Risk for Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Subsegmental Pulmonary Embolism Managed Without Anticoagulation: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 1

Background: The incidence of pulmonary embolism has been increasing, but its case-fatality rate is decreasing, suggesting a lesser severity of illness. The clinical importance of patients with pulmonary embolism isolated to the subsegmental vessels is unknown. Objective: To determine the rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism managed without anticoagulation. Design: Multicenter prospective cohort study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01455818) Setting: Eighteen sites between February 2011 and February 2021. Patients: Patients with isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism. Intervention: At diagnosis, patients underwent bilateral lower-extremity venous ultrasonography, which was repeated 1 week later if results were negative. Patients without deep venous thrombosis did not receive anticoagulant therapy. Measurements: The primary outcome was recurrent venous thromboembolism during the 90-day follow-up period. Results: Recruitment was stopped prematurely because the predefined stopping rule was met after 292 of a projected 300 patients were enrolled. Of the 266 patients included in the primary analysis, the primary outcome occurred in 8 patients, for a cumulative incidence of 3.1% (95% CI, 1.6% to 6.1%) over the 90-day follow-up. The incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism was 2.1% (CI, 0.8% to 5.5%) and 5.7% (CI, 2.2% to 14.4%) over the 90-day follow-up in patients with single and multiple isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism, respectively. No patients had a fatal recurrent pulmonary embolism. Limitation: The study was restricted to patients with low-risk subsegmental pulmonary embolism. Conclusion: Overall, patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism who did not have proximal deep venous thrombosis had a higher-than-expected rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism. Primary Funding Source: Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and French Ministry of Health Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique.

Pandemic Response Requires Research Samples: A U.S. Safety-Net Hospital's Experience and Call for National Action

Biorepositories provide a critical resource for gaining knowledge of emerging infectious diseases and offer a mechanism to rapidly respond to outbreaks; the emergence of the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, has proved their importance. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the absence of centralized, national biorepository efforts meant that the onus fell on individual institutions to establish sample repositories. As a safety-net hospital, Boston Medical Center (BMC) recognized the importance of creating a COVID-19 biorepository to both support critical science at BMC and ensure representation in research for its urban patient population, most of whom are from underserved communities. This article offers a realistic overview of the authors' experience in establishing this biorepository at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic during the height of the first surge of cases in Boston, Massachusetts, with the hope that the challenges and solutions described are useful to other institutions. Going forward, funders, policymakers, and infectious disease and public health communities must support biorepository implementation as an essential element of future pandemic preparedness.

Accuracy of Ultrasound Jugular Venous Pressure Height in Predicting Central Venous Congestion

Background: Assessment of volume status through the estimation of central venous pressure (CVP) is integral in the care of heart failure (HF). Bedside assessment is limited by obesity, variation in physical examination skills, and expertise in ultrasonography. Objective: To validate the accuracy of quantitative and qualitative point-of-care ultrasonography assessment of jugular venous pressure (JVP) in predicting elevated CVP. Design: Prospective observational study using convenience sampling. Setting: 2 U.S. academic hospitals. Patients: Adult patients undergoing right heart catheterization between 5 February 2019 and 1 March 2021. Measurements: Estimation of the JVP height by handheld ultrasound device (uJVP), JVP by traditional physical examination, and qualitative presence of a distended uJVP in the upright position (upright-uJVP) was done before invasive measurements. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis of the uJVP was compared with invasive hemodynamics. Results: In 100 participants undergoing right heart catheterization for HF indications (mean age, 59.6 years; 44% with preserved ejection fraction), the uJVP in a reclined position accurately predicted elevated right atrial pressure (RAP) (>10 mm Hg), with an area under the curve of 0.84. A positive uJVP in the upright position was 94.6% specific for predicting elevated RAP. Limitation: Limited examiners, only 2 centers, and convenience sampling. Conclusion: Point-of-care ultrasonography assessment of the uJVP is feasible, reproducible, and accurately predictive of elevated CVPs in patients undergoing right heart catheterization. Further investigation of clinical application of ultrasound-measured JVP seems warranted. Primary Funding Source: None.

