Citations

AbstractBackgroundThe Choosing Wisely campaign has called for better engagement of palliative and hospice care services for patients in the emergency department (ED). PREDICT is a clinical prediction tool that was derived in an Australian ED cohort. It assesses a patient's risk of mortality at 1 year to select those who would benefit from advanced care planning. Such goals‐of‐care discussion can improve patients’ ability to communicate what they want out of their healthcare and, in cases of end of life, potentially reduce the number of futile interventions. Using a cutoff of 13 points, PREDICT had a reported 95.3% specificity and 53.9% sensitivity for 1‐year mortality. We externally validated PREDICT and derived a simpler modified PREDICT tool to systematically identify high‐risk patients eligible for goals‐of‐care discussions and palliative care consultation in the ED.MethodsThis was an observational cohort study of a random sample of 927 patients aged 55+ seen in the ED in 2014. We identified advance healthcare directives (AHDs) on file. We summarized diagnostic accuracy of the clinical tool to predict 1‐year mortality using sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC). We refined PREDICT using multivariable modeling. We followed reporting guidelines including STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for cohort studies and Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD).ResultsA total of 927 patients were included: 55.0% were male, 63 (7.0%) were nursing home residents, 389 (42.0%) patients had an AHD in their medical record at the time of ED visit, and 245 (26.4%) were deceased at 1 year. Of the 780 patients with PREDICT scores < 13, a total of 164 (21.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 18.3–24.1) were deceased at 1 year, and of the 147 patients with PREDICT scores ≥ 13, a total of 81 (55.1%; 95% CI = 46.7–63.2) were deceased at 1 year. The AUC of the PREDICT score was 0.717 (95% CI = 0.680–0.754), sensitivity was 33.1% (95% CI = 27.3–39.4), and specificity was 90.3% (95% CI = 87.8–92.4) to predict 1‐year mortality. The modified PREDICT tool resulted in an AUC of 0.709 (95% CI = 0.671–0.747). We decided to select this model as the preferred model, as the variable of intensive care unit (ICU) admission with multiorgan failure can be difficult to assess in the ED and may delay advanced care planning. Reweighting the score did not improve fit or the AUC, so points assigned to each variable were not adjusted.ConclusionPREDICT is an easy tool to administer to be able to identify patients who are at high risk of 1‐year mortality and who could benefit from AHDs, goals‐of‐care discussion, and when appropriate in the context of an end‐of‐life setting, palliative medicine consultation. External validation of PREDICT was successful in our population. We simplified PREDICT and derived a new tool, the modified PREDICT minus ICU tool, without significantly altering the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for death at 1 year. The next steps include external validation of the newly derived rule and prospective implementation.

AbstractObjectivesto compare healthcare utilization including coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), rehospitalization, and rate of subsequent acute myocardial infarction (AMI) within 30 days, among patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain admitted as short‐term inpatient (≤2 days) versus observation (in‐ED observation units combined with in‐hospital observation).MethodsWe identified adults diagnosed with acute chest pain in the ED from 2010 to 2014 using administrative claims from privately insured and Medicare Advantage. Patients having AMI during the index visit were excluded. One‐to‐one propensity‐score matching and logistic regression were used. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported.ResultsA total of 774,017 chest pain visits were included. After matching, healthcare utilization was lower among observation versus short inpatient, with 10.9% versus 24.4% (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.39) undergoing cardiac catheterization and 1.8% versus 7.6% (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.21 to 0.24) having PCI. The incidence of subsequent AMI within the following 30 days was similar in patients admitted as observation versus short inpatient (0.23% vs. 0.21%; OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.42).ConclusionsThere were higher rates of cardiac catheterization and PCI among those admitted as a short inpatient compared to observation, while the incidence of subsequent AMI within 30 days was similar.

AbstractObjectivesRapid response teams (RRTs) respond to signs of deterioration to avoid morbidity and mortality. Early RRT activation (eRRT) in patients admitted from the emergency department (ED) is associated with significantly increased mortality. Predicting these events may represent an opportunity to identify patients who would benefit from further resuscitation, aid disposition decision‐making, or improve communication between ED and inpatient providers. We aimed to create a clinical prediction instrument to quantify the risk of eRRT.MethodsWe performed an observational cohort study of patients admitted to a non–intensive care unit (ICU) setting who triggered eRRT from January 2009 to December of 2012 compared to those who did not trigger eRRT. Age, sex, ED vital sign measurements, and final ED diagnosis by ICD‐9 code were evaluated in a multivariable logistic regression model. The performance of prediction models was assessed using discrimination summarized by area under a receiver operating curve (AUC) and calibration with the Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness‐of‐fit test. The final model was used to create a simplified scoring system.ResultsThe eRRT group consisted of 474 patients who were compared to 2,575 patients in the reference group. Age and sex did not add significant discrimination to the model and were eliminated from the simplified, final model. This model, which included vital signs and diagnosis category, was found to have an AUC of 0.754 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.730 to 0.778) and was used to create a simplified scoring system. The odds ratio for the association of a 1‐unit increase in risk score with eRRT was 1.37 (95% CI = 1.32 to 1.41; p < 0.001). When internally validated, the score was found to have an AUC of 0.759 (95% CI = 0.735 to 0.753). Calculated scores ranged from −3 to 18, which corresponded to predicted probabilities of eRRT ranging from 5.1% to 72.2%.ConclusionsIn summary, the PeRRT score is a simple tool that can be referenced by emergency providers at the bedside to quantify the risk of early RRT activation and potential deterioration, helping to answer the question, “How likely is my patient to trigger an RRT activation in the next twelve hours?” Given that patients who trigger eRRT have an elevated risk of morbidity and mortality, higher scores should result in resuscitative intervention, further observation in the ED, consideration of ICU admission, or direct enhanced communication between ED and inpatient providers. A prospective multicenter study is required to further validate this instrument.

