Search

Background: Computed tomography (CT) findings of acute and chronic ischemia are associated with subsequent stroke risk in patients with transient ischemic attack. We sought to validate these associations in a large prospective cohort of patients with transient ischemic attack or minor stroke. Methods: This prospective cohort study enrolled emergency department patients from 13 hospitals with transient ischemic attack who had CT imaging. Primary outcome was stroke within 90 days. Secondary outcomes were stroke within 2 or 7 days. CT findings were abstracted from radiology reports and classified for the presence of acute ischemia, chronic ischemia, or microangiopathy. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test associations with primary and secondary end points. Results: From 8670 prospectively enrolled patients between May 2010 and May 2017, 8382 had a CT within 24 hours. From this total population, 4547 (54%) patients had evidence of acute ischemia, chronic ischemia, or microangiopathy on CT, of whom 175 had a subsequent stroke within 90 days (3.8% subsequent stroke rate; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.33 [95% CI, 1.62–3.36]). This was in comparison to those with CT imaging without ischemia. Findings associated with an increased risk of stroke at 90 days were isolated acute ischemia (6.0%; aOR, 2.42 [95% CI, 1.03–5.66]), acute ischemia with microangiopathy (10.7%; aOR, 3.34 [95% CI, 1.57–7.14]), chronic ischemia with microangiopathy (5.2%; aOR, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.34–2.50]), and acute ischemia with chronic ischemia and microangiopathy (10.9%; aOR, 3.49 [95% CI, 1.54–7.91]). Acute ischemia with chronic ischemia and microangiopathy were most strongly associated with subsequent stroke within 2 days (aOR, 4.36 [95% CI, 1.31–14.54]) and 7 days (aOR, 4.50 [95% CI, 1.73–11.69]). Conclusions: In patients with transient ischemic attack or minor stroke, CT evidence of acute ischemia with chronic ischemia or microangiopathy significantly increases the risk of subsequent stroke within 90 days of index visit. The combination of all 3 findings results in the greatest early risk.

Objectives To evaluate the agreement between three emergency department (ED) vulnerability screeners, including the InterRAI ED Screener, ER2, and PRISMA-7. Our secondary objective was to evaluate the discriminative accuracy of screeners in predicting discharge home and extended ED lengths-of-stay (> 24 h). Methods We conducted a nested sub-group study using data from a prospective multi-site cohort study evaluating frailty in older ED patients presenting to four Quebec hospitals. Research nurses assessed patients consecutively with the three screeners. We employed Cohen's Kappa to determine agreement, with high-risk cut-offs of three and four for the PRISMA-7, six for the ER2, and five for the interRAI ED Screener. We used logistic regression to evaluate the discriminative accuracy of instruments, testing them in their dichotomous, full, and adjusted forms (adjusting for age, sex, and hospital academic status). Results We evaluated 1855 older ED patients across the four hospital sites. The mean age of our sample was 84 years. Agreement between the interRAI ED Screener and the ER2 was fair (K = 0.37; 95% CI 0.33–0.40); agreement between the PRISMA-7 and ER2 was also fair (K = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.36–0.43). Agreement between interRAI ED Screener and PRISMA-7 was poor (K = 0.19; 95% CI 0.16–0.22). Using a cut-off of four for PRISMA-7 improved agreement with the ER2 (K = 0.55; 95% CI 0.51–0.59) and the ED Screener (K = 0.32; 95% CI 0.2–0.36). When predicting discharge home, the concordance statistics among models were similar in their dichotomous (c = 0.57–0.61), full (c = 0.61–0.64), and adjusted forms (c = 0.63–0.65), and poor for all models when predicting extended length-of-stay. Conclusion ED vulnerability scores from the three instruments had a fair agreement and were associated with important patient outcomes. The interRAI ED Screener best identifies older ED patients at greatest risk, while the PRISMA-7 and ER2 are more sensitive instruments.

Up to 3% of all Emergency Department (ED) visits are due to skin and soft tissue infections such as non-purulent cellulitis. The current treatment failure rate is approximately 20%. Evidence is lacking regarding the optimal outpatient management of cellulitis.To evaluate the feasibility of a randomized trial comparing high-dose (1000 mg) to standard-dose (500 mg) cephalexin to treat ED patients with cellulitis.A parallel arm double-blind randomized controlled pilot trial conducted at two EDs in Canada. Eligible participants were adults (age ≥ 18 years) presenting to the ED with non-purulent cellulitis and determined by the treating emergency physician to be eligible for outpatient management with oral antibiotics. Participants were randomized to high-dose or standard-dose cephalexin four times daily for 7 days. The primary feasibility outcome was participant recruitment rate (target ≥ 35%). The preliminary primary effectiveness outcome was oral antibiotic treatment failure.Of 134 eligible participants approached for trial participation, 69 (51.5%, 95% CI 43.1 to 59.8%) were recruited and randomized. After excluding three randomized participants due to an alternate diagnosis, 33 participants were included in each arm. Nineteen eligible cases (14.2%) were missed. Loss to follow-up was 6.1%. Treatment failure occurred in four patients (12.9%) in the standard-dose arm versus one patient (3.2%) in the high-dose arm. A greater proportion had minor adverse events in the high-dose arm. No patients had an unplanned hospitalization within 14 days.This pilot randomized controlled trial comparing high-dose to standard-dose cephalexin for ED patients with cellulitis demonstrated a high participant recruitment rate and that a full-scale trial is feasible. High-dose cephalexin had fewer treatment failures but with a higher proportion of minor adverse effects. The findings of this pilot will be used to inform the design of a future large trial.This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04471246).RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Jusqu'à 3% de toutes les visites aux urgences sont dues à des infections de la peau et des tissus mous, comme la cellulite non purulente. Le taux actuel d’échec du traitement est d’environ 20%. Il manque des données probantes sur la gestion optimale de la cellulite en consultation externe. OBJECTIFS: Évaluer la faisabilité d'un essai randomisé comparant la céfalexine à dose élevée (1000 mg) à la céfalexine à dose normale (500 mg) pour traiter les patients des urgences atteints de cellulite. MéTHODES: Un essai pilote contrôlé randomisé en double aveugle à bras parallèles mené dans deux services d'urgence au Canada. Les participants éligibles étaient des adultes (âge ≥ 18 ans) se présentant aux urgences avec une cellulite non purulente et déterminés par l'urgentiste traitant comme pouvant bénéficier d'une prise en charge ambulatoire par antibiotiques oraux. Les participants ont été randomisés entre la céfalexine à dose élevée et la céfalexine à dose normale, quatre fois par jour pendant 7 jours. Le résultat primaire de faisabilité était le taux de recrutement des participants (objectif ≥ 35%). Le résultat primaire préliminaire d'efficacité était l'échec du traitement antibiotique oral. RéSULTATS: Sur les 134 participants éligibles sollicités pour participer à l'essai, 69 (51,5%, IC à 95% 43,1% à 59,8%) ont été recrutés et randomisés. Après avoir exclu trois participants randomisés en raison d'un autre diagnostic, 33 participants au total ont été inclus dans chaque bras. Au total, 19 cas éligibles (14,2%) ont été manqués. Le taux de perte au suivi était de 6,1%. L'échec du traitement est survenu chez quatre patients (12,9%) dans le groupe à dose standard contre un patient (3,2%) dans le groupe à dose élevée. Une plus grande proportion de patients ont eu des effets indésirables mineurs dans le groupe à forte dose. Aucun patient n'a été hospitalisé de façon imprévue dans les 14 jours. CONCLUSION: Cet essai pilote randomisé et contrôlé comparant la céphalexine à dose élevée à la céfalexine à dose normale pour les patients des urgences atteints de cellulite a démontré un taux élevé de recrutement de participants et la faisabilité d'un essai à grande échelle. La céfalexine à forte dose a entraîné moins d'échecs thérapeutiques, mais avec une proportion plus élevée d'effets indésirables mineurs. Les résultats de ce projet pilote serviront de base à la conception d'un futur essai à grande échelle. INSCRIPTION à L'ESSAI: Cet essai a été enregistré sur ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04471246).

Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is a common problem. Depending on diagnostic criteria, 13 to 62% of those patients develop persistent post-concussion symptoms (PPCS). The main objective of this prospective multi-center study is to derive and validate a clinical decision rule (CDR) for the early prediction of PPCS. Patients aged ≥14 years were included if they presented to one of our seven participating emergency departments (EDs) within 24 h of an mTBI. Clinical data were collected in the ED, and symptom evolution was assessed at 7, 30 and 90 days post-injury using the Rivermead Post-Concussion Questionnaire (RPQ). The primary outcome was PPCS at 90 days after mTBI. A predictive model called the Post-Concussion Symptoms Rule (PoCS Rule) was developed using the methodological standards for CDR. Of the 1083 analyzed patients (471 and 612 for the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively), 15.6% had PPCS. The final model included the following factors assessed in the ED: age, sex, history of prior TBI or mental health disorder, headache in ED, cervical sprain and hemorrhage on computed tomography. The 7-day follow-up identified additional risk factors: headaches, sleep disturbance, fatigue, sensitivity to light, and RPQ ≥21. The PoCS Rule had a sensitivity of 91.4% and 89.6%, a specificity of 53.8% and 44.7% and a negative predictive value of 97.2% and 95.8% in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. The PoCS Rule will help emergency physicians quickly stratify the risk of PPCS in mTBI patients and better plan post-discharge resources.

To estimate the cumulative incidence of functional decline over 6 months following emergency department (ED) assessments of nonhospitalized injuries and to identify its main determinants.We conducted a prospective multicenter cohort of older adults discharged home following assessment for injuries in 8 Canadian EDs. Participants were assessed at 3 time points: baseline in the ED, 3 months, and 6 months. The primary outcome, functional decline, was defined as a 2-points loss from baseline on the Older American Resources Scale (OARS). Other measures included demographics, comorbidities, injury characteristics, frailty, cognition, mobility status, etc. Cumulative incidences were estimated using proportions with 95% confidence intervals. Log-binomial regressions and the "least absolute shrinkage and selection operator" (LASSO) were used to identify significant functional decline determinants.Among 2,919 participants, 403 (13.8%) were lost to follow-up. Mean age was 76.2±7.6 years, 65.3% were women, 9% were frail, and 40.0% prefrail. Main injury mechanisms were falls (65.5%) and motor vehicle accidents (18.6%). The cumulative incidence of functional decline over 6 months was 17.0% (95% confidence interval 12.5% to 23.0%). Occasional use of walking devices, less than 5 outings/week, frailty, and older age were significant baseline determinants of functional decline.A significant 17% of older adults with "minor" injuries experience a persistent functional decline over 6 months following their ED visit. Four frailty-related determinants were identified: occasional use of a walking device, less than 5 outings/week, frailty, and older age. Further work is needed to assess if these can help ED clinicians screen seniors at risk and initiate interventions at discharge.

Chest ultrasonography has been reported as an accurate imaging modality and potentially superior to chest radiographs in diagnosing traumatic rib fractures. However, few studies have compared ultrasonography to the reference standard of computed tomography (CT), with no systematic reviews published on the topic to date. Our objective was to summarize the evidence comparing the test characteristics of chest ultrasonography to CT in diagnosing rib fractures.This study was performed and reported in adherence to PRISMA guidelines. We searched 5 databases plus gray literature from inception to October 2021. Two independent reviewers completed study selection, data extraction, and a QUADAS-2 risk of bias assessment. Summary measures were obtained from the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic model.From 1,660 citations, we identified 7 studies for inclusion, of which 6 had available 2×2 data for meta-analysis (n = 663). Of the 6 studies, 3 involved emergency department-performed ultrasonography and 3 radiology-performed ultrasonography. Chest ultrasonography had a pooled sensitivity of 89.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 81.1 to 94.3) and specificity of 98.4% (95% CI, 90.2 to 99.8) compared with CT imaging for the diagnosis of any rib fracture. The finding of a fracture on ultrasonography, defined as an underlying cortical irregularity, was associated with a +likelihood ratio (LR) of 55.7 (95% CI, 8.5 to 363.4) for CT diagnosed rib fracture, while the absence of ultrasonography fracture held a -LR of 0.11 (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.20). We were unable to detect a difference in test characteristics between emergency department- and radiology-performed ultrasonography (P=.11). The overall risk of bias of included studies was high, with patient selection identified as the highest risk domain.Chest ultrasonography is both sensitive and highly specific in diagnosing rib fractures following blunt trauma.

