Search

Objective: The objective was to determine the relationship between short-term mortality and intravenous morphine use in ED patients who received a diagnosis of acute heart failure (AHF).Methods: Consecutive patients with AHF presenting to 34 Spanish EDs from 2011 to 2014 were eligible for inclusion. The subjects were divided into those with (M) or without IV morphine treatment (WOM) groups during ED stay. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes were mortality at different intermediate time points, in-hospital mortality, and length of hospital stay. We generated a propensity score to match the M and WOM groups that were 1:1 according to 46 different epidemiological, baseline, clinical, and therapeutic factors. We investigated independent risk factors for 30-day mortality in patients receiving morphine.Results: We included 6,516 patients (mean age, 81 [SD, 10] years; 56% women): 416 (6.4%) in the M and 6,100 (93.6%) in the WOM group. Overall, 635 (9.7%; M, 26.7%; WOM, 8.6%) died by day 30. After propensity score matching, 275 paired patients constituted each group. Patients receiving morphine had a higher 30-day mortality (55 [20.0%] vs 35 [12.7%] deaths; hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.09-2.54; P = .017). In patients receiving morphine, death was directly related to glycemia (P = .013) and inversely related to the baseline Barthel index and systolic BP (P = .021) at ED arrival (P = .021). Mortality was increased at every intermediate time point, although the greatest risk was at the shortest time (at 3 days: 22 [8.0%] vs 7 [2.5%] deaths; OR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.40-7.93; P = .014). In-hospital mortality did not increase (39 [14.2%] vs 26 [9.1%] deaths; OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.97-2.82; P = .083) and LOS did not differ between groups (median [interquartile range] in M, 8 [7]; WOM, 8 [6]; P = .79).Conclusions: This propensity score-matched analysis suggests that the use of IV morphine in AHF could be associated with increased 30-day mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2011; 18:1358-1370 © 2011 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Abstract The maturation of emergency medicine (EM) as a specialty has coincided with dramatic increases in emergency department (ED) visit rates, both in the United States and around the world. ED crowding has become a public health problem where periodic supply and demand mismatches in ED and hospital resources cause long waiting times and delays in critical treatments. ED crowding has been associated with several negative clinical outcomes, including higher complication rates and mortality. This article describes emergency care systems and the extent of crowding across 15 countries outside of the United States: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Iran, Italy, The Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Catalonia (Spain), Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The authors are local emergency care leaders with knowledge of emergency care in their particular countries. Where available, data are provided about visit patterns in each country; however, for many of these countries, no national data are available on ED visits rates or crowding. For most of the countries included, there is both objective evidence of increases in ED visit rates and ED crowding and also subjective assessments of trends toward higher crowding in the ED. ED crowding appears to be worsening in many countries despite the presence of universal health coverage. Scandinavian countries with robust systems to manage acute care outside the ED do not report crowding is a major problem. The main cause for crowding identified by many authors is the boarding of admitted patients, similar to the United States. Many hospitals in these countries have implemented operational interventions to mitigate crowding in the ED, and some countries have imposed strict limits on ED length of stay (LOS), while others have no clear plan to mitigate crowding. An understanding of the causes and potential solutions implemented in these countries can provide a lens into how to mitigate ED crowding in the United States through health policy interventions and hospital operational changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To determine short-term outcomes after an episode of acute heart failure in patients with mid-range ejection fraction (40%-49%; HFmrEF) compared with patients with reduced (<40%) and preserved (>49%) ejection fractions (HFrEF and HFpEF, respectively) and according to their final destination after emergency department (ED) care. This is an exploratory, secondary analysis of the Epidemiology of Acute Heart Failure in the Emergency departments Registry, which includes consecutive acute heart failure patients diagnosed in 41 Spanish EDs. Patients with echocardiography data were included and divided into HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes were in-hospital all-cause mortality, hospital length of stay >10 days, and 30-day postdischarge ED revisit due to AHF and combined end point (ED revisit and/or death). We included 6,856 patients (age 79 [10]; 52.1% women): 21.6% had HFrEF, 14.3% HFmrEF, and 64.1% HFpEF. The main destinations for the 982 HFmrEF patients after ED management were internal medicine (293, 29.8%), cardiology (194, 19.9%) and not hospitalized (241, 24.5%), whereas the remaining 254 patients were admitted to other departments, including geriatric wards, short-stay units and intensive care units. Outcomes for HFmrEF did not differ compared with either HFrEF or HFpEF. Compared with HFmrEF admitted to cardiology, internal medicine admission or direct ED discharge increased the 30-day postdischarge ED revisit (hazard ratio [HR] 1.713, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.042 to 2.816; and HR 1.683, 95% CI 1.046 to 2.708, respectively) and the 30-day postdischarge combined end point (HR 1.732, 95% CI 1.070 to 2.803; and HR 1.727, 95% CI 1.083 to 2.756, respectively). In conclusion, patients in the newly created HFmrEF category suffering from an acute decompensation have similar short-term outcomes as those in the classical HFrEF and HFpEF categories; nonetheless, HFmrEF patients handled in cardiology wards during decompensation obtain better outcomes, and reasons for these differences have to be unmasked and corrected., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)