首页 > 最新文献

American Journal of Emergency Medicine最新文献

英文 中文
Validation and comparison of triage-based screening strategies for sepsis 验证和比较基于分流的败血症筛查策略
IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Pub Date : 2024-09-02 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.037

Objective

This study sought to externally validate and compare proposed methods for stratifying sepsis risk at emergency department (ED) triage.

Methods

This nested case/control study enrolled ED patients from four hospitals in Utah and evaluated the performance of previously-published sepsis risk scores amenable to use at ED triage based on their area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC, which balances positive predictive value and sensitivity) and area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC, which balances sensitivity and specificity). Score performance for predicting whether patients met Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED was compared to patients' assigned ED triage score (Canadian Triage Acuity Score [CTAS]) with adjustment for multiple comparisons.

Results

Among 2000 case/control patients, 981 met Sepsis-3 criteria on final adjudication. The best performing sepsis risk scores were the Predict Sepsis version #3 (AUPRC 0.183, 95 % CI 0.148–0.256; AUROC 0.859, 95 % CI 0.843–0.875) and Borelli scores (AUPRC 0.127, 95 % CI 0.107–0.160, AUROC 0.845, 95 % CI 0.829–0.862), which significantly outperformed CTAS (AUPRC 0.038, 95 % CI 0.035–0.042, AUROC 0.650, 95 % CI 0.628–0.671, p < 0.001 for all AUPRC and AUROC comparisons). The Predict Sepsis and Borelli scores exhibited sensitivity of 0.670 and 0.678 and specificity of 0.902 and 0.834, respectively, at their recommended cutoff values and outperformed Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria (AUPRC 0.083, 95 % CI 0.070–0.102, p = 0.052 and p = 0.078, respectively; AUROC 0.775, 95 % CI 0.756–0.795, p < 0.001 for both scores).

Conclusions

The Predict Sepsis and Borelli scores exhibited improved performance including increased specificity and positive predictive values for sepsis identification at ED triage compared to CTAS and SIRS criteria.

方法这项巢式病例/对照研究从犹他州的四家医院招募了急诊科患者,并根据精确度-召回曲线下面积(AUPRC,兼顾阳性预测值和灵敏度)和接收者运算特征曲线下面积(AUROC,兼顾灵敏度和特异性)评估了之前发表的适合在急诊科分诊时使用的脓毒症风险评分的性能。将预测患者在急诊室是否符合败血症-3 标准的评分性能与患者指定的急诊室分诊评分(加拿大分诊急性症状评分 [CTAS])进行了比较,并对多重比较进行了调整。结果在 2000 名病例/对照患者中,有 981 人在最终裁定时符合败血症-3 标准。表现最好的脓毒症风险评分是脓毒症预测 3 版(AUPRC 0.183,95 % CI 0.148-0.256;AUROC 0.859,95 % CI 0.843-0.875)和 Borelli 评分(AUPRC 0.127,95 % CI 0.107-0.160,AUROC 0.845,95 % CI 0.829-0.862),明显优于 CTAS(AUPRC 0.038,95 % CI 0.035-0.042,AUROC 0.650,95 % CI 0.628-0.671,所有 AUPRC 和 AUROC 比较 p <0.001)。脓毒症预测评分和 Borelli 评分在其推荐临界值下的灵敏度分别为 0.670 和 0.678,特异性分别为 0.902 和 0.834,优于系统炎症反应综合征(SIRS)标准(AUPRC 0.083, 95 % CI 0.070-0.102, p = 0.052 和 p = 0.结论与 CTAS 和 SIRS 标准相比,Predict Sepsis 和 Borelli 评分的性能有所提高,包括在急诊室分诊时识别败血症的特异性和阳性预测值均有所提高。
{"title":"Validation and comparison of triage-based screening strategies for sepsis","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.037","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.037","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study sought to externally validate and compare proposed methods for stratifying sepsis risk at emergency department (ED) triage.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This nested case/control study enrolled ED patients from four hospitals in Utah and evaluated the performance of previously-published sepsis risk scores amenable to use at ED triage based on their area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC, which balances positive predictive value and sensitivity) and area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC, which balances sensitivity and specificity). Score performance for predicting whether patients met Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED was compared to patients' assigned ED triage score (Canadian Triage Acuity Score [CTAS]) with adjustment for multiple comparisons.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Among 2000 case/control patients, 981 met Sepsis-3 criteria on final adjudication. The best performing sepsis risk scores were the Predict Sepsis version #3 (AUPRC 0.183, 95 % CI 0.148–0.256; AUROC 0.859, 95 % CI 0.843–0.875) and Borelli scores (AUPRC 0.127, 95 % CI 0.107–0.160, AUROC 0.845, 95 % CI 0.829–0.862), which significantly outperformed CTAS (AUPRC 0.038, 95 % CI 0.035–0.042, AUROC 0.650, 95 % CI 0.628–0.671, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001 for all AUPRC and AUROC comparisons). The Predict Sepsis and Borelli scores exhibited sensitivity of 0.670 and 0.678 and specificity of 0.902 and 0.834, respectively, at their recommended cutoff values and outperformed Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria (AUPRC 0.083, 95 % CI 0.070–0.102, <em>p</em> = 0.052 and <em>p</em> = 0.078, respectively; AUROC 0.775, 95 % CI 0.756–0.795, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001 for both scores).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The Predict Sepsis and Borelli scores exhibited improved performance including increased specificity and positive predictive values for sepsis identification at ED triage compared to CTAS and SIRS criteria.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55536,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142167843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Comment on, "Implementation considerations for the adoption of artificial intelligence in the emergency department". 就 "急诊科采用人工智能的实施考虑因素 "发表评论。
IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Pub Date : 2024-09-02 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2024.09.006
Haihua Wang, Ji Lan
{"title":"Comment on, \"Implementation considerations for the adoption of artificial intelligence in the emergency department\".","authors":"Haihua Wang, Ji Lan","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2024.09.006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2024.09.006","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55536,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142146965","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Updates in emergency medicine: Ectopic pregnancy 急诊医学最新进展:宫外孕
IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Pub Date : 2024-09-02 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2024.09.005

