Showing papers in "American Journal of Emergency Medicine in 2022"
TL;DR: The first in a two-part series on COVID-19 updates as mentioned in this paper provides a focused overview of the presentation and evaluation of the coronavirus disease of 2019 for emergency clinicians.
Abstract: Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved.This first in a two-part series on COVID-19 updates provides a focused overview of the presentation and evaluation of COVID-19 for emergency clinicians.COVID-19, caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Several variants exist, including a variant of concern known as Delta (B.1.617.2 lineage) and the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529 lineage). The Delta variant is associated with higher infectivity and poor patient outcomes, and the Omicron variant has resulted in a significant increase in infections. While over 80% of patients experience mild symptoms, a significant proportion can be critically ill, including those who are older and those with comorbidities. Upper respiratory symptoms, fever, and changes in taste/smell remain the most common presenting symptoms. Extrapulmonary complications are numerous and may be severe, including the cardiovascular, neurologic, gastrointestinal, and dermatologic systems. Emergency department evaluation includes focused testing for COVID-19 and assessment of end-organ injury. Imaging may include chest radiography, computed tomography, or ultrasound. Several risk scores may assist in prognostication, including the 4C (Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium) score, quick COVID Severity Index (qCSI), NEWS2, and the PRIEST score, but these should only supplement and not replace clinical judgment.This review provides a focused update of the presentation and evaluation of COVID-19 for emergency clinicians.
101 citations
TL;DR: In this paper , a systematic review of COVID-19-associated myocarditis, including clinical presentation, risk factors, and prognosis, was conducted, demonstrating two distinct etiologies of primary acute heart failure in surprisingly equal incidence in patients with COVID19: viral myocard infections and Takotsubo cardiomyopathy.
Abstract: Most COVID-19 infections result in a viral syndrome characterized by fever, cough, shortness of breath, and myalgias. A small but significant proportion of patients develop severe COVID-19 resulting in respiratory failure. Many of these patients also develop multi-organ dysfunction as a byproduct of their critical illness. Although heart failure can be a part of this, there also appears to be a subset of patients who have primary cardiac collapse from COVID-19. Conduct a systematic review of COVID-19-associated myocarditis, including clinical presentation, risk factors, and prognosis. Our review demonstrates two distinct etiologies of primary acute heart failure in surprisingly equal incidence in patients with COVID-19: viral myocarditis and Takotsubo cardiomyopathy. COVID myocarditis, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, and severe COVID-19 can be clinically indistinguishable. All can present with dyspnea and evidence of cardiac injury, although in myocarditis and Takotsubo this is due to primary cardiac dysfunction as compared to respiratory failure in severe COVID-19. COVID-19-associated myocarditis differs from COVID-19 respiratory failure by an early shock state. However, not all heart failure from COVID-19 is from direct viral infection; some patient's develop takotsubo cardiomyopathy. Regardless of etiology, steroids may be a beneficial treatment, similar to other critically ill COVID-19 patients. Evidence of cardiac injury in the form of ECG changes or elevated troponin in patients with COVID-19 should prompt providers to consider concurrent myocarditis.
38 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors conducted a systematic review of COVID-19-associated myocarditis, including clinical presentation, risk factors, and prognosis, and demonstrated two distinct etiologies of primary acute heart failure in surprisingly equal incidence in patients with CoVid-19: Viral Myocarditis and Takotsubo cardiomyopathy.
Abstract: Background Most COVID-19 infections result in a viral syndrome characterized by fever, cough, shortness of breath, and myalgias. A small but significant proportion of patients develop severe COVID-19 resulting in respiratory failure. Many of these patients also develop multi-organ dysfunction as a byproduct of their critical illness. Although heart failure can be a part of this, there also appears to be a subset of patients who have primary cardiac collapse from COVID-19. Objective Conduct a systematic review of COVID-19-associated myocarditis, including clinical presentation, risk factors, and prognosis. Discussion Our review demonstrates two distinct etiologies of primary acute heart failure in surprisingly equal incidence in patients with COVID-19: viral myocarditis and Takotsubo cardiomyopathy. COVID myocarditis, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, and severe COVID-19 can be clinically indistinguishable. All can present with dyspnea and evidence of cardiac injury, although in myocarditis and Takotsubo this is due to primary cardiac dysfunction as compared to respiratory failure in severe COVID-19. Conclusion COVID-19-associated myocarditis differs from COVID-19 respiratory failure by an early shock state. However, not all heart failure from COVID-19 is from direct viral infection; some patient's develop takotsubo cardiomyopathy. Regardless of etiology, steroids may be a beneficial treatment, similar to other critically ill COVID-19 patients. Evidence of cardiac injury in the form of ECG changes or elevated troponin in patients with COVID-19 should prompt providers to consider concurrent myocarditis.
38 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of one-year hospital readmissions and post-discharge all-cause mortality in recovered COVID-19 patients.
