There may be many predictors of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding in hospitalized medical patients, but until now, systematic reviews and assessments of the certainty of the evidence have not been published. We conducted a systematic review to identify prognostic factors for VTE and bleeding in hospitalized medical patients and searched Medline and EMBASE from inception through May 2018. We considered studies that identified potential prognostic factors for VTE and bleeding in hospitalized adult medical patients. Reviewers extracted data in duplicate and independently and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Of 69 410 citations, we included 17 studies in our analysis: 14 that reported on VTE, and 3 that reported on bleeding. For VTE, moderate-certainty evidence showed a probable association with older age; elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, and fibrinogen levels; tachycardia; thrombocytosis; leukocytosis; fever; leg edema; lower Barthel Index (BI) score; immobility; paresis; previous history of VTE; thrombophilia; malignancy; critical illness; and infections. For bleeding, moderate-certainty evidence showed a probable association with older age, sex, anemia, obesity, low hemoglobin, gastroduodenal ulcers, rehospitalization, critical illness, thrombocytopenia, blood dyscrasias, hepatic disease, renal failure, antithrombotic medication, and presence of a central venous catheter. Elevated CRP, a lower BI, a history of malignancy, and elevated heart rate are not included in most VTE risk assessment models. This study informs risk prediction in the management of hospitalized medical patients for VTE and bleeding; it also informs guidelines for VTE prevention and future research.

Background: The aim of this retrospective comparative study was to assess the impact of COVID-19 and delayed emergency department access on emergency surgery outcomes, by comparing the main clinical outcomes in the period March–May 2019 (group 1) with the same period during the national COVID-19 lockdown in Italy (March–May 2020, group 2). Methods: A comparison (groups 1 versus 2) and subgroup analysis were performed between patients’ demographic, medical history, surgical, clinical and management characteristics. Results: Two-hundred forty-six patients were included, 137 in group 1 and 109 in group 2 (p = 0.03). No significant differences were observed in the peri-operative characteristics of the two groups. A declared delay in access to hospital and preoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rates were 15.5% and 5.8%, respectively in group 2. The overall morbidity (OR = 2.22, 95% CI 1.08–4.55, p = 0.03) and 30-day mortality (OR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.33–5.50, =0.68) were significantly higher in group 2. The delayed access cohort showed a close correlation with increased morbidity (OR = 3.19, 95% CI 0.89–11.44, p = 0.07), blood transfusion (OR = 5.13, 95% CI 1.05–25.15, p = 0.04) and 30-day mortality risk (OR = 8.00, 95% CI 1.01–63.23, p = 0.05). SARS-CoV-2-positive patients had higher risk of blood transfusion (20% vs 7.8%, p = 0.37) and ICU admissions (20% vs 2.6%, p = 0.17) and a longer median LOS (9 days vs 4 days, p = 0.11). Conclusions: This article provides enhanced understanding of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient access to emergency surgical care. Our findings suggest that COVID-19 changed the quality of surgical care with poorer prognosis and higher morbidity rates. Delayed emergency department access and a “filter effect” induced by a fear of COVID-19 infection in the population resulted in only the most severe cases reaching the emergency department in time.

Risk assessment models (RAMs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding in hospitalized medical patients inform appropriate use of thromboprophylaxis. Our aim was to use a novel approach for selecting risk factors for VTE and bleeding to be included in RAMs. First, we used the results of a systematic review of all candidate factors. Second, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for the identified factors. Third, we using a structured approach to select factors to develop the RAMs, by building on clinical and methodological expertise. The expert panel made judgments on whether to include, potentially include, or exclude risk factors, according to domains of the GRADE approach and the Delphi method. The VTE RAM included age >60 years, previous VTE, acute infections, immobility, acute paresis, active malignancy, critical illness, and known thrombophilia. The bleeding RAM included age ≥65 years, renal failure, thrombocytopenia, active gastroduodenal ulcers, hepatic disease, recent bleeding, and critical illness. We identified acute infection as a factor that was not considered in widely used RAMs. Also, we identified factors that require further research to confirm or refute their importance in a VTE RAM (eg, D-dimer). We excluded autoimmune disease which is included in the IMPROVE (International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism) bleeding RAM. Our results also suggest that sex, malignancy, and use of central venous catheters (factors in the IMPROVE bleeding RAM) require further research. In conclusion, our study presents a novel approach to systematically identifying and assessing risk factors to be included or further explored during RAM development.