Introduction

Ectopic pregnancy is a serious condition that can have significant morbidity and mortality.

Objective

This review highlights the pearls and pitfalls of ectopic pregnancy, including presentation, diagnosis, and management in the emergency department (ED) based on current evidence.

Discussion

Ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy that implants outside the normal uterine cavity. It most commonly presents with vaginal bleeding, abdominal or pelvic pain, and amenorrhea. Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy include abnormalities of the fallopian tube, prior ectopic pregnancy, and age over 35 years, but a significant number of patients with confirmed ectopic pregnancy will not have an identifiable risk factor. In patients with suspected ectopic pregnancy, evaluation includes quantitative serum hCG, blood type, and ultrasound. Ultrasound is necessary regardless of the hCG level. If the patient is hemodynamically unstable, resuscitation with blood products and early consultation of obstetrics/gynecology is necessary. Patients with confirmed ectopic pregnancy but who are otherwise stable may be managed medically or surgically. If a yolk sac or fetal pole is not seen in the uterus on ultrasound, this is considered a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL), which may represent an early, failed, or ectopic pregnancy. Stable patients with a PUL who can reliably follow up are managed with close specialist follow up and repeat 48 h HCG level. These patients need to have an hCG level repeated every 48 h until diagnosed with a viable pregnancy, failed pregnancy, or ectopic pregnancy.

Conclusions

Knowledge of the latest advances in managing ectopic pregnancy will help clinicians more quickly and accurately diagnose patients presenting with this potentially fatal condition.

导言宫外孕是一种严重的疾病,可导致显著的发病率和死亡率。本综述重点介绍宫外孕的珍珠和陷阱,包括急诊科(ED)根据现有证据进行的表现、诊断和处理。讨论宫外孕是指在正常子宫腔外种植的妊娠。宫外孕最常见的症状是阴道出血、腹痛或盆腔疼痛以及闭经。宫外孕的危险因素包括输卵管畸形、曾有过宫外孕经历和年龄超过 35 岁,但大量确诊宫外孕的患者并没有可识别的危险因素。对于疑似宫外孕的患者,评估包括血清 hCG 定量、血型和超声波检查。无论 hCG 水平如何,超声检查都是必要的。如果患者血流动力学不稳定,有必要使用血制品进行复苏,并及早咨询妇产科。确诊为宫外孕但病情稳定的患者可通过药物或手术进行治疗。如果超声检查在子宫内未见卵黄囊或胎儿极,则被视为位置不明妊娠(PUL),可能代表早期妊娠、失败妊娠或宫外孕。对情况稳定的 PUL 患者进行可靠的随访,由专科医生进行密切随访,并重复检测 48 小时 HCG 水平。这些患者需要每 48 小时重复检测一次 HCG 水平,直到确诊为存活妊娠、妊娠失败或异位妊娠。
{"title":"Updates in emergency medicine: Ectopic pregnancy","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2024.09.005","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ajem.2024.09.005","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Ectopic pregnancy is a serious condition that can have significant morbidity and mortality.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This review highlights the pearls and pitfalls of ectopic pregnancy, including presentation, diagnosis, and management in the emergency department (ED) based on current evidence.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy that implants outside the normal uterine cavity. It most commonly presents with vaginal bleeding, abdominal or pelvic pain, and amenorrhea. Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy include abnormalities of the fallopian tube, prior ectopic pregnancy, and age over 35 years, but a significant number of patients with confirmed ectopic pregnancy will not have an identifiable risk factor. In patients with suspected ectopic pregnancy, evaluation includes quantitative serum hCG, blood type, and ultrasound. Ultrasound is necessary regardless of the hCG level. If the patient is hemodynamically unstable, resuscitation with blood products and early consultation of obstetrics/gynecology is necessary. Patients with confirmed ectopic pregnancy but who are otherwise stable may be managed medically or surgically. If a yolk sac or fetal pole is not seen in the uterus on ultrasound, this is considered a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL), which may represent an early, failed, or ectopic pregnancy. Stable patients with a PUL who can reliably follow up are managed with close specialist follow up and repeat 48 h HCG level. These patients need to have an hCG level repeated every 48 h until diagnosed with a viable pregnancy, failed pregnancy, or ectopic pregnancy.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Knowledge of the latest advances in managing ectopic pregnancy will help clinicians more quickly and accurately diagnose patients presenting with this potentially fatal condition.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55536,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142148772","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Clinico-epidemiological profile & outcome of patients presenting with cerebral venous thrombosis to emergency department 急诊科脑静脉血栓患者的临床流行病学特征和预后。
IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Pub Date : 2024-09-02 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.034

