BackgroundThe recently published 4-level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score (4PEPS) integrates different aspects from currently available diagnostic strategies to further reduce imaging... Show moreBackgroundThe recently published 4-level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score (4PEPS) integrates different aspects from currently available diagnostic strategies to further reduce imaging testing in patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism (PE).AimTo externally validate the performance of 4PEPS in an independent cohort.MethodsIn this post-hoc analysis of the prospective diagnostic management YEARS study, the primary outcome measures were discrimination, calibration, efficiency (proportion of imaging tests potentially avoided), and failure rate (venous thromboembolism (VTE) diagnosis at baseline or follow-up in patients with a negative 4PEPS algorithm). Multiple imputation was used for missing 4PEPS items. Based on 4PEPS, PE was considered ruled out in patients with a very low clinical pre-test probability (CPTP) without D-dimer testing, in patients with a low CPTP and D-dimer <1000 μg/L, and in patients with a moderate CPP and D-dimer below the age-adjusted threshold.ResultsOf the 3465 patients, 474 (14 %) were diagnosed with VTE at baseline or during 3-month follow-up. Discriminatory performance of the 4PEPS items was good (area under ROC-curve, 0.82; 95%CI, 0.80–0.84) as was calibration. Based on 4PEPS, PE could be considered ruled out without imaging in 58 % (95%CI 57–60) of patients (efficiency), for an overall failure rate of 1.3 % (95%CI 0.86–1.9).ConclusionIn this retrospective external validation, 4PEPS appeared to safely rule out PE with a high efficiency. Nevertheless, although not exceeding the failure rate margin by ISTH standards, the observed failure rate in our analysis appeared to be higher than in the original 4PEPS derivation and validation study. This highlights the importance of a prospective outcome study. Show less
BackgroundSince the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, studies have been reporting inconsistently on migration background as a risk factor for COVID-19 outcomes. The aim of this study was to... Show moreBackgroundSince the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, studies have been reporting inconsistently on migration background as a risk factor for COVID-19 outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between migration background and clinical outcomes with COVID-19 in the Netherlands. MethodsThis cohort study included 2,229 adult COVID-19 patients admitted in two Dutch hospitals between February 27, 2020 and March 31, 2021. Odds ratios (ORs) for hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for non-Western (Moroccan, Turkish, Surinamese or other) persons as compared with Western persons in the general population of the province of Utrecht (the Netherlands) as source population. Furthermore, among hospitalized patients, Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs for in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission were calculated using Cox proportional hazard analyses. Hazard ratios were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, Charlson Comorbidity Index, chronic corticosteroid use before admission, income, education and population density to investigate explanatory variables. ResultsOf the 2,229 subjects, 1,707 were of Western origin and 522 were of non-Western origin. There were 313 in-hospital deaths and 503 ICU admissions. As compared with persons with a Western origin in the general population of the province of Utrecht, the ORs for non-Western persons was 1.8 (95% CI 1.7-2.0) for hospitalization, 2.1 (95% CI 1.7-2.5) for ICU admission and 1.3 (95% CI 1.0-1.7) for mortality. Among hospitalized patients, HR for ICU admission was 1.1 (95% CI 0.9-1.4) and 0.9 (95% CI 0.7-1.3) for mortality for non-Western hospitalized persons as compared with hospitalized patients of Western origin after adjustment. ConclusionNon-Western persons, including Moroccan, Turkish and Surinamese subjects, had increased risks of hospital admission, ICU admission and COVID-19 related death on a population level. Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, no association was found between migration background and ICU admission or mortality. Show less
Objectives The COVID-19 pandemic pressurised healthcare with increased shortage of care. This resulted in an increase of awareness for code status documentation (ie, whether limitations to specific... Show moreObjectives The COVID-19 pandemic pressurised healthcare with increased shortage of care. This resulted in an increase of awareness for code status documentation (ie, whether limitations to specific life-sustaining treatments are in place), both in the medical field and in public media. However, it is unknown whether the increased awareness changed the prevalence and content of code status documentation for COVID-19 patients. We aim to describe differences in code status documentation between infectious patients before the pandemic and COVID-19 patients. Setting University Medical Centre of Utrecht, a tertiary care teaching academic hospital in the Netherlands. Participants A total of 1715 patients were included, 129 in the COVID-19 cohort (a cohort of COVID-19 patients, admitted from March 2020 to June 2020) and 1586 in the pre-COVID-19 cohort (a cohort of patients with (suspected) infections admitted between September 2016 to September 2018). Primary and secondary outcome measures We described frequency of code status documentation, frequency of discussion of this code status with patient and/or family, and content of code status. Results Frequencies of code status documentation (69.8% vs 72.7%, respectively) and discussion (75.6% vs 73.3%, respectively) were similar in both cohorts. More patients in the COVID-19 cohort than in the before COVID-19 cohort had any treatment limitation as opposed to full code (40% vs 25%). Within the treatment limitations, 'no intensive care admission' (81% vs 51%) and 'no intubation' (69% vs 40%) were more frequently documented in the COVID-19 cohort. A smaller difference was seen in 'other limitation' (17% vs 9%), while 'no resuscitation' (96% vs 92%) was comparable between both periods. Conclusion We observed no difference in the frequency of code status documentation or discussion in COVID-19 patients opposed to a pre-COVID-19 cohort. However, treatment limitations were more prevalent in patients with COVID-19, especially 'no intubation' and 'no intensive care admission'. Show less
Hornung, P.; Khairoun, M.; Dekker, F.W.; Kaasjager, K.A.H.; Huisman, A.; Jakulj, L.; ... ; Ocak, G. 2020
BackgroundTo prevent bio-accumulation of low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) in patients with decreased kidney function, dosage reduction and anti-Xa monitoring has been suggested. The aim of... Show moreBackgroundTo prevent bio-accumulation of low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) in patients with decreased kidney function, dosage reduction and anti-Xa monitoring has been suggested. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of pre-emptive dosage reduction of LMWH on anti-Xa levels. Furthermore, we investigated the association between anti-Xa levels and bleeding, thrombotic events and mortality.MethodsIn this single center study, we followed 499 patients with decreased renal function in whom anti-Xa levels were measured. We observed how many patients had anti-Xa levels that fell within the reference range, with a standard protocol of a pre-emptive dosage reduction of LMWH (25% reduction in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between 30 and 60 ml/min/1.73m(2) and a reduction of 50% in patients with an eGFR below the 30 ml/min/1.73m(2)). Furthermore, Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to estimate hazard ratios to investigate the association between anti-Xa levels and major bleeding, thrombotic events and mortality within three months of follow-up.ResultsIn a cohort of 499 patients (445 dalteparin and 54 nadroparin users), a pre-emptive dosage reduction of LMWH led to adequate levels of anti-Xa in only 19% of the patients (12% for the dalteparin users and 50% for nadroparin users). We did not find an association between anti-Xa levels and bleeding, thrombosis or mortality.ConclusionPre-emptive dosage reduction of LMWH leads to low anti-Xa levels in a large proportion, but this was not associated with bleeding, thrombosis or mortality. Show less
Hulle, T. van der; Cheung, W.Y.; Kooij, S.; Beenen, L.F.M.; Bemmel, T. van; Es, J. van; ... ; YEARS Study Grp 2017
