Spanish Investigators on Emergency Situations Team (SIESTA) Network * BACKGROUND: Recent reports of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 developing pneumothorax correspond mainly to case reports describing mechanically ventilated patients. The real incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcome of spontaneous pneumothorax (SP) as a form of COVID-19 presentation remain to be defined. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do the incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of SP in patients with COVID-19 attending EDs differ compared with COVID-19 patients without SP and non-COVID-19 patients with SP?STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This case-control study retrospectively reviewed all patients with COVID-19 diagnosed with SP (case group) in 61 Spanish EDs (20% of Spanish EDs) and compared them with two control groups: COVID-19 patients without SP and non-COVID-19 patients with SP. The relative frequencies of SP were estimated in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients in the ED, and annual standardized incidences were estimated for both populations. Comparisons between case subjects and control subjects included 52 clinical, analytical, and radiologic characteristics and four outcomes. RESULTS:We identified 40 occurrences of SP in 71,904 patients with COVID-19 attending EDs (0.56&; 95% CI, 0.40&-0.76&). This relative frequency was higher than that among non-COVID-19 patients (387 of 1,358,134, 0.28&; 95% CI, 0.26&-0.32&; OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.41-2.71). The standardized incidence of SP was also higher in patients with COVID-19 (34.2 vs 8.2/100,000/year; OR, 4.19; 95% CI, 3.64-4.81). Compared with COVID-19 patients without SP, COVID-19 patients developing SP more frequently had dyspnea and chest pain, low pulse oximetry readings, tachypnea, and increased leukocyte count. Compared with non-COVID-19 patients with SP, case subjects differed in 19 clinical variables, the most prominent being a higher frequency of dysgeusia/ anosmia, headache, diarrhea, fever, and lymphopenia (all with OR > 10). All the outcomes measured, including in-hospital death, were worse in case subjects than in both control groups.INTERPRETATION: SP as a form of COVID-19 presentation at the ED is unusual (< 1& cases) but is more frequent than in the non-COVID-19 population and could be associated with worse outcomes than SP in non-COVID-19 patients and COVID-19 patients without SP.

We diagnosed 11 Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) cases among 71,904 COVID patients attended at 61 Spanish emergency departments (EDs) during the 2‐month pandemic peak. The relative frequency of GBS among ED patients was higher in COVID (0.15‰) than non‐COVID (0.02‰) patients (odds ratio [OR] = 6.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.18–12.5), as was the standardized incidence (9.44 and 0.69 cases/100,000 inhabitant‐years, respectively, OR = 13.5, 95% CI = 9.87–18.4). Regarding clinical characteristics, olfactory–gustatory disorders were more frequent in COVID‐GBS than non‐COVID–GBS (OR = 27.59, 95% CI = 1.296–587) and COVID–non‐GBS (OR = 7.875, 95% CI = 1.587–39.09) patients. Although COVID‐GBS patients were more frequently admitted to intensive care, mortality was not increased versus control groups. Our results suggest SARS‐CoV‐2 could be another viral infection causing GBS. ANN NEUROL 2021;89:598–603

Echocardiography is increasingly recommended for the diagnosis and assessment of patients with severe cardiac disease, including acute heart failure. Although previously considered to be within the realm of cardiologists, the development of ultrasonography technology has led to the adoption of echocardiography by acute care clinicians across a range of specialties. Data from echocardiography and lung ultrasonography can be used to improve diagnostic accuracy, guide and monitor the response to interventions, and communicate important prognostic information in patients with acute heart failure. However, without the appropriate skills and a good understanding of ultrasonography, its wider application to the most acutely unwell patients can have substantial pitfalls. This Consensus Statement, prepared by the Acute Heart Failure Study Group of the ESC Acute Cardiovascular Care Association, reviews the existing and potential roles of echocardiography and lung ultrasonography in the assessment and management of patients with acute heart failure, highlighting the differences from established practice where relevant.

Aims We investigated the incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with COVID-19 attending emergency departments (EDs), before hospitalization. Methods and Results We retrospectively reviewed all COVID-19 patients diagnosed with PE in 62 Spanish EDs (20% of Spanish EDs, case group) during the first COVID-19 outbreak. COVID-19 patients without PE and non-COVID-19 patients with PE were included as control groups. Adjusted comparisons for baseline characteristics, acute episode characteristics, and outcomes were made between cases and randomly selected controls (1:1 ratio). We identified 368 PE in 74 814 patients with COVID-19 attending EDs (4.92‰). The standardized incidence of PE in the COVID-19 population resulted in 310 per 100 000 person-years, significantly higher than that observed in the non-COVID-19 population [35 per 100 000 person-years; odds ratio (OR) 8.95 for PE in the COVID-19 population, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.51–9.41]. Several characteristics in COVID-19 patients were independently associated with PE, the strongest being D-dimer &gt;1000 ng/mL, and chest pain (direct association) and chronic heart failure (inverse association). COVID-19 patients with PE differed from non-COVID-19 patients with PE in 16 characteristics, most directly related to COVID-19 infection; remarkably, D-dimer &gt;1000 ng/mL, leg swelling/pain, and PE risk factors were significantly less present. PE in COVID-19 patients affected smaller pulmonary arteries than in non-COVID-19 patients, although right ventricular dysfunction was similar in both groups. In-hospital mortality in cases (16.0%) was similar to COVID-19 patients without PE (16.6%; OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65–1.42; and 11.4% in a subgroup of COVID-19 patients with PE ruled out by scanner, OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.97–2.27), but higher than in non-COVID-19 patients with PE (6.5%; OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.66–4.51). Adjustment for differences in baseline and acute episode characteristics and sensitivity analysis reported very similar associations. Conclusions PE in COVID-19 patients at ED presentation is unusual (about 0.5%), but incidence is approximately ninefold higher than in the general (non-COVID-19) population. Moreover, risk factors and leg symptoms are less frequent, D-dimer increase is lower and emboli involve smaller pulmonary arteries. While PE probably does not increase the mortality of COVID-19 patients, mortality is higher in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients with PE.

In acute heart failure (AHF) syndromes significant respiratory failure (RF) is essentially seen in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPE) or cardiogenic shock (CS). Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), the application of positive intrathoracic pressure through an interface, has shown to be useful in the treatment of moderate to severe RF in several scenarios. There are two main modalities of NIV: continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and pressure support ventilation (NIPSV) with positive end expiratory pressure. Appropriate equipment and experience is needed for NIPSV, whereas CPAP may be administered without a ventilator, not requiring special training. Both modalities have shown to be effective in ACPE, by a reduction of respiratory distress and the endotracheal intubation rate compared to conventional oxygen therapy, but the impact on mortality is less conclusive. Non-invasive ventilation is also indicated in patients with AHF associated to pulmonary disease and may be considered, after haemodynamic stabilization, in some patients with CS. There are no differences in the outcomes in the studies comparing both techniques, but CPAP is a simpler technique that may be preferred in low-equipped areas like the pre-hospital setting, while NIPSV may be preferable in patients with significant hypercapnia. The new modality 'high-flow nasal cannula' seems promising in cases of AHF with less severe RF. The correct selection of patients and interfaces, early application of the technique, the achievement of a good synchrony between patients and the ventilator avoiding excessive leakage, close monitoring, proactive management, and in some cases mild sedation, may warrant the success of the technique.