Search

Objective: Intubation practices changed during the COVID-19 pandemic to protect healthcare workers from transmission of disease. Our objectives were to describe intubation characteristics and outcomes for patients tested for SARS CoV-2 infection. We compared outcomes between patients testing SARS COV-2 positive with those testing negative., Methods: We conducted a health records review using the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) registry. We included consecutive eligible patients who presented to one of 47 EDs across Canada between March 1, 2020 and June 20, 2021, were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and intubated in the ED. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients experiencing a post-intubation adverse event during the ED stay. Secondary outcomes included first-pass success, intubation practices, and hospital mortality. We used descriptive statistics to summarize variables with subgroup differences examined using t tests, z tests, or chi-squared tests where appropriate with 95% CIs., Results: Of 1720 patients with suspected COVID-19 who were intubated in the ED during the study period, 337 (19.6%) tested SARS-CoV-2 positive and 1383 (80.4%) SARS-CoV-2 negative. SARS-CoV-2 positive patients presented to hospital with lower oxygen levels than SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (mean pulse oximeter SaO2 86 vs 94%, p < 0.001). In total, 8.5% of patients experienced an adverse event post-intubation. More patients in the SARS-CoV-2 positive subgroup experienced post-intubation hypoxemia (4.5 vs 2.2%, p = 0.019). In-hospital mortality was greater for patients who experienced intubation-related adverse events (43.2 vs 33.2%, p = 0.018). There was no significant difference in adverse event-associated mortality by SARS-CoV-2 status. First-pass success was achieved in 92.4% of all intubations, with no difference by SARS-CoV-2 status., Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed a low risk of adverse events associated with intubation, even though hypoxemia was common in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. We observed high rates of first-pass success and low rates of inability to intubate. The limited number of adverse events precluded multivariate adjustments. Study findings should reassure emergency medicine practitioners that system modifications made to intubation processes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic do not appear to be associated with worse outcomes compared to pre-COVID-19 practices., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on public health, specifically on patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with non-COVID-related diseases, remains largely undocumented., Objective: This study explored how overall rates of presentations to the emergency department were impacted immediately after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, and specifically how key presenting symptoms representing emergency, standard and low-acuity conditions were impacted., Methods: A sequential modified Delphi survey and cross-sectional analysis of administrative census data from a tertiary care center in New Brunswick, Canada, were performed. Details of ED presentations for emergency, standard and low-acuity conditions from February 1 to April 30, 2020, were compared to data from previous years., Results: There was a significant decrease in the number of patients visiting the ED with emergency, standard and low-acuity complaints immediately after March 13, 2020, compared to 2019. The proportion of females and males remained similar, with a median age of 48 years in 2020 and 44 years in 2019. Total presentation patterns to the ED (registrations, admissions to hospital and left without being seen numbers) decreased, compared to previous years., Conclusions: We report a predictable decrease in patient visits to the ED with minor, non-life-threatening conditions during a pandemic. However, we also report a decrease in presentations for emergency and standard conditions. Improved messaging highlighting the need to seek help for "true" emergencies, while providing non-ED options for minor, non-life-threatening conditions, may be helpful under normal circumstances and during future pandemics.

Clinical Question: Are four common clinical decision rules, in combination with normal D-dimer results, comparable in their ability to clinically exclude the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism?, Article Chosen: Douma RA, Mos ICM, Erkens PMG, et al. Performance of 4 clinical decision rules in the diagnostic management of acute pulmonary embolism: a prospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2011;154:709-18., Objective: To directly compare the performance of four different clinical decision rules, the Wells rule, revised Geneva score, simplified Wells rule, and simplified revised Geneva score, in combination with D-dimer results, to exclude pulmonary embolism.