This national postal survey aimed to examine Canadian emergency physicians' practice patterns with respect to drug treatment and perspectives on peripheral nerve blocks.The treatment of primary headache disorders in the emergency department is variable.We surveyed 500 emergency physicians listed in the Canadian Medical Directory according to a modified Dillman's method: an initial invitation was followed by up to four reminders to nonresponders. Physicians were asked questions regarding their frequency of medication administration and perspectives toward peripheral nerve blocks.Of 500 mailed surveys, 468 were delivered and 179 physicians responded (response rate = 38.2%). The majority of physicians were men (92/144, 63.9%); 80.6% (116/144) had been in practice for greater than or equal to 10 years with 50.7% (75/148) in a community or district general teaching hospital. Commonly used pharmacotherapies for primary headaches were intravenous dopamine receptor antagonists (69%), co-administration of ketorolac and a dopamine receptor antagonist (54.2%), intravenous fluid boluses (54%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) alone (53.5%), and acetaminophen (51.4%). Only 80 of 144 physicians (55.6%) reported previous experience with peripheral nerve blocks (95% confidence interval [CI] = 48%-65%). The majority (68/80, 85.0%) agreed peripheral nerve blocks are safe and 55.1% (43/78) agreed they are effective. The vast majority (118/140, 84.3%) would consider peripheral nerve blocks as a first-line treatment option given sufficient evidence from a future trial (95% CI = 78%-90%).NSAIDs alone, as well as dopamine receptor antagonists with or without ketorolac are commonly used for primary headache in Canadian emergency departments. A large proportion of physicians have never used a peripheral nerve block in their practice; among those who have experience with peripheral nerve blocks, the majority find them safe and effective. The majority of respondents would consider peripheral nerve blocks as a first-line treatment option given sufficient evidence from a future trial.

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) is a life-threatening condition, and rapid diagnosis is necessary to facilitate early surgical intervention. We sought to evaluate the accuracy of presenting symptoms, physical examination signs, computed tomography with angiography (CTA), and point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) for diagnosis of rAAA.We searched six databases from inception through April 2021. We included studies investigating the accuracy of any of the above tests for diagnosis of rAAA. The primary reference standard used in all studies was intraoperative diagnosis or death from rAAA. Because PoCUS cannot detect rupture, we secondarily assessed its accuracy for the diagnosis of AAA, using the reference standard of intraoperative or CTA diagnosis. We used GRADE to assess certainty in estimates.We included 20 studies (2,077 patients), with 11 of these evaluating signs and symptoms, seven evaluating CTA, and five evaluating PoCUS. Pooled sensitivities of abdominal pain, back pain, and syncope for rAAA were 61.7%, 53.6%, and 27.8%, respectively (low certainty). Pooled sensitivity of hypotension and pulsatile abdominal mass were 30.9% and 47.1%, respectively (low certainty). CTA had a sensitivity of 91.4% and specificity of 93.6% for diagnosis of rAAA (moderate certainty). In our secondary analysis, PoCUS had a sensitivity of 97.8% and specificity of 97.0% for diagnosing AAA in patients suspected of having rAAA (moderate certainty).Classic clinical symptoms associated with rAAA have poor sensitivity, and their absence does not rule out the condition. CTA has reasonable accuracy, but misses some cases of rAAA. PoCUS is a valuable tool that can help guide the need for urgent transfer to a vascular center in patients suspected of having rAAA.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced emergency departments (EDs) to change operations to minimize nosocomial infection risk. Many EDs cohort patients using provincial screening tools at triage. Despite cohorting, staff exposures occurred in the 'cold zone' due to lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) use with patients deemed low risk, resulting in staff quarantines. The cohorting strategy was perceived to lengthen time to physician initial assessment and ED length of stay times in our ED without protecting staff well enough due to varying PPE use. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of hot/cold zones for patient cohorting during a viral pandemic on ED length of stay.We conducted an interrupted time series analysis 3 weeks before and after the removal of hot/cold zone care space cohorting in our ED. In the before period, staff did not routinely wear full PPE to see cold zone patients. After removal, staff wore full PPE to see almost all patients. We collected data on ED length of stay, physician initial assessment times, arrival-to-room times, patient volumes, Canadian Triage Acuity Score (CTAS), admissions, staff hours of coverage, as well as proportions of patients on droplet/contact precautions and COVD-19 positive patients. The primary outcome was median ED length of stay.After the removal of the hot/cold divisions, there was a decrease in the adjusted median ED length of stay by 24 min (95% CI 14; 33). PPE use increased in the after arm of the study. The interrupted time series analysis suggested a decrease in median ED length of stay after removal, although the change in slope and difference did not reach statistical significance.Cohorted waiting areas may provide a safety benefit without operational compromise, but cohorting staff and care spaces is likely to compromise efficiency and create delays.RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: La pandémie de COVID-19 a contraint les services d'urgence (SU) à modifier leur fonctionnement afin de minimiser le risque d'infection nosocomiale. De nombreux SU regroupaient des patients à l'aide d'outils de dépistage provinciaux au triage. Malgré la constitution de cohortes, les expositions du personnel se sont produites dans la "zone froide" en raison du manque d'utilisation d'équipements de protection individuelle (EPI) avec des patients jugés à faible risque, ce qui a entraîné la mise en quarantaine du personnel. Dans notre service d'urgence, la stratégie de cohorte a été perçue comme prolongeant l'évaluation initiale des médecins et la durée du séjour dans le service sans pour autant protéger suffisamment le personnel en raison de l'utilisation variable des EPI. L'objectif de cette étude était d'évaluer l'impact des zones chaudes/froides pour le regroupement de patients lors d'une pandémie virale sur la durée du séjour à l'urgence. MéTHODES: Nous avons réalisé une analyse de séries chronologiques interrompues trois semaines avant et après la suppression de la cohorte d'espace de soins en zone chaude/froide dans nos urgences. Au cours de la période précédente, le personnel ne portait pas systématiquement un EPI complet pour voir les patients des zones froides. Après le retrait, le personnel a porté un EPI complet pour voir presque tous les patients. Nous avons recueilli des données sur la durée du séjour aux urgences, les délais d'évaluation initiale par les médecins, les délais d'arrivée en salle, le volume de patients, L’échelle canadienne de triage et de gravité (ÉTG), les admissions, les heures de couverture du personnel, ainsi que les proportions de patients ayant reçu des précautions contre les gouttelettes et les contacts et de patients positifs au COVD-19. Le critère de jugement principal était la durée médiane du séjour aux urgences. RéSULTATS: Après la suppression des divisions chaudes/froides, la durée médiane ajustée du séjour aux urgences a diminué de 24 minutes (IC à 95 % : 14 ; 33). L'utilisation des EPI a augmenté dans le groupe suivant de l'étude. L'analyse des séries chronologiques interrompues suggère une diminution de la durée médiane de séjour aux urgences après le retrait, bien que le changement de la pente et de la différence n'ait pas atteint la signification statistique. CONCLUSION: Les zones d'attente en cohorte peuvent offrir un avantage en matière de sécurité sans compromis sur le plan opérationnel, mais le regroupement du personnel et des espaces de soins est susceptible de compromettre l'efficacité et de créer des retards.

