Search

AIMS: The aim of this study is to compare the Hestia rule vs. the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) for triaging patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for home treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Normotensive patients with PE of 26 hospitals from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland were randomized to either triaging with Hestia or sPESI. They were designated for home treatment if the triaging tool was negative and if the physician-in-charge, taking into account the patient's opinion, did not consider that hospitalization was required. The main outcomes were the 30-day composite of recurrent venous thrombo-embolism, major bleeding or all-cause death (non-inferiority analysis with 2.5% absolute risk difference as margin), and the rate of patients discharged home within 24 h after randomization (NCT02811237). From January 2017 through July 2019, 1975 patients were included. In the per-protocol population, the primary outcome occurred in 3.82% (34/891) in the Hestia arm and 3.57% (32/896) in the sPESI arm (P = 0.004 for non-inferiority). In the intention-to-treat population, 38.4% of the Hestia patients (378/984) were treated at home vs. 36.6% (361/986) of the sPESI patients (P = 0.41 for superiority), with a 30-day composite outcome rate of 1.33% (5/375) and 1.11% (4/359), respectively. No recurrent or fatal PE occurred in either home treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: For triaging PE patients, the strategy based on the Hestia rule and the strategy based on sPESI had similar safety and effectiveness. With either tool complemented by the overruling of the physician-in-charge, more than a third of patients were treated at home with a low incidence of complications., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Key Points Question Does an intervention aimed at improving guideline adherence for the management of acute heart failure, including intensive intravenous nitrate therapy and management of precipitating factors, improve hospital discharge and survival at 30 days? Findings In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial that included 503 patients 75 years and older who presented to the emergency department with acute heart failure, implementation of an early and comprehensive care bundle compared with usual care improved guideline adherence, but had no significant effect on number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days (median of 19 d in both groups). Meanings This emergency department care bundle did not improve 30-day outcomes among older patients with acute heart failure. Abstract Importance Clinical guidelines for the early management of acute heart failure in the emergency department (ED) setting are based on only moderate levels of evidence, with subsequent low adherence to these guidelines. Objective To test the effect of an early guideline-recommended care bundle on short-term prognosis in older patients with acute heart failure in the ED. Design, Setting, and Participants Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in 15 EDs in France of 503 patients 75 years and older with a diagnosis of acute heart failure in the ED from December 2018 to September 2019 and followed up for 30 days until October 2019. Interventions A care bundle that included early intravenous nitrate boluses; management of precipitating factors, such as acute coronary syndrome, infection, or atrial fibrillation; and moderate dose of intravenous diuretics (n = 200). In the control group, patient care was left to the discretion of the treating emergency physician (n = 303). Each center was randomized to the order in which they switched to the “intervention period.” After the initial 4-week control period for all centers, 1 center entered in the intervention period every 2 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included 30-day all-cause mortality, 30-day cardiovascular mortality, unscheduled readmission, length of hospital stay, and kidney impairment. Results Among 503 patients who were randomized (median age, 87 years; 298 [59%] women), 502 were analyzed. In the intervention group, patients received a median (interquartile range) of 27.0 (9-54) mg of intravenous nitrates in the first 4 hours vs 4.0 (2.0-6.0) mg in the control group (adjusted difference, 23.8 [95% CI, 13.5-34.1]). There was a significantly higher percentage of patients in the intervention group treated for their precipitating factors than in the control group (58.8% vs 31.9%; adjusted difference, 31.1% [95% CI, 14.3%-47.9%]). There was no statistically significant difference in the primary end point of the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days (median [interquartile range], 19 [0- 24] d in both groups; adjusted difference, −1.9 [95% CI, −6.6 to 2.8]; adjusted ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.64-1.21]). At 30 days, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in mortality (8.0% vs 9.7%; adjusted difference, 4.1% [95% CI, −17.2% to 25.3%]), cardiovascular mortality (5.0% vs 7.4%; adjusted difference, 2.1% [95% CI, −15.5% to 19.8%]), unscheduled readmission (14.3% vs 15.7%; adjusted difference, −1.3% [95% CI, −26.3% to 23.7%]), median length of hospital stay (8 d in both groups; adjusted difference, 2.5 [95% CI, −0.9 to 5.8]), and kidney impairment (1% in both groups). Conclusions and Relevance Among older patients with acute heart failure, use of a guideline-based comprehensive care bundle in the ED compared with usual care did not result in a statistically significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 30 days. Further research is needed to identify effective treatments for acute heart failure in older patients. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03683212