Abstract: Objective The present study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of one-year hospital readmissions and post-discharge all-cause mortality in recovered COVID-19 patients. Moreover, the country-level prevalence of the outcomes was investigated. Methods An extensive search was performed in Medline (PubMed), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases until the end of August 3rd, 2021. A manual search was also performed in Google and Google Scholar search engines. Cohort and cross-sectional studies were included. Two independent reviewers screened the papers, collected data, and assessed the risk of bias and level of evidence. Any disagreement was resolved through discussion. Results 91 articles were included. 48 studies examined hospital readmissions; nine studies assessed post-discharge all-cause mortality, and 34 studies examined both outcomes. Analyses showed that the prevalence of hospital readmissions during the first 30 days, 90 days, and one-year post-discharge were 8.97% (95% CI: 7.44, 10.50), 9.79% (95% CI: 8.37, 11.24), and 10.34% (95% CI: 8.92, 11.77), respectively. The prevalence of post-discharge all-cause mortality during the 30 days, 90 days and one-year post-discharge was 7.87% (95% CI: 2.78, 12.96), 7.63% (95% CI: 4.73, 10.53) and 7.51% (95% CI, 5.30, 9.72), respectively. 30-day hospital readmissions and post-discharge mortality were 8.97% and 7.87%, respectively. The highest prevalence of hospital readmissions was observed in Germany (15.5%), Greece (15.5%), UK (13.5%), Netherlands (11.7%), China (10.8%), USA (10.0%) and Sweden (9.9%). In addition, the highest prevalence of post-discharge all-cause mortality belonged to Italy (12.7%), the UK (11.8%), and Iran (9.2%). Sensitivity analysis showed that the prevalence of one-year hospital readmissions and post-discharge all-cause mortality in high-quality studies were 10.38% and 4.00%, respectively. Conclusion 10.34% of recovered COVID-19 patients required hospital readmissions after discharge. Most cases of hospital readmissions and mortality appear to occur within 30 days after discharge. The one-year post-discharge all-cause mortality rate of COVID-19 patients is 7.87%, and the majority of patients' readmission and mortality happens within the first 30 days post-discharge. Therefore, a 30-day follow-up program and patient tracking system for discharged COVID-19 patients seems necessary.
21 citations
TL;DR: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation is a promising but resource-intensive intervention that may increase rates of survival to hospital discharge among patients who experience OHCA and the majority of included articles were high quality studies.
Abstract: Background Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) has gained increasing as a promising but resource-intensive intervention for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). There is little data to quantify the impact of this intervention and the patients likely to benefit from its use. We conducted a meta-analysis of the literature to assess the survival benefit associated with ECPR for OHCA. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases to identify relevant observational studies and randomized control trials. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to assess studies' quality. We performed random-effects meta-analysis for the primary outcome of survival to hospital discharge and used meta-regressions to assess heterogeneity. Results We identified 1287 articles, reviewed the full text of 209 and included 44 in our meta-analysis. Our analysis included 3097 patients with OHCA. Patients' mean age was 52, 79% were male, and 60% had primary ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia arrest. We identified a survival-to-discharge rate of 24%; 18% survived with favorable neurologic function. 30- and 90-days survival rates were both around 18%. The majority of included articles were high quality studies. Conclusions Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation is a promising but resource-intensive intervention that may increase rates of survival to hospital discharge among patients who experience OHCA.
21 citations
TL;DR: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of one-year hospital readmissions and post-discharge all-cause mortality in recovered COVID-19 patients was performed in this paper .
Abstract: The present study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of one-year hospital readmissions and post-discharge all-cause mortality in recovered COVID-19 patients. Moreover, the country-level prevalence of the outcomes was investigated. An extensive search was performed in Medline (PubMed), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases until the end of August 3rd, 2021. A manual search was also performed in Google and Google Scholar search engines. Cohort and cross-sectional studies were included. Two independent reviewers screened the papers, collected data, and assessed the risk of bias and level of evidence. Any disagreement was resolved through discussion. 91 articles were included. 48 studies examined hospital readmissions; nine studies assessed post-discharge all-cause mortality, and 34 studies examined both outcomes. Analyses showed that the prevalence of hospital readmissions during the first 30 days, 90 days, and one-year post-discharge were 8.97% (95% CI: 7.44, 10.50), 9.79% (95% CI: 8.37, 11.24), and 10.34% (95% CI: 8.92, 11.77), respectively. The prevalence of post-discharge all-cause mortality during the 30 days, 90 days and one-year post-discharge was 7.87% (95% CI: 2.78, 12.96), 7.63% (95% CI: 4.73, 10.53) and 7.51% (95% CI, 5.30, 9.72), respectively. 30-day hospital readmissions and post-discharge mortality were 8.97% and 7.87%, respectively. The highest prevalence of hospital readmissions was observed in Germany (15.5%), Greece (15.5%), UK (13.5%), Netherlands (11.7%), China (10.8%), USA (10.0%) and Sweden (9.9%). In addition, the highest prevalence of post-discharge all-cause mortality belonged to Italy (12.7%), the UK (11.8%), and Iran (9.2%). Sensitivity analysis showed that the prevalence of one-year hospital readmissions and post-discharge all-cause mortality in high-quality studies were 10.38% and 4.00%, respectively. 10.34% of recovered COVID-19 patients required hospital readmissions after discharge. Most cases of hospital readmissions and mortality appear to occur within 30 days after discharge. The one-year post-discharge all-cause mortality rate of COVID-19 patients is 7.87%, and the majority of patients' readmission and mortality happens within the first 30 days post-discharge. Therefore, a 30-day follow-up program and patient tracking system for discharged COVID-19 patients seems necessary.
21 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors compared the rates of bacterial infections and mortality in Covid-19 patients with pulmonary infiltrates versus patients diagnosed with ‘pneumonia’ the year previously.
Abstract: Background Many patients with Coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19) present with radiological evidence of pneumonia. Because it is difficult to determine co-existence of bacterial pneumonia, many of these patients are initially treated with antibiotics. We compared the rates of bacterial infections and mortality in Covid-19 patients with pulmonary infiltrates versus patients diagnosed with ‘pneumonia’ the year previously. Methods We conducted a medical record review of patients admitted with Covid-19 and a pulmonary infiltrate and compared them with patients diagnosed with pneumonia admitted in the prior year before the pandemic. Data abstracted included baseline demographics, comorbidities, signs and symptoms, laboratory and microbiological results, and imaging findings. Outcomes were bacterial infections and mortality. Patients presenting with and without Covid-19 were compared using univariable and multivariable analyses. Results There were 1398 and 1001 patients admitted through the emergency department (ED) with and without Covid-19 respectively. Compared with non-Covid-19 patients, those with Covid-19 were younger (61±18 vs. 65±25 years, P Conclusions The rate of bacterial infections is lower in Covid-19 patients with pulmonary infiltrates compared with patients diagnosed with pneumonia prior to the pandemic and most are nosocomial. Mortality was higher in Covid-19 than non-Covid-19 patients even after adjusting for age, tachypnea, hypoxemia, and bacterial infection.
