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

Derivation and validation of a risk-stratification model for patients with probable or proven COVID-19 in EDs: the revised HOME-CoV score

BACKGROUND

The HOME-CoV (Hospitalisation or Outpatient ManagEment of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection) score is a validated list of uniquely clinical criteria indicating which patients with probable or proven COVID-19 can be treated at home. The aim of this study was to optimise the score to improve its ability to discriminate between patients who do and do not need admission.

METHODS

A revised HOME-CoV score was derived using data from a previous prospective multicentre study which evaluated the original Home-CoV score. Patients with proven or probable COVID-19 attending 34 EDs in France, Monaco and Belgium between April and May 2020 were included. The population was split into a derivation and validation sample corresponding to the observational and interventional phases of the original study. The main outcome was non-invasive or invasive ventilation or all-cause death within 7 days following inclusion. Two threshold values were defined using a sensitivity of >0.9 and a specificity of >0.9 to identify low-risk and high-risk patients, respectively. The revised HOME-CoV score was then validated by retrospectively applying it to patients in the same EDs with proven or probable COVID-19 during the interventional phase. The revised HOME-CoV score was also tested against original HOME-CoV, qCSI, qSOFA, CRB65 and SMART-COP in this validation cohort.

RESULTS

There were 1696 patients in the derivation cohort, of whom 65 (3.8%) required non-invasive ventilation or mechanical ventilation or died within 7 days and 1304 patients in the validation cohort, of whom 22 (1.7%) had a progression of illness. The revised score included seven clinical criteria. The area under the curve (AUC) was 87.6 (95% CI 84.7 to 90.6). The cut-offs to define low-risk and high-risk patients were <2 and >3, respectively. In the validation cohort, the AUC was 85.8 (95% CI 80.6 to 91.0). A score of <2 qualified 73% of patients as low risk with a sensitivity of 0.77 (0.55-0.92) and a negative predictive value of 0.99 (0.99-1.00).

CONCLUSION

The revised HOME-CoV score, which does not require laboratory testing, may allow accurate risk stratification and safely qualify a significant proportion of patients with probable or proven COVID-19 for home treatment.

Clinical Characteristics and Management of Patients with a Suspected COVID-19 Infection in Emergency Departments: A European Retrospective Multicenter Study

Background: Our aim is to describe and compare the profile and outcome of patients attending the ED with a confirmed COVID-19 infection with patients with a suspected COVID-19 infection. Methods: We conducted a multicentric retrospective study including adults who were seen in 21 European emergency departments (ED) with suspected COVID-19 between 9 March and 8 April 2020. Patients with either a clinical suspicion of COVID-19 or confirmed COVID-19, detected using either a RT-PCR or a chest CT scan, formed the C+ group. Patients with non-confirmed COVID-19 (C− group) were defined as patients with a clinical presentation in the ED suggestive of COVID-19, but if tests were performed, they showed a negative RT-PCR and/or a negative chest CT scan. Results: A total of 7432 patients were included in the analysis: 1764 (23.7%) in the C+ group and 5668 (76.3%) in the C− group. The population was older (63.8 y.o. ±17.5 vs. 51.8 y.o. +/− 21.1, p < 0.01), with more males (54.6% vs. 46.1%, p < 0.01) in the C+ group. Patients in the C+ group had more chronic diseases. Half of the patients (n = 998, 56.6%) in the C+ group needed oxygen, compared to only 15% in the C− group (n = 877). Two-thirds of patients from the C+ group were hospitalized in ward (n = 1128, 63.9%), whereas two-thirds of patients in the C− group were discharged after their ED visit (n = 3883, 68.5%). Conclusion: Our study was the first in Europe to examine the emergency department’s perspective on the management of patients with a suspected COVID-19 infection. We showed an overall more critical clinical situation group of patients with a confirmed COVID-19 infection.

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].

Derivation and validation of a clinical decision rule to risk-stratify COVID-19 patients discharged from the emergency department: The CCEDRRN COVID discharge score

Objective

To risk-stratify COVID-19 patients being considered for discharge from the emergency department (ED).

Methods

We conducted an observational study to derive and validate a clinical decision rule to identify COVID-19 patients at risk for hospital admission or death within 72 hours of ED discharge. We used data from 49 sites in the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) between March 1, 2020, and September 8, 2021. We randomly assigned hospitals to derivation or validation and prespecified clinical variables as candidate predictors. We used logistic regression to develop the score in a derivation cohort and examined its performance in predicting short-term adverse outcomes in a validation cohort.

Results

Of 15,305 eligible patient visits, 535 (3.6%) experienced the outcome. The score included age, sex, pregnancy status, temperature, arrival mode, respiratory rate, and respiratory distress. The area under the curve was 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.73) in derivation and 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.73) in combined derivation and validation cohorts. Among those with a score of 3 or less, the risk for the primary outcome was 1.9% or less, and the sensitivity of using 3 as a rule-out score was 89.3% (95% CI 82.7-94.0). Among those with a score of ≥9, the risk for the primary outcome was as high as 12.2% and the specificity of using 9 as a rule-in score was 95.6% (95% CI 94.9-96.2).