BackgroundChest CT (CT) is the reference for assessing pulmonary injury in suspected or diagnosed COVID-19 with signs of clinical severity. We explored the role of lung ultrasonography (LU) in quickly assessing lung status in these patients.MethodseChoVid is a multicentric study based on routinely collected data, conducted in 3 emergency units of Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP); 107 patients were included between March 19, 2020 and April 01, 2020 and underwent LU, a short clinical assessment by 2 emergency physicians blinded to each other’s and a CT. LU consisted of scoring lesions in 8 chest zones from 0 to 3, defining a severity global score (GS) ranging from 0 to 24. CT severity score ranged from 0 to 3 according to the extent of interstitial pneumonia signs. 48 patients underwent LU by both an expert and a newly trained physician.FindingsThe GS showed good performance to predict CT severity assessment of COVID-19 as normal versus pathologic: AUC=0.93, maximal Youden index 1 with 95% sensitivity, and 83% specificity. Similar performance was found for CT assessment as normal or minimal versus moderate or severe (n=90): AUC 0.89, maximal Youden index 7 with 86% sensitivity, and 78% specificity. Good agreement was found for zone scoring assessed by new trainee (30mn theory + 30mn practice) and expert (n=14,14*8 checkpoints), weighted kappa 0.85-1; moderate agreement was found for new trainee (n=48, 30mn theory) and expert, kappa 0.62-0.81.InterpretationGS score is a simple tool to assess lung damage severity in patients with suspected or diagnosed COVID-19. Comparing the performance of new trainees and expert physicians opens a path for adoption beyond the scope of experts. LU is a good candidate for patients triage, especially in case of CT availability issues.

The Emergency Department (ED) is an environment at risk for medical errors.Our aim was to determine the factors associated with the adverse events resulting from medical errors in the ED among patients who were admitted.This was a prospective observational study. For a 1-month period, we included all ED patients who were subsequently admitted to the medical ward. Detection of medical errors was made by the admitting physician and then validated by two experts who reviewed all available data and medical charts pertaining to the patient's hospital stay, including the first review from the ward physician. Related adverse events resulting from medical errors were then classified by type and severity. Adverse events were defined as medical errors that needed an intervention or caused harm to the patient. Univariate analysis examined relationships between characteristics of both patients and physicians and the risk of adverse events.From 197 analyzed patients, 130 errors were detected, of these, 34 were categorized as adverse events among 19 patients (10%). Seventy-six percent of these were categorized as proficiency errors. The only factors associated with a lower risk of adverse events were the transition of care involving a handoff within the ED (0% vs. 19%; p = 0.03) and the involvement of a resident (junior doctor) in addition to the senior physician (37% vs. 67%; p0.01).In our study, the involvement of more than one physician was associated with a lower risk of adverse events.

International audience; Objective: Simulation-based teaching offers promising and diverse teaching possibilities. We aim to assess whether the death of the manikin increased anxiety amongst learner compared to similar simulation-based course where the manikin stays alive. Methods: We conducted a cluster randomized study amongst multidisciplinary teams of emergency workers. Teams of physicians, nurses, and healthcare assistants were randomly assigned to participate in a simulation-based course where the simulated patient died (death group) or not (life group). We assessed anxiety at 1 month after the teaching using Spielberger STAI-state anxiety questionnaire. We compared reduction of anxiety when facing a life-threatening situation in both groups. Results: We included 25 teams for a total of 129 participants. We analysed 63 participants in the death group and 57 in the life group. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups, including baseline anxiety (STAI-state score 39.6 (7.8) in the death group vs 38.6 (7.1) in the life group). We report a significant reduction in both groups 1 month after the training: 6.6 (7.8) vs 6 (8.0), mean difference 0.5 (−2.4; 3.4). At 3 months, we report a significant greater reduction of anxiety in the death group (mean difference 4 [0.1; 7.9]). Conclusion: We observed in our sample that unexpected simulated patient death did not increase anxiety amongst multidisciplinary emergency workers.