19 citations
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors conducted a medical record review of patients admitted with Covid-19 and a pulmonary infiltrate and compared them with patients diagnosed with pneumonia admitted in the prior year before the pandemic.
Abstract: Many patients with Coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19) present with radiological evidence of pneumonia. Because it is difficult to determine co-existence of bacterial pneumonia, many of these patients are initially treated with antibiotics. We compared the rates of bacterial infections and mortality in Covid-19 patients with pulmonary infiltrates versus patients diagnosed with ‘pneumonia’ the year previously. We conducted a medical record review of patients admitted with Covid-19 and a pulmonary infiltrate and compared them with patients diagnosed with pneumonia admitted in the prior year before the pandemic. Data abstracted included baseline demographics, comorbidities, signs and symptoms, laboratory and microbiological results, and imaging findings. Outcomes were bacterial infections and mortality. Patients presenting with and without Covid-19 were compared using univariable and multivariable analyses. There were 1398 and 1001 patients admitted through the emergency department (ED) with and without Covid-19 respectively. Compared with non-Covid-19 patients, those with Covid-19 were younger (61±18 vs. 65±25 years, P < 0.001) and had a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index (0.7 vs. 1.2, P < 0.001). Bacterial infections were present in fewer Covid-19 than non-Covid-19 patients (8% vs. 13%, P < 0.001), and most infections in Covid-19 were nosocomial as opposed to community acquired in non-Covid-19 patients. CXR was more often read as abnormal and with bilateral infiltrates in patients with Covid-19 (82% vs. 70%, P < 0.001 and 81% vs. 48%, P < 0.001, respectively). Mortality was higher in patients with Covid-19 vs. those without (15% vs. 9%, P < 0.001). Multivariable predictors (OR [95%CI]) of mortality were age (1.04 [1.03–1.05]/year), tachypnea (1.55 [1.12–2.14]), hypoxemia (2.98 [2.04–4.34]), and bacterial infection (2.80 [1.95–4.02]). Compared with non-Covid-19 patients with pneumonia, patients with Covid-19 were more likely to die (2.68 [1.97–3.63]). The rate of bacterial infections is lower in Covid-19 patients with pulmonary infiltrates compared with patients diagnosed with pneumonia prior to the pandemic and most are nosocomial. Mortality was higher in Covid-19 than non-Covid-19 patients even after adjusting for age, tachypnea, hypoxemia, and bacterial infection.
19 citations
TL;DR: In this paper , a mixed-methods study involved a prospective descriptive survey study and electronic medical record review was conducted to identify the impact of the pandemic on workplace violence at an academic emergency department (ED).
Abstract: COVID-19 brought unique challenges; however, it remains unclear what effect the pandemic had on violence in healthcare. The objective of this study was to identify the impact of the pandemic on workplace violence at an academic emergency department (ED). This mixed-methods study involved a prospective descriptive survey study and electronic medical record review. Within our hospital referral region (HRR), the first COVID-19 case was documented on 3/11/2020 and cases peaked in mid-November 2020. We compared the monthly HRR COVID-19 case rate per 100,000 people to the rate of violent incidents per 1000 ED visits. Multidisciplinary ED staff were surveyed both pre/early-pandemic (April 2020) and mid/late-pandemic (December 2020) regarding workplace violence experienced over the prior 6-months. The study was deemed exempt by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board. There was a positive association between the monthly HRR COVID-19 case rate and rate of violent ED incidents (r = 0.24). Violent incidents increased overall during the pandemic (2.53 incidents per 1000 visits) compared to the 3 months prior (1.13 incidents per 1000 visits, p < .001), as well as compared to the previous year (1.24 incidents per 1000 patient visits, p < .001). Survey respondents indicated a higher incidence of assault during the pandemic, compared to before (p = .019). Incidents of workplace violence at our ED increased during the pandemic and there was a positive association of these incidents with the COVID-19 case rate. Our findings indicate health systems should prioritize employee safety during future pandemics.
18 citations
TL;DR: In this article , the authors compared and determined whether there were any differences in clinical outcomes between pregnant and non-pregnant women who had been infected with COVID-19.
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to compare and determine whether there were any differences in clinical outcomes between pregnant and non-pregnant women who had been infected with COVID-19.A literature search was performed in 9 databases on November 20, 2021. The relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used to estimate the effect of pregnancy on COVID-19 outcomes. The I square value was used to assess heterogeneity, and the random or the fixed-effects model were adopted. Sensitivity and publication bias analyses were performed.This study included 8 published studies with 859,278 COVID-19 female patients. The incidences of fever and cough among pregnant women with COVID-19 were 19.07% and 28.79%, respectively. Pregnancy was associated with significantly increased risks of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (RR = 2.23, 95% CI = 1.58-3.16) and ventilation (RR = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.06-4.28), but was not associated with a statistically significant increase in mortality.Our results suggest that pregnant women with COVID-19 have a significantly higher probability of being hospitalized to the ICU and ventilation than non-pregnant women with COVID-19. To avoid these adverse outcomes, pregnant women should take precautions (for example, reduce going out, maintain social distance, and wear a mask) to avoid COVID-19 infection. Finally, additional research into the fetal outcomes is required to better investigate the impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy.