Objectives

To better understand the clinical and radiological characteristics of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (CVT), we conducted a study focusing on the assessment of neurological outcomes and factors associated with poor prognosis in patients with CVT.

Methods

This prospective, observational study took place over two years (July 2020 to June 2022) in a tertiary care teaching hospital in South India, encompassing adults aged 18 years and over. Key data points included demographic information, symptomatology, physical and neurological examinations, neuroimaging findings, hospital interventions, and neurological outcomes at discharge and at a six-week telephonic follow-up.

Results

A total of 140 patients with CVT, median age 34 years, were studied. 61.4 % were males. The most common symptoms and signs were headaches (70.7 %) and papilledema (60.7 %). Hemorrhagic infarct was the most prevalent finding on the non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) of the brain, involving 39.4 % of patients. The most commonly affected sinus was the superior sagittal sinus. Risk factors most often observed were alcoholism (45 %), smoking (21.4 %), anemia (27.1 %), oral contraceptive pill usage (12.1 %), and hypertension (12.1 %). Deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism was present in 5 % of the patients. The mean hospital stay was 13.9 days, with 6.4 % of patients requiring endotracheal intubation at presentation and 22.9 % during their stay. The observed in-hospital mortality rate was 17.9 %, increasing to 22.4 % at the six-week follow-up. Morbidity (mRS 3–5) was 24.3 % at discharge, decreasing to 8.2 % at six-week follow-up. Favorable outcomes were reported in 57.9 % of cases at discharge, rising to 69.4 % at six weeks.

Conclusions

Our study underscores the importance of recognizing cardinal symptoms and diverse risk factors of CVT, including alcoholism and anemia. Majority of CVT occurrences were observed in males aged 18–29. Critical determinants of heightened morbidity and mortality were identified, including lower GCS scores and the necessity for advanced interventions. Notably, majority of patients presented favorable neurological outcomes at six-week follow-up.