GRADE and other evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks are widely used by guideline development groups (GDG) and other decision-makers. When GDGs judge the magnitude of desirable and undesirable health outcomes on EtDs, they typically categorize them as trivial, small, moderate, or large. However, generic judgment or decision thresholds (DTs) that could guide the user about such estimates of effect size or serve as references for interpretation of findings are not yet available. The objective of this study was to empirically derive DTs for EtD judgments about the magnitude of dichotomously assessed health benefits and harms. We conducted a methodological randomized controlled trial to derive empirical DTs across conditions and health outcomes. We invited stakeholders, including clinicians, epidemiologists, decision scientists, health research methodologists, experts in health technology assessment (HTA), members of GDGs, patient representatives, and the public to participate in the trial. We employed randomly assigned case scenarios to elicit ranges of absolute risk differences judged as small and moderate effects from study participants. We then used the collected data to derive empirical DTs. We also investigated the validity of our DTs by measuring the agreement between judgments that were made by GDGs in the past and the judgments that our DTs approach would suggest if applied to the same guideline data. A total of 445 stakeholders accessed the survey of which 409 were randomised and 288 rated at least one case scenario. Based on these participants, the study findings support our a priori hypothesis of a difference in the DTs for trivial, small, moderate, and large effects and are suggestive of a relation between raters' judgments and the joint measure of absolute effects and outcome values. The results permit the use and calculation of DTs for a variety of scenarios and we present three ways of how to use the results practically. In this trial we confirmed that empirically derived DTs discriminate between judgments on the EtDs. These DTs can be used for judgments about desirable and undesirable health effects in systematic reviews or to initiate and inform a discussion with a GDG. This ensures consistency in judgments across different guideline questions and promotes transparency in judgments. Decision thresholds (DTs) help with determining if effects of interventions should be considered absent, small, moderate or large. In this study we derived an overarching approach for these thresholds across conditions and outcomes. The results of this study, a randomized experiment, will help guideline developers and other decision-makers to make these judgments objectively. They will be particularly relevant for the use in Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks.

Long-term sequelae of symptomatic infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 are largely undiscovered. We performed a prospective cohort study on consecutively hospitalized Sars-CoV-2 patients (March–May 2020) for evaluating COVID-19 outcomes at 6 and 12 months. After hospital discharge, patients were addressed to two follow-up pathways based on respiratory support needed during hospitalization. Outcomes were assessed by telephone consultation or ambulatory visit. Among 471 patients, 80.9% received no respiratory support during hospitalization; 19.1% received non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). 58 patients died during hospitalization, therefore 413 were enrolled for follow-up. At 6 months, among 355 patients, the 30.3% had any symptoms, 18.0% dyspnea, 6.2% neurological symptoms. Fifty-two out of 105 had major damages in interstitial computed tomography images. NIV/IMV patients had higher probability to suffer of symptoms (aOR = 4.00, 95%CI:1.99–8.05), dyspnea (aOR = 2.80, 95%CI:1.28–6.16), neurological symptoms (aOR = 9.72, 95%CI:2.78–34.00). At 12 months, among 344, the 25.3% suffered on any symptoms, 12.2% dyspnea, 10.1% neurological symptoms. Severe interstitial lesions were present in 37 out of 47 investigated patients. NIV/IMV patients in respect to no respiratory support, had higher probability of experiencing symptoms (aOR = 3.66, 95%CI:1.73–7.74), neurological symptoms (aOR = 8.96, 95%CI:3.22–24.90). COVID-19 patients showed prolonged sequelae up to 12 months, highlighting the need of follow-up pathways for post-COVID-19 syndrome.