18 citations
TL;DR: A detailed overview of the epidemiology, presentation, evaluation, and management of monkeypox for emergency clinicians can be found in this paper , with a focus on the presentation, diagnosis and treatment of this emerging disease.
Abstract: Monkeypox is an emerging viral disease that has been declared a global health emergency. While this disease has been present for over 50 years, the recent surge in cases and expanding knowledge of this has prompted a need for a focused review for practicing clinicians.This narrative review provides a focused overview of the epidemiology, presentation, evaluation, and management of monkeypox for emergency clinicians.Monkeypox is an orthopoxvirus endemic to central and western Africa. An outbreak in May and June 2022 across Asia, Europe, North America, and South America was declared a global health emergency in July 2022. The disease can be transmitted via contact with an infected animal or human, as well as contact with a contaminated material. The disease presents with a prodromal flu-like illness and lymphadenopathy. A rash spreading in a centrifugal manner involving the oral mucosa, face, palms, and soles is typical. Lesions progress along various stages. Complications such as bacterial skin infection, pneumonitis, ocular conditions, and encephalitis are uncommon. Confirmation typically includes polymerase chain reaction testing. The majority of patients improve with symptomatic therapy, and as of July 2022, there are no United States Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments specifically for monkeypox. However, antiviral treatment should be considered for several patient populations at risk for severe outcomes.An understanding of the presentation, evaluation, and management of monkeypox is essential for emergency clinicians to ensure appropriate diagnosis and treatment of this emerging disease.
TL;DR: In this paper , a meta-analysis of the literature to assess the survival benefit associated with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) was conducted.
Abstract: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) has gained increasing as a promising but resource-intensive intervention for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). There is little data to quantify the impact of this intervention and the patients likely to benefit from its use. We conducted a meta-analysis of the literature to assess the survival benefit associated with ECPR for OHCA.We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases to identify relevant observational studies and randomized control trials. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to assess studies' quality. We performed random-effects meta-analysis for the primary outcome of survival to hospital discharge and used meta-regressions to assess heterogeneity.We identified 1287 articles, reviewed the full text of 209 and included 44 in our meta-analysis. Our analysis included 3097 patients with OHCA. Patients' mean age was 52, 79% were male, and 60% had primary ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia arrest. We identified a survival-to-discharge rate of 24%; 18% survived with favorable neurologic function. 30- and 90-days survival rates were both around 18%. The majority of included articles were high quality studies.Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation is a promising but resource-intensive intervention that may increase rates of survival to hospital discharge among patients who experience OHCA.
TL;DR: In this article , the authors conducted a systematic review to better understand the factors contributing to incorrect diagnosis of aortic dissection and found that misdiagnosis is not uncommon as symptoms can overlap with other diagnoses.
Abstract: Aortic dissection is a rare but potentially catastrophic condition. Misdiagnosis of aortic dissection is not uncommon as symptoms can overlap with other diagnoses.We conducted a systematic review to better understand the factors contributing to incorrect diagnosis of this condition.We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies that evaluated the misdiagnosis of aortic dissection. The rate of misdiagnosis was pooled and results were narratively synthesized.A total of 12 studies with were included with 1663 patients. The overall rate of misdiagnosis of aortic dissection was 33.8%. The proportion of patients presenting with chest pain, back pain and syncope were 67.5%, 24.8% and 6.8% respectively. The proportion of patients with pre-existing hypertension was 55.4%, 30.5% were smokers while the proportion of patients with coronary artery disease, previous cardiovascular surgery or surgical trauma and Marfan syndrome was 14.7%, 5.8%, and 3.7%, respectively. Factors related to misdiagnosis included the presence of symptoms and features associated with other diseases (such as acute coronary syndrome, stroke and pulmonary embolism), the absence of typical features (such as widened mediastinum on chest X-ray) or concurrent conditions such congestive heart failure. Factors associated with more accurate diagnosis included more comprehensive history taking and increased use of imaging.Misdiagnosis in patients with an eventual diagnosis of aortic dissection affects 1 in 3 patients. Clinicians should consider aortic dissection as differential diagnosis in patients with chest pain, back pain and syncope. Imaging should be used early to make the diagnosis when aortic dissection is suspected.
TL;DR: In this article , the authors focused on the characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes associated with readmission in COVID-19 patients and found that male sex, white race, comorbidities, and older age were associated with a higher risk of readmission.
Abstract: We aimed to determine the characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes associated with readmission in COVID-19 patients.PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched to retrieve articles on readmitted COVID-19 patients, available up to September 25, 2021. All studies comparing characteristics of readmitted and non-readmitted COVID-19 patients were included. We also included articles reporting the reasons for readmission in COVID-19 patients. Data were pooled and meta-analyzed using random or fixed-effect models, as appropriate. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the place and duration of readmission.Our meta-analysis included 4823 readmitted and 63,413 non-readmitted COVID-19 patients. The re-hospitalization rate was calculated at 9.3% with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [5.5%-15.4%], mostly associated with respiratory or cardiac complications (48% and 14%, respectively). Comorbidities including cerebrovascular disease (Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.812; 95% CI [1.547-2.121]), cardiovascular (2.173 [1.545-3.057]), hypertension (1.608 [1.319-1.960]), ischemic heart disease (1.998 [1.495-2.670]), heart failure (2.556 [1.980-3.300]), diabetes (1.588 [1.443-1.747]), cancer (1.817 [1.526-2.162]), kidney disease (2.083 [1.498-2.897]), chronic pulmonary disease (1.601 [1.438-1.783]), as well as older age (1.525 [1.175-1.978]), male sex (1.155 [1.041-1.282]), and white race (1.263 [1.044-1.528]) were significantly associated with higher readmission rates (P < 0.05 for all instances). The mortality rate was significantly lower in readmitted patients (OR = 0.530 [0.329-0.855], P = 0.009).Male sex, white race, comorbidities, and older age were associated with a higher risk of readmission among previously admitted COVID-19 patients. These factors can help clinicians and policy-makers predict, and conceivably reduce the risk of readmission in COVID-19 patients.
