Citations

AbstractBackgroundRecurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED) might represent an opportunity for screening of depression and/or anxiety.MethodsWe systematically searched five databases for studies evaluating the effect of screening for depression and/or anxiety in ED patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain. Given paucity of direct evidence, we also searched for indirect evidence including studies that assessed prevalence of depression and/or anxiety in EDs (not necessarily recurrent abdominal pain), diagnostic accuracy of screening tools, effectiveness of screening in other settings, and outcomes such as repeat ED visits of patients with abdominal pain who were screened in the ED. Two methodologists evaluated certainty in the evidence using the GRADE approach.ResultsA total of 4,337 citations were reviewed, and zero studies were found on the effect of screening in patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain in the ED. A total of 35 studies were included as relevant indirect evidence. In studies of ED patients with abdominal pain, depression ranged from 10% to 29%, while anxiety ranged from 18% to 50%. False positives appear to be an issue given relatively low specificity of screening tools. One randomized trial including ED patients with vague symptoms evaluated the effect of depression screening on a composite outcome of depression recognition, psychiatric consultation, or referral by the emergency physician (risk ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 4.53, very low certainty). One study reported that patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain who screened positive for depression have had increased ED recidivism (odds ratio = 3.17, 95% CI = 1.14 to 8.85, very low certainty).ConclusionsWe were unable to identify any evidence that confirms that depression or anxiety screening in ED patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain improves outcomes or changes management downstream.

Abstract In clinical scenario surveys, inpatient providers were more likely to report continuing inappropriate (odds ratio, 2.02 [95% confidence interval, 1.35–3.03]; P<.001) or broad-spectrum (1.8 [1.27–2.56]; P=.001) antibiotic therapy when initiated by emergency department providers, than to change to appropriate or narrow-spectrum therapy, respectively. Antibiotic inertia could represent a significant antibiotic stewardship target.

Objective To describe the epidemiology of paediatric pain-related visits to emergency departments (EDs) across the USA. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting A representative sample of US ED visits using data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). Participants Paediatric (age ≤18 years) ED visits in the 2017 NHAMCS data set. Data analysis Each visit was coded as pain-related or non-pain-related using the ‘reason for visit’ variable. Weighted proportions were calculated with 95% CIs. Logistic regression was used to compare odds of pain-related visits. Outcome measures Prevalence of pain-related visits among paediatric ED visits. Results There were an estimated 35 million paediatric ED visits in the USA in 2017, 55.6% (CI 53.3% to 57.8%) were pain related, which equates to 19.7 million annual visits. The prevalence of pain-related visits reached more than 50% of visits at age 6–7 and plateaued at relatively high proportions. Children of races other than white or black had lower odds of having a pain-related visit (OR 0.48, CI 0.29 to 0.81) than white children, as did children who were black, though the difference was not statistically significant (OR 0.88, CI 0.73 to 1.06). Relative to children covered by private insurance, children with Medicaid or CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) coverage had lower odds of a pain-related visit (OR 0.75, CI 0.60 to 0.93). Injuries represented 46.5% (CI 42.0% to 51.0%) of pain-related visits. Pain scores were reported in less than 50% of pain-related visits. Conclusion Pain is the reason for visit in 55.6% of paediatric ED visits across the USA. The prevalence of pain-related visits peak before adolescence and it continues relatively high until the age 18. Injury, racial disparities in pain and poor pain score reporting should remain major topics of study in the paediatric population.

AbstractThis first Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE‐1) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic: Recurrent, Low‐risk Chest Pain in the Emergency Department. The multidisciplinary guideline panel used The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding eight priority questions for adult patients with recurrent, low‐risk chest pain and have derived the following evidence based recommendations: (1) for those >3 h chest pain duration we suggest a single, high‐sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to reasonably exclude acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within 30 days; (2) for those with a normal stress test within the previous 12 months, we do not recommend repeat routine stress testing as a means to decrease rates of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days; (3) insufficient evidence to recommend hospitalization (either standard inpatient admission or observation stay) versus discharge as a strategy to mitigate major adverse cardiac events within 30 days; (4) for those with non‐obstructive (<50% stenosis) coronary artery disease (CAD) on prior angiography within 5 years, we suggest referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (5) for those with no occlusive CAD (0% stenosis) on prior angiography within 5 years, we recommend referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (6) for those with a prior coronary computed tomographic angiography within the past 2 years with no coronary stenosis, we suggest no further diagnostic testing other than a single, normal high‐sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to exclude ACS within that 2 year time frame; (7) we suggest the use of depression and anxiety screening tools as these might have an effect on healthcare use and return emergency department (ED) visits; and (8) we suggest referral for anxiety or depression management, as this might have an impact on healthcare use and return ED visits.