Current Insights Into Respiratory Virus Transmission and Potential Implications for Infection Control Programs: A Narrative Review: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 174, No 12

Policies to prevent respiratory virus transmission in health care settings have traditionally divided organisms into Droplet versus Airborne categories. Droplet organisms (for example, influenza) are said to be transmitted via large respiratory secretions that rapidly fall to the ground within 1 to 2 meters and are adequately blocked by surgical masks. Airborne pathogens (for example, measles), by contrast, are transmitted by aerosols that are small enough and light enough to carry beyond 2 meters and to penetrate the gaps between masks and faces; health care workers are advised to wear N95 respirators and to place these patients in negative-pressure rooms. Respirators and negative-pressure rooms are also recommended when caring for patients with influenza or SARS-CoV-2 who are undergoing “aerosol-generating procedures,” such as intubation. An increasing body of evidence, however, questions this framework. People routinely emit respiratory particles in a range of sizes, but most are aerosols, and most procedures do not generate meaningfully more aerosols than ordinary breathing, and far fewer than coughing, exercise, or labored breathing. Most transmission nonetheless occurs at close range because virus-laden aerosols are most concentrated at the source; they then diffuse and dilute with distance, making long-distance transmission rare in well-ventilated spaces. The primary risk factors for nosocomial transmission are community incidence rates, viral load, symptoms, proximity, duration of exposure, and poor ventilation. Failure to appreciate these factors may lead to underappreciation of some risks (for example, overestimation of the protection provided by medical masks, insufficient attention to ventilation) or misallocation of limited resources (for example, reserving N95 respirators and negative-pressure rooms only for aerosol-generating procedures or requiring negative-pressure rooms for all patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection regardless of stage of illness). Enhanced understanding of the factors governing respiratory pathogen transmission may inform the development of more effective policies to prevent nosocomial transmission of respiratory pathogens.

Colonoscopy for Diagnostic Evaluation and Interventions to Prevent Recurrence After Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

Description: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the role of colonoscopy for diagnostic evaluation of colorectal cancer (CRC) after a presumed diagnosis of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis and on the role of pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and elective surgical interventions to prevent recurrence after initial treatment of acute complicated and uncomplicated left-sided colonic diverticulitis. This guideline is based on the current best available evidence about benefits and harms, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences. Methods: The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) based these recommendations on a systematic review on the role of colonoscopy after acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis and pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and elective surgical interventions after initial treatment. The systematic review evaluated outcomes rated by the CGC as critical or important. This guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adults with recent episodes of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis. Recommendation 1: ACP suggests that clinicians refer patients for a colonoscopy after an initial episode of complicated left-sided colonic diverticulitis in patients who have not had recent colonoscopy (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). Recommendation 2: ACP recommends against clinicians using mesalamine to prevent recurrent diverticulitis (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence). Recommendation 3: ACP suggests that clinicians discuss elective surgery to prevent recurrent diverticulitis after initial treatment in patients who have either uncomplicated diverticulitis that is persistent or recurs frequently or complicated diverticulitis (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). The informed decision whether or not to undergo surgery should be personalized based on a discussion of potential benefits, harms, costs, and patient's preferences.

Safety and Efficiency of Diagnostic Strategies for Ruling Out Pulmonary Embolism in Clinically Relevant Patient Subgroups: A Systematic Review and Individual-Patient Data Meta-analysis: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 2

Background: How diagnostic strategies for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) perform in relevant patient subgroups defined by sex, age, cancer, and previous venous thromboembolism (VTE) is unknown. Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficiency of the Wells and revised Geneva scores combined with fixed and adapted D-dimer thresholds, as well as the YEARS algorithm, for ruling out acute PE in these subgroups. Data Sources: MEDLINE from 1 January 1995 until 1 January 2021. Study Selection: 16 studies assessing at least 1 diagnostic strategy. Data Extraction: Individual-patient data from 20 553 patients. Data Synthesis: Safety was defined as the diagnostic failure rate (the predicted 3-month VTE incidence after exclusion of PE without imaging at baseline). Efficiency was defined as the proportion of individuals classified by the strategy as “PE considered excluded” without imaging tests. Across all strategies, efficiency was highest in patients younger than 40 years (47% to 68%) and lowest in patients aged 80 years or older (6.0% to 23%) or patients with cancer (9.6% to 26%). However, efficiency improved considerably in these subgroups when pretest probability–dependent D-dimer thresholds were applied. Predicted failure rates were highest for strategies with adapted D-dimer thresholds, with failure rates varying between 2% and 4% in the predefined patient subgroups. Limitations: Between-study differences in scoring predictor items and D-dimer assays, as well as the presence of differential verification bias, in particular for classifying fatal events and subsegmental PE cases, all of which may have led to an overestimation of the predicted failure rates of adapted D-dimer thresholds. Conclusion: Overall, all strategies showed acceptable safety, with pretest probability–dependent D-dimer thresholds having not only the highest efficiency but also the highest predicted failure rate. From an efficiency perspective, this individual-patient data meta-analysis supports application of adapted D-dimer thresholds. Primary Funding Source: Dutch Research Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018089366)