TL;DR: In this paper , secondary traumatic stress (STS), anxiety, and depression levels of emergency healthcare workers were determined among emergency nurses and auxiliary staff during the 2011 Asian flu pandemic.
Abstract: This study aims to determine the secondary traumatic stress (STS), anxiety, and depression levels of the emergency healthcare workers (HCWs) and to identify the factors associated with the mental health of the emergency HCWs. This prospective cross-sectional study was performed between April 1 and May 1, 2021. Emergency nurses and auxiliary staff who gave informed consent were included in the study. Participants who answered the questions incompletely were excluded from the study. Demographic information, working and living conditions, STS, anxiety, depression scores, and coping strategies were recorded. A total of 363 HCWs were included in the study. STS was detected in 261 (71.9%) of the participants, anxiety in 148 (40.8%), and depression in 203 (55.9%) participants. Vaccination against COVID-19 was not associated with STS, anxiety, and depression among emergency HCWs (p > 0.05). Having financial difficulties was the most important factor in the development of anxiety, depression, and STS (OR: 3.68 (95% CI 1.96–6.90), p < 0.001; OR: 4.36 (95% CI 2.52–7.53), p < 0.001; OR: 5.35 (95% CI 3.06–9.37), p < 0.001, respectively). We found significantly reduced levels of STS, anxiety, and depression among participants reporting coping strategies that engaging in hobbies, healthy nutrition, and reading books. High levels of STS, anxiety, and depression were determined among emergency nurses and auxiliary staff during the pandemic. Poor job satisfaction and financial difficulties were associated with the mental health of emergency HCWs. The mental health of the emergency HCWs should be evaluated regularly. In addition to professional psychological support, social and financial support should be provided as well.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors performed a meta-analysis on intrahospital transport of critically ill patients and found that adverse events can occur during intrahhospital transport of critical ill patients, and the frequency of critical adverse events is relatively low.
Abstract: Introduction Intrahospital transport of critically ill patients is often necessary for diagnostic procedures, therapeutic procedures, or admission to the intensive care unit. The aim of this study was to investigate and describe safety and adverse events during intrahospital transport of critically ill patients. Material and methods A systematic search was performed of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published up to June 3, 2020, and of the International Clinical Trials Platform Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. We selected prospective and retrospective cohort studies published in English on intrahospital transport of critically ill patients, and then performed a meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the incidence of all adverse events that occurred during intrahospital transport. The secondary outcomes were death due to intrahospital transport or life-threatening adverse events, minor events in vital signs, adverse events related to equipment, durations of ICU and hospital stay, and costs. Results A total of 12,313 intrahospital transports and 1898 patients from 24 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Among 24 studies that evaluated the primary outcome, the pooled frequency of all adverse events was 26.2% (95% CI: 15.0–39.2) and the heterogeneity among these studies was high (I2 = 99.5%). The pooled frequency of death due to intrahospital transport and life-threatening adverse events was 0% and 1.47% each, but heterogeneity was also high. Conclusions Our findings suggest that adverse events can occur during intrahospital transport of critically ill patients, and that the frequency of critical adverse events is relatively low. The results of this meta-analysis could assist in risk-benefit analysis of diagnostic or therapeutic procedures requiring intrahospital transport of critically ill patients. Trial registration: UMIN000040963.
TL;DR: In this article , the authors used decision curve analysis (DCA) to evaluate the clinical benefit of the rapid antigen test in the emergency department (ED) assessment of potential SARS-CoV-2 infection in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.
Abstract: Early detection of SARS-CoV-2 patients is essential to contain the pandemic and keep the hospital secure. The rapid antigen test seems to be a quick and easy diagnostic test to identify patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. To assess the possible role of the antigen test in the Emergency Department (ED) assessment of potential SARS-CoV-2 infection in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.Between 1 July 2020 and 10 December 2020, all patients consecutively assessed in the ED for suspected COVID-19 symptoms or who required hospitalisation for a condition not associated with COVID-19 were subjected to a rapid antigen test and RT-PCR swab. The diagnostic accuracy of the antigen test was determined in comparison to the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test using contingency tables. The possible clinical benefit of the antigen test was globally evaluated through decision curve analysis (DCA).A total of 3899 patients were subjected to antigen tests and PCR swabs. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the antigen test were 82.9%, 99.1% and 97.4% (Cohen's K = 0.854, 95% CI 0.826-0.882, p < 0.001), respectively. In symptomatic patients, sensitivity was found to be 89.8%, while in asymptomatic patients, sensitivity was 63.1%. DCA appears to confirm a net clinical benefit for the preliminary use of antigen tests.The antigen test performed in the ED, though not ideal, can improve the overall identification of infected patients. While it appears to perform well in symptomatic patients, in asymptomatic patients, although it improves their management, it seems not to be definitive.
TL;DR: In this paper, a rapid antigen test was used to identify SARS-CoV-2 infection in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients in the Emergency Department (ED).