研究目的为了更好地了解脑静脉血栓(CVT)的临床和放射学特征,我们开展了一项研究,重点评估脑静脉血栓患者的神经系统预后以及与不良预后相关的因素:这项前瞻性观察研究为期两年(2020 年 7 月至 2022 年 6 月),在印度南部的一家三级医疗教学医院进行,研究对象为 18 岁及以上的成年人。关键数据点包括人口统计学信息、症状学、体格和神经系统检查、神经影像学检查结果、医院干预措施以及出院时和六周电话随访时的神经系统结果:共研究了 140 名 CVT 患者,中位年龄为 34 岁,其中 61.4% 为男性。61.4%为男性。最常见的症状和体征是头痛(70.7%)和乳头水肿(60.7%)。出血性梗死是脑部非对比计算机断层扫描(NCCT)最常见的发现,占患者总数的 39.4%。最常受影响的窦是上矢状窦。最常见的风险因素包括酗酒(45%)、吸烟(21.4%)、贫血(27.1%)、口服避孕药(12.1%)和高血压(12.1%)。5%的患者患有深静脉血栓或肺栓塞。平均住院时间为 13.9 天,6.4% 的患者在入院时需要气管插管,22.9% 的患者在住院期间需要气管插管。观察到的院内死亡率为 17.9%,随访六周后上升至 22.4%。出院时的发病率(mRS 3-5)为 24.3%,六周随访时降至 8.2%。57.9%的病例在出院时获得了良好的治疗效果,六周随访时这一比例上升至69.4%:我们的研究强调了识别 CVT 主要症状和各种风险因素(包括酗酒和贫血)的重要性。大多数 CVT 患者为 18-29 岁的男性。研究确定了发病率和死亡率升高的关键因素,包括较低的 GCS 评分和高级干预的必要性。值得注意的是,大多数患者在六周的随访中表现出良好的神经功能。
{"title":"Clinico-epidemiological profile & outcome of patients presenting with cerebral venous thrombosis to emergency department","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.034","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.034","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To better understand the clinical and radiological characteristics of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (CVT), we conducted a study focusing on the assessment of neurological outcomes and factors associated with poor prognosis in patients with CVT.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This prospective, observational study took place over two years (July 2020 to June 2022) in a tertiary care teaching hospital in South India, encompassing adults aged 18 years and over. Key data points included demographic information, symptomatology, physical and neurological examinations, neuroimaging findings, hospital interventions, and neurological outcomes at discharge and at a six-week telephonic follow-up.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 140 patients with CVT, median age 34 years, were studied. 61.4 % were males. The most common symptoms and signs were headaches (70.7 %) and papilledema (60.7 %). Hemorrhagic infarct was the most prevalent finding on the non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) of the brain, involving 39.4 % of patients. The most commonly affected sinus was the superior sagittal sinus. Risk factors most often observed were alcoholism (45 %), smoking (21.4 %), anemia (27.1 %), oral contraceptive pill usage (12.1 %), and hypertension (12.1 %). Deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism was present in 5 % of the patients. The mean hospital stay was 13.9 days, with 6.4 % of patients requiring endotracheal intubation at presentation and 22.9 % during their stay. The observed in-hospital mortality rate was 17.9 %, increasing to 22.4 % at the six-week follow-up. Morbidity (mRS 3–5) was 24.3 % at discharge, decreasing to 8.2 % at six-week follow-up. Favorable outcomes were reported in 57.9 % of cases at discharge, rising to 69.4 % at six weeks.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Our study underscores the importance of recognizing cardinal symptoms and diverse risk factors of CVT, including alcoholism and anemia. Majority of CVT occurrences were observed in males aged 18–29. Critical determinants of heightened morbidity and mortality were identified, including lower GCS scores and the necessity for advanced interventions. Notably, majority of patients presented favorable neurological outcomes at six-week follow-up.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55536,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142146968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Evaluation of levetiracetam loading dose in adult patients with benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus 评估左乙拉西坦负荷剂量对苯二氮卓难治性癫痫状态成人患者的疗效
IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Pub Date : 2024-09-02 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2024.09.007
<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurologic emergency defined as continued seizure activity greater than five minutes or recurrent seizure activity without return to baseline. Benzodiazepine-refractory SE is continuous seizure activity despite treatment with a benzodiazepine. Treatment of benzodiazepine-refractory SE includes levetiracetam with loading doses ranging from 20 mg/kg to 60 mg/kg up to a maximum dose of 4500 mg. While levetiracetam has minimal adverse effects, there is currently a lack of studies directly comparing the safety and efficacy of various loading doses of levetiracetam.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of three loading doses of levetiracetam in the setting of benzodiazepine-refractory SE.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a single center, retrospective cohort study of adult patients with benzodiazepine-refractory SE who were treated with levetiracetam from April 1, 2016, to August 31, 2023. Patients with documented hypersensitivity to levetiracetam, those who were pregnant or incarcerated and patients who received an alternative antiepileptic drug (AED) prior to levetiracetam were excluded. Patients with other identifiable causes of SE including hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, hyponatremia or who were post cardiac arrest were also excluded. Patients were divided into three arms based on loading dose of levetiracetam administered (≤20 mg/kg [LEVlow], 21‐–39 mg/kg [LEVmed] or ≥40 mg/kg [LEVhigh]). The primary endpoint was the rate of seizure termination, defined as the lack of need for an additional AED within 60 min following levetiracetam administration. Secondary outcomes included the rate of intubation, and recurrent seizure activity 60 min to 24 h post seizure termination as defined by positive EEG results or need for an additional AED. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess the influence of adequate loading doses of benzodiazepines, and outpatient levetiracetam use.