UPSALA JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 2023, 128, e9300 http://dx.doi.org/10.48101/ujms.v128.9300 Association of physiological stress markers at the emergency department to readmission and death within 90 days: a prospective observational study Lee Ti Davidsona, Ulf Martin Schillingb, Hans J. Arnqvistc, Fredrik H. Nystromd and Simona I. Chisalitad aDepartment of Emergency Medicine in Linköping, and Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden; bDepartment of Urgent Care in Linköping, and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden; cDepartment of Endocrinology in Linköping, and Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden; dDepartment of Endocrinology in Linköping, and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden ABSTRACT Background: Predicting the risk of readmission or death in patients at the emergency department (ED) is essential in identifying patients who would benefit the most from interventions. We aimed to explore the prognostic value of mid-regional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM), mid-regional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide (MR-proANP), copeptin, and high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT) to identify patients with a higher risk of readmission and death among patients presenting with chest pain (CP) and/or shortness of breath (SOB) in the ED. Methods: This single-center prospective observational study included non-critically ill adult patients with a chief complaint of CP and/or SOB who visited the ED at Linköping University Hospital. Baseline data and blood samples were collected, and patients were followed up for 90 days after inclusion. The pri- mary outcome was a composite of readmission and/or death from non-traumatic causes within 90 days of inclusion. Binary logistic regression was used and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed to determine the prognostic performance for predicting readmission and/or death within 90 days. Results: A total of 313 patients were included and 64 (20.4%) met the primary endpoint. MR-proADM > 0.75 pmol/L (odds ratio [OR]: 2.361 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.031 – 5.407], P = 0.042) and multimor- bidity (OR: 2.647 [95% CI: 1.282 – 5.469], P = 0.009) were significantly associated with readmission and/or death within 90 days. MR-proADM increased predictive value in the ROC analysis to age, sex, and multi- morbidity (P = 0.006). Conclusions: In non-critically ill patients with CP and/or SOB in the ED, MR-proADM and multimorbidity may be helpful for the prediction of the risk of readmission and/or death within 90 days. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 18 January 2023 Revised 1 March 2023 Accepted 20 March 2023 Published 3 May 2023 KEYWORDS Emergency department; chest pain; shortness of breath; copeptin; MR-proADM; MR- proANP; readmission; multimorbidity Introduction In Sweden, about 15–20% of all hospitalizations are hospital readmissions occurring within 30 days after discharge (1). Readmission is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and related annual costs were estimated to be SEK 2.3 billion (USD 114 million) (2). Preventing avoidable readmissions can profoundly improve the quality of life for patients as well as healthcare’s financial systems. Therefore, hospital readmission and death are considered quality healthcare measures (3). Identifying high-risk patients at the emergency department (ED) is essential to prevent short- and long-term deterioration. Several scoring systems and triage scales were developed to identify patients at a high risk of catastrophic deterioration in which vital parameters play an important role (4). Identifying patients at high risk but without apparent derangement in vital parameters is tricky. There is no ideal decision-making tool for seemingly non-critical ED patients, and physicians’ assessments of disease severity are inconsistent (5). Furthermore, the prediction of readmission is complex and not all relevant information may be available at the ED, which results in many published tools/scoring systems with often limited predictive value (6). Blood biomarkers can be measured quickly and accurately and are more objective than personal judgment. Biomarkers of physiological stress might help to determine patients at generally increased risk of poor outcomes (7–9) and potentially help identify patients with increased risk of readmission or death after the immediate illness requiring the visit to the ED. Mid-regional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM) is the stable portion of the pro-hormone adrenomedullin (ADM), a potent CONTACT Lee Ti Davidson lee.ti.chong@liu.se Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here. © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Upsala Medical Society. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. ORIGINAL ARTICLE http://dx.doi.org/10.48101/ujms.v128.9300 mailto:lee.ti.chong@liu.se http://dx.doi.org/10.48101/ujms.v128.9300 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 2 L. T. DAVIDSON ET AL. vasodilator peptide expressed in various tissues. It involves fluid-electrolyte homeostasis by acting on the renin-angiotensin- aldosterone system (RAAS) and hypothalamic-pituitary- adrenal axis (10). Mid-regional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide (MR-proANP) is a pro-hormone of the atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) produced in the cardiac atrium. ANP causes vasodilatation, promotes natriuresis and diuresis, and suppresses the RAAS and sympathetic nervous system (11). Copeptin, a more stable peptide of arginine vasopressin (AVP), is co-secreted from the  pituitary gland in equimolar amounts to AVP upon hemodynamic, osmotic, and various other stress-related stimuli (12). MR-proADM, MR-proANP, and copeptin are surrogate markers reflecting the mature peptides released into the blood circulation. High plasma levels of these prohormones were described in various diseases and found to correlate with disease severity, for example, myocardial infarction, heart failure, respiratory problems, and sepsis (7, 10–15). Elevated plasma levels of MR-proADM, MR-proANP, and copeptin are physiological stress markers, indicating severe underlying disease, which is highly valuable for risk stratification and prognostic information for ED patients (15–18). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of MR-proADM, MR-proANP, copeptin, high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT), and baseline information available at ED presentation to identify seemingly non-critically ill patients with chest pain (CP) and/or shortness of breath (SOB) at risk of readmission or death within 90 days. Material and methods Study design In this single-center prospective observational study, between the years 2013 and 2017, we included a sample of non- critically ill adult patients (18 years old and above) presenting to the ED with CP, SOB, or both, with onset within 7 days (19).  The study was performed at Linkoping University Hospital, Sweden, a tertiary care teaching hospital with almost 50,000 annual ED patients. The following were the exclusions criteria: 1. Patients presenting with ST elevated myocardial infarction or a newly discovered left bundle branch block on electrocardiogram (ECG). 2. Critically ill patients (airway compromise, saturation < 90%, respiratory rate > 30 or < 8, heart rate > 120 or < 40 beats per min, systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, massive CP, clinically unstable patients for whom urgent medical attention was needed). 3. Patients diagnosed with renal failure with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 20 mL/min/1.73 m². 4. Patients with an advanced focal or spread malignancy. 5. Patients with liver disease or liver failure. 6. Trauma patients. 7. Patients with reduced decision-making ability. All patients were triaged according to the Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System (RETTS©) (Supplementary 1) as described in a previous study (19). Patients’ symptom characteristics and vital parameters, that is, blood pressure, respiratory rate, heart rate, body temperature, peripheral oxygen saturation, and ECG, were collected at triage. The medical history, body weight, and height were recorded. Emergency physicians conducted routine assessments and physical examinations of patients. Information about baseline comorbidities was collected from the medical records (please refer to Supplementary 2 for a sample of patients’ comorbid conditions in the study). Laboratory analysis Blood samples were collected at ED presentation and frozen at  −70°C until analysis. Blood samples for C-reactive protein (CRP), lactate, and hs-TnT were analyzed by clinical practice at Linköping University Hospital’s central laboratory. In cases where the results were unavailable on the first presentation, hs-TnT data were obtained using the analyzed frozen blood sample. Hs-TnT levels analyzed from frozen blood samples correlated well with hs-TnT analyzed at a presentation by the  central laboratory (Spearman’s, r s = 0.92, P < 0.001 [Supplementary 3]). MR-proADM, MR-proANP, and copeptin were analyzed using a highly sensitive time-resolved amplified cryptate emission technology assay (B.R.A.H.M.S, KRYPTOR, AG, Hennigsdorf, Germany). The assay had an analytical detection limit of 0.04 nmol/L, 2.1 and 1.7 pmol/L, while the inter-assay variability was 3.3, 3.0, and 5.2% for MR-proADM, MR-proANP, and copeptin, respectively. The results of the study markers were unavailable to the attending physician and no intervention was conducted based on these data. The patients’ assessments were left to the discretion of the attending physicians. Patient follow-up Information was collected from the electronic health records (Cambio COSMIC®, Linköping, Sweden) used by all regional hospitals, which were integrated with other medical health records and death reports in the state. Follow-up was performed until 90 days after the first ED presentation. Main outcome The primary outcome was a composite of the first unplanned readmission or death within 90 days after study recruitment. Death was defined as death from any non-traumatic cause. Endpoint data were collected from the electronic health records, as described here. ASSOCIATION OF PHYSIOLOGICAL STRESS MARKERS AT THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT 3 Ethics All participants gave their written informed consent. The study was approved by the regional ethical committee of Linköping (diary number 2011/501-31) and conformed to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Statistical analysis Data analyses were conducted using SPSS software (IBM SPSS Statistics, Version 26). A P-value (2-tailed) of <0.05 was accepted as statistical significance. Given the exploratory nature of this study, no sample size calculation was performed. The primary outcome was binarily coded; 0 = survivor and no readmission, and 1 = readmission and/or death. Comorbidities were defined as a known medical illness, coded as a binary variable, and dichotomized according to the number of comorbidities: up to two comorbidities (non-multimorbidity group) and more than two comorbidities (multimorbidity group), according to the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare’s definition (20). The biomarkers MR-proADM, MR-proANP, copeptin, and hs-TnT were dichotomized at a pre-specified cut-off level as in previous studies (19, 21, 22). Baseline population characteristics were presented for the total cohort and stratified based on the primary outcome. Descriptive statistics were expressed as means and standard deviations or medians with interquartile ranges for continuous variables and as frequencies and percentages for nominal variables. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square test, while the student’s t-test and Mann–Whitney U-test were used to compare continuous variables. Univariable logistic regression analysis was first performed to identify potential explanatory variables (P < 0.05) that could be considered for inclusion in the multivariable binary logistic regression analysis in which a backward elimination was performed. A base model was created, including age and sex as compulsory variables and multimorbidity. MR-proADM, MR- proANP, copeptin, and hs-TnT were added separately to the base model, followed by a combination of studied markers. The adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported as a measure of association. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed separately and then compared for the base model; age, sex, and multimorbidity, and for the base model combined with binary MR-proADM > 0.75 nmol/L to determine the prognostic performance with area-under-the-curves (AUCs) for prediction of readmission and/or death within 90 days. Results In total, 313 patients were included in the analysis, of which 64 (20.4%) met the outcome, that is, a composite of readmission and/or death within 90 days. The population characteristics at inclusion are presented in Table 1. The mean age of the participants was 64 ± 17 years, and 158 (50.5%) were men. Of all included patients, 195 (62.3%) presented with CP only, 61 (19.5%) presented with SOB only, and 57 (18.2%) presented with both complaints. A total of 165  (52.7%) of all patients were admitted for in-hospital care, of whom 58 (35.2%) were admitted for more than 3 days. None of the patients needed intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Within the 90-day follow-up, 61 (19.5%) patients were readmitted, and five (1.6%) deceased, of which two happened at readmission, resulting in the final composite endpoint outcome consisting of 64 (20.4%) patients. A total of 33 (51.6%) of the patients who were readmitted and/or died had multimorbidity. Of the 249  (79.6%) survivors with no readmission events during the 90-day follow-up period, 202 (81.0%) had no more than two comorbidities. The most frequent pre-existing comorbidity was hypertension (47.6%), followed by ischemic heart disease (26.5%) (Supplementary 2). There was no significant difference regarding baseline vital parameters except for lower peripheral oxygen saturation in patients who were readmitted or died within 90 days. At baseline, patients who were either readmitted and died had higher plasma concentrations of CRP,  creatinine, lactate, MR- proADM, MR-proANP, copeptin, and hs-TnT (Table 1). Peripheral oxygen saturation, multimorbidity, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptors blockers (ACE-I/ARB), use of diuretics, hemoglobin level, creatinine, lactate, were identified as potential explanatory variables by the univariable binary logistic regression analysis. After adjustment, multimorbidity remained a possible explanatory variable. The result of the multivariable binary logistic regression analyses: a base model with age and sex as  compulsory variables, and multimorbidity, added with MR-proADM, MR-proANP, copeptin, and hs-TnT alone or in combination, are presented in Table 2a–f. Hs-TnT was significantly associated with outcome added to age, sex, and multimorbidity (OR: 2.622, 95% CI: 1.255 – 5.471, P = 0.010) (Table 2c). However, this significant association was lost when MR-proADM was added to the model (Table 2e). Multimorbidity was the only baseline variable that remained significantly associated with readmission and/or death within 90 days; P  =  0.009. Patients with multimorbidity had an OR of 2.6 (95% CI: 1.282 – 5.469) of being readmitted or dying within 90 days compared with those  with fewer than two or no comorbidity (Table 2a–f ). MR-proADM > 0.75 pmol/L was the only stress marker that remained significantly associated with  readmission and/or death within 90 days (OR: 2.4, 95% CI:  1.031 – 5.407, P = 0.042) (Table 2e–f ). In ROC analysis, the base predictive model consisting of age, sex, and multimorbidity showed an AUC of 0.686 (95% CI: 0.607 – 0.764), and the addition of MR-proADM to the base model showed an AUC of 0.764 (95% CI: 0.695 – 0.833), see Figure 1. Adding MR-proADM had a significantly increased predictive value compared with  the base predictive model, that is, age, sex, and multimorbidity, separately (AUC difference 0.078, 95% CI: 0.022 – 0.134, P = 0.006). 