Abstract: PURPOSE: Early detection of SARS-CoV-2 patients is essential to contain the pandemic and keep the hospital secure. The rapid antigen test seems to be a quick and easy diagnostic test to identify patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. To assess the possible role of the antigen test in the Emergency Department (ED) assessment of potential SARS-CoV-2 infection in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. METHODS: Between 1 July 2020 and 10 December 2020, all patients consecutively assessed in the ED for suspected COVID-19 symptoms or who required hospitalisation for a condition not associated with COVID-19 were subjected to a rapid antigen test and RT-PCR swab. The diagnostic accuracy of the antigen test was determined in comparison to the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test using contingency tables. The possible clinical benefit of the antigen test was globally evaluated through decision curve analysis (DCA). RESULTS: A total of 3899 patients were subjected to antigen tests and PCR swabs. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the antigen test were 82.9%, 99.1% and 97.4% (Cohen's K = 0.854, 95% CI 0.826-0.882, p < 0.001), respectively. In symptomatic patients, sensitivity was found to be 89.8%, while in asymptomatic patients, sensitivity was 63.1%. DCA appears to confirm a net clinical benefit for the preliminary use of antigen tests. CONCLUSIONS: The antigen test performed in the ED, though not ideal, can improve the overall identification of infected patients. While it appears to perform well in symptomatic patients, in asymptomatic patients, although it improves their management, it seems not to be definitive.
TL;DR: In this paper , a review of available evidence to clarify misconceptions regarding the clinical presentation, while providing an in-depth expert guide on bedside echocardiography is provided.
Abstract: Pericardial tamponade requires timely diagnosis and management. It carries a high mortality rate. This review incorporates available evidence to clarify misconceptions regarding the clinical presentation, while providing an in-depth expert guide on bedside echocardiography. It also details the decision-making strategy for emergency management including pericardiocentesis, along with pre- and peri-procedural pearls and pitfalls. Pericardial effusions causing tamponade arise from diverse etiologies across acute and sub-acute time courses. The most frequently reported symptom is dyspnea. The classically taught Beck’s triad (which includes hypotension) does not appear commonly. Echocardiographic findings include: a pericardial effusion (larger size associated with tamponade), diastolic right ventricular collapse (specific), systolic right atrial collapse (sensitive), a plethoric non-collapsible inferior vena cava (sensitive), and sonographic pulsus paradoxus. Emergent pericardiocentesis is warranted by hemodynamic instability, impending deterioration, or cardiac arrest. Emergent surgical indications include type A aortic dissection causing hemopericardium, ventricular free wall rupture after acute myocardial infarction, severe chest trauma, and iatrogenic hemopericardium when bleeding cannot be controlled percutaneously. Pre-procedure management includes blood products for patients with traumatic hemopericardium; gentle intravenous fluids to hypotensive, hypovolemic patients with consideration for vasoactive medications; treatment of anticoagulation, coagulopathies, and anemia. Positive-pressure ventilation and intravenous sedation can lower cardiac output and should be avoided if possible. Optimal location for echocardiography-guided pericardiocentesis is the largest, shallowest fluid pocket with no intervening vital structures. Patient positioning to prevent hypoxia and liberal amounts of local anesthesia can facilitate patients remaining still. Safe needle guidance and confirmation of catheter placement is achieved using low-depth sonographic views, injection of agitated saline, and evaluation of initial aspirate for hemorrhage. Pericardial fluid should be drained slowly to avoid pericardial decompression syndrome. An understanding of the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, echocardiographic findings, and time-sensitive management of pericardial tamponade is essential for emergency physicians.
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors proposed a VieScope laryngoscope for intubation of COVID-19 patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection in prehospital setting.
Abstract: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is still the gold standard of airway management, but in cases of sudden cardiac arrest in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, ETI is associated with risks for both the patient and the medical personnel. We hypothesized that the Vie Scope® is more useful for endotracheal intubation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cardiac arrest patients than the conventional laryngoscope with Macintosh blade when operators are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). Study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed by Emergency Medical Services in Poland. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who needed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prehospital setting were included. Patients under 18 years old or with criteria predictive of impossible intubation under direct laryngoscopy, were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to Vie Scope® versus direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade. Study groups were compared on success of intubation attempts, time to intubation, glottis visualization and number of optimization maneuvers. We enrolled 90 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, aged 43–92 years. Compared to the VieScope® laryngoscope, use of the Macintosh laryngoscope required longer times for tracheal intubation with an estimated mean difference of −48 s (95%CI confidence interval [CI], −60.23, −35.77; p < 0.001). Moreover VieScope® improved first attempt success rate, 93.3% vs. 51.1% respectively (odds ratio [OR] = 13.39; 95%CI: 3.62, 49.58; p < 0.001). The use of the Vie Scope® laryngoscope in OHCA patients improved the first attempt success rate, and reduced intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in paramedics wearing PPE for against aerosol generating procedures. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials registration number NCT04365608
TL;DR: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) images of the suspected site of infection were obtained by the emergency medicine physician and interpreted based on sonographic findings of necrotizing fasciitis as discussed by the authors .
Abstract: Necrotizing fasciitis (NF) is a severe, life-threatening soft tissue infection requiring prompt diagnosis and immediate surgical debridement. Imaging, including a computed tomography (CT) scan, can often aid in the diagnosis, though it can prolong time to treatment and diagnosis. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is often used in the ED to identify soft tissue infections. The objective of this study is to evaluate the use of POCUS to identify NF in patients presenting to the emergency department.We prospectively enrolled patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) with suspected soft tissue infection who received a computed tomography and/or surgical consult. POCUS images of the suspected site of infection were obtained by the emergency medicine physician and interpreted based on sonographic findings of NF. These findings were compared with CT scan or surgical impression.We enrolled 64 patients in this study. Eight were determined to be at high risk of having NF based on CT scan and/or surgical impression. All of these patients also had POCUS images interpreted as concerning for NF. Furthermore, 56 patients were classified as being low risk for having NF based on CT scan and/or surgical impression. All but one of these patients had POCUS images interpreted as not concerning for NF.Our data indicates that POCUS can be used to identify NF with a high sensitivity and specificity.
TL;DR: In this article , the authors provide a focused overview of the medical management of COVID-19 for emergency and critical care clinicians to help improve care for these patients, including the benefits of other medical therapies, such as colchicine, convalescent plasma, famotidine, ivermectin, and vitamins and minerals.
