(1) Context: The management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is based on a rapid diagnosis. The aim of this study was to focus on the ACS symptoms differences according to gender, in order to contribute to the improvement of knowledge regarding the clinical presentation in women. (2) Methods: We searched for relevant literature in two electronic databases, and analyzed the symptom presentation for patients with suspected ACS. Fifteen prospective studies were included, with a total sample size of 10,730. (3) Results: During a suspected ACS, women present more dyspnea, arm pain, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, palpitations and pain at the shoulder than men, with RR (95%CI) of 1.13 [1.10; 1.17], 1.30 [1.05; 1.59], 1,40 [1.26; 1.56], 1.08 [1.01; 1.16], 1.67 [1.49; 1.86], 1.78 [1.02; 3.13], respectively. They are older by (95%CI) 4.15 [2.28; 6.03] years compared to men. The results are consistent in the analysis of the ACS confirmed subgroup. (4) Conclusions: We have shown that there is a gender-based symptomatic difference and a female presentation for ACS. The “typical” or “atypical” semiology of ACS symptoms should no longer be used.

The sensitivity of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has been questioned due to negative results in some patients who were strongly suspected of having coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of our study was to analyze the prognosis of infected patients with initial negative RT-PCR in the emergency department (ED) during the COVID-19 outbreak. This study included two cohorts of adult inpatients admitted into the ED. All patients who were suspected to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 and who underwent a typical chest CT imaging were included. Thus, we studied two distinct cohorts: patients with positive RT-PCR (PCR+) and those with negative initial RT-PCR (PCR–). The data were analyzed using Bayesian methods. We included 66 patients in the PCR– group and 198 in the PCR+ group. The baseline characteristics did not differ except in terms of a proportion of lower chronic respiratory disease in the PCR– group. We noted a less severe clinical presentation in the PCR– group (lower respiratory rate, lower oxygen need and mechanical ventilation requirement). Hospital mortality (9.1% vs. 9.6%) did not differ between the two groups. Despite an initially less serious clinical presentation, the mortality of patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 with a negative RT-PCR did not differ from those with positive RT-PCR.

Introduction: The COVID-19 outbreak had a major impact on healthcare systems worldwide. Our study aims to describe the characteristics and therapeutic emergency mobile service (EMS) management of patients with vital distress due to COVID-19, their in-hospital care pathway and their in-hospital outcome. Methods: This retrospective and multicentric study was conducted in the six main centers of the French Greater East region, an area heavily impacted by the pandemic. All patients requiring EMS dispatch and who were admitted straight to the intensive care unit (ICU) were included. Clinical data from their pre-hospital and hospital management were retrieved. Results: We included a total of 103 patients (78.6% male, median age 68). In the initial stage, patients were in a critical condition (median oxygen saturation was 72% (60–80%)). In the field, 77.7% (CI 95%: 71.8–88.3%) were intubated. Almost half of our population (45.6%, CI 95%: 37.1–56.9%) had clinical Phenotype 1 (silent hypoxemia), while the remaining half presented Phenotype 2 (acute respiratory failure). In the ICU, a great number had ARDS (77.7%, CI 95% 71.8–88.3% with a PaO₂/FiO₂ < 200). In-hospital mortality was 33% (CI 95%: 24.6–43.3%). The two phenotypes showed clinical and radiological differences (respiratory rate, OR = 0.98, p = 0.02; CT scan lesion extension >50%, OR = 0.76, p < 0.03). However, no difference was found in terms of overall in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.07, p = 0.74). Conclusion: The clinical phenotypes appear to be very distinguishable in the pre-hospital field, yet no difference was found in terms of mortality. This leads us to recommend an identical management in the initial phase, despite the two distinct presentations.

(1) Introduction: Multiple studies have demonstrated that lymphocyte count monitoring is a valuable prognostic tool for clinicians during inflammation. The aim of our study was to determine the prognostic value of delta lymphocyte H24 from admission from the emergency department for mortality and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection. (2) Methods: We have made a retrospective and multicentric study in six major hospitals of northeastern France. The patients were hospitalized and had a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. (3): Results: A total of 1035 patients were included in this study. Factors associated with infection severity were CRP > 100 mg/L (OR: 2.51, CI 95%: (1.40–3.71), p < 0.001) and lymphopenia < 800/mm³ (OR: 2.15, CI 95%: (1.42–3.27), p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, delta lymphocytes H24 (i.e., the difference between lymphocytes values at H24 and upon admission to the ED) < 135 was one of the most significant biochemical factors associated with mortality (OR: 2.23, CI 95%: (1.23–4.05), p = 0.009). The most accurate threshold for delta lymphocytes H24 was 75 to predict severity and 135 for mortality. (4) Conclusion: Delta lymphocytes H24 could be a helpful early screening prognostic biomarker to predict severity and mortality associated with COVID-19.