Abstract Diagnostic testing is an integral component of patient evaluation in the emergency department ( ED ). Emergency clinicians frequently use diagnostic testing to more confidently exclude “worst‐case” diagnoses rather than to determine the most likely etiology for a presenting complaint. Increased utilization of diagnostic testing has not been associated with reductions in disease‐related mortality but has led to increased overall healthcare costs and other unintended consequences (e.g., incidental findings requiring further workup, unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation or potentially nephrotoxic contrast). Shared decision making ( SDM ) presents an opportunity for clinicians to discuss the benefits and harms associated with diagnostic testing with patients to more closely tailor testing to patient risk. This article introduces the challenges and opportunities associated with incorporating SDM into emergency care by summarizing the conclusions of the diagnostic testing group at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on SDM . Three primary domains emerged: 1) characteristics of a condition or test appropriate for SDM , 2) critical elements of and potential barriers to SDM discussions on diagnostic testing, and 3) financial aspects of SDM applied to diagnostic testing. The most critical research questions to improve engagement of patients in their acute care diagnostic decisions were determined by consensus.

Objective and design We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the incidence of adverse events in the emergency department (ED) during procedural sedation in the paediatric population. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies from the past 10 years were included. We adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Setting ED. Participants Children. Interventions Procedural sedation. Outcomes Adverse events like vomiting, agitation, hypoxia and apnoea. Meta-analysis was performed with random-effects model and reported as incidence rates with 95% CIs. Results A total of 1177 studies were retrieved for screening and 258 were selected for full-text review. 41 studies reporting on 13 883 procedural sedations in 13 876 children (≤18 years) were included. The most common adverse events (all reported per 1000 sedations) were: vomiting 55.5 (CI 45.2 to 65.8), agitation 17.9 (CI 12.2 to 23.7), hypoxia 14.8 (CI 10.2 to 19.3) and apnoea 7.1 (CI 3.2 to 11.0). The need to intervene with either bag valve mask, oral airway or positive pressure ventilation occurred in 5.0 per 1000 sedations (CI 2.3 to 7.6). The incidences of severe respiratory events were: 34 cases of laryngospasm among 8687 sedations (2.9 per 1000 sedations, CI 1.1 to 4.7; absolute rate 3.9 per 1000 sedations), 4 intubations among 9136 sedations and 0 cases of aspiration among 3326 sedations. 33 of the 34 cases of laryngospasm occurred in patients who received ketamine. Conclusions Serious adverse respiratory events are very rare in paediatric procedural sedation in the ED. Emesis and agitation are the most frequent adverse events. Hypoxia, a late indicator of respiratory depression, occurs in 1.5% of sedations. Laryngospasm, though rare, happens most frequently with ketamine. The results of this study provide quantitative risk estimates to facilitate shared decision-making, risk communication, informed consent and resource allocation in children undergoing procedural sedation in the ED.

Background The introduction of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants has been a major advance for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation; however, outcomes achieved in clinical trials may not translate to routine practice. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban by comparing each agent with warfarin. Methods and Results Using a large US insurance database, we identified privately insured and Medicare Advantage patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were users of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin between October 1, 2010, and June 30, 2015. We created 3 matched cohorts using 1:1 propensity score matching: apixaban versus warfarin (n=15 390), dabigatran versus warfarin (n=28 614), and rivaroxaban versus warfarin (n=32 350). Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we found that for stroke or systemic embolism, apixaban was associated with lower risk (hazard ratio [ HR ] 0.67, 95% CI 0.46–0.98, P =0.04), but dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with a similar risk (dabigatran: HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.76–1.26, P =0.98; rivaroxaban: HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72–1.19, P =0.56). For major bleeding, apixaban and dabigatran were associated with lower risk (apixaban: HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34–0.59, P <0.001; dabigatran: HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67–0.94, P <0.01), and rivaroxaban was associated with a similar risk ( HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90–1.20], P =0.60). All non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants were associated with a lower risk of intracranial bleeding. Conclusions In patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, apixaban was associated with lower risks of both stroke and major bleeding, dabigatran was associated with similar risk of stroke but lower risk of major bleeding, and rivaroxaban was associated with similar risks of both stroke and major bleeding in comparison to warfarin.