Conclusion

The CCEDRRN COVID discharge score can identify patients at risk of short-term adverse outcomes after ED discharge with variables that are readily available on patient arrival.

Chest Radiograph Severity and Its Association With Outcomes in Subjects With COVID-19 Presenting to the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Severity of radiographic abnormalities on chest radiograph in subjects with COVID-19 has been shown to be associated with worse outcomes, but studies are limited by different scoring systems, sample size, subject age, and study duration. Data regarding the longitudinal evolution of radiographic abnormalities and its association with outcomes are scarce. We sought to evaluate these questions using a well-validated scoring system (the Radiographic Assessment of Lung Edema [RALE] score) using data over 6 months from a large, multihospital health care system.

METHODS

We collected clinical and demographic data and quantified radiographic edema on chest radiograph obtained in the emergency department (ED) as well as on days 1-2 and 3-5 (in those admitted) in subjects with a nasopharyngeal swab positive for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) visiting the ED for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID)-19-related complaints between March-September 2020. We examined the association of baseline and longitudinal evolution of radiographic edema with severity of hypoxemia and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Eight hundred and seventy subjects were included (median age 53.6; 50.8% female). Inter-rate agreement for RALE scores was excellent (interclass correlation coefficient 0.84 [95% CI 0.82-0.87], P < .001). RALE scores correlated with hypoxemia as quantified by S_pO2 /F_IO2 (r = -0.42, P < .001). Admitted subjects had higher RALE scores than those discharged (6 [2-11] vs 0 [0-3], P < .001). An increase of RALE score ≥ 4 was associated with worse 30-d survival (P = .006). Larger increases in the RALE score were associated with worse survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The RALE score was reproducible and easily implementable in adult subjects presenting to the ED with COVID-19. Its association with physiologic parameters and outcomes at baseline and longitudinally makes it a readily available tool for prognostication and early ICU triage, particularly in patients with worsening radiographic edema.

Lung Ultrasound Improves Outcome Prediction over Clinical Judgment in COVID-19 Patients Evaluated in the Emergency Department

In the Emergency Department (ED), the decision to hospitalize or discharge COVID-19 patients is challenging. We assessed the utility of lung ultrasound (LUS), alone or in association with a clinical rule/score. This was a multicenter observational prospective study involving six EDs (NCT046291831). From October 2020 to January 2021, COVID-19 outpatients discharged from the ED based on clinical judgment were subjected to LUS and followed-up at 30 days. The primary clinical outcome was a composite of hospitalization or death. Within 393 COVID-19 patients, 35 (8.9%) reached the primary outcome. For outcome prognostication, LUS had a C-index of 0.76 (95%CI 0.68−0.84) and showed good performance and calibration. LUS-based classification provided significant differences in Kaplan−Meier curves, with a positive LUS leading to a hazard ratio of 4.33 (95%CI 1.95−9.61) for the primary outcome. The sensitivity and specificity of LUS for primary outcome occurrence were 74.3% (95%CI 59.8−88.8) and 74% (95%CI 69.5−78.6), respectively. The integration of LUS with a clinical score further increased sensitivity. In patients with a negative LUS, the primary outcome occurred in nine (3.3%) patients (p < 0.001 vs. unselected). The efficiency for rule-out was 69.7%. In unvaccinated ED patients with COVID-19, LUS improves prognostic stratification over clinical judgment alone and may support standardized disposition decisions.

Risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism in mild and moderate COVID-19: A comparison of two prospective European cohorts

BACKGROUND

Severely ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) i.e., deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. However, the VTE risk in patients with mild and moderate COVID-19, hospitalized or managed at home, remain uncertain. The aims of this study were to assess the rate and the risk factors symptomatic VTE, in patients with mild and moderate COVID-19 and to compare them to a cohort of similar patients without COVID-19.

METHODS

Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) of participating centers for confirmed or probable mild or moderate COVID-19 and not having acute VTE were included. This COVID-19 cohort was retrospectively compared to a prospective cohort of similar ED patients using propensity score matching. The main outcome was the rate of symptomatic VTE within the 28 days after ED presentation.

RESULTS

A total of 2292 patients were included in the COVID-19 cohort. The 28-day incidence of symptomatic VTE was 1.3% (n = 29/2292, 95%CI: 0.9 to 1.8), 2.3% (n = 20/866, 95%CI: 1.5 to 3.5) in moderate COVID-19 patients and 0.6% (n = 9/1426; 95%CI: 0.3 to 1.2) in mild COVID-19 patients managed as outpatients. An age over 65 years and hospitalization were independent risk factors of VTE. After adjustment, patients in the COVID-19 cohort had an absolute increase in over symptomatic VTE risk of +1.69% (95%CI, 0.88 to 2.51) versus patients in the comparison cohort (n = 1539).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with moderate COVID-19 presenting to the ED had a high risk of subsequent VTE.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Ethics committee of the CHU of Angers (N°2020/87).