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Overall, 740 patients were screened for inclusion, with 218 patients being included in the primary analysis. Patients were divided into three groups with an average levetiracetam loading dose of 14.5 mg/kg in the LEVlow group, 28.8 mg/kg in the LEVmed group, and 48.8 mg/kg in the LEVhigh group. There was no difference in rates of seizure termination at 60 min (92.9% LEVlow vs 89.3% LEVmed vs 84.7% LEVhigh; <em>p</em> = 0.377). Additionally, no difference was found in rates of recurrent seizure activity between 60 min and 24 h post levetiracetam loading dose (32.1% LEVlow vs 32.0% LEVmed vs 28.8% LEVhigh; <em>p</em> = 0.899). However, the LEVhigh group did have a higher rate of intubation (45.8%) compared to the LEVmed (28.2%) and LEVlow (26.8%) group (<em>p</em> = 0.040).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The loading of levetiracetam did not result in a statistically significant difference in rate of seizure termination at
背景癫痫状态(SE)是一种神经系统急症,定义为持续发作活动超过五分钟或反复发作活动未恢复基线。苯二氮卓难治性 SE 是指在使用苯二氮卓治疗后仍有持续的癫痫发作活动。苯二氮卓难治性 SE 的治疗包括左乙拉西坦,负荷剂量从 20 毫克/千克到 60 毫克/千克不等,最大剂量为 4500 毫克。虽然左乙拉西坦的不良反应极小,但目前缺乏直接比较各种负荷剂量左乙拉西坦安全性和疗效的研究。本研究旨在评估苯二氮卓难治性SE患者服用三种负荷剂量左乙拉西坦的安全性和疗效。方法这是一项单中心回顾性队列研究,研究对象为2016年4月1日至2023年8月31日期间接受左乙拉西坦治疗的苯二氮卓难治性SE成年患者。排除了对左乙拉西坦过敏的患者、怀孕或被监禁的患者以及在使用左乙拉西坦之前接受过其他抗癫痫药物(AED)治疗的患者。此外,还排除了其他可确定的 SE 病因的患者,包括高血糖、低血糖、低钠血症或心脏骤停后的患者。根据左乙拉西坦的负荷剂量(≤20毫克/千克[LEVlow]、21-39毫克/千克[LEVmed]或≥40毫克/千克[LEVhigh]),患者被分为三组。主要终点是癫痫发作终止率,即在服用左乙拉西坦后60分钟内不需要额外的AED。次要结果包括插管率、发作终止后 60 分钟至 24 小时内的复发性发作活动(定义为脑电图结果呈阳性或需要额外的 AED)。进行了亚组分析,以评估苯二氮卓类药物足够的负荷剂量和门诊使用左乙拉西坦的影响。结果共筛选出 740 名患者,其中 218 名患者被纳入主要分析。患者被分为三组,左乙拉西坦平均负荷剂量分别为:LEVlow组14.5毫克/千克,LEVmed组28.8毫克/千克,LEVhigh组48.8毫克/千克。60 分钟时癫痫发作终止率没有差异(92.9% LEVlow vs 89.3% LEVmed vs 84.7% LEVhigh;P = 0.377)。此外,在左乙拉西坦负荷剂量后 60 分钟至 24 小时期间,癫痫复发率也没有差异(32.1% LEVlow vs 32.0% LEVmed vs 28.8% LEVhigh;p = 0.899)。然而,与LEVmed组(28.2%)和LEVlow组(26.8%)相比,LEVhigh组的插管率(45.8%)确实更高(p = 0.040)。要确定苯二氮卓难治性 SE 的最佳左乙拉西坦负荷剂量,还需要进一步研究。
{"title":"Evaluation of levetiracetam loading dose in adult patients with benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2024.09.007","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ajem.2024.09.007","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Background&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p&gt;Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurologic emergency defined as continued seizure activity greater than five minutes or recurrent seizure activity without return to baseline. Benzodiazepine-refractory SE is continuous seizure activity despite treatment with a benzodiazepine. Treatment of benzodiazepine-refractory SE includes levetiracetam with loading doses ranging from 20 mg/kg to 60 mg/kg up to a maximum dose of 4500 mg. While levetiracetam has minimal adverse effects, there is currently a lack of studies directly comparing the safety and efficacy of various loading doses of levetiracetam.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Objective&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p&gt;The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of three loading doses of levetiracetam in the setting of benzodiazepine-refractory SE.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Methods&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p&gt;This was a single center, retrospective cohort study of adult patients with benzodiazepine-refractory SE who were treated with levetiracetam from April 1, 2016, to August 31, 2023. Patients with documented hypersensitivity to levetiracetam, those who were pregnant or incarcerated and patients who received an alternative antiepileptic drug (AED) prior to levetiracetam were excluded. Patients with other identifiable causes of SE including hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, hyponatremia or who were post cardiac arrest were also excluded. Patients were divided into three arms based on loading dose of levetiracetam administered (≤20 mg/kg [LEVlow], 21‐–39 mg/kg [LEVmed] or ≥40 mg/kg [LEVhigh]). The primary endpoint was the rate of seizure termination, defined as the lack of need for an additional AED within 60 min following levetiracetam administration. Secondary outcomes included the rate of intubation, and recurrent seizure activity 60 min to 24 h post seizure termination as defined by positive EEG results or need for an additional AED. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess the influence of adequate loading doses of benzodiazepines, and outpatient levetiracetam use.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Results&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p&gt;Overall, 740 patients were screened for inclusion, with 218 patients being included in the primary analysis. Patients were divided into three groups with an average levetiracetam loading dose of 14.5 mg/kg in the LEVlow group, 28.8 mg/kg in the LEVmed group, and 48.8 mg/kg in the LEVhigh group. There was no difference in rates of seizure termination at 60 min (92.9% LEVlow vs 89.3% LEVmed vs 84.7% LEVhigh; &lt;em&gt;p&lt;/em&gt; = 0.377). Additionally, no difference was found in rates of recurrent seizure activity between 60 min and 24 h post levetiracetam loading dose (32.1% LEVlow vs 32.0% LEVmed vs 28.8% LEVhigh; &lt;em&gt;p&lt;/em&gt; = 0.899). However, the LEVhigh group did have a higher rate of intubation (45.8%) compared to the LEVmed (28.2%) and LEVlow (26.8%) group (&lt;em&gt;p&lt;/em&gt; = 0.040).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p&gt;The loading of levetiracetam did not result in a statistically significant difference in rate of seizure termination at ","PeriodicalId":55536,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142173760","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Gabapentinoid prescribing patterns and predictors utilizing neural networks: An analysis across emergency departments Nationwide between 2012 and 2021 利用神经网络分析加巴喷丁类药物的处方模式和预测因素:2012年至2021年全国急诊科分析
IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.033

