) met the avoidable CTPA (DD negative+PE unlikely) criteria, and it was significantly associated with dyspnea. The value of sensitivity of avoidable CTPA was 100%, whereas the positive predictive value was 90.3%.ConclusionUnderutilization of clinical prediction rules before prescribing CTPA is common in emergency departments. Therefore, a mandatory policy should be implemented regarding the evaluation of avoidable CTPA imaging to reduce CTPA overuse.
| S-EPMC10063597 | biostudies-literature