No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundAcute patients presenting with hypotension in the prehospital or emergency department (ED) setting are in need of focused management and knowledge of the epidemiology characteristics might help the clinician. The aim of this review was to address prevalence, etiology and mortality of nontraumatic hypotension (SBP ≤ 90 mmHg) with or without the presence of shock in the prehospital and ED setting.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search up to August 2013, using Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Dare and The Cochrane Library. The analysis and eligibility criteria were documented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-guidelines) and The Cochrane Collaboration. No restrictions on language, publication date, or status were imposed. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS-scale) and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE-statement) to assess the quality.ResultsSix observational studies were considered eligible for analysis based on the evaluation of 11,880 identified papers. Prehospital prevalence of hypotension was 19.5/1000 emergency medicine service (EMS) contacts, and the prevalence of hypotensive shock was 9.5-19/1000 EMS contacts with an inhospital mortality of shock between 33 to 52%. ED prevalence of hypotension was 4-13/1000 contacts with a mortality of 12%. Information on mortality, prevalence and etiology of shock in the ED was limited. A meta-analysis was not feasible due to substantial heterogeneity between studies.ConclusionThere is inadequate evidence to establish concise estimates of the characteristics of nontraumatic hypotension and shock in the ED or in the prehospital setting. The available studies suggest that 2% of EMS contacts present with nontraumatic hypotension while 1-2% present with shock. The inhospital mortality of prehospital shock is 33-52%. Prevalence of hypotension in the ED is 1% with an inhospital mortality of 12%. Prevalence, etiology and mortality of shock in the ED are not well described.

Among adult ED patients, the prognostic value of lactate varies between diagnostic groups.

No abstract

IntroductionSystolic blood pressure is a widely used tool to assess circulatory function in acutely ill patients. The systolic blood pressure limit where a given patient should be considered hypotensive is the subject of debate and recent studies have advocated higher systolic blood pressure thresholds than the traditional 90 mmHg. The aim of this study was to identify the best performing systolic blood pressure thresholds with regards to predicting 7-day mortality and to evaluate the applicability of these in the emergency department as well as in the prehospital setting.MethodsA retrospective, hospital-based cohort study was performed at Odense University Hospital that included all adult patients in the emergency department between 1995 and 2011, all patients transported to the emergency department in ambulances in the period 2012 to 2013, and all patients serviced by the physician-staffed mobile emergency care unit (MECU) in Odense between 2007 and 2013. We used the first recorded systolic blood pressure and the main outcome was 7-day mortality. Best performing thresholds were identified with methods based on receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and multivariate regression. The performance of systolic blood pressure thresholds was evaluated with standard summary statistics for diagnostic tests.ResultsSeven-day mortality rates varied from 1.8 % (95 % CI (1.7, 1.9)) of 112,727 patients in the emergency department to 2.2 % (95 % CI (2.0, 2.5)) of 15,862 patients in the ambulance and 5.7 % (95 % CI (5.3, 6.2)) of 12,270 patients in the mobile emergency care units. Best performing thresholds ranged from 95 to 119 mmHg in the emergency department, 103 to 120 mmHg in the ambulance, and 101 to 115 mmHg in the MECU but area under the ROC curve indicated poor overall discriminatory performance of SBP thresholds in all cohorts.ConclusionsSystolic blood pressure alone is not sufficient to identify patients at risk regardless of the defined threshold for hypotension. If, however, a threshold is to be defined, a systolic blood pressure threshold of 100 to 110 mmHg is probably more relevant than the traditional 90 mmHg.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0884-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose: To examine the positive predictive value (PPV) of International Classification version 10 (ICD-10) diagnosis codes for Coronavirus disease 2019 . Patients and Methods: Medical record review of all patients assigned a diagnosis code of COVID-19 (DB342A or DB972A) at six Danish departments of infectious diseases from February 27 through May 4, 2020. Confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis was defined as either: 1) definite, a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on a respiratory sample combined with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19: 2) probable, clinical presentation of COVID-19 without detection of SARS-CoV-2 and no alternative diagnoses considered more likely; or 3) possible, clinical presentation of COVID-19 without detection of SARS-CoV-2, and the patient was discharged or deceased before further investigations were carried out. We computed the PPV with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the number of patients with confirmed (i.e., definite, probable, and possible) COVID-19 divided by the number of patients assigned a diagnosis code for COVID-19. Results:The study included 710 patients with a median age of 61 years (interquartile range [IQR] 47-74) and 285/710 (40%) were female. COVID-19 was confirmed in 706/710 (99%) with 705/710 (99%) categorized as definite, 1/710 (0.1%) as probable, and 0 patients as possible COVID-19. The diagnosis was disproven in 4/710 (0.6%) patients who were hospitalized due to bacterial pneumonia (n = 2), influenza (n = 1), and urinary tract infection (n = 1). The overall PPV for COVID-19 was 99% (95% CI 99-100) and remained consistently high among all subgroups including sex, age groups, calendar period, and stratified by diagnosis code and department of infectious diseases (range 97-100%). Conclusion:The overall PPV of diagnosis codes for COVID-19 in Denmark was high and may be suitable for future registry-based prognosis studies of COVID-19.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its associated disease coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is a worldwide emergency. Demographic, clinical and laboratory factors associated with mortality in Danish patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is limited.Methods: National health registries were used to identify all hospitalized patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis. We obtained demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and laboratory results on admission and explored prognostic factors for death using multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression and competing risk survival analysis.Results: Among 2,431 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 between February 27th and July 8th (median age 69 years [IQR 53–80], 54.1% males), 359 (14.8%) needed admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and 455 (18.7%) died within 30 days of follow-up. The seven-day cumulative incidence of ICU admission was lower for females (7.9%) than for males (16.7%), (p < 0.001). Age, high CCI, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, D-dimer, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), urea, creatinine, lymphopenia, neutrophilia, and thrombocytopenia within 24-hours of admission were independently associated with death within the first week in the multivariate analysis. Conditional upon surviving the first week, male sex, age, high CCI, elevated CRP, LDH, creatinine, urea and neutrophil count were associated with death within 30 days. Males presented with more pronounced laboratory abnormalities on admission. Conclusions: Advanced age, male sex, comorbidity, higher levels of systemic inflammation and cell-turnover were prognostic factors for mortality. Age was the strongest predictor for death, moderate to high level of comorbidity were associated with a nearly two-fold increase in mortality. Mortality was significantly higher for males after surviving the first week.