Abstract: Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved.This is the second part in a series on COVID-19 updates providing a focused overview of the medical management of COVID-19 for emergency and critical care clinicians.COVID-19, caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. A variety of medical therapies have been introduced for use, including steroids, antivirals, interleukin-6 antagonists, monoclonal antibodies, and kinase inhibitors. These agents have each demonstrated utility in certain patient subsets. Prophylactic anticoagulation in admitted patients demonstrates improved outcomes. Further randomized data concerning aspirin in outpatients with COVID-19 are needed. Any beneficial impact of other therapies, such as colchicine, convalescent plasma, famotidine, ivermectin, and vitamins and minerals is not present in reliable medical literature. In addition, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are not recommended.This review provides a focused update of the medical management of COVID-19 for emergency and critical care clinicians to help improve care for these patients.
TL;DR: Tranexamic acid (TXA) has been incorporated into treatment algorithms for a multitude of emergent conditions and the evidence surrounding its role in emergency medicine continues to evolve as mentioned in this paper .
Abstract: Over the last decade, tranexamic acid (TXA) has been incorporated into treatment algorithms for a multitude of emergent conditions and the evidence surrounding its role in emergency medicine continues to evolve. The objective of this literature review is to provide an evidence-based approach to the utilization of TXA in the emergency department. The most robust trials suggest TXA may offer a modest improvement in mortality in patients at risk of significant bleeding from trauma, but is not beneficial in spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage or gastrointestinal bleeding. The role of TXA in other clinical scenarios is less clear and requires clinical judgment. Tranexamic acid appears to be a reasonable adjunct for the emergency medicine clinician to consider in the management of many hemorrhagic conditions and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor-induced angioedema. Additional high-quality research in these areas is needed to further identity patients who may benefit most from TXA.
TL;DR: In this article , a retrospective chart review was conducted to assess patients admitted to a multi-center healthcare system and a stand-alone teaching hospital in central Florida from June 2016 to December 2020, who were at least 18 years of age, taking apixaban or rivaroxaban prior to admission, had radiographical evidence of an intracranial hemorrhage, and received either andexanet alfa (AA) or four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) as a reversal agent.
Abstract: Existing research recommends either andexanet alfa (AA) or four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) as an antidote for major bleeding events due to apixaban or rivaroxaban. Currently, there is limited published research that directly compares the risks and benefits of the two agents in patients with oral factor Xa inhibitor related traumatic and spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhages. Additional head-to-head data is needed to support favoring either AA or 4F-PCC when it comes to efficacy, safety, and cost.A retrospective chart review was conducted to assess patients admitted to a multi-center healthcare system and a stand-alone teaching hospital in central Florida from June 2016 to December 2020. Patients included in the study were at least 18 years of age, taking apixaban or rivaroxaban prior to admission, had radiographical evidence of an intracranial hemorrhage, and received either AA or 4F-PCC as a reversal agent. The primary outcome analyzed was the level of excellent hemostasis achieved, based on a standardized rating system for effective hemostasis defined by the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH), after administration of AA or 4F-PCC. Secondary outcomes analyzed included changes in the initial hemorrhage volume as reported on computed tomography (CT) scan and at 12 to 24 h post treatment, rate of thromboembolic events, rate of inpatient mortality, and total cost of treatment after AA or 4F-PCC administration.A total of 109 patients were included in the study with 47 in the AA group (43.1%) and 62 in the 4F-PCC group (56.9%). There were no statistically significant differences between AA and 4F-PCC in terms of the primary and secondary outcomes with the exception of total cost of treatment. The level of excellent hemostasis achieved after reversal administration of AA was seen in 27 patients (71.1%) and 41 patients (70.7%) after 4F-PCC administration (p = 1, p adjusted = 0.654 after controlling for age, ICH score, regional mass effect, and midline shift). There was no statistically significant difference in the median percentage change in hemorrhagic volume from baseline to 12-24 h after reversal treatment (0 [-0.17--0.24] vs. 0 [-0.021-0.29], p = 0.439, adjusted p = 0.601) in the AA and 4F-PCC groups, respectively. The total incidence of thromboembolic events (4 [8.5%] vs. 6 [9.7%], p = 1, adjusted p = 0.973) and rate of inpatient mortality was similar between the two groups (16 [34.0%] vs. 13 [21.0%], p = 0.134, adjusted p = 0.283). A statistically significant difference was observed with the total cost of reversal treatment: $23,602 for treatment with AA and $6692 for treatment with 4F-PCC.No statistically significant differences were identified in primary or secondary outcomes between the two agents with the exception of total treatment cost. There is insufficient evidence based on this study to recommend AA over 4F-PCC for patients with intracranial hemorrhages associated with the use of apixaban or rivaroxaban.
TL;DR: Evaluated data indicates that POCUS can be used to identify NF with a high sensitivity and specificity and is effective in patients presenting to the emergency department.
Abstract: Background: Necrotizing fasciitis (NF) is a severe, life-threatening soft tissue infection requiring prompt diagnosis and immediate surgical debridement. Imaging, including a computed tomography (CT) scan, can often aid in the diagnosis, though it can prolong time to treatment and diagnosis. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is often used in the ED to identify soft tissue infections. The objective of this study is to evaluate the use of POCUS to identify NF in patients presenting to the emergency department. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) with suspected soft tissue infection who received a computed tomography and/or surgical consult. POCUS images of the suspected site of infection were obtained by the emergency medicine physician and interpreted based on sonographic findings of NF. These findings were compared with CT scan or surgical impression. Results: We enrolled 64 patients in this study. Eight were determined to be at high risk of having NF based on CT scan and/or surgical impression. All of these patients also had POCUS images interpreted as concerning for NF. Furthermore, 56 patients were classified as being low risk for having NF based on CT scan and/or surgical impression. All but one of these patients had POCUS images interpreted as not concerning for NF. Conclusions: Our data indicates that POCUS can be used to identify NF with a high sensitivity and specificity.
