No abstract

No abstract

Background The clinical presentation of COVID-19 in patients admitted to hospital is heterogeneous. We aimed to determine whether clinical phenotypes of patients with COVID-19 can be derived from clinical data, to assess the reproducibility of these phenotypes and correlation with prognosis, and to derive and validate a simplified probabilistic model for phenotype assignment. Phenotype identification was not primarily intended as a predictive tool for mortality. MethodsIn this study, we used data from two cohorts: the COVID-19@Spain cohort, a retrospective cohort including 4035 consecutive adult patients admitted to 127 hospitals in Spain with COVID-19 between Feb 2 and March 17, 2020, and the COVID-19@HULP cohort, including 2226 consecutive adult patients admitted to a teaching hospital in Madrid between Feb 25 and April 19, 2020. The COVID-19@Spain cohort was divided into a derivation cohort, comprising 2667 randomly selected patients, and an internal validation cohort, comprising the remaining 1368 patients. The COVID-19@HULP cohort was used as an external validation cohort. A probabilistic model for phenotype assignment was derived in the derivation cohort using multinomial logistic regression and validated in the internal validation cohort. The model was also applied to the external validation cohort. 30-day mortality and other prognostic variables were assessed in the derived phenotypes and in the phenotypes assigned by the probabilistic model. Findings Three distinct phenotypes were derived in the derivation cohort (n=2667)-phenotype A (516 [19%] patients), phenotype B (1955 [73%]) and phenotype C (196 [7%])-and reproduced in the internal validation cohort (n=1368)phenotype A (233 [17%] patients), phenotype B (1019 [74%]), and phenotype C (116 [8%]). Patients with phenotype A were younger, were less frequently male, had mild viral symptoms, and had normal inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype B included more patients with obesity, lymphocytopenia, and moderately elevated inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype C included older patients with more comorbidities and even higher inflammatory parameters than phenotype B. We developed a simplified probabilistic model (validated in the internal validation cohort) for phenotype assignment, including 16 variables. In the derivation cohort, 30-day mortality rates were 2•5% (95% CI 1•4-4•3) for patients with phenotype A, 30•5% (28•5-32•6) for patients with phenotype B, and 60•7% (53•7-67•2) for patients with phenotype C (log-rank test p<0•0001). The predicted phenotypes in the internal validation cohort and external validation cohort showed similar mortality rates to the assigned phenotypes (internal validation cohort: 5•3% [95% CI 3•4-8•1] for phenotype A, 31•3% [28•5-34•2] for phenotype B, and 59•5% [48•8-69•3] for phenotype C; external validation cohort: 3•7% [2•0-6•4] for phenotype A, 23•7% [21•8-25•7] for phenotype B, and 51•4% [41•9-60•7] for phenotype C).Interpretation Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 can be classified into three...

This position paper provides a comprehensive guide for optimal follow-up of patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), covering multiple relevant aspects of patient counselling. It serves as a practical guide to treating patients with acute PE complementary to the formal 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines developed with the European Respiratory Society. We propose a holistic approach considering the whole spectrum of serious adverse events that patients with acute PE may encounter on the short and long run. We underline the relevance of assessment of modifiable risk factors for bleeding, of acquired thrombophilia and limited cancer screening (unprovoked PE) as well as a dedicated surveillance for the potential development of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension as part of routine practice; routine testing for genetic thrombophilia should be avoided. We advocate the use of outcome measures for functional outcome and quality of life to quantify the impact of the PE diagnosis and identify patients with the post-PE syndrome early. Counselling patients on maintaining a healthy lifestyle mitigates the risk of the post-PE syndrome and improves cardiovascular prognosis. Therefore, we consider it important to discuss when and how to resume sporting activities soon after diagnosing PE. Additional patient-relevant topics that require Focused counselling are travel and birth control.

Introduction Some local protocols suggest using intermediate or therapeutic doses of anticoagulants for thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). However, the incidence of bleeding, predictors of major bleeding, or the association between bleeding and mortality remain largely unknown. Methods We performed a cohort study of patients hospitalized for COVID‐19 that received intermediate or therapeutic doses of anticoagulants from March 25 to July 22, 2020, to identify those at increased risk for major bleeding. We used bivariate and multivariable logistic regression to explore the risk factors associated with major bleeding. Results During the study period, 1965 patients were enrolled. Of them, 1347 (69%) received intermediate‐ and 618 (31%) therapeutic‐dose anticoagulation, with a median duration of 12 days in both groups. During the hospital stay, 112 patients (5.7%) developed major bleeding and 132 (6.7%) had non‐major bleeding. The 30‐day all‐cause mortality rate for major bleeding was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 36%‐54%) and for non‐major bleeding 32% (95% CI: 24%‐40%). Multivariable analysis showed increased risk for in‐hospital major bleeding associated with D‐dimer levels >10 times the upper normal range (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; 95% CI, 1.38–3.59), ferritin levels >500 ng/ml (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.02–3.95), critical illness (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.14–3.18), and therapeutic‐intensity anticoagulation (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01–1.97). Conclusions Among patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 receiving intermediate‐ or therapeutic‐intensity anticoagulation, a major bleeding event occurred in 5.7%. Use of therapeutic‐intensity anticoagulation, critical illness, and elevated D‐dimer or ferritin levels at admission were associated with increased risk for major bleeding.