There is a worldwide shortage of organs for transplantation. One method to increase the number of organs available for transplant is to increase the number of registered organ donors. The emergency department (ED) may be a suitable venue to disseminate knowledge to patients about organ donation, and to offer an immediate or future opportunity to register as an organ donor. This study aimed to assess emergency physicians' attitudes and acceptability of an ED-based organ donation registration initiative.We developed and distributed a national postal survey using a modified Dillman's tailored design technique to a random sample of emergency physicians selected from the Canadian Medical Directory.From a total of 474 delivered surveys, we received 228 responses (48.1%). 98.5% of emergency physicians support the concept of deceased organ donation. 85.1% felt that the emergency department is an appropriate setting to disseminate information regarding organ donation and 77.6% felt that it is an appropriate location to offer an immediate opportunity to register as an organ donor. 74.1% of physicians who responded report to be personally registered as an organ donor.Most emergency physicians are supportive of organ donation promotion in the ED, including offering an immediate opportunity to register.RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Il y a une pénurie mondiale d'organes destinés à la transplantation. Une méthode pour augmenter le nombre d'organes disponibles pour la transplantation est d'augmenter le nombre de donneurs d'organes enregistrés. Le service des urgences (SU) peut être un lieu approprié pour informer les patients sur le don d'organes et leur offrir la possibilité, immédiate ou future, de s'inscrire comme donneur d'organes. Cette étude visait à évaluer les attitudes des médecins urgentistes et l'acceptabilité d'une initiative d'enregistrement des dons d'organes aux urgences. MéTHODES: Nous avons élaboré et distribué une enquête postale nationale en utilisant une technique modifiée de conception sur mesure de Dillman à un échantillon aléatoire de médecins urgentistes sélectionnés à partir de l'annuaire médical canadien. RéSULTATS: Sur un total de 474 questionnaires remis, nous avons reçu 228 réponses (48,1%). 98,5 % des médecins urgentistes soutiennent le concept du don d'organes de personnes décédées. 85,1 % ont estimé que le service des urgences est un lieu approprié pour diffuser des informations sur le don d'organes et 77,6 % ont estimé que c'est un lieu approprié pour offrir une possibilité immédiate de s'inscrire comme donneur d'organes. 74,1 % des médecins qui ont répondu déclarent être personnellement inscrits comme donneurs d'organes. CONCLUSION: La plupart des médecins urgentistes sont favorables à la promotion du don d'organes dans les urgences, notamment en offrant la possibilité de s'inscrire immédiatement.

Predicting mortality from COVID-19 using information available when patients present to the emergency department can inform goals-of-care decisions and assist with ethical allocation of critical care resources. The study objective was to develop and validate a clinical score to predict emergency department and in-hospital mortality among consecutive nonpalliative patients with COVID-19; in this study, we define palliative patients as those who do not want resuscitative measures, such as intubation, intensive care unit care or cardiopulmonary resuscitation.This derivation and validation study used observational cohort data recruited from 46 hospitals in 8 Canadian provinces participating in the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN). We included adult (age ≥ 18 yr) nonpalliative patients with confirmed COVID-19 who presented to the emergency department of a participating site between Mar. 1, 2020, and Jan. 31, 2021. We randomly assigned hospitals to derivation or validation, and prespecified clinical variables as candidate predictors. We used logistic regression to develop the score in a derivation cohort and examined its performance in predicting emergency department and in-hospital mortality in a validation cohort.Of 8761 eligible patients, 618 (7.0%) died. The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Mortality Score included age, sex, type of residence, arrival mode, chest pain, severe liver disease, respiratory rate and level of respiratory support. The area under the curve was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.93) in derivation and 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.93) in validation. The score had excellent calibration. These results suggest that scores of 6 or less would categorize patients as being at low risk for in-hospital death, with a negative predictive value of 99.9%. Patients in the low-risk group had an in-hospital mortality rate of 0.1%. Patients with a score of 15 or higher had an observed mortality rate of 81.0%.The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Mortality Score is a simple score that can be used for level-of-care discussions with patients and in situations of critical care resource constraints to accurately predict death using variables available on emergency department arrival. The score was derived and validated mostly in unvaccinated patients, and before variants of concern were circulating widely and newer treatment regimens implemented in Canada.ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04702945.

BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate safety of electrical cardioversion (ECV) for patients with acute atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (AFL) in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was an analysis of data from four multicentre AF/AFL studies conducted between 2008 and 2019 at 23 large EDs. We included adult patients who received attempts at ECV and who had presented acutely after symptom onset. Staff manually reviewed study and clinical records to abstract data. RESULTS: We evaluated 1,736 ECV cases with mean age 60.1 years and male 67.1%. The overall success of ECV was 90.2% (95% CI 88.7-91.6%) with 4.9% of patients admitted. ED physicians performed the ECV in 95.2% and provided sedation in 96.5%. 13.9% (12.3-15.7%) of cases experienced important adverse events that required treatment and 0.4% were classified life-threatening. Another 5.6% had adverse events that did not require treatment. Logistic regression found that the RAFF3 study cohort (OR 2.0), age ≥85 years (OR 2.1), coronary artery disease (OR 1.5), midazolam (OR 1.9), and fentanyl (OR 1.5) were associated with important adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This large evaluation of the safety of ECV for acute AF/AFL in the ED found that while serious adverse events were rare, there were a concerning number of events following sedation that required intervention. Physicians should be aware that older age, coronary artery disease, and fentanyl are associated with a higher risk of important adverse events. This study provides more information for shared decision-making discussions with patients when choosing between drug-shock and shock-only cardioversion strategies.

Objectives Frequent emergency department (ED) use is a growing problem that is associated with poor patient outcomes and increased health care costs. Our objective was to analyze the association between mood disorders and the incidence of frequent ED use. Methods We used the Canadian Community Health Survey conducted by Statistics Canada, 2015–2016. Mood disorder was defined as depression, bipolar disorder, mania, or dysthymia. Frequent ED use was defined as 4 or more visits in the year preceding the interview. Multivariable log-binomial regression models were used to determine the associations between mood disorders and frequent ED use. Results Among the 99,009 participants, 8.4% had mood disorders, 80.3% were younger than 65, and 2.2% were frequent ED users. Mood disorders were significantly associated with the 1-year cumulative incidence of frequent ED use (RR = 2.5, 95% CI 2.2–2.7), after adjusting for several potential confounders. Conclusions This national survey showed that people with a mood disorder had a three-fold risk of frequent ED use, compared to people without mood disorder. These results can inform the development of policies and targeted interventions aimed at identifying and supporting ED patients with mood disorder.

