Academic Emergency Medicine最新文献

Background: Emergency tracheal intubation is associated with a risk of clinical adverse events, including the risk of first-attempt failure. Induction agents usually include a sedative and a neuromuscular blocking agent (i.e., paralytic). Whether the order of administration (i.e., sedative vs. paralytic given first) is associated with first-attempt failure or adverse events is unknown.

Methods: This study analyzed data from a single-center prospective cohort collected from 2021 to 2024 at Hennepin County Medical Center, which included all patients undergoing orotracheal intubation in the emergency department. Patients with no detail on administration sequence order were excluded. A Bayesian logistic regression analysis was used to measure the effect of drug sequence order (sedative first vs. paralytic first). The primary outcome was first-attempt failure. The key secondary outcome was peri-intubation hypoxemia (SpO₂ < 90%). We estimated the odds ratio (OR), 95% credible interval (CrI), and the probability that the OR was inferior to 1 (existence of an effect) and inferior to 0.9 (significant effect). Frequentist analysis and reanalysis with various priors were performed as sensitivity analyses.

Results: A total of 2216 patients were included for analysis. The most frequently used sedative and paralytic agents were etomidate (88.9%) and rocuronium (77.8%), respectively. The paralytic was given first to 56.6% of the patients. After adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, and sedative and paralytic agents, the OR for a paralytic-first strategy for first-attempt failure was 0.73 (95% CrI 0.46-1.02). The probability that the OR was less than 1 was estimated at 95.7% and less than 0.9 at 87.6%. There was a 33.5% and 8.0% probability that administering the paralytic first resulted in an OR < 1 and OR < 0.9 for the risk of hypoxemia, respectively. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main results.

Conclusions: In this Bayesian analysis a paralytic-first drug sequence was associated with reduced first-attempt failure during emergency tracheal intubation.

Background: The integration of precision emergency medicine (EM) into our conceptualization of the health care system affords the opportunity to improve health care access, delivery, and outcomes for patients. As part of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Consensus Conference, we conducted a rapid literature review to characterize the current state of knowledge pertaining to the intersection of precision EM (defined as the use of big data and technology to deliver acute care for individual patients and their communities) with health care delivery and access. We then used our findings to develop a proposed conceptual model and research agenda.

Methods: We completed a rapid review of the existing literature on the utilization of big data and technology to ensure and enhance access to acute/unscheduled care for individual patients and their communities. Literature searches were conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase.com, Cochrane CENTRAL via Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov in January 2023. Using the identified articles, we determined core domains, developed a framework to guide the conceptualization of precision EM in health care delivery and access, and used these to identify a research agenda.

Results: Of the 815 studies identified for initial screening, 60 underwent full-text review by our technical expert panel and 21 were included in the evaluation. Core domains identified included expedited/personalized prehospital care, delivery to the right level of care, personalized ED care, alternatives to ED care/post-ED care, prediction tools for system readiness, and creation of equitable systems of care. A research agenda with four priority research questions was defined following identification of the core domains.

Conclusions: Precision EM includes consideration of the health care delivery system as a mechanism for improving access to emergency care using data-driven strategies. This provides a unique opportunity to use data and technology to advance systems of care while also centering patients, communities, and equity in these advances.

Objective: Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals have a gender identity or expression that differs from the sex assigned to them at birth. They are an underserved population who experience health care inequities. Our primary objective was to identify if there are treatment differences between TGD and cisgender lesbian/gay/bisexual/queer (LGBQ) or heterosexual individuals presenting with abdominal pain to the emergency department (ED).

Methods: Retrospective observational cohort study of patients ≥12 years of age presenting to 21 EDs within a health care system with a chief complaint of abdominal pain between 2018 and 2022. TGD patients were matched 1:1:1:1 to cisgender LGBQ women and men and cisgender heterosexual women and men, respectively. Propensity score matching covariates included age, ED site, mental health history, and gastrointestinal history. The primary outcome was pain assessment within 60 min of arrival. The secondary outcome was analgesics administered in the ED.

