Search

IntroductionDuration of antibiotic treatment in acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) is most commonly based on expert opinion. Biomarker guided strategy is increasingly recommended to limit unnecessary antibiotic use. We performed a randomized controlled study to evaluate the efficacy of 2-day versus C-reactive protein (CRP)-guided treatment with levofloxacin in patients with AECOPD.MethodsPatients with AECOPD were randomized to receive oral levofloxacin daily for 7 days unless the serum CRP level decreased by at least 50% from the baseline value or levofloxacin for two days; thereafter, oral placebo tablet was prescribed according to the CRP. The primary outcome measure was cure rate, and secondary outcome included need for additional antibiotics, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, exacerbation rates and exacerbation free interval (EFI) within one-year follow-up.ResultsIn intention to treat (ITT) analysis, cure rate was 76.1% (n = 118) and 79.3% (n = 123) respectively in 2-day and CRP-guided groups. In per protocol (PP) analysis, cure rate was 73% (n = 92) and 70.4% (n = 88) respectively in 2-day and CRP-guided groups. The difference between the two groups was not significant. The need for additional antibiotics and ICU admission rates were not significantly different between the two groups. One-year exacerbation rate was 27% (n = 42) in 2-day group versus 30.3% (n = 47) in CRP-guided group (p = 0.53); the EFI was 125 days (interquartile range, 100-151) versus 100 days (interquartile range, 78-123) in 2-day and CRP-guided groups respectively (p = 0.45). No difference in adverse effects was detected.ConclusionLevofloxacin once daily for 2 days had similar efficacy compared to CRP-guided in AECOPD. This short course treatment decreased antibiotic consumption which would improve patient compliance and reduce adverse effects.

Background Zinc supplementation has been considered a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to examine zinc efficacy in adult patients with COVID-19 infection. Methods We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial. Patients who were tested positive for COVID-19 without end-organ failure were randomized to oral zinc (n = 231) or matching placebo (n = 239) for 15 days. The primary combined outcome was death due to COVID-19 or intensive care unit (ICU) admission ≤30 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay for inpatients and duration of COVID-19 symptoms with COVID-19–related hospitalization for outpatients. Results 190 patients (40.4%) were ambulatory and 280 patients (59.6%) were hospitalized. Mortality at 30 days was 6.5% in the zinc group and 9.2% in the placebo group (OR:.68; 95% CI.34–1.35); ICU admission rates were, respectively, 5.2% and 11.3% (OR:.43; 95% CI.21–.87). Combined outcome was lower in the zinc group versus the placebo group (OR:.58; 95% CI.33–.99). Consistent results were observed in prespecified subgroups of patients aged <65 years, those with comorbidity, and those who needed oxygen therapy at baseline. Length of hospital stay was shorter in the zinc group versus the placebo group (difference: 3.5 days; 95% CI 2.76–4.23) in the inpatient group; duration of COVID-19 symptoms decreased with zinc treatment versus placebo in outpatients (difference: 1.9 days; 95% CI.62–2.6). No severe adverse events were observed during the study. Conclusions Our results showed that, in COVID-19 patients, oral zinc can decrease 30-day death, ICU admission rate and can shorten symptom duration. Clinical Trials Registration. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05212480. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ultrasonographic B-lines have recently emerged as a bedside imaging tool for the differential diagnosis of acute dyspnea in the Emergency Department (ED). However, despite its simplicity, LUS has not fully penetrated emergency department. This study aimed to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of ultrasonographic B-lines performed by emergency medicine (EM) residents for the diagnosis of congestive heart failure (CHF) in patients admitted to ED for acute dyspnea. Patients and methods: This is a cross-sectional prospective study conducted between January 2016 and October 2017 including patients aged over 18 years admitted to ED for acute dyspnea. At admission, two consecutive bedside LUS study were performed by a pair of EM residents who received a 2-h course for recognition of sonographic B-lines to determine independently B-lines score and B-profile pattern. All participating sonographers were blinded to patients' clinical data. B-lines score ≥ 15 or a B-profile pattern was considered as suggestive of CHF. The final leading diagnosis was assessed by two expert sonographers, who were blinded to the residents' interpretations, based on clinical findings, chest X-ray, brain natriuretic peptide, cardiac and lung ultrasound testing. Accuracy and agreement of B-lines score and B-profile pattern were calculated. Results: We included 700 patients with a mean age of 68 ± 12.6 years and a sex ratio (M/F) of 1.43. The diagnosis of CHF was recorded in 371 patients (53%). The diagnostic performance of B-lines score at a cut-off 15 and B-profile pattern was, respectively, 88% and 82.5% for sensitivity, 75% and 84% for specificity, 80% and 85% for positive predictive value, 84% and 81% for negative predictive value. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 [0.83–0.89] and 0.83 [0.80–0.86], respectively, for B-lines score and B-profile pattern. There was an excellent agreement between residents for the diagnosis of CHF using both scores (kappa = 0.81 and 0.85, respectively, for ordinal scale B-lines score and B-profile pattern). Conclusion: Lung ultrasound B-lines assessment has a good accuracy and an excellent reproducibility in the diagnosis of CHF in the hand of EM residents following a short training program. Trial registration Name of the registry: clinicaltrials.gov; Trial registration number: NCT03717779; Date of registration: October 24, 2018 'Retrospectively registered'; URL of trial registry record: clinicaltrials.gov [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen (also called paracetamol) are the most frequent analgesics used to relieve posttrauma pain in the emergency department (ED). However, the utility of combining both treatments is still controversial. We sought to explore the benefits of combining an NSAID with acetaminophen compared to acetaminophen alone, or NSAID alone, in the treatment of posttraumatic pain of the extremity after discharge from the ED. Methods: This is a prospective, randomized controlled trial, carried out in a single ED from March 2017 to November 2018. The included patients were randomly assigned to receive paracetamol alone, high‐dose NSAID (piroxicam) alone, or a combination of paracetamol and high‐dose NSAID for 7 days after ED discharge. The primary outcome was need for additional oral analgesics. Secondary outcomes included the change of the visual numeric scale (VNS) between ED discharge (VNS D0) and 7 days later (VNS D7), ED revisits for residual pain, side effects, and patient satisfaction as assessed by a Likert satisfaction scale. Results: The need for additional oral analgesics was comparable between the paracetamol–NSAID combination group (9.8%) and the paracetamol group (11.4%; p = 0.43). ED readmission rate was also comparable between the two groups at 5.6 and 5.8%, respectively (p = 0.86). In contrast, need for new analgesics and ED revisit rates were both more frequent in the high‐dose NSAID group. Mean VNS decreases on day 7 compared to day 0 were 66, 63, and 67%, respectively, in the paracetamol, NSAID, and paracetamol–NSAID combination groups (p = 0.32). Frequency of dissatisfaction was higher in the NSAID group. Side effects were more frequent in the NSAID and paracetamol–NSAID combination groups. Conclusion: This study found that the combination of a high‐dose NSAID with paracetamol does not increase the analgesic effect compared to paracetamol alone. We also found that paracetamol alone is superior to high‐dose NSAID alone for posttraumatic extremity pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim of the study: The diagnosis of heart failure in the emergency department (ED) is challenging. The aim of this study was to evaluate systolic time intervals (STIs) using phonoelectrocardiography for the diagnosis of heart failure (HF) in ED patients with undifferentiated dyspnea. Methods: A total of 855 patients with dyspnea and suspected HF were prospectively enrolled. They underwent echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), B‐type natriuretic peptide (BNP) testing and computerised phonoelectrocardiography to assess STIs including electromechanical activation time (EMAT), left ventricular ejection time (LVET) and EMAT/LVET ratio. Diagnosis accuracy of STIs was calculated including sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: Patients with HF (n = 530) had significantly higher EMAT and lower LVET compared with non‐HF patients. ROC curve c‐statistic was 0.74, 0.72 and 0.78 for EMAT, LVET and EMAT/LVET respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of EMAT/LVET at a cut‐off = 40% were 72% and 88% respectively. EMAT/LVET had the highest correlation with LVEF (r = 0.48). In patients with intermediate BNP (n = 107), positive likelihood ratio increased from 1.8 with BNP alone to 3.6 with BNP combined to EMAT/LVET. Patients without HF had STIs values not significantly different from those with preserved LVEF (≥45%). Conclusions: Given their immediate availability, phonoelectrocardiography STIs' parameters and particularly EMAT/LVET ratio could have an important role in the diagnosis approach of HF in patients with undifferentiated dyspnea in the ED. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Short‐acting β2‐agonists are the mainstay of treatment of patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in the emergency department (ED). It is still unclear whether the addition of short‐acting anticholinergics is clinically more effective care compared to treatment with β2‐agonists alone in patients with hypercapnic AECOPD. Objective: The objective was to evaluate whether combining ipratropium bromide (IB) to terbutaline reduces hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates compared to terbutaline alone in AECOPD hypercapnic patients. Methods: In this double‐blind controlled trial, patients who were admitted to the ED for AECOPD requiring noninvasive ventilation (NIV) were randomized to receive either 5 mg of nebulized terbutaline combined to 0.5 mg of IB (terbutaline/IB group, n = 115) or 5 mg of terbutaline sulfate (terbutaline group, n = 117). Nebulization was repeated every 20 minutes for the first hour and every 4 hours within the first day. Primary outcomes were the rate of hospital admission and need for endotracheal intubation within the first 24 hours of the start of the experimental treatment. Secondary outcomes included changes from baseline of dyspnea, physiologic variables, length of hospital stay, ICU admission rate, and 7‐day mortality. Results: The two groups were similar regarding baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Hospital admission was observed in 70 patients (59.8%) in the terbutaline/IB group and in 75 patients (65.2%) in the terbutaline group (respiratory rate [RR] = 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.93 to 1.27, p = 0.39). ICU admission was required in 37 (32.2%) patients in the terbutaline/IB group and 30 patients (25.6%) in terbutaline group (RR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.54, p = 0.27). There were no significant differences in dyspnea score, blood gas parameters changes, vital signs improvement, and 7‐day death rate between both groups. Conclusion: In patients admitted to the ED for AECOPD requiring NIV, combination of nebulized IB and terbutaline did not reduce hospital admission and need to ICU care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: We aim to determine the benefit of two different doses magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) compared to placebo in rate control of rapid atrial fibrillation (AF) managed in the emergency department (ED). Methods: We undertook a randomized, controlled, double‐blind clinical trial in three university hospital EDs between August 2009 and December 2014. Patients > 18 years with rapid AF (>120 beats/min) were enrolled and randomized to 9 g of intravenous MgSO4 (high‐dose group, n = 153), 4.5 g of intravenous MgSO4 (low‐dose group, n = 148), or serum saline infusion (placebo group, n = 149), given in addition to atrioventricular (AV) nodal blocking agents. The primary outcome was the reduction of baseline ventricular rate (VR) to 90 beats/min or less or reduction of VR by 20% or greater from baseline (therapeutic response). Secondary outcome included resolution time (defined as the elapsed time from start of treatment to therapeutic response), sinus rhythm conversion rate, and adverse events within the first 24 hours. Results: At 4 hours, therapeutic response rate was higher in low‐ and high‐MgSO4 groups compared to placebo group; the absolute differences were, respectively, 20.5% (risk ratio [RR] = 2.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.45–3.69) and +15.8% (RR = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.20–2.99). At 24 hours, compared to placebo group, therapeutic response difference was +14.1% (RR = 9.74, 95% CI = 2.87–17.05) with low‐dose MgSO4 and +10.3% (RR = 3.22, 95% CI = 1.45–7.17) with high‐dose MgSO4. The lowest resolution time was observed in the low‐dose MgSO4 group (5.2 ± 2 hours) compared to 6.1 ± 1.9 hours in the high‐dose MgSO4 group and 8.4 ± 2.5 hours in the placebo group. Rhythm control rate at 24 hours was significantly higher in the low‐dose MgSO4 group (22.9%) compared to the high‐dose MgSO4 group (13.0%, p = 0.03) and the placebo group (10.7%). Adverse effects were minor and significantly more frequent with high‐dose MgSO4. Conclusions: Intravenous MgSO4 appears to have a synergistic effect when combined with other AV nodal blockers resulting in improved rate control. Similar efficacy was observed with 4.5 and 9 g of MgSO4 but a dose of 9 g was associated with more side effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction-Aim: The third cycle of medical studies (TCMS) lasts 3 years for the specialty of family medicine (FM) in Tunisia. The members of the FM committee of the Faculty of Medicine of Monastir (FMM) aimed to detail the learning objectives (LO) of residents in FM., Method: We used the Delphi method in 2 rounds including a group of experts called FM Learning Objectives Writing Group (FMLOWG) at the FMM. The FMLOWG included 74 university hospital physicians and FM internship supervisors. These members actively participated in the 10 meetings held during the month of March 2022. Three points were discussed: the identification of LOs; the development of training titles and the proposal of the teaching methods to be adopted. The writing was subdivided into 5 domains of LO: transversal, public health, typical population and by system., Results: We identified 1359 LOs for FM residency, for which 552 were LOs per system (40.5%). The learning included 618 training session titles. Residents will have an academic training day every 3 weeks during 9 months for each TCMS year., Conclusion: A detailed, MF-specific consensus has been developed by majority of medical specialties. It will be a learning base for learners, a reference for supervisors and TCMS teachers.