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.

The coronavirus disease , caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), emerged in Wuhan city and was declared a pandemic in March 2020. Although the virus is not restricted to the lung parenchyma, the use of chest imaging in COVID-19 can be especially useful for patients with moderate to severe symptoms or comorbidities. This article aimed to demonstrate the chest imaging findings of COVID-19 on different modalities: chest radiography, computed tomography, and ultrasonography. In addition, it intended to review recommendations on imaging assessment of COVID-19 and to discuss the use of a structured chest computed tomography report. Chest radiography, despite being a low-cost and easily available method, has low sensitivity for screening patients. It can be useful in monitoring hospitalized patients, especially for the evaluation of complications such as pneumothorax and pleural effusion. Chest computed tomography, despite being highly sensitive, has a low specificity, and hence cannot replace the reference diagnostic test (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction). To facilitate the confection and reduce the variability of radiological reports, some standardizations with structured reports have been proposed. Among the available classifications, it is possible to divide the radiological findings into typical, indeterminate, atypical, and negative findings. The structured report can also contain an estimate of the extent of lung involvement (e.g., more or less than 50% of the lung parenchyma). Pulmonary ultrasonography can also be an auxiliary method, especially for monitoring hospitalized patients in intensive care units, where transfer to a tomography scanner is difficult.

China was the epicenter for the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), which quickly spread to other Asian countries and later to Western countries; subsequently, COVID-19 was categorized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization. Diagnosis primarily depends on viral detection in respiratory samples; however, available kits are limited, lack high sensitivity, and have a long turnaround time for providing results. In this scenario, computed tomography has emerged as an efficient and available high-sensitivity method, allowing radiologists to readily recognize findings related to COVID-19. The objective of this article is to demonstrate the main tomographic findings in symptomatic respiratory patients with COVID-19 to assist medical professionals during this critical moment.

Introduction:Emergency medicine is an area in which correct decisions often need to be made fast, thus requiring a well-prepared medical team. There is little information regarding the profile of physicians working at emergency departments in Brazil. Objective: To describe general characteristics of training and motivation of physicians working in the emergency departments of medium and large hospitals in Salvador, Brazil. Method: A cross-sectional study with standardized interviews applied to physicians who work in emergency units in 25 medium and large hospitals in Salvador. At least 75% of the professionals at each hospital were interviewed. One hospital refused to participate in the study. Results: A total of 659 physicians were interviewed, with a median age of 34 years (interquartile interval: 29-44 years), 329 (49.9%) were female and 96 (14.6%) were medical residents working at off hours. The percentage of physicians who had been trained with Basic Life Support, Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support and Advanced Trauma Life Support courses was 5.2, 18.4 and 11.0%, respectively, with a greater frequency of Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support training among younger individuals (23.6% versus 13.9%; p<0.001). Thirteen percent said they were completely satisfied with the activity, while 81.3% expressed a desire to stop working in emergency units in the next 15 years, mentioning stress levels as the main reason. Conclusion: The physicians interviewed had taken few emergency immersion courses. A low motivational level was registered in physicians who work in the emergency departments of medium and large hospitals in Salvador.