Importance Emergency departments (ED) are environments that are at high risk for medical errors. Previous studies suggested that the proportion of medical errors may decrease when more than 1 physician is involved. Objective To reduce the proportion of medical errors by implementing systematic cross-checking between emergency physicians. Design, Setting, and Participants This cluster randomized crossover trial includes a random sample of 14 adult patients (age ≥18 years) per day during two 10-day period in 6 EDs (n = 1680 patients) in France. Interventions Systematic cross-checking between emergency physicians, 3 times a day, which included a brief presentation of one physician’s case to another, followed by the second physician’s feedback to the first. Main Outcomes and Measures Medical error in the ED, defined as an adverse event (either a near miss or a serious adverse event). The primary end point was identified using a 2-level error detection surveillance system, blinded to the strategy allocation. Results Among the 1680 included patients (mean [SD] age, 57.5 [21.7] years), 144 (8.6%) had an adverse event. There were 54 adverse events among 840 patients (6.4%) in the cross-check group compared with 90 adverse events among 840 patients (10.7%) in the standard care group (relative risk reduction [RRR], 40% [95% CI, 12% to 59%]; absolute risk reduction [ARR], 4.3%; number needed to treat [NNT], 24). There was also a significant reduction rate of near misses (RRR, 47% [95% CI, 15% to 67%]; ARR, 2.7%; NNT, 37) but not of the rate of preventable serious adverse events (RRR, 29% [95% CI, −18% to 57%]; ARR, 1.2%; NNT, 83). Conclusions and Relevance The implementation of systematic cross-checking between emergency physicians was associated with a significant reduction in adverse events, mainly driven by a reduction in near misses. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02356926

the BISTRO Investigators; International audience; ObjectiveTo evaluate the performance of S100-B protein and copeptin, in addition to clinical variables, in predicting outcomes of patients attending the emergency department (ED) following a seizure.MethodsWe prospectively included adult patients presented with an acute seizure, in four EDs in France and the United Kingdom. Participants were followed up for 28 days. The primary endpoint was a composite of seizure recurrence, all-cause mortality, hospitalization or rehospitalisation, or return visit in the ED within seven days.ResultsAmong the 389 participants included in the analysis, 156 (40%) experienced the primary endpoint within seven days and 195 (54%) at 28 days. Mean levels of both S100-B (0.11 μg/l [95% CI 0.07–0.20] vs 0.09 μg/l [0.07–0.14]) and copeptin (23 pmol/l [9–104] vs 17 pmol/l [8–43]) were higher in participants meeting the primary endpoint. However, both biomarkers were poorly predictive of the primary outcome with a respective area under the receiving operator characteristic curve of 0.57 [0.51–0.64] and 0.59 [0.54–0.64]. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified higher age (odds ratio [OR] 1.3 per decade [1.1–1.5]), provoked seizure (OR 4.93 [2.5–9.8]), complex partial seizure (OR 4.09 [1.8–9.1]) and first seizure (OR 1.83 [1.1–3.0]) as independent predictors of the primary outcome. A second regression analysis including the biomarkers showed no additional predictive benefit (S100-B OR 3.89 [0.80–18.9] copeptin OR 1 [1.00–1.00]).ConclusionThe plasma biomarkers S100-B and copeptin did not improve prediction of poor outcome following seizure. Higher age, a first seizure, a provoked seizure and a partial complex seizure are independently associated with adverse outcomes.

