Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension and impairment after pulmonary embolism: the FOCUS study

AIMS: To systematically assess late outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and to investigate the clinical implications of post-PE impairment (PPEI) fulfilling prospectively defined criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS: A prospective multicentre observational cohort study was conducted in 17 large-volume centres across Germany. Adult consecutive patients with confirmed acute symptomatic PE were followed with a standardized assessment plan and pre-defined visits at 3, 12, and 24 months. The co-primary outcomes were (i) diagnosis of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), and (ii) PPEI, a combination of persistent or worsening clinical, functional, biochemical, and imaging parameters during follow-up. A total of 1017 patients (45% women, median age 64 years) were included in the primary analysis. They were followed for a median duration of 732 days after PE diagnosis. The CTEPH was diagnosed in 16 (1.6%) patients, after a median of 129 days; the estimated 2-year cumulative incidence was 2.3% (1.2-4.4%). Overall, 880 patients were evaluable for PPEI; the 2-year cumulative incidence was 16.0% (95% confidence interval 12.8-20.8%). The PPEI helped to identify 15 of the 16 patients diagnosed with CTEPH during follow-up (hazard ratio for CTEPH vs. no CTEPH 393; 95% confidence interval 73-2119). Patients with PPEI had a higher risk of re-hospitalization and death as well as worse quality of life compared with those without PPEI. CONCLUSION: In this prospective study, the cumulative 2-year incidence of CTEPH was 2.3%, but PPEI diagnosed by standardized criteria was frequent. Our findings support systematic follow-up of patients after acute PE and may help to optimize guideline recommendations and algorithms for post-PE care

Risikomanagement in der Triage ambulanter Notfallpatienten

Background!#!So-called 'integrated emergency centers (IEC)' are going to be implemented in German hospitals and will be the first contact point in the emergency care setting. For early decision-making whether outpatient care or inpatient admission in the emergency department is indicated, it would be helpful to have a system to identify patients for outpatient treatment. In this study, we investigated whether the Manchester Triage System (MTS) is suitable for identifying patients who can be safely referred to emergency room patients to outpatient care.!##!Methods!#!Patients in the emergency department of the 'blue' MTS level were examined for the endpoint inpatient admission and were compared with the next higher MTS category 'green'. In a second step, the 'blue' MTS category was examined for the most common criteria leading to inpatient admission.!##!Results!#!After excluding patients who were presented by the emergency medical services (EMS) or after prior medical consultation, the rate of inpatient admissions in the blue MTS category was significantly lower than in the green category (10.8% vs 29.0%). The rate could be reduced to 0.9% by establishing a subgroup with the additional exclusion criteria chronic disorder and readmission after prior inpatient treatment (CEReCo-blue group: Chronic Disorder (C), Emergency Medical Service (E), Readmission (R), Prior Medical Consultation (Co)).!##!Conclusion!#!The blue MTS category does not appear to be suitable for the selection of patients with indication for outpatient treatment. We propose the introduction of a subgroup, the so-called CEReCo-blue group, which could be helpful for the selection of this patient group

Separating the wheat from the chaff—COVID-19 in a German emergency department: a case-control study

Background!#!COVID-19 pandemia is a major challenge to worldwide health care systems. Whereas the majority of disease presents with mild symptoms that can be treated as outpatients, severely ill COVID-19 patients and patients presenting with similar symptoms cross their ways in the emergency department. Especially, the variety of symptoms is challenging with primary triage. Are there parameters to distinguish between proven COVID-19 and without before? How can a safe and efficient management of these inpatients be achieved?!##!Methods!#!We conducted a retrospective analysis of 314 consecutive inpatient patients who presented with possible symptoms of COVID-19 in a German emergency department between March and April 2020 and were tested with a SARS-Cov-2 nasopharyngeal swab. Clinical parameters, Manchester Triage System categories, and lab results were compared between patients with positive and negative test results for SARS-Cov-2. Furthermore, we present the existing COVID-19 workflow model of the university hospital in Essen which proved to be efficient during pandemia.!##!Results!#!Forty-three of the 314 patients (13.7%) were tested positive for COVID-19 by SARS-Cov-2 nasopharyngeal swab. We did not find any laboratory parameter to distinguish safely between patients with COVID-19 and those with similar symptoms. Dysgeusia was the only clinical symptom that was significantly more frequent among COVID-19 patients.!##!Conclusion!#!Dysgeusia seems to be a typical symptom for COVID-19, which occurred in 14% of our COVID-19 patients. However, no valid parameters could be found to distinguish clinically between COVID-19 and other diseases with similar symptoms. Therefore, early testing, a strict isolation policy, and proper personal protection are crucial to maintain workflow and safety of patients and ED staff for the months to come.!##!Trial registration!#!German Clinical Trials registry, DRKS00021675

Streamlining Patient Management of Suspected COVID-19 Patients in the Emergency Department: Incorporation of Pulmonary CT Angiography into the Triaging Algorithm

