; for the French Society of Emergency Medicine Collaborators Group IMPORTANCE An international task force recently redefined the concept of sepsis. This task force recommended the use of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score instead of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria to identify patients at high risk of mortality. However, these new criteria have not been prospectively validated in some settings, and their added value in the emergency department remains unknown. OBJECTIVE To prospectively validate qSOFA as a mortality predictor and compare the performances of the new sepsis criteria to the previous ones. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS International prospective cohort study, conducted in France, Spain, Belgium, and Switzerland between May and June 2016. In the 30 participating emergency departments, for a 4-week period, consecutive patients who visited the emergency departments with suspected infection were included. All variables from previous and new definitions of sepsis were collected. Patients were followed up until hospital discharge or death. EXPOSURES Measurement of qSOFA, SOFA, and SIRS. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES In-hospital mortality. RESULTS Of 1088 patients screened, 879 were included in the analysis. Median age was 67 years (interquartile range, 47-81 years), 414 (47%) were women, and 379 (43%) had respiratory tract infection. Overall in-hospital mortality was 8%: 3% for patients with a qSOFA score lower than 2 vs 24% for those with qSOFA score of 2 or higher (absolute difference, 21%; 95% CI, 15%-26%). The qSOFA performed better than both SIRS and severe sepsis in predicting in-hospital mortality, with an area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74-0.85) vs 0.65 (95% CI, 0.59-0.70) for both SIRS and severe sepsis (P < .001; incremental AUROC, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.22). The hazard ratio of qSOFA score for death was 6.2 (95% CI, 3.8-10.3) vs 3.5 (95% CI, 2.2-5.5) for severe sepsis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected infection, the use of qSOFA resulted in greater prognostic accuracy for in-hospital mortality than did either SIRS or severe sepsis. These findings provide support for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) criteria in the emergency department setting.

Background There have been reports of procoagulant activity in patients with COVID‐19. Whether there is an association between pulmonary embolism (PE) and COVID‐19 in the emergency department (ED) is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess whether COVID‐19 is associated with PE in ED patients who underwent a computed tomographic pulmonary angiogram (CTPA). Methods A retrospective study in 26 EDs from six countries. ED patients in whom a CTPA was performed for suspected PE during a 2‐month period covering the pandemic peak. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a PE on CTPA. COVID‐19 was diagnosed in the ED either on CT or reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction. A multivariable binary logistic regression was built to adjust with other variables known to be associated with PE. A sensitivity analysis was performed in patients included during the pandemic period. Results A total of 3,358 patients were included, of whom 105 were excluded because COVID‐19 status was unknown, leaving 3,253 for analysis. Among them, 974 (30%) were diagnosed with COVID‐19. Mean (±SD) age was 61 (±19) years and 52% were women. A PE was diagnosed on CTPA in 500 patients (15%). The risk of PE was similar between COVID‐19 patients and others (15% in both groups). In the multivariable binary logistic regression model, COVID‐19 was not associated with higher risk of PE (adjusted odds ratio = 0.98, 95% confidence interval = 0.76 to 1.26). There was no association when limited to patients in the pandemic period. Conclusion In ED patients who underwent CTPA for suspected PE, COVID‐19 was not associated with an increased probability of PE diagnosis. These results were also valid when limited to the pandemic period. However, these results may not apply to patients with suspected COVID‐19 in general.

Background Recent literature reports a strong thrombotic tendency in patients hospitalized for a Covid‐19 infection. This characteristic is quite unusual and seems specific to Covid‐19 infections, especially in their severe form. Viral infections can trigger acquired thrombophilia which can then lead to thrombotic complications. We investigate for the presence of acquired thrombophilia, which could participate in this phenomenon and report their prevalence. We also wonder if these thrombophilias participate in the bad prognosis of severe Covid‐19 infections. Methods and Results In 89 consecutive patients hospitalized for Covid‐19 infection we found a 20% prevalence of protein S deficiency and a very high ie.: 72% prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies: mainly lupus anticoagulant. The presence of PS deficiency or antiphospholipid antibodies was not linked with a prolonged aPTT nor with D‐dimer, fibrinogen or C‐reactive protein concentrations. These coagulation abnormalities are also not linked with thrombotic clinical events occurring during hospitalization nor with mortality. Conclusions We assess a high prevalence of positive tests detecting thrombophilia in Covid‐19 infections. However, in our series, these acquired thrombophilias are not correlated with the severity of the disease nor with the occurrence of thrombotic events. Albeit the strong thrombotic tendency in Covid‐19 infections, the presence of frequent acquired thrombophilia may be part of the inflammation storm of Covid‐19 disease and should not systematically modify our strategy on prophylactic anticoagulant treatment which is already revised upwards in this pathology.