Background

Gabapentinoids increasingly utilized for neuropathic pain, possibly to curb opioid prescribing. At the same time, data suggest subsequent increases in misuse and overdose of gabapentinoids, often in mixed overdoses. We sought to determine national trends and characteristics of gabapentinoid prescribing, including co-use with opioids, from the emergency department (ED).

Methods

This is a retrospective review of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) from 2012 to 2021. Our primary outcome was the trend in ED visits in which gabapentinoids were prescribed at discharge. Secondarily, we identified trends in gabapentinoid and opioid co-prescribing and gabapentin and pregabalin prescribing at ED discharge. We examined demographic data and used descriptive statistics, Shapiro Wilke's test, Pearson's Spearman's rho (SR) or Pearson's correlation coefficient (PC) as applicable. Neural networks were used to identify the most important predictors of opioid utilization during the same visit.

Results

Between 2012 and 2021, there were an estimated 7,242,694 (0.53% of all ED visits) visits in which gabapentinoids were prescribed at ED discharge. Prescriptions increased from a total of 138,479 (0.1%) in 2012 to 893,495 (0.63%) in 2021 (PC: 0.85, p < 0.001). Opioids were co-prescribed in 27.2% of all visits in which gabapentinoids were prescribed, with no change over time (PC: −0.47, p = 0.09). Pregabalin prescription increased linearly over time (PC: 0.64, p = 0.02).

The most important predictors of opioid administration or co-prescribing were whether an alternative provider (e.g., consult or nurse practitioner) saw the patient (100%), insurance (94.4%), age (75.9%), and region (75.2%).

Conclusion

Despite an association of misuse and overdose, often associated with opioids, gabapentinoids were increasingly prescribed at ED discharge. While these agents may be safer alternatives to opioids, misuse may be an associated consequence of increased prescribing, which warrants further investigation.

背景加巴喷丁类药物越来越多地被用于治疗神经性疼痛,这可能是为了抑制阿片类药物的处方。与此同时,有数据表明,滥用和过量使用加巴喷丁类药物的情况随之增加,通常是混合过量使用。我们试图确定全国的加巴喷丁类药物处方趋势和特点,包括急诊科(ED)与阿片类药物共同使用的情况。方法这是一项对 2012 年至 2021 年全国医院非住院医疗护理调查(NHAMCS)的回顾性研究。我们的主要研究结果是出院时开具加巴喷丁类药物的急诊就诊趋势。其次,我们还确定了加巴喷丁类药物和阿片类药物的联合处方趋势,以及急诊室出院时加巴喷丁和普瑞巴林的处方趋势。我们检查了人口统计学数据,并酌情使用了描述性统计、Shapiro Wilke 检验、Pearson's Spearman's rho (SR) 或 Pearson's correlation coefficient (PC)。结果2012年至2021年间,估计有7242694人次(占所有急诊就诊人次的0.53%)在急诊出院时开具了加巴喷丁类药物处方。处方总数从 2012 年的 138,479 个(0.1%)增加到 2021 年的 893,495 个(0.63%)(PC:0.85,p < 0.001)。在所有开具加巴喷丁类药物处方的就诊者中,27.2% 的人同时开具了阿片类药物处方,且随着时间的推移没有变化(PC:-0.47,p = 0.09)。普瑞巴林的处方量随时间呈线性增长(PC:0.64,p = 0.02)。阿片类药物用药或联合处方的最重要预测因素是是否有其他医疗服务提供者(如顾问或执业护士)为患者看病(100%)、保险(94.4%)、年龄(75.9%)和地区(75.2%)。结论尽管滥用和过量往往与阿片类药物有关,但加巴喷丁诺类药物在急诊室出院时的处方量越来越大。虽然这些药物可能是阿片类药物更安全的替代品,但滥用可能是处方增加的相关后果,这值得进一步调查。
{"title":"Gabapentinoid prescribing patterns and predictors utilizing neural networks: An analysis across emergency departments Nationwide between 2012 and 2021","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.033","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.033","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Gabapentinoids increasingly utilized for neuropathic pain, possibly to curb opioid prescribing. At the same time, data suggest subsequent increases in misuse and overdose of gabapentinoids, often in mixed overdoses. We sought to determine national trends and characteristics of gabapentinoid prescribing, including co-use with opioids, from the emergency department (ED).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This is a retrospective review of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) from 2012 to 2021. Our primary outcome was the trend in ED visits in which gabapentinoids were prescribed at discharge. Secondarily, we identified trends in gabapentinoid and opioid co-prescribing and gabapentin and pregabalin prescribing at ED discharge. We examined demographic data and used descriptive statistics, Shapiro Wilke's test, Pearson's Spearman's rho (SR) or Pearson's correlation coefficient (PC) as applicable. Neural networks were used to identify the most important predictors of opioid utilization during the same visit.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Between 2012 and 2021, there were an estimated 7,242,694 (0.53% of all ED visits) visits in which gabapentinoids were prescribed at ED discharge. Prescriptions increased from a total of 138,479 (0.1%) in 2012 to 893,495 (0.63%) in 2021 (PC: 0.85, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). Opioids were co-prescribed in 27.2% of all visits in which gabapentinoids were prescribed, with no change over time (PC: −0.47, <em>p</em> = 0.09). Pregabalin prescription increased linearly over time (PC: 0.64, <em>p</em> = 0.02).</p><p>The most important predictors of opioid administration or co-prescribing were whether an alternative provider (e.g., consult or nurse practitioner) saw the patient (100%), insurance (94.4%), age (75.9%), and region (75.2%).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Despite an association of misuse and overdose, often associated with opioids, gabapentinoids were increasingly prescribed at ED discharge. While these agents may be safer alternatives to opioids, misuse may be an associated consequence of increased prescribing, which warrants further investigation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55536,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675724004273/pdfft?md5=1da9ab0568b8a4231da37ea9bf1577fd&pid=1-s2.0-S0735675724004273-main.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142137144","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Characterizing emergency department surgical airway placement in the setting of trauma 创伤情况下急诊科手术气道置入的特点
IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Pub Date : 2024-08-24 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.032