Purpose: To evaluate the use of pulmonary computed tomography (CT) angiography during initial admission at an emergency department (ED), to identify COVID-19 patients with accompanying pulmonary embolism (PE) and its impact on clinical management. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of COVID-19 patients that underwent pulmonary CT angiography at the ED. CT scans were evaluated for the presence and extent of PE and for imaging changes suspicious of COVID-19. Patients were subdivided into two groups: (1) Group A consisted of patients with proven COVID-19 based on real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and (2) Group B of patients suspected for COVID-19, comprising patients positive on RT-PCR and/or COVID-19-suspicious CT findings. To assess the differences between patients with and without pulmonary embolism, Fisher’s exact test was used. Results: A total of 308 patients were admitted to the ED for diagnostic work-up of dyspnea and suspected COVID-19, and 95 patients underwent pulmonary CT angiography. PE was detected in 13.6% (3/22) of patients in Group A and 20.7% (6/29) in Group B. No significant differences were observed between patients with and without PE concerning hospitalization (Group B: 100% (6/6) vs. 91.3% (21/23)), the necessity of oxygen therapy (Group B: 66% (4/6) vs. 43.5% (10/23)), and death (Group B: 33% (2/6) vs. 4.3% (1/23) p > 0.05, respectively). Conclusions: In 20.7% of COVID-19 patients, PE was detected upon admission to the ED. Although the incorporation of early pulmonary CT angiography in patients suspicious of COVID-19 may be beneficial to identify concomitant PE, further studies are necessary to corroborate these findings

What about the others: differential diagnosis of COVID-19 in a German emergency department

Background!#!The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic remains a major challenge for worldwide health care systems and in particular emergency medicine. An early and safe triage in the emergency department (ED) is especially crucial for proper therapy. Clinical symptoms of COVID-19 comprise those of many common diseases; thus, differential diagnosis remains challenging.!##!Method!#!We performed a retrospective study of 314 ED patients presenting with conceivable COVID-19 symptoms during the first wave in Germany. All were tested for COVID-19 with SARS-Cov-2-nasopharyngeal swabs. Forty-seven patients were positive. We analyzed the 267 COVID-19 negative patients for their main diagnosis and compared COVID-19 patients with COVID-19 negative respiratory infections for differences in laboratory parameters, symptoms, and vital signs.!##!Results!#!Among the 267 COVID-19 negative patients, 42.7% had respiratory, 14.2% had other infectious, and 11.2% had cardiovascular diseases. Further, 9.0% and 6.7% had oncological and gastroenterological diagnoses, respectively. Compared to COVID-19 negative airway infections, COVID-19 patients showed less dyspnea (OR 0.440; p = 0.024) but more dysgeusia (OR 7.631; p = 0.005). Their hospital stay was significantly longer (9.0 vs. 5.6 days; p = 0.014), and their mortality significantly higher (OR 3.979; p = 0.014).!##!Conclusion!#!For many common ED diagnoses, COVID-19 should be considered a differential diagnosis. COVID-19 cannot be distinguished from COVID-19 negative respiratory infections by clinical signs, symptoms, or laboratory results. When hospitalization is necessary, the clinical course of COVID-19 airway infections seems to be more severe compared to other respiratory infections.!##!Trial registration!#!German Clinical Trial Registry DRKS, DRKS-ID of the study: DRKS00021675 date of registration: May 8th, 2020, retrospectively registered

Decompensated right heart failure, intensive care and perioperative management in patients with pulmonary hypertension: Updated recommendations from the Cologne Consensus Conference 2018

In June 2016, members of the German Society of Cardiology (DGK), the German Society of Respiratory Medicine (DGP) and the German Society of Pediatric Cardiology (DGPK) met for a Consensus Conference in Cologne, Germany. Aim of this Conference was to compile consensus based practice recommendations based on the 2015 European Pulmonary Hypertension guidelines, aiming at their practical implementation, considering country-specific issues, and including new evidence, where available. This article summarizes the results and updated recommendations 2018 of the working group on decompensated right heart failure (RHF), intensive care and perioperative management in patients with pulmonary hypertension. The RHF section comprises definition and pathophysiology, diagnosis and monitoring, identification of triggering factors and supportive therapy of RHF, volume management as well as PAH targeting therapy, therapy with inotropic, inodilator and vasopressor drugs, extracorporeal support and transplantation. The second part of this article summarizes preoperative management, perioperative monitoring and choice of anesthesia

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension and impairment after pulmonary embolism: the FOCUS study

Aims To systematically assess late outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and to investigate the clinical implications of post-PE impairment (PPEI) fulfilling prospectively defined criteria. Methods and results A prospective multicentre observational cohort study was conducted in 17 large-volume centres across Germany. Adult consecutive patients with confirmed acute symptomatic PE were followed with a standardized assessment plan and pre-defined visits at 3, 12, and 24 months. The co-primary outcomes were (i) diagnosis of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), and (ii) PPEI, a combination of persistent or worsening clinical, functional, biochemical, and imaging parameters during follow-up. A total of 1017 patients (45% women, median age 64 years) were included in the primary analysis. They were followed for a median duration of 732 days after PE diagnosis. The CTEPH was diagnosed in 16 (1.6%) patients, after a median of 129 days; the estimated 2-year cumulative incidence was 2.3% (1.2-4.4%). Overall, 880 patients were evaluable for PPEI; the 2-year cumulative incidence was 16.0% (95% confidence interval 12.8-20.8%). The PPEI helped to identify 15 of the 16 patients diagnosed with CTEPH during follow-up (hazard ratio for CTEPH vs. no CTEPH 393; 95% confidence interval 73-2119). Patients with PPEI had a higher risk of re-hospitalization and death as well as worse quality of life compared with those without PPEI. Conclusion In this prospective study, the cumulative 2-year incidence of CTEPH was 2.3%, but PPEI diagnosed by standardized criteria was frequent. Our findings support systematic follow-up of patients after acute PE and may help to optimize guideline recommendations and algorithms for post-PE care