ObjectivesUnenhanced computed tomography (CT) has become a standard imaging technique for uncomplicated renal colic in many countries. The appropriate timing of CT imaging has not been established, and guidelines recommend that this imaging be performed between 1 and 7 days of presentation. The primary objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of alternative diagnosis identified with low-dose unenhanced CT in the emergency department (ED) in patients with suspected uncomplicated renal colic.MethodsThis prospective single-centre study was carried out in a large university hospital ED. Over a 6-month period, all patients with clinically diagnosed renal colic and a plan to be discharged underwent low-dose unenhanced CT in the ED. Pregnant women, women of childbearing age not willing to have a pregnancy test, and patients who had already undergone diagnostic imaging were excluded. The primary outcome was the number and nature of the alternative diagnosis. Univariate analyses were performed to assess factors associated with the primary outcome.ResultsA total of 178 patients were screened, and 155 underwent CT in the ED. The mean age was 42.2 years; 69% were male. The diagnosis of uncomplicated renal colic was confirmed in 118 participants (76%); 27 (17%) had an inconclusive CT scan. Overall, 10 patients (6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3–10) had an alternative diagnosis, 5 of whom were subsequently hospitalized.ConclusionLow-dose unenhanced CT in the ED detects alternative diagnoses in 6% (95% CI 3–10) of patients with suspected uncomplicated renal colic, half of whom are subsequently hospitalized. Our prospective findings, which were similar to those reported in retrospective studies, are a potential argument for a systematic approach to ED imaging in suspected renal colic. Future research involving intervention and control groups would be helpful.

International audience; Background: Oral presentations of clinical cases by medical students during medical rounds in hospital wards are a source of anxiety and little is known about how this anxiety can be alleviated. The objective of this study was to investigate whether video-based feedback of public oral presentations can reduce anxiety in 4th year medical students. Methods: Multicentre randomized study conducted in six intensive care units (ICU) and emergency departments (ED) in France over a 9-month period in 2012. One hundred and forty two 4th year medical students were randomized to two groups: intervention and control. Students in the intervention group were recorded while making an oral presentation of a patient during morning ward rounds, followed by video-based feedback. Students in the control group conducted presented classical oral presentations without being filmed and with no formal feedback. Anxiety levels during a public oral presentation were assessed using the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S). The primary outcome was the difference in STAI-S scores between groups at the beginning and at the end of a 3-month ICU or ED internship. Results: Seventy four students were randomized to the 'video-based feedback' group and 68 were randomized to the control group. In both groups, STAI-S scores were significantly lower after 3 months of internship. However, the reduction in STAI-S scores was significantly greater in the " video-based feedback " group than in controls (−9.2 ± 9.3 vs. –4.6 ± 8.2, p = 0.024. Compared to the control group, significantly fewer students with high-level anxiety were observed in the " video-based feedback " group after 3 months of internship (68 vs. 28%, p

Study objectives The Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) score has shown excellent negative predictive value; however, its use in the European population with high prevalence of PE is controversial. In Europe, PERC is not part of routine practice. For low-risk patients, guidelines recommend D-dimer testing, followed if positive by imaging study. We aimed to study the rate of diagnosis of PE after D-dimer testing in PERC-negative patients that could have been discharged if PERC was applied. Method This was a multicenter retrospective study in Paris, France. We included all patients with a suspicion of PE who had D-dimer testing in the emergency department, low pre-test probability, and a negative PERC score (that was retrospectively calculated). Patients with insufficient record to calculate PERC score were excluded. The primary end point was the rate of PE diagnosis before discharge in this population. Secondary end points included rate of invasive imaging studies and subsequent adverse events. Results We screened 4301 patients who had D-dimer testing, 1070 of whom were PERC negative and could be analyzed. The mean age was 35 years and 46% were men. D-dimer was positive (> 500 ng/L) in 167 (16%) of them; CTPA or V/Q scan was performed in 153 (14%) cases. PE was confirmed in 5 cases (total rate 0.5%, 95% confidence interval 0.1%-1.1%). Fifteen patients (1%) experienced non-severe adverse events. Conclusion D-dimer testing in PERC-negative patients led to a diagnosis of PE in 0.5% of them, with 15% of patients undergoing unnecessary irradiative imaging studies.

A 43-year-old woman presented to the ED with transitory neurological symptoms: beginning in the morning, she had loss of strength in her right arm and vertigo for a few seconds. She had no medical history, except for migraines and gastro-oesophageal reflux, and took no medication other than combined oral contraceptive pills. On examination, she had no neurological deficit. She only complained about a headache (with a pain similar to when she has migraines) and …