ImportanceEarly and accurate diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 is essential to initiate appropriate treatment and infection control and prevention measures among patients presenting to the hospital.ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) performed within 24 hours of arrival to the emergency department among a nationally representative sample of patients.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis diagnostic study was conducted at 47 hospitals across 7 provinces in Canada participating in the Canadian COVID-19 Rapid Response Emergency Department Network among consecutive eligible patients presenting to a participating emergency department who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. Patients not tested within 24 hours of arrival and those presenting with a positive result from a test performed in the community were excluded.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a positive result from the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT. Outcome measures were the diagnostic sensitivity and yield of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT.ResultsOf 132 760 eligible patients (66 433 women [50.0%]; median age, 57 years [IQR, 37-74 years]), 17 174 (12.9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 14 days of their first NAAT. The diagnostic sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT was 96.2% (17 070 of 17 740 [95% CI, 95.9%-96.4%]) among all of the tests performed. Estimates ranged from a high of 97.7% (1710 of 1751 [95% CI, 96.8%-98.3%]) on day 2 of symptoms to a low of 90.4% (170 of 188 [95% CI, 85.3%-94.2%]) on day 11 of symptoms among patients presenting with COVID-19 symptoms. Among patients reporting COVID-19 symptoms, the sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT was 97.1% (11 870 of 12 225 [95% CI, 96.7%-97.3%]) compared with 87.6% (812 of 927 [95% CI, 85.2%-89.6%]) among patients without COVID-19 symptoms. The diagnostic yield of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT was 12.0% (18 985 of 158 004 [95% CI, 11.8%-12.2%]) and varied from a high of 20.0% (445 of 2229 [95% CI, 18.3%-21.6%]) among patients tested on day 10 after symptom onset to a low of 8.1% (1686 of 20 719 [95% CI, 7.7%-8.5%]) among patients presenting within the first 24 hours of symptom onset.Conclusions and RelevanceThis study suggests that the diagnostic sensitivity was high for the first SARS-CoV-2 NAAT performed in the hospital and did not vary significantly by symptom duration. Repeated testing of patients with negative test results should be avoided unless their pretest probability of disease is high.

Transient ischemic attack (TIA) and non-disabling stroke are common emergency department (ED) presentations. Currently, there are no prospective multicenter studies determining predictors of neurologists confirming a diagnosis of cerebral ischemia in patients discharged with a diagnosis of TIA or stroke. The objectives were to (1) calculate the concordance between emergency physicians and neurologists for the outcome of diagnosing TIA or stroke, and (2) identify characteristics associated with neurologists diagnosing a stroke mimic. This was a planned sub-study of a prospective cohort study at 14 Canadian EDs enrolling patients diagnosed with TIA or non-disabling stroke from 2006 to 2017. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with neurologists’ diagnosis of cerebral ischemia. Our primary outcome was the composite outcome of cerebral ischemia (TIA or non-disabling stroke) based on the neurologists’ assessment. The diagnosis of cerebral ischemia was confirmed by neurologists in 5794 patients (55.4%). The most common identified stroke mimics were migraine (18%), peripheral vertigo (7%), syncope (4%), and seizure (3%). Over a third of patients (38.4%) ultimately had an undetermined aetiology for their symptoms. The strongest predictors of cerebral ischemia confirmation were infarct on CT (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.65–2.02), advanced age (OR comparing 75th–25th percentiles 1.67, 1.55–1.80), language disturbance (OR 1.92, 1.75–2.10), and smoking (OR 1.67, 1.46–1.91). The strongest predictors of stroke mimics were syncope (OR 0.59, 0.48–0.72), vertigo (OR 0.52, 0.45–0.59), bilateral symptoms (OR 0.60, 0.50–0.72), and confusion (OR 0.50, 0.44–0.57). Physicians should have a high index of suspicion of cerebral ischemia in patients with advanced age, smoking history, language disturbance, or infarcts on CT. Physicians should discriminate in which patients to pursue stroke investigations on when deemed at minimal risk of cerebral ischemia, including those with isolated vertigo, syncope, or bilateral symptoms.

We sought to evaluate the factors associated with better outcomes for emergency department (ED) patients treated for primary headache. This was a health records review of consecutive patients over a 3-month period presenting to two tertiary EDs and discharged with a diagnosis of primary headache. The primary outcome was the need for second round medications, defined as medications received > 1 h after the initial physician-ordered medications were administered. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine treatment factors associated with need for second round medications. We included 553 patients, mean age was 42.2 years and 72.9% were females. The most common diagnoses were headache not otherwise specified (48.8%) and migraine (43%). Ketorolac IV (62.2%) and metoclopramide IV (70.2%) were the most frequently administered medications. 18% of patients met the primary outcome. Dopamine antagonists (OR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1–0.5]) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3–0.8]) ordered with initial medications were associated with reduced need for second round medications. Intravenous fluid boluses ≥ 500 ml (OR 2.8 [95% CI: 1.5–5.2]) and non-dopamine antagonist antiemetics (OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.2–4.2]) were associated with increased need. Opioid use approached statistical significance for receiving second round medication (p = 0.06). We determined that use of dopamine antagonists and NSAIDs were associated with a reduced need for second round medications in ED primary headache patients. Conversely, non-dopamine antagonist antiemetic medications and intravenous fluids were associated with a significantly increased need for second round medications. Careful choice of initial therapy may optimize management for these patients.

Background:Migraine is a common primary headache disorder diagnosed in the emergency department (ED). This systematic review sought to compare the efficacy of sodium valproate (SV) to dopamine antagonists (DA) in relieving pain due to acute migraine.Methods:Two research librarians helped create a search strategy including Embase, Ovid Medline, and the Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials from inception to June 1, 2020, updated May 19, 2021. Two investigators identified randomized control trials (RCTs) including adult patients with acute migraine presenting to the ED or acute clinical setting comparing SV to a DA with the aim of relieving pain. Primary outcome was headache relief at 1 hour from treatment. Secondary outcomes included pain relief at 24 hours, relief of associated symptoms (e.g. nausea, photo-/phonophobia, etc.), and need for rescue analgesia. Meta-analysis was performed and presented as odds ratios.Results:Four RCTs with 470 patients were identified from an initial pool of 454 titles. Two studies compared SV to a DA alone and two compared SV to a DA plus one other agent (sumatriptan or dihydroergotamine). Three studies were included for meta-analysis. Pain relief had a pooled odds ratio of 1.14 at 1 hour and 0.42 at 24 hours. Three articles reporting the need for rescue analgesia had pooled odds ratio of 2.76.Conclusions:Sodium valproate is not more effective than DA at reducing migraine headache pain at 1 hour and less effective at 24 hours. Dopamine antagonists should be used over SV for the management of patients with acute migraine.