Results: We identified 300 TGD patients, of whom 300 TGD patients were successfully matched for a total cohort of 1300 patients. The median (IQR) age was 25 (20-32) years and most patients were treated in a community ED (58.2%). There was no difference between groups in pain assessment within 60 min of arrival (59.0% TGD vs. 63.2% non TGD, p = 0.19). There were no differences in the number of times pain was assessed (median [IQR] 2 [1-3] vs. 2 [1-4], p = 0.31) or the severity of pain between groups (5.5 [4-7] vs. 6 [4-7], p = 0.11). TGD patients were more likely to receive nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (32.0% vs. 24.9%, p = 0.015) and less likely to receive opioids than non-TGD patients (24.7% vs. 36.9%, p = <0.001). TGD and nonbinary patients, along with LGBQ cisgender women (24.7%) and heterosexual cisgender women (34%), were less likely to receive opioids than LGBQ cisgender men (54%) and heterosexual cisgender men (42.3%, p < 0.01).

Conclusion: There was no difference in frequency of pain assessment, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. More cisgender men, compared to TGD and cisgender women, received opioids for their pain.

Objective: As part of the Geriatric Emergency Department (ED) Guidelines 2.0 project, we conducted a systematic review to find risk factors or risk stratification approaches that can be used to identify subsets of older adults who may benefit from targeted ED delirium screening.

Methods: An electronic search strategy was developed with a medical librarian, conducted in April 2021 and November 2022. Full-text studies of patients ≥65 years assessed for prevalent delirium in the ED were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the McMaster University Clarity Group tool. Outcomes measures pertained to the risk stratification method used. Due to heterogeneity of patient populations, risk stratification methods, and outcomes, a meta-analysis was not conducted.

Results: Our search yielded 1878 unique citations, of which 13 were included. Six studies developed a novel delirium risk score with or without evaluation of specific risk factors, six studies evaluated specific risk factors only, and one study evaluated an existing nondelirium risk score for association with delirium. The most common risk factor was history of dementia, with odds ratios ranging from 3.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-8.9) to 18.33 (95% CI 8.08-43.64). Other risk factors that were consistently associated with increased risk of delirium included older age, use of certain medications (such as antipsychotics, antidepressants, and opioids, among others), and functional impairments. Of the studies that developed novel risk scores, the reported area under the curve ranged from 0.77 to 0.90. Only two studies reported potential impact of the risk stratification tool on screening burden.

Conclusions: There is significant heterogeneity, but results suggest that factors such as dementia, age over 75, and functional impairments should be used to identify older adults who are at highest risk for ED delirium. No studies evaluated implementation of a risk stratification method for delirium screening or evaluated patient-oriented outcomes.

Objective: The objective was to systematically review all studies focusing on barriers, facilitators, and tools currently available for shared decision making (SDM) in emergency departments (EDs).

Background: Implementing SDM in EDs seems particularly challenging, considering the fast-paced environment and sometimes life-threatening situations. Over 10 years ago, a previous review revealed only a few patient decision aids (PtDAs) available for EDs.

Methods: Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane library, up to November 2023. Observational and interventional studies were included to address barriers or facilitators for SDM or to investigate effects of PtDAs on the level of SDM for patients visiting an ED.

Results: We screened 1946 studies for eligibility, of which 33 were included. PtDAs studied in EDs address chest pain, syncope, analgesics usage, lumbar puncture, ureterolithiasis, vascular access, concussion/brain bleeding, head-CT choice, coaching for elderly people, and activation of patients with appendicitis. Only the primary outcome was meta-analyzed, showing that PtDAs significantly increased the level of SDM (18.8 on the 100-point OPTION scale; 95% CI 12.5-25.0). PtDAs also tended to increase patient knowledge, decrease decisional conflict and decrease health care services usage, with no obvious effect on overall patient satisfaction. Barriers and facilitators were identified on three levels: (1) patient level-emotions, health literacy, and their own proactivity; (2) clinician level-fear of medicolegal consequences, lack of SDM skills or knowledge, and their ideas about treatment superiority; and (3) system level-time constraints, institutional guidelines, and availability of PtDAs.

Conclusions: Circumstances in EDs are generally less favorable for SDM. However, PtDAs for conditions seen in EDs are helpful in overcoming barriers to SDM and are welcomed by patients. Even in EDs, SDM is feasible and supported by an increasing number of tools for patients and physicians.