4 L. T. DAVIDSON ET AL. Discussion This study found that MR-proADM and multimorbidity were related to readmission and/or death in non-critically ill patients with CP and/or SOB 90 days after ED presentation. There was no  significant difference regarding baseline vital parameters except for lower peripheral oxygen saturation in patients who were readmitted or died within 90 days. The baseline plasma concentrations of hemoglobin, creatinine, CRP, MR-proANP, hs-TnT, and copeptin were higher but not independently associated with the risk of readmission and/or death within the 90-day follow-up period. Our findings for MR-proADM were consistent with those of earlier studies that evaluated the utility of prognostic markers in patients at the ED. In selected, potentially critically ill populations, MR-proADM was identified as a stress marker with the ability to  predict adverse coronary events, clinical deterioration after ED admission, readmission, and all-cause mortality, and as a triage biomarker for hospitalization reduction (8, 18, 23–25). MR-proADM was considered a better predictor of poor outcomes independent of other biomarkers combined (MR-proANP, copeptin, hs-TnT, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, C-terminal pro-endothelin-I, or CRP) (7, 9, 21, 23, 25, 26). Additionally, MR-proADM assessment could accurately identify disease progression in patients with infection at the ED and safely increase outpatient management without increasing the number of readmissions or death (25). However, most of these studies were conducted in selected ED patients with specific diseases or age groups. Our study supports earlier results and shows that MR-proADM may be able to predict poor outcomes even in unselected, non-critically ill ED patients at the earliest point of care. In our study, having more than two medical diagnoses defining multimorbidity was the only available baseline information in the ED significantly associated with readmission and/or death within 90 days. The number and disease conditions included in multimorbidity studies vary (27). At the same time, it is accepted that the cumulative effects of illnesses are compounded by the addition of further comorbidities with increasing levels of disability and utilization of healthcare resources (28). Multimorbidity increases the risk of hospital admission, more extended hospital stays, readmission, and mortality (29). The mere addition of a disease condition is a Table 1. Baseline characteristic of the study population. Variables Overall Readmission and/or death within 90 days P Yes No Number of patients, n (%) 313 64 (20.4) 249 (79.6) Male/female, n (%) 158 (50.5)/155 (49.5)  37 (57.8)/27 (42.2)   121 (48.6)/128 (51.4)  0.188 Age, years (mean ± SD) 64 ± 17 70 ± 16 63 ± 17 0.003 BMI, kg/m² (mean ± SD) 28.0 ± 5.5 28.6 ± 5.3 27.6 ± 5.6 0.252 Multimorbidity, n (%) 80 (25.6) 33 (51.6) 47 (19.0) <0.001 ACE-I/ARB, n (%) 124 (39.9) 37 (58.7) 87 (35.1) 0.001 Diuretic, n (%) 76 (24.4) 30 (47.6) 46 (18.5) <0.001 Chest pain only, n (%) 195 (62.3) 32 (50.0) 163 (65.5) 0.023 Shortness of breath only, n (%) 61 (19.5) 17 (26.6) 44 (17.6) 0.109 Chest pain and shortness of breath, n (%) 57 (18.2) 15 (23.4) 42 (16.9) 0.224 RETTS Blue & Green (No emergency), n (%) 6 (2.3) 0 6 (3.0) 0.184 RETTS Yellow (within 120 min), n (%) 87 (33.5) 18 (31.0) 69 (34.1) 0.657 RETTS Orange & Red (20 min to urgent), n (%) 167 (64.2) 40 (69.0) 127 (62.9) 0.393 Systolic blood pressure (mean ± SD) 147 ± 24 144 ± 23 149 ± 24 0.155 Temperature, °C (mean ± SD) 36.9 ± 0.7 37.0 ± 0.7 36.9 ± 0.6 0.519 Peripheral oxygen saturation, % (mean ± SD) 97 ± 4 95 ± 5 97 ± 3 0.008 Respiratory rate/min (mean ± SD) 19 ± 5 20 ± 6 17 ± 5 0.056 Heart rate/min (mean ± SD) 80 ± 20 82 ± 21 79 ± 19 0.092 Hemoglobin, g/L;(mean ± SD) 139 ± 16 133 ± 19 140 ± 14 0.002 C-reactive protein, CRP, mg/L (median [IQR]) 10 (5–10) 10 (5 – 14) 7 (5 – 10) 0.001 Creatinine, μmol/L (mean ± SD) 84 ± 27 98 ± 38 80 ± 23 <0.001 Lactate, mmol/L (mean ± SD) 1.2 ± 0.5 1.3 ± 0.7 1.2 ± 0.5 0.024 Copeptin, pmol/L (median [IQR]) 6.2 (3.7 – 13.4) 10.3 (4.2 – 26.6) 5.4 (3.5 – 9.7) 0.044 Hs-TnT, g/L (median [IQR]) 9 (6 – 19) 19 (8–33) 7 (4 – 12) <0.001 MR-proADM, nmol/L (mean ± SD) 0.8 ± 0.5 1.1 ± 0.7 0.7 ± 0.4 <0.001 MR-proANP, pmol/L (median [IQR]) 91 (58 – 180) 132 (76 – 283) 79 (53 – 130) <0.001 Admission, n (%) 165 (52.7) 44 (68.8) 121 (48.6) 0.004 Length of hospital stay, > 3 days, n (%) 58 (35.2) 22 (34.4) 36 (14.5) <0.001 BMI: body mass index; IQR: inter quartile range; ACE-I/ARB: angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptors blockers; RETTS: rapid emergency triage and treatment system, color-coded triage with increasing acuity from green to red; Hs-TnT: high-sensitivity troponin T; MR-proADM: midregional pro-adrenomedullin; MR-proANP: midregional pro-A-Type natriuretic. ASSOCIATION OF PHYSIOLOGICAL STRESS MARKERS AT THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT 5 simplified method to provide a proxy for identifying frailty, chronic disease burden, and functional status. In contrast to the immediate predictive value of copeptin in critically ill patients (30), we found that copeptin had no predictive value for readmission and/or death within 90 days in this non-critically ill patient population. This was in line with previous studies showing that copeptin had no added value for prognostic information over that provided by troponin or MR- proADM (26, 31). A study conducted in a population of critically ill patients admitted to the ICU found that the primary determinant of elevated copeptin was the severity of critical illness, as reflected by organ failure and hemodynamic alterations, not the underlying etiologic (17). Our study focused on a population of non-critically ill patients that may have contributed to copeptin’s negative result. Hs-TnT is known as an organ-specific marker used to diagnose myocardial infarction. Studies showed that a hs-TnT level above the 99th percentile was common in ED patients with CP but with no myocardial infarction (32) and chronic myocardial injury defined as stable hs-TnT levels > 14 ng/L was a strong marker for death and cardiovascular events (33). CRP and