Background Peripheral nerve blocks are being used with increasing frequency for management of hip fracture–related pain. Despite converging evidence that nerve blocks may be beneficial, safety data are lacking. This study hypothesized that peripheral nerve block receipt would not be associated with adverse events potentially attributable to nerve blocks, as well as overall patient safety incidents while in hospital. Methods This was a preregistered, retrospective population-based cohort study using linked administrative data. This study identified all hip fracture admissions in people 50 yr of age or older and identified all nerve blocks (although we were unable to ascertain the specific anatomic location or type of block), potentially attributable adverse events (composite of seizures, fall-related injuries, cardiac arrest, nerve injury), and any patient safety events using validated codes. The study also estimated the unadjusted and adjusted association of nerve blocks with adverse events; adjusted absolute risk differences were also calculated. Results In total, 91,563 hip fracture patients from 2009 to 2017 were identified; 15,631 (17.1%) received a nerve block, and 5,321 (5.8%; 95% CI, 5.7 to 6.0%) patients experienced a potentially nerve block–attributable adverse event: 866 (5.5%) in patients with a block and 4,455 (5.9%) without a block. Before and after adjustment, nerve blocks were not associated with potentially attributable adverse events (adjusted odds ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.15; and adjusted risk difference, 0.3%, 95% CI, –0.1 to 0.8). Conclusions The data suggest that nerve blocks in hip fracture patients are not associated with higher rates of potentially nerve block–attributable adverse events, although these findings may be influenced by limitations in routinely collected administrative data. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Study objective We aim to determine incidence and type of adverse events (adverse outcomes related to emergency care) among emergency department (ED) patients discharged with recent-onset atrial fibrillation, acute heart failure, and syncope. Methods This 5-year prospective cohort study included high-acuity adult patients discharged with the 3 sentinel diagnoses from 6 tertiary care Canadian EDs. We screened all ED visits for eligibility and performed telephone interviews 14 days postdischarge to identify flagged outcomes: death, hospital admission, return ED visit, health care provider visit, and new or worsening symptoms. We created case summaries describing index ED visit and flagged outcomes, and trained emergency physicians reviewed case summaries to identify adverse events. We reported adverse event incidence and rates with 95% confidence intervals and contributing factor themes. Results Among 4,741 subjects (mean age 70.2 years; 51.2% men), we observed 170 adverse events (3.6 per 100 patients; 95% confidence interval 3.1 to 4.2). Patients discharged with acute heart failure were most likely to experience adverse events (5.3%), followed by those with atrial fibrillation (2.0%) and syncope (0.8%). We noted variation in absolute adverse event rates across sites from 0.7 to 6.0 per 100 patients. The most common adverse event types were management issues, diagnostic issues, and unsafe disposition decisions. Frequent contributing factor themes included failure to recognize underlying causes and inappropriate management of dual diagnoses. Conclusion Among adverse events after ED discharge for patients with these 3 sentinel cardiovascular diagnoses, we identified quality improvement opportunities such as strengthening dual diagnosis detection and evidence-based clinical practice guideline adherence.

Background: Stroke is a common and serious disorder. With optimal care, 90-day recurrent stroke risk can be reduced from 10% to about 1%. Stroke prevention clinics (SPCs) can improve patient outcomes and resource allocation but lack standardization in patient management. The extent of variation in patient management among SPCs is unknown. Our aims were to assess baseline practice variation between Canadian SPCs and the impact of COVID-19 on SPC patient care. Methods: We conducted an electronic survey of 80 SPCs across Canada from May to November 2021. SPC leads were contacted by email with up to five reminders. Results: Of 80 SPCs contacted, 76 were eligible from which 38 (50.0%) responded. The majority (65.8%) of SPCs are open 5 or more days a week. Tests are more likely to be completed before the SPC visit if referrals were from clinic’s own emergency department compared to other referring sources. COVID-19 had a negative impact on routine patient care including longer wait times (increased for 36.4% clinics) and higher number of patients without completed bloodwork prior to arriving for appointments (increased for 27.3% clinics). During COVID-19 pandemic, 87.9% of SPCs provided virtual care while 72.7% plan to continue with virtual care post-COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion: Despite the time-sensitive nature of transient ischemic attack patient management, some SPCs in Canada are not able to see patients quickly. SPCs should endeavor to implement strategies so that they can see high-risk patients within the highest risk timeline and implement strategies to complete some tests while waiting for SPC appointment.

