Background and importanceCurrent guidelines for patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (non-STEMI) on electrocardiogram are based on troponin measurement. The HEART score is reportedly a reliable work-up strategy that combines clinical evaluation with troponin value. A clinical rule that could select very low-risk patients without the need for a blood test (HEAR score, being the HEART score without the troponin item) would be of great interest.Objectives To prospectively assess the safety of a HEAR score <2 to rule-out non-STEMI without troponin measurement. Secondary objective was to assess the safety of a sequential strategy that combines HEAR score and HEART (defined as two-step HEART strategy). Design, settings and participantsProspective observational study in six emergency departments. Patients with nontraumatic chest pain and no alternative diagnosis were included and followed up for 45 day. Patients were considered at low-risk if the HEAR score was <2 or, for the two-step HEART strategy, if the HEART score was <4. Outcomes measure and analysisThe primary endpoint was the 45-day rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients with a HEAR score <2. A HEAR score based strategy was consider safe if the rate of the primary endpoint was below 1%, with an upper margin of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below 3%. ResultsAmong 1452 patients included, 1402 were analyzed and 97 (7%) had a MACE during the follow-up period. The HEAR score was <2 in 279 (20%) patients and one presented a MACE [0.4% (95% CI: 0.01-1.98)]. The two-step HEART strategy classified low-risk an additional 476 patients (34%) and one of these 476 patients had a MACE [0.3% (95% CI: 0.03-0.95)]. The two-step HEART strategy would have theoretically avoided 360 troponin measurements (19%). ConclusionsIn our prospective multicenter study, a HEAR based work-up strategy was safe, with a very low risk of MACE at 45 day. We also report that a twostep HEART-based strategy may safely allow significant reduction of troponin measurements in patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain. European

Background The HOME-CoV rule is a checklist of eligibility criteria for home treatment of patients with COVID-19, defined using a Delphi method. Research Question Is the HOME-CoV rule reliable for identifying a subgroup of COVID-19 patients with a low risk of adverse outcomes who can be safely treated at home? Study Design and Methods We aimed to validate the HOME-CoV rule in a prospective multicenter study before and after trial on patients with probable or confirmed COVID-19 who presented at the emergency departments (ED) of 34 hospitals. The main outcome was an adverse evolution, i.e., invasive ventilation or death, occurred within the 7 days following the patients’ admission. The performance of the rule was assessed by the false negative rate. The impact of the rule implementation was assessed by the absolute differences in the rate of patients who required invasive ventilation or who died and in the rate of patients treated at home, between an observational and an interventional period after implementation of the HOME-CoV rule, with propensity score adjustment. Results Among 3000 prospectively enrolled patients, 1239 (41.3%) had a negative HOME-CoV rule. The false negative rate of the HOME-CoV rule and its AUC were 4/1239: 0.32% (95%CI: 0.13 to 0.84%) and 80.9 (95%CI: 76.5 to 85.2), respectively. On the adjusted populations, 25/1274 (1.95%) patients experienced an adverse evolution during the observational period versus 12/1274 (0.95%) during the interventional period: -1.00 (95%CI: -1.86 to -0.15). During the observational period, 858 (67.35%) patients were treated at home versus 871 (68.37%) patients during the interventional period: -1.02 (95%CI -4.46 to 2.26). Interpretation A large proportion of ED patients with probable or confirmed COVID-19 have a negative HOME-CoV rule and can be safely treated at home with a very low risk of complication.

No abstract

Introduction D-dimer testing allows to safely rule out pulmonary embolism (PE) without imaging test in approximately one third of outpatients. However, D-Dimer test is less useful as age increases because of a lower specificity. We recently derived an age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off value (age-adjusted cut-off = patient’s age x 10 in patients aged > 50 years, in μg/L), which allowed to significantly increase the proportion of patients in whom PE could be non-invasively excluded, without compromising safety. However, before being implemented in clinical practice, the safety of the age-adjusted cut-off should be verified in a management outcome study. Methods We designed a multicentre multinational prospective management outcome study. All consecutive outpatients seen in the emergency room of 22 centres in 4 countries with clinically suspected PE were assessed by a sequential diagnostic strategy based on the assessment of clinical probability, D-dimer measurement and computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Patients with a D-dimer value between the usual threshold of 500 μg/L and their age-adjusted cut-off did not undergo CTPA and were left untreated and formally followed for a three-month period. Results Between January 1, 2010 and February 28, 2013, we included 3,377 patients. Mean age was 62 years, and 57% were females. Overall, the proportion of confirmed PE was 18%.  Among the 2,927 patients with a non-high clinical probability, 832 (28.4%) had a D-Dimer < 500 μg/L, and 345 additional patients (11.8%) had a D-Dimer comprised between 500 μg/L and their age-adjusted cut-off. During the 3-month follow-up period, out of the 345 patients with a D-Dimer between 500 μg/L and their age-adjusted cut-off, 18 patients received anticoagulation for another indication than PE. Of the remaining 327 patients, 7 died, and 7 underwent testing for suspected venous thromboembolism (VTE), of which one was confirmed. Therefore, the failure rate of the age-adjusted cut-off was 1/327: 0.3%, (95% CI 0.1 to 1.7%). Overall, 789 patients were aged 75 years or more, of them 697 had a non-high clinical probability. The proportion of patients with D-Dimer < 500 μg/L was 50/697 (7.2%). Another 161 patients had a D-Dimer above 500 μg/L and under their age-adjusted cut-off. Therefore, the proportion of patients > 75 with a negative D-Dimer using the age-adjusted cut-off was 211/697 (30.3%), of them none had a confirmed VTE during follow-up: 0.0%, (95%CI: 0.0 to 1.9%). Conclusions Our study demonstrates that the age-adjusted D-Dimer cut-off may now be used in clinical practice in emergency room patients with suspected PE. Combined with clinical probability, it increases the number of patients in whom PE can be excluded without imaging test, and this is particularly true among elderly patients, with a four-fold increased yield of D-dimer. A D-Dimer above 500 μg/L but under the age-adjusted cut-off safely excludes the diagnosis of PE, with a 3-month risk of VTE in line with that observed in patients with a D-Dimer under 500 μg/L or after a negative pulmonary angiography, the gold-standard test for PE. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.