lactate were important in early triage, and previous studies showed their predictive effect on readmission and adverse events (34–37). However, in our population, neither vital signs nor established markers CRP, lactate, nor hs-TnT were significantly associated with readmission and/or death within 90 days. By our findings, the prognostic value of vital parameters, CRP, lactate, and hs-TnT in non-critically ill patients seems beneficial mainly in the short term. Age and gender are important predictors of various prognostic models for diseases, readmission, and death (38–40). A study population with heart failure showed that women had a 2.5 times greater risk for rehospitalization within 90 days than men (39). At the same time, another study from the population-based longitudinal study Swedish Adoption/Twin Study of Ageing (SATSA) showed that higher age and male sex increase the risk of readmission (38). In our study, including adults 18 years and above, the mean age was higher in patients who were readmitted and/or died within 90 days. However, in our non-critically ill ED population with undifferentiated CP and/or SOB, neither age nor gender had a significant predictive value for  readmission and/or death within 90 days after adjustment for multimorbidity, MR-proADM, MR-proANP, hs- TnT, and copeptin. Most readmission risk prediction models have a poor predictive ability (6) and focus on specific conditions or ages (41). Many are based on data available only after discharge, Table 2. Multivariable binary logistic analysis for association of age, sex, and multimorbidity with MR-proADM, MR-proANP, hs-TnT, and copeptin, respectively, and in combination, to readmission and/or death within 90 days. Variables in predicting models OR (95% CI) P 2a Age 0.996 (0.974 – 1.019) 0.752 Sex 1.478 (0.807 – 2.707) 0.206 Multimorbidity 3.184 (1.600 – 6.337) <0.001** MR-proADM > 0.75 pmol/L 2.514 (1.235 – 6.118) 0.011* 2b Age 0.995 (0.969 – 1.021) 0.690 Sex 1.443 (0.791 – 2.633) 0.232 Multimorbidity 3.653 (1.857 – 7.186) <0.001** MR-proANP > 120 nmol/L 2.009 (0.897 – 4.500) 0.090 2c Age 0.996 (0.973 – 1.020) 0.743 Sex 1.262 (0.687 – 2.321) 0.453 Multimorbidity 3.156 (1.593 – 6.252) <0.001** Hs-TnT > 14 g/L 2.622 (1.255 – 5.471) 0.010* 2d Age 1.013 (0.990 – 1.036) 0.283 Sex 1.463 (0.790 – 2.709) 0.226 Multimorbidity 3.361 (1.699 – 6.646) <0.001** Copeptin > 10 nmol/L 0.979 (0.492 – 1.951) 0.952 2e Age 0.989 (0.966 – 1.014) 0.390 Sex 1.380 (0.738 – 2.579) 0.313 Multimorbidity 2.878 (1.427 – 5.802) 0.003* MR-proADM > 0.75 pmol/L 2.153 (1.009 – 4.592) 0.047* Hs-TnT > 14 g/L 1.859 (0.846 – 4.088) 0.123 2f Age 0.991 (0.964 – 1.019) 0.527 Sex 1.657 (0.855 – 3.209) 0.134 Multimorbidity 2.647 (1.282 – 5.469) 0.009* MR-proADM > 0.75 pmol/L 2.361 (1.031 – 5.407) 0.042* MR-proANP >120 nmol/L 1.224 (0.490 – 3.061) 0.665 Hs-TnT > 14 g/L 2.244 (0.920 – 5.476) 0.076 Copeptin > 10 nmol/L 0.476 (0.211 – 1.075) 0.074 OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; MR-proADM: midregional pro- adrenomedullin; MR-proANP: midregional pro-A-Type natriuretic; Hs-TnT: high-sensitivity troponin T. Figure 1. ROC curve for prediction of readmission and/or death within 90 days. Blue = Age + sex + multimorbidity, vs. Red = Age + sex + multimorbidity + MR-proADM > 0.75 pmol/L (P = 0.006) 6 L. T. DAVIDSON ET AL. requiring burdensome data collection beyond that readily available from routine clinical care records (42), rendering their application difficult, if possible, in the immediate emergency visit. Cumulative comorbidities, that is, multimorbidity, and MR-proADM, are potential variables that can be used early in the patient’s pathway to identify patients at risk of readmission and/or death within 90 days. The strengths of our study include its prospective nature and real-life ED patients with various underlying diseases. We used the cumulative number of comorbidities as a proxy for  morbidity burden to simplify ED decisions, making it as non-cumbersome as possible for patients’ early care. To our knowledge, this is the first study of the association between stress biomarkers and unplanned readmission and/or death within 90 days among non-critically ill ED patients. We excluded  easily identifiable critically ill patients, those with pronounced SOB, massive CP, or ST-segment elevation confirming myocardial infarction, and clinically unstable patients for whom urgent medical attention was needed. This  was deliberate considering the difficulties in the identification and risk stratification of critically ill patients without apparent derangement in the vital parameters. This is a significant difference in patient selection compared with previous blood marker studies conducted in the ED (7–9, 23). Our study had limitations. We used specific cut-offs, which  might decrease the analytical power compared with continuous analysis. However, we used known cut-off values as in the previous study, which makes it easier for application in daily clinical practices. Given the exploratory nature of this  study, no  sample size estimation was performed,  and no  causal relationship could be determined. As this was a single-center study, the results may not apply to other settings. Conclusions In non-critical patients presenting with undifferentiated CP and/ or SOB in the ED, multimorbidity is the only baseline information of importance for predicting readmission and/or death within 90 days. MR-proADM may be a helpful biomarker for identifying ED patients with CP and/or SOB at higher risk  of  readmission and/or death within 90 days. MR-proADM might facilitate ED discharge decisions and increase safe outpatient management. Considering our findings, further studies to determine the prognostic value of MR-proADM in the unselected non-critically ill ED population seem warranted. Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge Helene Kimme for her help with patient recruitment and Preben Henanger for help with the data collection. Disclosure statement Authors declare no conflict of interest. Funding Grants from the Region Östergötland; RÖ-610991, RÖ-351681, RÖ-340001, RÖ-430481, RÖ-533731, RÖ-534451, RÖ-599931, RÖ-421461, RÖ-966396. Notes on contributors Conceptualization, S.C., L.T.D., M.S., HA; methodology, L.T.D, S.C., M.S., HA; formal analysis, L.T.D, S.C.; investigation, L.T.D, S.C., M.S.; resources, L.T.D, S.C., M.S; data curation, L.T.D, S.C.; writing – original draft preparation, L.T.D, F.N, writing – review and editing, L.T.D, F.N, H.A, M.S, S.C.; visualization, L.T.D, F.N; supervision, F.N; project administration, L.T.D, M.S, S.C.; funding acquisition, L.T.D, M.S, S.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Lee Ti Davidson, MD, is a Ph.D. student and a consultant in emergency and internal medicine at the Department of Emergency, Linköping University Hospital, and is doing her research study at the Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. Martin Schilling, MD, Ph.D., is a consultant in emergency medicine and internal medicine at Linköpings University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden. Hans Arnqvist, Ph.D., is a senior consultant in internal medicine and endocrinology at the Department of Endocrinology in Linköping, and professor emeritus at the Department of Biomedicine and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. Fredrik H Nystrom, MD, Ph.D., is a senior consultant in internal medicine and a professor at the Department of Health, Medicine and caring Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. Simona I. Chisalita, MD, Ph.D., is a senior consultant in endocrinology, diabetology, and internal medicine at the Department of Endocrinology in Linköping, and an associate professor at the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. References 1. Vården i siffror. Available from: https://vardenisiffror.se/indikator/ d883a76f-30cc-4a8d-86cb -0e4436305cea?gender&periodtype=- year&relatedmeasuresbyentry=kallsystem&relatedmeasuresbyid=f- 7c1df61-31ec-4a61-8ad2-b869c77b1863&showtarget=false&units=se [cited December 2022]. 2. Shebehe J, Hansson A. High hospital readmission rates for patients aged >/=65 years associated with low socioeconomic status in a Swedish region: a cross-sectional study in primary care. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2018;36:300–7. doi: 10.1080/02813432.2018.1499584 3. Health at a glance 2013: OECD indicators. OECD: Paris; 2013. 4. Farrohknia N, Castren M, Ehrenberg A, Lind L, Oredsson S, Jonsson H, et al. Emergency department triage scales and their components: a sys- tematic review of the scientific evidence. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2011;19:42. doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-19-42 https://vardenisiffror.se/indikator/d883a76f-30cc-4a8d-86cb-0e4436305cea?gender&periodtype=year&relatedmeasuresbyentry=kallsystem&relatedmeasuresbyid=f7c1df61-31ec-4a61-8ad2-b869c77b1863&showtarget=false&units=se https://vardenisiffror.se/indikator/d883a76f-30cc-4a8d-86cb-0e4436305cea?gender&periodtype=year&relatedmeasuresbyentry=kallsystem&relatedmeasuresbyid=f7c1df61-31ec-4a61-8ad2-b869c77b1863&showtarget=false&units=se https://vardenisiffror.se/indikator/d883a76f-30cc-4a8d-86cb-0e4436305cea?gender&periodtype=year&relatedmeasuresbyentry=kallsystem&relatedmeasuresbyid=f7c1df61-31ec-4a61-8ad2-b869c77b1863&showtarget=false&units=se https://vardenisiffror.se/indikator/d883a76f-30cc-4a8d-86cb-0e4436305cea?gender&periodtype=year&relatedmeasuresbyentry=kallsystem&relatedmeasuresbyid=f7c1df61-31ec-4a61-8ad2-b869c77b1863&showtarget=false&units=se http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2018.1499584 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-19-42 ASSOCIATION OF PHYSIOLOGICAL STRESS MARKERS AT THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT 7 5. Dean NC, Jones JP, Aronsky D, Brown S, Vines CG, Jones BE, et al. Hospital admission decision for patients with community-acquired pneumonia: variability among physicians in an emergency department. Ann Emerg Medi. 2012;59:35–41. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.07.032 6. Kansagara D, Englander H, Salanitro A, Kagen D, Theobald C, Freeman M, et al. Risk prediction models for hospital readmission: a systematic review. JAMA. 2011;306:1688–98. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.1515 7. Heining L, Giesa C, Ewig S. MR-proANP, MR-proADM, and PCT in patients presenting with acute dyspnea in a medical emergency unit. Lung. 2016;194:185–91. doi: 10.1007/s00408-015-9837-0 8. Cinar O, Cevik E, Acar A, Kaya C, Ardic S, Comert B, et al. Evaluation of mid-regional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide, procalcitonin, and mid- regional pro-adrenomedullin for the diagnosis and risk stratification of dyspneic ED patients. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30:1915–20. doi: 10.1016/j. ajem.2012.04.009 9. Schuetz P, Hausfater P, Amin D, Amin A, Haubitz S, Faessler L, et al. Biomarkers from distinct biological pathways improve early risk strat- ification in medical emergency patients: the multinational, prospec- tive, observational TRIAGE study. Crit Care. 2015;19:377. doi: 10.1186/ s13054-015-1098-z 10. Schönauer R, Els-Heindl S, Beck-Sickinger AG. Adrenomedullin – new perspectives of a potent peptide hormone. J Pept Sci. 2017;23:472–85. doi: 10.1002/psc.2953 11. Idzikowska K, Zielińska M. Midregional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide, an important member of the natriuretic peptide family: potential role in diagnosis and prognosis of cardiovascular disease. J Int Med Res. 2018;46:3017–29. doi: 10.1177/0300060518786907 12. Christ-Crain M. Vasopressin and copeptin in health and disease. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2019;20:283–94. doi: 10.1007/ s11154- 019-09509-9 13. Khan SQ, O’Brien RJ, Struck J, Quinn P, Morgenthaler N, Squire I, et al. Prognostic value of midregional pro-adrenomedullin in patients with acute myocardial infarction: the LAMP (Leicester Acute Myocardial Infarction Peptide) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:1525–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.12.038 14. Peacock WF. Novel biomarkers in acute heart failure: MR-pro- adrenomedullin. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2014;52:1433–5. doi: 10.1515/ cclm-2014-0222 15. Valenzuela-Sánchez F, Valenzuela-Méndez B, Rodríguez-Gutiérrez JF, Estella-García Á, González-García M. New role of biomarkers: mid- regional pro-adrenomedullin, the biomarker of organ failure. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4:329. doi: 10.21037/atm.2016.08.65 16. Katan M, Christ-Crain M. The stress hormone copeptin: a new prog- nostic biomarker in acute illness. Swiss Med Wkly. 2010;140:w13101. doi: 10.4414/smw.2010.13101 17. Koch A, Yagmur E, Hoss A, Buendgens L, Herbers U, Weiskirchen R, et  al. Clinical relevance of copeptin plasma levels as a biomarker of disease severity and mortality in critically ill patients. J Clin Lab Anal. 2018;32:e22614. doi: 10.1002/jcla.22614 18. Tzikas S, Keller T, Ojeda FM, Zeller T, Wild PS, Lubos E, et al. MR-proANP and MR-proADM for risk stratification of patients with acute chest pain. Heart. 2013;99:388–95. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302956 19. Davidson LT, Gauffin E, Henanger P, Wajda M, Wilhelms D, Ekman B, et  al. Admission of patients with chest pain and/or breathlessness from the emergency department in relation to risk assessment and copeptin levels – an observational study. Ups J Med Sci. 2022;127. doi: 10.48101/ujms.127.8941 20. Socialstyrelsen. Så tycker de äldre om äldreomsorgen 2017. En rikstäck- ande undersökning av äldres uppfattning om kvaliteten i hemtjänst och särskilt boende. 2018. Available from: www.socialstyrelsen.se [cited December 2022]. 21. Maisel A, Mueller C, Nowak R, Peacock WF, Landsberg JW, Ponikowski P, et al. Mid-region pro-hormone markers for diagnosis and prognosis in acute dyspnea: results from the BACH (Biomarkers in Acute Heart Failure) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2062–76. doi: 10.1016/j. jacc.2010.02.025 22. Kutz A, Hausfater P, Amin D, Amin A, Canavaggio P, Sauvin G, et al. The TRIAGE-ProADM score for an early risk stratification of medical patients in the emergency department – development based on a multi- national, prospective, observational study. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0168076. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168076 23. Hausfater P, Claessens YE, Martinage A, Joly LM, Lardeur JY, Der Sahakian G, et al. Prognostic value of PCT, copeptin, MR-proADM, MR-proANP and CT-proET-1 for severe acute dyspnea in the emergency department: the BIODINER study. Biomarkers. 2017;22:28–34. doi: 10.1080/1354750x.20 16.1201541 24. Stalenhoef JE, van Nieuwkoop C, Wilson DC, van der Starre WE, Delfos NM, Leyten EMS, et al. Biomarker guided triage can reduce hospitaliza- tion rate in community acquired febrile urinary tract infection. J Infect. 2018;77:18–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2018.05.007 25. Saeed K, Wilson DC, Bloos F, Schuetz P, van der Does Y, Melander O, et al. The early identification of disease progression in patients with suspected infection presenting to the emergency department: a multi-centre derivation and validation study. Crit Care (London, England). 2019;23:40. doi: 10.1186/s13054-019-2329-5 26. Bahrmann P, Christ M, Hofner B, Bahrmann A, Achenbach S, Sieber CC, et al. Prognostic value of different biomarkers for cardiovascular death in unselected older patients in the emergency department. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2016;5:568–78. doi: 10.1177/2048872615612455 27. Marengoni A, Angleman S, Melis R, Mangialasche F, Karp A, Garmen A, et al. Aging with multimorbidity: a systematic review of the literature. Ageing Res Rev. 2011;10:430–9. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2011.03.003 28. van den Akker M, Buntinx F, Roos S, Knottnerus JA. Problems in determin- ing occurrence rates of multimorbidity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:675–9. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00358-9 29. Salive ME. Multimorbidity in older adults. Epidemiol Rev. 2013;35:75–83. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxs009 30. Yilman M, Erenler AK, Baydin A. Copeptin: a diagnostic factor for critical patients. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015;19:3030–6. 31. Searle J, Slagman A, Stockburger M, Vollert JO, Muller C, Muller R, et al. Use of copeptin in emergency patients with cardiac chief complaints. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2015;4:393–402. doi: 10.1177/20488 72614554197 32. Carlsson AC, Bandstein N, Roos A, Hammarsten O, Holzmann MJ. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T levels in the emergency department in patients with chest pain but no myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiol. 2017;228:253–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.087 33. Roos A, Sartipy U, Ljung R, Holzmann MJ. Relation of chronic myocardial injury and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to mortality. Am J Cardiol. 2018;122:1989–95. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.09.006 34. Polyakova EA, Mikhaylov EN. The prognostic role of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2020;17:379–83. doi: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2020.07.007 35. Muzafarova T, Motovska Z. Laboratory predictors of prognosis in cardio- genic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Biomedicines. 2022;10:1328. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines10061328 36. Lucci C, Cosentino N, Genovese S, Campodonico J, Milazzo V, De Metrio M, et al. Prognostic impact of admission high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in acute myocardial infarction patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2020;19:183. doi: 10.1186/ s12933-020-01157-7 37. Jing Z, Chun C, Ning S, Hong Z, Bei H, Wan-Zhen Y. Systemic inflamma- tory marker CRP was better predictor of readmission for AECOPD than sputum inflammatory markers. Arch Bronconeumol. 2016;52:138–44. doi: 10.1016/j.arbres.2015.01.011 38. Hallgren J, Aslan AKD. Risk factors for hospital readmission among Swedish older adults. Eur Geriatr Med. 2018;9:603–11. doi: 10.1007/ s41999-018-0101-z 39. Howie-Esquivel J, Dracup K. Effect of gender, ethnicity, pulmonary disease, and symptom stability on rehospitalization in patients with heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 2007;100:1139–44. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard. 2007.04.061 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.07.032 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.1515 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00408-015-9837-0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2012.04.009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2012.04.009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-015-1098-z http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-015-1098-z http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/psc.2953 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0300060518786907 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11154-​019-09509-9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11154-​019-09509-9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2006.12.038 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2014-0222 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2014-0222 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm.2016.08.65 http://dx.doi.org/10.4414/smw.2010.13101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcla.22614 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302956 http://dx.doi.org/10.48101/ujms.127.8941 http://www.socialstyrelsen.se http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.02.025 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.02.025 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168076 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354750x.2016.1201541 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354750x.2016.1201541 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2018.05.007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2329-5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2048872615612455 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2011.03.003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00358-9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxs009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20488​72614554197 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20488​72614554197 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.087 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.09.006 http://dx.doi.org/10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2020.07.007 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10061328 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12933-020-01157-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12933-020-01157-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arbres.2015.01.011 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41999-018-0101-z http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41999-018-0101-z http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.​2007.04.061 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.​2007.04.061 8 L. T. DAVIDSON ET AL. 40. Bellou V, Belbasis L, Konstantinidis AK, Tzoulaki I, Evangelou E. Prognostic models for outcome prediction in patients with chronic obstructive pul- monary disease: systematic review and critical appraisal. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2019;367:l5358. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l5358 41. Schwab C, Hindlet P, Sabatier B, Fernandez C, Korb-Savoldelli V. Risk scores identifying elderly inpatients at risk of 30-day unplanned readmission and accident and emergency department visit: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e028302. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028302 42. Smith LN, Makam AN, Darden D, Mayo H, Das SR, Halm EA, et al. Acute myocardial infarction readmission risk prediction models: a system- atic review of model performance. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018;11:e003885. doi: 10.1161/circoutcomes.117.003885 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5358 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/circoutcomes.117.003885