Stroke presenting as dizziness is a diagnostic challenge in frontline settings, given the multitude of benign conditions that present similarly. The risk of stroke after episodic dizziness is unknown, leading to divergent guidance on optimal workup and management. Prior TIA risk scores have shown a history of dizziness is a negative predictor of subsequent stroke. Our objective was to assess the subsequent stroke risk within 90 days following emergency department assessment (ED) for isolated dizziness diagnosed as TIA during the index visit.We conducted prospective, multicenter cohort studies at 13 Canadian EDs over 11 years. We enrolled patients diagnosed with TIA and compared patients with isolated dizziness to those with other neurological deficits. Our primary outcome was subsequent stroke within 90 days. Secondary outcomes were subsequent stroke within 2, 7, and 30 days, respectively, as well as subsequent TIA within 90 days.Only 4/483 (0.8%) patients with isolated dizziness had a stroke within 90 days compared to 320/11024 (2.9%) of those with any focal neurological sign or symptom (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11-0.76). Over the first 90 days, the two groups differ significantly in their probability of stroke (p = 0.007). Subsequent TIA was also significantly less common in the isolated dizziness group (1.7% vs. 5.6%, p = 0.001) with a relative risk of 0.30 (95% CI 0.15-0.60).The risk of subsequent stroke following ED presentation for TIA is low when the presenting symptoms are isolated dizziness.RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les accidents vasculaires cérébraux (AVC) se présentant sous forme de vertiges constituent un défi diagnostique en première ligne, étant donné la multitude d'affections bénignes qui se présentent de la même manière. Le risque d'accident vasculaire cérébral (AVC) après des vertiges épisodiques est inconnu, ce qui donne lieu à des conseils divergents sur le bilan et la prise en charge optimaux. Des scores de risque d'AIT antérieurs ont montré que des antécédents de vertiges sont un facteur prédictif négatif d'accident vasculaire cérébral ultérieur. Notre objectif était d'évaluer le risque ultérieur d'accident vasculaire cérébral (AVC) dans les 90 jours suivant l'évaluation aux urgences d'un étourdissement isolé diagnostiqué comme un AIT lors de la visite de référence. MéTHODES: Nous avons mené des études de cohorte prospectives multicentriques dans 13 services d'urgence canadiens pendant 11 ans. Nous avons recruté des patients ayant reçu un diagnostic d'AIT et avons comparé les patients présentant des vertiges isolés à ceux présentant d'autres déficits neurologiques. Nous avons inscrit des patients ayant reçu un diagnostic d’AIT et comparé des patients ayant des étourdissements isolés à ceux présentant d’autres déficits neurologiques. Notre résultat primaire était l'AVC subséquent dans les 90 jours. Les résultats secondaires étaient l'AVC subséquent dans les 2, 7 et 30 jours, respectivement, ainsi que l'AIT subséquent dans les 90 jours. RéSULTATS: Seuls 4/483 (0,8 %) des patients présentant des vertiges isolés ont eu un AVC dans les 90 jours, contre 320/11 024 (2,9 %) de ceux présentant un signe ou symptôme neurologique focal (RR 0,29, IC 95 % 0,11-0,76). Au cours des 90 premiers jours, les deux groupes diffèrent significativement en termes de probabilité d'AVC (p = 0,007). L'AIT ultérieur était également significativement moins fréquent dans le groupe des vertiges isolés (1,7 % contre 5,6 %, p = 0,001) avec un risque relatif de 0,30 (IC 95 % 0,15-0,60). CONCLUSIONS: Le risque d'AVC ultérieur après une présentation aux urgences pour un AIT est faible lorsque les symptômes présentés sont des étourdissements isolés.

Recent studies have presented concerning data on the safety of cardioversion for acute atrial fibrillation and flutter. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of oral anticoagulation use on thromboembolic events post-cardioversion of low-risk acute atrial fibrillation and flutter patients of 1 indicates increased risk with higher CHADS2 or CHA2DS2-VASc scores; 95% CI 1.25 to 4.04; I2 = 0%). Primary analysis revealed insufficient evidence regarding the effect of oral anticoagulation use on thromboembolic events post-cardioversion of low-risk acute atrial fibrillation and flutter, though the event rate is low in contemporary practice. Our findings can better inform patient-centered decision-making when considering 4-week oral anticoagulation use for acute atrial fibrillation and flutter patients.

We implemented a novel transition-to-practice curriculum incorporating four new processes to prepare CCFP(EM) residents for independent practice. These elements were: 1) explicit sequencing of competency progression; 2) establishment of coaching teams; 3) establishment of independent shifts; and 4) implementation of a transition-to-practice seminar series. Exit surveys of residents rated the new curriculum highly with 15/17 (88.2%) residents reporting they felt prepared for independent practice. All residents rated competency progression, coaching teams, independent shifts and transition-to-practice series favourably. This framework can be used by other 1-year enhanced skills or other fellowship programs to prepare their residents for independent practice.

The objective of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) 2020 Academic Symposium Panel was to present recommendations for collaboration on (1) writing a grant application; (2) conducting a study; (3) writing an abstract; and (4) writing a manuscript. We assembled an expert panel of eight experienced emergency medicine clinician scientists from across Canada. Panel members performed literature searches for each of the four topics. Draft recommendations were developed and refined in an iterative fashion by panel members. We solicited external feedback on the draft recommendations online from identified researchers known to CAEP and in person at the Network of Canadian Emergency Researchers meeting in February 2020. We obtained additional feedback during an online symposium presentation on October 15th, 2020, open to all members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Four sets of recommendations were established for each component including: 14 for writing a grant application including relevant timelines; 23 for conducting a study; 13 for writing an abstract; and 18 for writing a manuscript. Forming a strong team, including patients, appropriate methodologists, content experts and a mix of senior and junior investigators, establishing and following clear timelines, and proactive communications were common themes. We offer recommendations for research collaboration for (1) writing a grant, (2) conducting a study, (3) writing an abstract, and (4) writing a manuscript. We believe these recommendations will help to improve the science, improve grant success, and improve the impact of the abstracts and manuscripts.

While quality improvement (QI) and clinical research embody two distinct scientific approaches, they have the same ultimate goal-to improve health and patient care outcomes. By leveraging their respective strengths there is a higher likelihood of achieving and sustaining health improvements. Our objective was to create recommendations to enhance the collaboration of the Canadian emergency medicine QI and clinical research communities.An expert panel of eight ED clinicians with diverse QI and clinical research expertise drafted a list of recommendations based on their professional expertise and a scoping review of the literature. These recommendations were refined through consultation with national stakeholders and reviewed at the 2020 CAEP Virtual Academic Symposium, where feedback was received through several virtual platforms.The final six recommendations include that all emergency medicine providers should: (1) understand the role and application of both clinical research and QI science; that academic emergency medicine physicians should: (2) contribute to both local adoption and broad dissemination of project findings, (3) leverage QI methodologies in research projects to improve knowledge translation, and (4) ensure that project outcomes prioritize patient care; and that academic leaders should: (5) enhance the infrastructure for oversight of research and QI projects, and (6) encourage collaboration between researchers and QI experts by ensuring that academic and operational infrastructures align and support both.Six recommendations are presented to help the Canadian emergency medicine community achieve greater collaboration between researchers and QI experts with the ultimate goal of improving patient care outcomes.RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Bien que l’amélioration de la qualité (AQ) et la recherche clinique représentent deux approches scientifiques distinctes, elles ont le même but ultime: améliorer la santé et les résultats des soins aux patients. En tirant profit de leurs atouts respectifs, les chances d’obtenir et de soutenir des améliorations de santé sont plus élevées. Notre objectif était de créer des recommandations pour renforcer la collaboration entre les communautés d'AQ et de recherche clinique en médecine d'urgence canadienne. MéTHODES: Un groupe d’experts de huit cliniciens des services d’urgence dotés d’une expertise diversifiée en matière d’AQ et de recherche clinique a rédigé une liste de recommandations basées sur leur expertise professionnelle et un examen de la revue de littérature. Ces recommandations ont été affinées en consultation avec les parties prenantes nationales et examinées lors du Symposium académique virtuel de ACMU 2020, où des commentaires ont été reçus via plusieurs plateformes virtuelles. RéSULTATS: Les six recommandations finales incluent que tous les prestataires des services de médecine d’urgence devraient: (1) comprendre le rôle et l’application de la recherche clinique et de la science de l’AQ; que les médecins universitaires en médecine d’urgence devraient: (2) contribuer à la fois à l’adoption locale et à la diffusion large des résultats de projets, (3) tirer parti des méthodologies d’AQ dans les projets de recherche afin d’améliorer l’application des connaissances, et (4) veiller à ce que les résultats de projet donnent la priorité aux soins aux patients; et que les dirigeants universitaires devraient: (5) améliorer l’infrastructure de surveillance des projets de recherche et d’AQ, et (6) encourager la collaboration entre les chercheurs et les experts en AQ en assurant que les infrastructures universitaires et opérationnelles les alignent et les soutiennent. CONCLUSION: Six recommandations sont présentées pour aider la communauté de la médecine d’urgence canadienne à parvenir à une plus grande collaboration entre les chercheurs et les experts en AQ dans le but ultime d’améliorer les résultats des soins aux patients.