IMPORTANCE Clinical guidelines for the early management of acute heart failure in the emergency department (ED) setting are based on only moderate levels of evidence, with subsequent low adherence to these guidelines.OBJECTIVE To test the effect of an early guideline-recommended care bundle on short-term prognosis in older patients with acute heart failure in the ED. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSStepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in 15 EDs in France of 503 patients 75 years and older with a diagnosis of acute heart failure in the ED from December 2018 to September 2019 and followed up for 30 days until October 2019.INTERVENTIONS A care bundle that included early intravenous nitrate boluses; management of precipitating factors, such as acute coronary syndrome, infection, or atrial fibrillation; and moderate dose of intravenous diuretics (n = 200). In the control group, patient care was left to the discretion of the treating emergency physician (n = 303). Each center was randomized to the order in which they switched to the "intervention period." After the initial 4-week control period for all centers, 1 center entered in the intervention period every 2 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary end point was the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included 30-day all-cause mortality, 30-day cardiovascular mortality, unscheduled readmission, length of hospital stay, and kidney impairment.RESULTS Among 503 patients who were randomized (median age, 87 years; 298 [59%] women), 502 were analyzed. In the intervention group, patients received a median (interquartile range) of 27.0 (9-54) mg of intravenous nitrates in the first 4 hours vs 4.0 (2.0-6.0) mg in the control group (adjusted difference, 23.8 [95% CI, 13.5-34.1]). There was a significantly higher percentage of patients in the intervention group treated for their precipitating factors than in the control group (58.8% vs 31.9%; adjusted difference, 31.1% [95% CI, 14.3%-47.9%]). There was no statistically significant difference in the primary end point of the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days (median [interquartile range], 19 [0-24] d in both groups; adjusted difference, −1.9 [95% CI, −6.6 to 2.8]; adjusted ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.64-1.21]). At 30 days, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in mortality (8.0% vs 9.7%; adjusted difference, 4.1% [95% CI, −17.2% to 25.3%]), cardiovascular mortality (5.0% vs 7.4%; adjusted difference, 2.1% [95% CI, −15.5% to 19.8%]), unscheduled readmission (14.3% vs 15.7%; adjusted difference, −1.3% [95% CI, −26.3% to 23.7%]), median length of hospital stay (8 d in both groups; adjusted difference, 2.5 [95% CI, −0.9 to 5.8]), and kidney impairment (1% in both groups).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among older patients with acute heart failure, use of a guideline-based comprehensive care bundle in the ED compared with usual care did not result in a statistically significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital a...

Long-term β-blocker therapy decreases blood lactate concentration of severely ill septic patients at presentation. We conclude that the use of blood lactate measurement as a triage tool in the initial assessment of septic patients with β-blocker therapy may underestimate the severity of the sepsis.

We evaluate in this retrospective cohort, the clinical situations leading emergency physicians to take a blood lactate sample, the prevalence of hyperlactatemia and its impact on short-term adverse outcome. ED patients requiring a blood lactate measurement (BLM) during a two-year period were included. Early patients' outcomes were extracted and discharge diagnoses were classified into 12 diagnostic categories. A total of 118,737 patients were analyzed. A BLM was carried out in 13,089 of them. Surprisingly, the proportion of patients having a BLM was higher in those admitted for seizure (31.4%) than in those admitted for infection (27.9%). Ten percent of patients who had a blood lactate test had a lactate level >4 mmol/l (1,315). Among them, 23.2% were admitted for infections, 20% for seizures, and 11% for cardiovascular diseases. After excluding the patients older than 75 years from the analysis in order to prevent a selection bias, the patient's severity was independently associated to an age over 65 years (OR: 1.26), an arterial blood sampling (OR: 2.77) and the blood lactate level (OR: 1.31). The blood lactate level was very informative to detect the sicker patients in the infection group whereas its interest was poor in the group of patients admitted for seizures. In conclusion, blood lactate testing has become routine in emergency departments and a large proportion of patients have abnormal blood lactate levels. The most frequent causes of high blood lactate in the ED are infection and seizures but the prognostic value of blood lactate seems to be different from one diagnostic category to the other.

In patients with suspected infection presenting to the ED with a qSOFA of 2 or higher, the early change in qSOFA is a strong independent predictor of mortality.

No abstract