Introduction

Airway management is a key intervention during the resuscitation of critically ill trauma patients. Emergency surgical airway (ESA) placement is taught as a backup option when endotracheal intubation (ETI) fails. We sought to (1) describe the incidence of the emergency department (ED) ESA, (2) compare ESA versus ETI-only recipients, and (3) determine which factors were associated with receipt of an ESA.

Methods

We searched within the Trauma Quality Improvement Program datasets from 2017 to 2022 for all emergency department surgical airway placement and/or endotracheal intubations recipients. We compared ESA versus ETI-only recipients.

Results

From 2017 to 2022, there were 6,477,759 within the datasets, of which 238,128 met inclusion for this analysis. Within that, there were 236,292 ETIs, 2264 ESAs, with 428 (<1 %) having documentation of both. Of the ESAs performed, there were 82 documented in children <15 years of age with the youngest being 1 year of age. The ETI-only group had a lower proportion serious injuries to the head/neck (52 % versus 59 %), face (2 % versus 8 %), and skin (3 % versus 6 %). However, the ETI-only group had a higher proportion of serious injuries to the abdomen (15 % versus 9 %) and the extremities (19 % versus 12 %). Survival at 24-h was higher in the ETI-only group (83 % versus 76 %) as well as survival to discharge (70 % versus 67 %). In the subanaysis of children <15 years (n = 82), 34 % occurred in the 1–4 years age group, 35 % in the 5–9 years age group, and 30 % in the 10–14 years age group. In our multivariable logistic regression analysis, serious injuries to the head/neck (odds ratio [OR] 1.37, 95 % CI 1.23–1.54), face (OR 3.41, 2.83–4.11), thorax (OR 1.19, 1.06–1.33), and skin (OR 1.53, 1.15–2.05) were all associated with receipt of cricothyrotomy. Firearm (OR 3.62, 3.18–4.12), stabbing (2.85, 2.09–3.89), and other (OR 2.85, 2.09–3.89) were associated with receipt of ESA when using collision as the reference variable.

Conclusions

ESA placement is a rarely performed procedure but frequently used as a primary airway intervention in this dataset. Penetrating mechanisms, and injuries to face were most associated with ESA placement. Our findings reinforce the need to maintain this critical airway skill for trauma management.