La infección por SARS-CoV-2 puede favorecer el desarrollo de diversas secuelas respiratorias, sobre todo en los pacientes que han sufrido una neumonía grave por COVID-19. Dado el elevado número de pacientes que sufrieron esta infección en un corto periodo de tiempo, se están llevando a cabo numerosas visitas de control post-COVID-19 sin que se haya establecido un protocolo de seguimiento clínico que aconseje sobre las pruebas complementarias a realizar y la frecuencia de las mismas. Este documento de consenso realizado por profesionales de distintas áreas de la Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (SEPAR), pretende ayudar al profesional clínico a la identificación de las posibles complicaciones respiratorias que pueden aparecen durante los meses posteriores al cuadro agudo de la enfermedad y a protocolizar su seguimiento y las pruebas complementarias a realizar. Se sugieren las exploraciones e intervenciones a realizar en diversos momentos de la evolución post-COVID-19, con unos objetivos concretos. Por un lado, garantizar que los pacientes reciban un seguimiento clínico oportuno, con un cronograma preestablecido teniendo en cuenta la gravedad de la enfermedad y la probabilidad de secuelas a largo plazo; por otro lado, evitar sobrecargas del sistema sanitario llevando a cabo exploraciones y/o consultas en muchos casos innecesarias; por último, definir criterios para derivar a aquellos pacientes con determinadas secuelas específicas establecidas (enfermedad pulmonar intersticial, enfermedad vascular pulmonar o bronquiectasias) a las unidades monográficas correspondientes.

Background Improved imaging techniques have increased the incidence of subsegmental pulmonary embolism (ssPE). Indirect evidence is suggesting that ssPE may represent a more benign presentation of venous thromboembolism not necessarily requiring anticoagulant treatment. However, correctly diagnosing ssPE is challenging with reported low interobserver agreement, partly due to the lack of widely accepted diagnostic criteria. Objectives We sought to derive uniform diagnostic criteria for ssPE, guided by expert consensus. Methods Based on an extensive literature review and expert opinion of a Delphi steering committee, two surveys including statements regarding diagnostic criteria and management options for ssPE were established. These surveys were conducted electronically among two panels, respectively: expert thoracic radiologists and clinical venous thromboembolism specialists. The Delphi method was used to achieve consensus after multiple survey rounds. Consensus was defined as a level of agreement >70%. Results Twenty‐nine of 40 invited radiologists (73%) and 40 of 51 clinicians (78%) participated. Following two survey rounds by the expert radiologists, consensus was achieved on 15 of 16 statements, including on the established diagnostic criteria for ssPE (96% agreement): a contrast defect in a subsegmental artery, that is, the first arterial branch division of any segmental artery independent of artery diameter, visible in at least two subsequent axial slices, using a computed tomography scanner with a desired maximum collimator width of ≤1 mm. These criteria were approved by 83% of the clinical venous thromboembolism (VTE) specialists. The clinical expert panel favored anticoagulant treatment in case of prior VTE, antiphospholipid syndrome, pregnancy, cancer, and proximal deep vein thrombosis. Conclusion The results of this analysis provide standard radiological criteria for ssPE that may be applicable in both clinical trials and practice.

Background Most recent trials evaluating extensive screening strategies for occult cancer in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism have failed, because, among other reasons, of an overall low rate of occult cancer. The RIETE investigators recently proposed a score aimed at identifying a subgroup at higher risk. Methods We retrospectively computed the RIETE score for all patients included in the MVTEP study, which evaluated the accuracy of [¹⁸F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in the screening of occult cancer in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism. Performance of the RIETE score was assessed according to the proportion of patients classified in each risk group, and the corresponding rates of cancer diagnosis. Results Among the 386 patients included in the analysis, 136 patients (35.3%) were classified as high risk by the RIETE score. Cancer was diagnosed in 16 (11.8%) of them, whereas it was diagnosed in nine (3.6%) of the 250 patients with a low RIETE cancer score: odds ratio of 3.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53-8.32). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.63 (95% CI 0.51-0.74). Conclusion The RIETE score seems to be able to identify a subgroup at high risk for cancer (10%) in our specific dataset of patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism.