Objectives: One of the defining features of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 infection has been high rates of venous thromboses. The present study aimed to describe the prevalence of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients receiving different regimens of prophylactic anticoagulation. Design: Single-center retrospective review using data from patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 requiring intubation. Setting: Tertiary-care center in Indianapolis, IN, United States. Patients: Patients hospitalized at international units Health Methodist Hospital with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 requiring intubation between March 23, 2020, and April 8, 2020, who underwent ultrasound evaluation for venous thrombosis. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 45 patients were included. Nineteen of 45 patients (42.2%) were found to have deep venous thrombosis. Patients found to have deep venous thrombosis had no difference in time to intubation (p = 0.97) but underwent ultrasound earlier in their hospital course (p = 0.02). Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were similar between the groups on day of intubation and day of ultrasound (p = 0.44 and p = 0.07, respectively). d-dimers were markedly higher in patients with deep venous thrombosis, both for maximum value and value on day of ultrasound (p < 0.01 for both). Choice of prophylactic regimen was not related to presence of deep venous thrombosis (p = 0.35). Ultrasound evaluation is recommended if d-dimer is greater than 2,000 ng/mL (sensitivity 95%, specificity 46%) and empiric anticoagulation considered if d-dimer is greater than 5,500 ng/mL (sensitivity 53%, specificity 88%). Conclusions: Deep venous thrombosis is very common in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019. There was no difference in incidence of deep venous thrombosis among different pharmacologic prophylaxis regimens, although our analysis is limited by small sample size. d-dimer values are elevated in the majority of these patients, but there may be thresholds at which screening ultrasound or even empiric systemic anticoagulation is indicated.

As SES increases, young athletes report higher degrees of sports specialization, greater participation in individual sports, and more serious overuse injuries.

Introduction: The rate of bacterial coinfection with SARS-CoV-2 is poorly defined.The decision to administer antibiotics early in the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection depends on the likelihood of bacterial coinfection.Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients admitted through the emergency department with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection over a 6-week period in a large healthcare system in the United States. Blood and respiratory culture results were abstracted and adjudicated by multiple authors. The primary outcome was the rate of bacteremia. We secondarily looked to define clinical or laboratory features associated with bacteremia.Results: There were 542 patients admitted with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an average age of 62.8 years. Of these, 395 had blood cultures performed upon admission, with six true positive results (1.1% of the total population). An additional 14 patients had positive respiratory cultures treated as true pathogens in the first 72 h. Low blood pressure and elevated white blood cell count, neutrophil count, blood urea nitrogen, and lactate were statistically significantly associated with bacteremia. Clinical outcomes were not statistically significantly different between patients with and without bacteremia. Conclusions:We found a low rate of bacteremia in patients admitted with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. In hemodynamically stable patients, routine antibiotics may not be warranted in this population.

Background: Patients with COVID-19 can present to the emergency department (ED) at any point during the spectrum of illness, making it difficult to predict what level of care the patient will ultimately require. Admission to a ward bed, which is subsequently upgraded within hours to an intensive care unit (ICU) bed, represents an inability to appropriately predict the patient's course of illness. Predicting which patients will require ICU care within 24 hours would allow admissions to be managed more appropriately.Methods: This was a retrospective study of adults admitted to a large health care system, including 14 hospitals across the state of Indiana. Included patients were aged ≥ 18 years, were admitted to the hospital from the ED, and had a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for COVID-19. Patients directly admitted to the ICU or in whom the PCR test was obtained > 3 days after hospital admission were excluded.Extracted data points included demographics, comorbidities, ED vital signs, laboratory values, chest imaging results, and level of care on admission. The primary outcome was a combination of either death or transfer to ICU within 24 hours of admission to the hospital. Data analysis was performed by logistic regression modeling to determine a multivariable model of variables that could predict the primary outcome.Results: Of the 542 included patients, 46 (10%) required transfer to ICU within 24 hours of admission. The final composite model, adjusted for age and admission location, included history of heart failure and initial oxygen saturation of <93% plus either white blood cell count > 6.4 or glomerular filtration rate < 46. The odds ratio (OR) for decompensation within 24 hours was 5.17 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.17 to 12.31) when all criteria were present. For patients without the above criteria, the OR for ICU transfer was 0.20 (95% CI = 0.09 to 0.45).Conclusions: Although our model did not perform well enough to stand alone as a decision guide, it highlights certain clinical features that are associated with increased risk of decompensation.

BackgroundElderly patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with nonspecific complaints (NSCs) often undergo troponin testing to assess for atypical acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, the rate of ACS and utility of troponin testing in this population is unknown. We sought to determine the rate of ACS and diagnostic yield of troponin testing in elderly patients with NSCs.MethodsWe retrospectively identified all patients aged ≥ 65 years triaged in the ED with NSCs from January 1, 2017, to June 30, 2017. NSCs were defined a priori and included complaints such as weakness, dizziness, or fatigue. NSCs were verified in ED provider notes by trained abstractors blind to testing results. Exclusions were focal chief complaint in provider notes, fever, and no troponin ordered. ACS was strictly defined and independently adjudicated by two trained physician researchers blind to the study hypothesis. We calculated the proportion of patients with ACS within 30 days and the test characteristics of troponin to diagnose ACS.ResultsScreening identified 1,146 encounters, and 552 were excluded for fever or focal chief complaints in the provider notes. Of the remaining 594 patients, troponin was ordered in 412 (69%), comprising the study cohort. The mean (±SD) age was 78.7 (±8.3) years, with 58% female and 75% admitted. Troponin elevation occurred in 81 patients (20%). ACS occurred in 5 of 412 (1.2%). Troponin was 100% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI] = 48% to 100%) and 81% specific (95% CI = 77% to 85%) for ACS. Of patients with elevated troponin, 93.8% were false positives (no ACS). All patients with troponin elevation were admitted, but only one underwent angiography and no patients received reperfusion therapy.ConclusionsWhile consideration for ACS is prudent in selected elderly patients with NSCs, ACS was rare and no patients received reperfusion therapy. Given the false‐positive rate in our study, our results may not support routine troponin testing for ACS in this population.