Contribution of Individual- and Neighborhood-Level Social, Demographic, and Health Factors to COVID-19 Hospitalization Outcomes

Background: Although disparities in COVID-19 outcomes have been observed, factors contributing to these differences are not well understood. Objective: To determine whether COVID-19 hospitalization outcomes are related to neighborhood-level social vulnerability, independent of patient-level clinical factors. Design: Pooled cross-sectional study of prospectively collected data. Setting: 38 Michigan hospitals. Patients: Adults older than 18 years hospitalized for COVID-19 in a participating site between March and December 2020. Measurements: COVID-19 outcomes included acute organ dysfunction, organ failure, invasive mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stay, death, and discharge disposition. Social vulnerability was measured by the social vulnerability index (SVI), a composite measure of social disadvantage. Results: Compared with patients in low-vulnerability ZIP codes, those living in high-vulnerability ZIP codes were more frequently treated in the intensive care unit (29.0% vs. 24.5%); more frequently received mechanical ventilation (19.3% vs. 14.2%); and experienced higher rates of organ dysfunction (51.9% vs. 48.6%), organ failure (54.7% vs. 51.6%), and in-hospital death (19.4% vs. 16.7%). In mixed-effects regression analyses accounting for age, sex, and comorbid conditions, an increase in a patient's neighborhood SVI by 0.25 (1 quartile) was associated with greater likelihood of mechanical ventilation (increase of 2.1 percentage points), acute organ dysfunction (increase of 2.8 percentage points), and acute organ failure (increase of 2.8 percentage points) but was not associated with intensive care unit stay, mortality, or discharge disposition. Limitation: Observational data focused on hospitalizations in a single state. Conclusion: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 from socially vulnerable neighborhoods presented with greater illness severity and required more intensive treatment, but once hospitalized they did not experience differences in hospital mortality or discharge disposition. Policies that target socially vulnerable neighborhoods and access to COVID-19 care may help ameliorate health disparities. Primary Funding Source: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) and Blue Care Network as part of the BCBSM Value Partnerships Program, the Michigan Public Health Institute, and the Michigan Department of Health & Human Services.

Association of AZD1222 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccination With Thromboembolic and Thrombocytopenic Events in Frontline Personnel: A Retrospective Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 4

Background: In March 2021, several European countries suspended the use of the AZD1222 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccine because of thromboembolic safety concerns. Reports from Norway and Germany subsequently described patients with venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia within 5 to 16 days of vaccination. Objective: To evaluate the risk for outcomes related to thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after AZD1222 or BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccination. Design: Nationwide exploratory retrospective cohort study. Setting: Danish linkable registers on vaccinations, hospitalizations, occupation, and other covariates. Participants: 355 209 Danish frontline personnel designated for priority COVID-19 vaccination followed from 27 December 2020 (the day of the first COVID-19 vaccination in Denmark) to 13 April 2021. Measurements: Study outcomes were cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, splanchnic vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, arterial thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, and death. Cumulative incidences of study outcomes within 28 days of vaccination and unvaccinated risk time were compared using adjusted survival curves resulting in risk differences (RDs) at day 28 after vaccination. Adjustment for birth cohort, sex, calendar period, occupation, comorbid conditions, and prescription drug use was included. Results: Vaccination with AZD1222 versus no vaccination was associated with a significant RD at day 28 for deep venous thrombosis (RD, 8.35 [95% CI, 0.21 to 16.49] per 100 000 vaccinations). The RDs for cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (RD, 1.68 [CI, −0.64 to 4.00] per 100 000 vaccinations) and thrombocytopenia (RD, 2.39 [CI, −1.09 to 5.87] per 100 000 vaccinations) were not significant. No adverse associations were seen for BNT162b2 vaccination. Limitation: No medical record review; surveillance bias. Conclusion: In this exploratory retrospective cohort study among frontline personnel in Denmark, receipt of the AZD1222 vaccine was associated with a small excess risk for deep venous thrombosis. Although the corresponding risks for the more rare and severe thrombotic outcomes (such as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis) were not statistically significantly increased, statistical precision was low, and clinically relevant risks could not be excluded with certainty. There was no statistically significant association of BNT162b2 vaccination with thrombotic or thrombocytopenic events. Primary Funding Source: Lundbeck Foundation.

The Case for Mandating COVID-19 Vaccines for Health Care Workers

Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Before a Live Indoor Music Concert: An Observational Study