AbstractObjectivesCoronary computerized tomography angiography (CCTA) is a rapidly emerging technology for the evaluation of chest pain in the emergency department (ED). We assessed trends in CCTA use and compared downstream healthcare utilization between CCTA and cardiac stress testing modalities.MethodsUsing administrative claims data (Optum Labs Data Warehouse) from over 100 million geographically diverse privately insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees across the United States, we identified 2,047,799 ED patients from January 2006 to December 2013 who presented with chest pain and had a CCTA or cardiac stress test within 72 hours. Cohorts were established based on CCTA or functional stress testing (myocardial perfusion scintigraphy [MPS], stress echocardiogram [SE], or treadmill exercise electrocardiogram [TMET]) performed within 72 hours of the ED visit. We tracked subsequent invasive cardiac procedures (invasive coronary angiography [ICA], percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], and coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]), repeat noninvasive testing, return ED visits, hospitalization, and the rate of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) within 30 days. We used propensity‐score matching to adjust for coronary artery disease (CAD) risk factors, Charlson‐Deyo comorbidity index, and baseline differences between patients selected for CCTA or cardiac stress testing. Logistic regression was used to measure adjusted associations between testing modality and outcomes.ResultsDuring the study period, CCTA use increased from 0.8% to 4.5% of all cardiac testing within 72 hours, a change of 434% (p‐value for trend < 0.001), while rates of other cardiac stress testing modalities decreased (–22% for TMET [p < 0.001]; –11% for SE [p = 0.11]; –6% for MPS [p = 0.04]. After matching, there was no difference in the 30‐day rate of AMI between testing modalities. Compared to MPS, CCTA was associated with higher rates of PCI (odds ratio [OR] = 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04 to 1.51), and CABG (OR = 1.47; 95% CI = 1.03 to 2.13). Compared to SE and treadmill stress testing, CCTA was associated with more invasive procedures, hospitalizations, return ED visits, and repeat noninvasive testing.ConclusionsCCTA use increased fourfold during the study period and was associated with higher rates of PCI, CABG, repeat noninvasive testing, hospitalization, and return ED visits.The authors have no relevant financial information or potential conflicts to disclose.

Abstract Objectives This was a systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the incidence of adverse events in adults undergoing procedural sedation in the emergency department ( ED ). Methods Eight electronic databases were searched, including MEDLINE , EMBASE , EBSCO , CINAHL , CENTRAL , Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Scopus, from January 2005 through 2015. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies of adults undergoing procedural sedation in the ED that reported a priori selected outcomes and adverse events were included. Meta‐analysis was performed using a random‐effects model and reported as incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals ( CI s). Results The search yielded 2,046 titles for review. Fifty‐five articles were eligible, including 9,652 procedural sedations. The most common adverse event was hypoxia, with an incidence of 40.2 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 32.5 to 47.9), followed by vomiting with 16.4 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 9.7 to 23.0) and hypotension with 15.2 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 10.7 to 19.7). Severe adverse events requiring emergent medical intervention were rare, with one case of aspiration in 2,370 sedations (1.2 per 1,000), one case of laryngospasm in 883 sedations (4.2 per 1,000), and two intubations in 3,636 sedations (1.6 per 1,000). The incidence of agitation and vomiting were higher with ketamine (164.1 per 1,000 and 170.0 per 1,000, respectively). Apnea was more frequent with midazolam (51.4 per 1,000), and hypoxia was less frequent in patients who received ketamine/propofol compared to other combinations. The case of laryngospasm was in a patient who received ketamine, and the aspiration and intubations were in patients who received propofol. When propofol and ketamine are combined, the incidences of agitation, apnea, hypoxia, bradycardia, hypotension, and vomiting were lower compared to each medication separately. Conclusions Serious adverse events during procedural sedation like laryngospasm, aspiration, and intubation are exceedingly rare. Quantitative risk estimates are provided to facilitate shared decision‐making, risk communication, and informed consent.

Background and Purpose— Emerging evidence demonstrating the high sensitivity of early brain computed tomography (CT) brings into question the necessity of always performing lumbar puncture after a negative CT in the diagnosis of spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Our objective was to determine the sensitivity of brain CT using modern scanners (16-slice technology or greater) when performed within 6 hours of headache onset to exclude SAH in neurologically intact patients. Methods— After conducting a comprehensive literature search using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus, we conducted a meta-analysis. We included original research studies of adults presenting with a history concerning for spontaneous SAH and who had noncontrast brain CT scan using a modern generation multidetector CT scanner within 6 hours of symptom onset. Our study adheres to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). Results— A total of 882 titles were reviewed and 5 articles met inclusion criteria, including an estimated 8907 patients. Thirteen had a missed SAH (incidence 1.46 per 1000) on brain CTs within 6 hours. Overall sensitivity of the CT was 0.987 (95% confidence intervals, 0.971–0.994) and specificity was 0.999 (95% confidence intervals, 0.993–1.0). The pooled likelihood ratio of a negative CT was 0.010 (95% confidence intervals, 0.003–0.034). Conclusions— In patients presenting with thunderclap headache and normal neurological examination, normal brain CT within 6 hours of headache is extremely sensitive in ruling out aneurysmal SAH.