Invasive mechanical ventilation is often initiated in the ED, and mechanically ventilated patients may be kept in the ED for hours before ICU transfer. Although lung-protective ventilation is beneficial, particularly in ARDS, it remains uncertain how often lung-protective tidal volumes are used in the ED, and whether lung-protective ventilation in this setting impacts patient outcomes.What is the association between the use of lung-protective ventilation in the ED and outcomes among invasively ventilated patients?A retrospective analysis (2011-2017) of a prospective registry from eight EDs enrolling consecutive adult patients (≥ 18 years) who received invasive mechanical ventilation in the ED was performed. Lung-protective ventilation was defined by use of tidal volumes ≤ 8 mL/kg predicted body weight. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included development of ARDS, hospital length of stay, and total hospital costs.The study included 4,174 patients, of whom 2,437 (58.4%) received lung-protective ventilation in the ED. Use of lung-protective ventilation was associated with decreased odds of hospital death (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96) and development of ARDS (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92). Patients who received lung-protective ventilation in the ED had shorter median duration of mechanical ventilation (4 vs 5 days; P 0.01), shorter median hospital length of stay (11 vs 14 days; P .001), and reduced total hospital costs (Can$44,348 vs Can$52,484 [US$34,153 vs US$40,418]; P = .03) compared with patients who received higher tidal volumes.Use of lung-protective ventilation in the ED was associated with important patient- and system-centered outcomes, including lower hospital mortality, decreased incidence of ARDS, lower hospital length of stay, and decreased total costs. Protocol development promoting the regular use of lung-protective ventilation in the ED may be of value.

Acute atrial flutter has one-tenth the prevalence of acute atrial fibrillation in the emergency department (ED) but shares many management strategies. Our aim was to compare conversion from acute atrial flutter to sinus rhythm between pharmacological cardioversion followed by electrical cardioversion (Drug-Shock), and electrical cardioversion alone (Shock-Only). We conducted a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled comparison of attempted pharmacological cardioversion with IV procainamide followed by electrical cardioversion if necessary, and placebo infusion followed by electrical cardioversion. We enrolled stable patients with a primary diagnosis of acute acute atrial flutter at 11 academic EDs. The primary outcome was conversion to normal sinus rhythm. From July 2013 to October 2018, we enrolled 76 patients, and none were lost to follow-up. Comparing the Drug-Shock to the Shock-Only group, conversion to sinus rhythm occurred in 33 (100%) versus 40 (93%) (absolute difference 7.0%; 95% CI − 0.6 to 14.6; P = 0.25). Median time to conversion from start of infusion in the Drug-Shock group was 24 min (IQR 21–82) but only 9 (27%) cases were converted with IV procainamide. Patients in both groups had similar outcomes at 14 days; there were no strokes or deaths. This trial found that the Drug-Shock strategy is potentially superior but that either approach to immediate rhythm control in the ED for patients with acute acute atrial flutter is highly effective, rapid, and safe in restoring sinus rhythm and allowing patients to go home and return to normal activities. Unlike the case of atrial fibrillation, we found that IV procainamide alone was infrequently effective.

Purpose The purpose of this review was to determine the association between frailty and mortality among adults ≥ 65 years old undergoing emergency general surgery (EGS). Methods This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines (CRD42020172482 on PROSPERO). A search in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted from inception to March 5, 2020. Studies with patients ≥ 65 years undergoing EGS were included. The primary exposure was frailty, measured using the Clinical Frailty Scale or the Modified Frailty Index. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 90-day and 1-year mortality, length of stay, complications, change in level of care at discharge, and loss of independence. Two independent reviewers screened articles and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. A meta-analysis was performed for 30-day mortality using a random-effects model. Results Our search yielded 847 articles and six cohort studies were included in the systematic review. There were 1289 patients, 283 being frail. The pooled OR from meta-analysis for frail compared to non-frail patients was 2.91 (95% CI 2.00, 4.23) for 30-day mortality. Frailty was associated with increased odds of all secondary outcomes. Conclusion Frailty is significantly associated with worse outcomes after emergency general surgery in adults ≥ 65 years of age. The Clinical Frailty Scale could be used to improve preoperative risk assessment for patients and shared decision-making between patients and healthcare providers. Registration number CRD42020172482 (PROSPERO).

Acute heart failure patients often have an uncertain or delayed follow-up after discharge from the ED. Our goal was to introduce rapid-access specialty clinics to ensure acute heart failure patients were seen within 7 days, in an effort to reduce admissions and improve follow-up care. This prospective cohort study was conducted at two campuses of a large tertiary care hospital. We enrolled acute heart failure patients who presented to the ED with shortness of breath and were later discharged. Following a 12-month before period, we introduced rapid-access acute heart failure clinics staffed by cardiology and internal medicine. We allowed for a 3-month implementation period and then observed outcomes over the subsequent 12-month after period. The primary outcome was hospital admission within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included mortality and actual access to specialty care. Patients in the before (N = 355) and after periods (N = 374) were similar for age and most characteristics. Segmented autoregression analysis demonstrated there was a pre-existing trend to fewer admissions. Attendance at a specialty clinic increased from 17.8 to 42.1% (P