TL;DR: In this paper , the role of lactate dehydrogenase to albumin (LDH/ALB) ratio as an independent prognostic factor for mortality due to the lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in the emergency department (ED).
Abstract: To verify the role of lactate dehydrogenase to albumin (LDH/ALB) ratio as an independent prognostic factor for mortality due to the lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in the emergency department (ED).We reviewed the electronic medical records of patients who were admitted to the ED for the management of LRTI between January 2018 and December 2020. Initial vital signs, laboratory data, and patient severity scores in the ED were collected. The LDH/ALB ratio was compared to other albumin-based ratios (blood urea nitrogen to albumin ratio, C-reactive protein to albumin ratio, and lactate to albumin ratio) and severity scales (pneumonia severity index, modified early warning score, CURB-65 scores), which are being used as prognostic factors for in-hospital mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent risk factors.The LDH/ALB ratio was higher in the non-survivor group than in the survivor group (median [interquartile range]: 217.6 [160.3;312.0] vs. 126.4 [100.3;165.1], p < 0.001). In the comparison of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for predicting in-hospital mortality, the AUC of the LDH/ALB ratio (0.808, 95% confidence interval: 0.757-0.842, p < 0.001) was wider than other albumin-based ratios and severity scales, except the blood urea nitrogen to albumin ratio. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, the LDH/ALB ratio independently affected in-hospital mortality.The LDH/ALB ratio may serve as an independent prognostic factor for in-hospital mortality in patients with LRTI.
TL;DR: In this article , a rare case of severe immune thrombocytopenia occurring 3 days after receiving the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine in an Asian woman with a history of refractory lung adenocarcinoma treated with durvalumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor.
Abstract: Safe and effective prophylactic vaccines are urgently needed to contain the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, several vaccination-related adverse effects have been reported. Here, we report a rare case of severe immune thrombocytopenia occurring 3 days after receiving the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine in an Asian woman with a history of refractory lung adenocarcinoma treated with durvalumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Treatment with platelet transfusion (12 units) and oral prednisolone (1 mg/kg per day) significantly improved her hemoptysis with thrombocytopenia. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of ITP following Moderna inoculation among Asians. This study highlights a potential adverse effect of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors conducted a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of topical tranexamic acid (TXA) versus other standard practices or placebo in the management of epistaxis.
Abstract: Introduction Epistaxis is a very common presentation in the emergency department (ED), accounting for approximately 1 in 200 ED visits in the United States. Currently, standard practice includes the initial use of topical anesthetics and vasoconstrictors, followed by more invasive treatments such as nasal packing, cauterization or surgical ligation for refractory cases. Over the years several studies have investigated the potential use of topical Tranexamic Acid (TXA) in the management of epistaxis. We have conducted a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of topical TXA versus other standard practices or placebo in the management of epistaxis. Methods PubMed and Scopus databases were searched from inception to April 2021. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies investigating the efficacy of TXA in bleeding cessation in epistaxis in adults. The primary outcome measured was the prevalence of bleeding cessation after treatment at first assessment. Other outcomes were bleeding reoccurrence between 24 and 72 h and at 7–8 days. A random-effects model was used to estimate odds ratio (OR) for outcomes. Results A total of eight studies were included in the analysis, including seven randomized trials and one retrospective study. We included a total of 1299 patients, 596 (46%) received TXA while 703 (54%) received control treatment (placebo, lidocaine plus vasoconstrictors or local anesthetics). Patients who were treated with TXA were 3.5 times (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.3–9.7) more likely to achieve bleeding cessation at the first assessment. Patients treated with TXA had 63% (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.20–0.66) less likelihood of returning due to rebleeding at 24–72 h. Conclusion Topical TXA is associated with better bleeding cessation rates after treatment compared to the standard practices.
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors explored the impact of early norepinephrine initiation on the survival of patients with septic shock and found that patients in the early group received significantly less fluid therapy (0 vs. 79 mL/kg), had lower 28-day mortality (30.0% vs. 37.8%), longer survival days (21.89 vs. 20.37 days), shorter duration of intensive care unit (4.9 vs. 7.2 days), and hospital stays (12.4 vs. 13.6 days).
Abstract: The use of vasopressors is vital in septic shock. However, the optimal timing of treatment remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to explore the impact of early norepinephrine initiation on the survival of patients with septic shock.We selected 4253 patients from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV database between 2008 and 2019. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to minimize between-group imbalances, and a restricted mean survival time was used to quantify the beneficial impact of early norepinephrine treatment on survival. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the study results in multiple cohorts.In the PSM cohort, 2862 patients were equally assigned to early (receiving norepinephrine within the first 3 h) and delayed (> 3 h) norepinephrine initiation groups. Patients in the early norepinephrine initiation group received significantly less fluid therapy (0 vs. 79 mL/kg), had lower 28-day mortality (30.0% vs. 37.8%), longer survival days (21.89 vs. 20.37 days), shorter duration of intensive care unit (4.9 vs. 7.2 days) and hospital stays (12.4 vs. 13.6 days), shorter duration of supportive norepinephrine and invasive mechanical ventilation, lower incidence of organ failure progression (64.4% vs. 79.2%) within 24 h after shock onset, and higher mean arterial pressure within 6 and 24 h after shock onset than patients in the delayed norepinephrine initiation group (p < 0.05).Norepinephrine initiation within the first 3 h, regardless of preload dependency, was associated with longer survival time and shorter duration of supportive norepinephrine and invasive mechanical ventilation and may delay or partially reverse rapid onset organ failure.