Objectives Evaluate associations between ACE inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and clinical outcomes in acute viral respiratory illness (AVRI). Design Retrospective cohort analysis of claims data. Setting The USA; 2018–2019 influenza season. Participants Main cohort: people with hypertension (HTN) taking an ACEi, ARB or other HTN medications, and experiencing AVRI. Falsification cohort: parallel cohort receiving elective knee or hip replacement. Main outcome measures Main cohort: hospital admission, intensive care unit, acute respiratory distress (ARD), ARD syndrome and all-cause mortality. Falsification cohort: complications after surgery and all-cause mortality. Results The main cohort included 236 843 episodes of AVRI contributed by 202 629 unique individuals. Most episodes were in women (58.9%), 81.4% in people with Medicare Advantage and 40.3% in people aged 75+ years. Odds of mortality were lower in the ACEi (0.78 (0.74 to 0.83)) and ARB (0.64 (0.61 to 0.68)) cohorts compared with other HTN medications. On all other outcomes, people taking ARBs (but not ACEis) had a >10% reduction in odds of inpatient stays compared with other HTN medications. In the falsification analysis (N=103 353), both ACEis (0.89 (0.80 to 0.98)) and ARBs (0.82 (0.74 to 0.91)) were associated with decreased odds of complications compared with other HTN medications; ARBs (0.64 (0.47 to 0.87)) but not ACEis (0.79 (0.60 to 1.05)) were associated with lower odds of death compared with other HTN medications. Conclusions Outpatient use of ARBs was associated with better outcomes with AVRI compared with other medications for HTN. ACEis were associated with reduced risk of death, but with minimal or no reduction in risk of other complications. A falsification analysis conducted to provide context on the possible causal implications of these findings did not provide a clear answer. Further analysis using observational data will benefit from additional approaches to assess causal relationships between these drugs and outcomes in AVRI.

Background: Identification of systolic heart failure among patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute dyspnea is challenging. The reasons for dyspnea are often multifactorial. A focused physical evaluation and diagnostic testing can lack sensitivity and specificity. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of an artificial intelligence-enabled ECG to identify patients presenting with dyspnea who have left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). Methods: We retrospectively applied a validated artificial intelligence-enabled ECG algorithm for the identification of LVSD (defined as LV ejection fraction ≤35%) to a cohort of patients aged ≥18 years who were evaluated in the ED at a Mayo Clinic site with dyspnea. Patients were included if they had at least one standard 12-lead ECG acquired on the date of the ED visit and an echocardiogram performed within 30 days of presentation. Patients with prior LVSD were excluded. We assessed the model performance using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. Results: A total of 1606 patients were included. Median time from ECG to echocardiogram was 1 day (Q1: 1, Q3: 2). The artificial intelligence-enabled ECG algorithm identified LVSD with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86–0.91) and accuracy of 85.9%. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were 74%, 87%, 97%, and 40%, respectively. To identify an ejection fraction <50%, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.83–0.88), 86%, 63%, and 91%, respectively. NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) alone at a cutoff of >800 identified LVSD with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76–0.84). Conclusions: The ECG is an inexpensive, ubiquitous, painless test which can be quickly obtained in the ED. It effectively identifies LVSD in selected patients presenting to the ED with dyspnea when analyzed with artificial intelligence and outperforms NT-proBNP. Graphic Abstract: A graphic abstract is available for this article.

Introduction Delirium is commonly missed in older adults presenting to the emergency department (ED). Although current recommendations for active screening of delirium in the ED, this might not be feasible or practical. Identifying patients at high risk for prevalent and incident delirium in the ED will help to improve the screening process and to build interventions. There is currently scattered synthesis of evidence on risk factors associated with delirium in the ED. To address this gap, we are conducting a systematic review to describe the risk factors (patient vulnerability factors and precipitating factors) for delirium in the ED. Methods and analysis A literature search was performed from inception to March 2020 in Ovid EBM Reviews, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science. We will include original research studies that report a quantitative relationship between at least one risk factor and delirium in the ED setting. Two investigators will use eligibility criteria from this protocol to independently screen titles and abstracts, and select studies based on full-text review of potentially eligible studies. After arriving at a final set of included studies, two investigators will extract data using a standardised data collection form. If appropriate, data regarding each risk factor will be pooled through a random-effect meta-analysis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be used to evaluate the overall quality of evidence. Ethics and dissemination To our knowledge, this will be the first systematic review evaluating risk factors for prevalent and incident delirium specifically related to the ED setting. Results of this study will aid in the identification of older adults at risk for delirium in the ED. We aim to publish the results of this systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal with good visibility for the fields of emergency medicine and geriatrics. PROSPERO registration number CDR42020175261

Background: Palliative care has been identified as an area of low outpatient referral from our emergency department, yet palliative care has been shown to improve the quality of patient’s lives. Aim: This study investigates both provider and patient perspectives on palliative care for the purpose of identifying barriers to increased palliative care utilization within our healthcare system. Design: Two surveys were developed, one for patients/caregivers and one for healthcare providers. Setting/participants: This was a single-center study completed at a quaternary academic emergency department. A survey was sent to emergency medicine providers with 47% response rate. Research staff approached Emergency Department patients who had been identified to be high risk to fill out paper surveys with 76% response rate. Results: Only 28% of patients had already undergone palliative care, with an additional 25% interested in palliative care. Nearly half of the patients felt that they needed more resources to prevent hospital visits. Patients identified low understanding of palliative care and difficulty accessing appointments as barriers to consultation. Among providers, 98% indicated that they had patients who would benefit from palliative care. A majority of providers highlighted patient understanding of palliative care and access to appointments as barriers to palliative care. Notably, 52% of providers reported that emergency medicine provider knowledge was a barrier to palliative care consultation. Conclusions: Despite emergency department patients’ self-identified need for resources and emergency medicine providers’ recognition of patients who would benefit from palliative care, few patients receive palliative care consultation.