导言气道管理是重症创伤患者复苏过程中的一项关键干预措施。紧急手术气道置管(ESA)是气管插管(ESTI)失败后的备用方案。我们试图:(1)描述急诊科(ED)ESA的发生率;(2)比较ESA与仅接受ETI的患者;(3)确定哪些因素与接受ESA有关。方法我们在2017年至2022年的创伤质量改进计划数据集中搜索了所有急诊科手术气道置入和/或气管插管的患者。结果从 2017 年到 2022 年,数据集中共有 6,477,759 人,其中 238,128 人符合本分析的纳入条件。其中,有 236292 人接受了 ETI,2264 人接受了 ESA,428 人(<1 %)同时接受了这两种治疗。在已进行的 ESA 中,有 82 例记录在案的儿童年龄为 15 岁,最小的只有 1 岁。仅有 ETI 的组别中,头部/颈部(52% 对 59%)、面部(2% 对 8%)和皮肤(3% 对 6%)严重受伤的比例较低。但是,仅使用 ETI 组腹部(15% 对 9%)和四肢(19% 对 12%)严重受伤的比例更高。纯 ETI 组的 24 小时存活率更高(83% 对 76%),出院存活率也更高(70% 对 67%)。在对 15 岁以下儿童(82 人)的子分析中,34% 发生在 1-4 岁年龄组,35% 发生在 5-9 岁年龄组,30% 发生在 10-14 岁年龄组。在我们的多变量逻辑回归分析中,头部/颈部(几率比 [OR] 1.37,95 % CI 1.23-1.54)、面部(OR 3.41,2.83-4.11)、胸部(OR 1.19,1.06-1.33)和皮肤(OR 1.53,1.15-2.05)的严重损伤均与接受环甲膜切开术有关。当使用碰撞作为参考变量时,枪伤(OR 3.62,3.18-4.12)、刺伤(2.85,2.09-3.89)和其他(OR 2.85,2.09-3.89)与接受 ESA 相关。穿透性机制和脸部损伤与ESA置入最为相关。我们的研究结果加强了在创伤管理中保持这一关键气道技能的必要性。
{"title":"Characterizing emergency department surgical airway placement in the setting of trauma","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.032","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.032","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Airway management is a key intervention during the resuscitation of critically ill trauma patients. Emergency surgical airway (ESA) placement is taught as a backup option when endotracheal intubation (ETI) fails. We sought to (1) describe the incidence of the emergency department (ED) ESA, (2) compare ESA versus ETI-only recipients, and (3) determine which factors were associated with receipt of an ESA.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We searched within the Trauma Quality Improvement Program datasets from 2017 to 2022 for all emergency department surgical airway placement and/or endotracheal intubations recipients. We compared ESA versus ETI-only recipients.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>From 2017 to 2022, there were 6,477,759 within the datasets, of which 238,128 met inclusion for this analysis. Within that, there were 236,292 ETIs, 2264 ESAs, with 428 (&lt;1 %) having documentation of both. Of the ESAs performed, there were 82 documented in children &lt;15 years of age with the youngest being 1 year of age. The ETI-only group had a lower proportion serious injuries to the head/neck (52 % versus 59 %), face (2 % versus 8 %), and skin (3 % versus 6 %). However, the ETI-only group had a higher proportion of serious injuries to the abdomen (15 % versus 9 %) and the extremities (19 % versus 12 %). Survival at 24-h was higher in the ETI-only group (83 % versus 76 %) as well as survival to discharge (70 % versus 67 %). In the subanaysis of children &lt;15 years (<em>n</em> = 82), 34 % occurred in the 1–4 years age group, 35 % in the 5–9 years age group, and 30 % in the 10–14 years age group. In our multivariable logistic regression analysis, serious injuries to the head/neck (odds ratio [OR] 1.37, 95 % CI 1.23–1.54), face (OR 3.41, 2.83–4.11), thorax (OR 1.19, 1.06–1.33), and skin (OR 1.53, 1.15–2.05) were all associated with receipt of cricothyrotomy. Firearm (OR 3.62, 3.18–4.12), stabbing (2.85, 2.09–3.89), and other (OR 2.85, 2.09–3.89) were associated with receipt of ESA when using collision as the reference variable.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>ESA placement is a rarely performed procedure but frequently used as a primary airway intervention in this dataset. Penetrating mechanisms, and injuries to face were most associated with ESA placement. Our findings reinforce the need to maintain this critical airway skill for trauma management.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55536,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142121785","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Authors' response to comments regarding ultrasound-guided median nerve hydrodissection in the emergency department. 作者对急诊科超声引导下正中神经积水切开术相关评论的回复。
IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Pub Date : 2024-08-22 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.029
Gabriel Rose, Joshua Fuchs
{"title":"Authors' response to comments regarding ultrasound-guided median nerve hydrodissection in the emergency department.","authors":"Gabriel Rose, Joshua Fuchs","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.029","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55536,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142094246","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
AI in emergency medicine: Building literacy or castles in the air. 急诊医学中的人工智能:扫盲还是空中楼阁
IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Pub Date : 2024-08-21 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.020
Alexandre Niset, Salim El Hadwe, Alexandre Englebert, Sami Barrit
{"title":"AI in emergency medicine: Building literacy or castles in the air.","authors":"Alexandre Niset, Salim El Hadwe, Alexandre Englebert, Sami Barrit","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.020","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55536,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142094245","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Critical analysis of glucose solution efficacy in hypoglycemia treatment in emergency departments. 急诊科低血糖治疗中葡萄糖溶液疗效的关键分析。
IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Pub Date : 2024-08-20 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.017
Lianwei Zhou, Manling Li, Wenbo Li
{"title":"Critical analysis of glucose solution efficacy in hypoglycemia treatment in emergency departments.","authors":"Lianwei Zhou, Manling Li, Wenbo Li","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.017","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55536,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142019691","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
American Journal of Emergency Medicine
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1