Randomized Trial of Dexamethasone Versus Prednisone for Children with Acute Asthma Exacerbations.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether 2 doses of dexamethasone is as effective as 5 days of prednisolone/prednisone therapy in improving symptoms and quality of life of children with asthma exacerbations admitted to the emergency department (ED). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a randomized, noninferiority trial including patients aged 1-14 years who presented to the ED with acute asthma to compare the efficacy of 2 doses of dexamethasone (0.6 mg/kg/dose, experimental treatment) vs a 5-day course of prednisolone/prednisone (1.5 mg/kg/d, followed by 1 mg/kg/d on days 2-5, conventional treatment). Two follow-up telephone interviews were completed at 7 and 15 days. The primary outcome measures were the percentage of patients with asthma symptoms and quality of life at day 7. Secondary outcomes were unscheduled returns, admissions, adherence, and vomiting. RESULTS: During the study period, 710 children who met the inclusion criteria were invited to participate and 590 agreed. Primary outcome data were available in 557 patients. At day 7, experimental and conventional groups did not show differences related to persistence of symptoms (56.6%, 95% CI 50.6-62.6 vs 58.3%, 95% CI 52.3-64.2, respectively), quality of life score (80.0 vs 77.7, not significant [ns]), admission rate (23.9% vs 21.7%, ns), unscheduled ED return visits (4.6% vs 3.3%, ns), and vomiting (2.1% vs 4.4%, ns). Adherence was greater in the dexamethasone group (99.3% vs 96.0%, P < .05). CONCLUSION: Two doses of dexamethasone may be an effective alternative to a 5-day course of prednisone/prednisolone for asthma exacerbations, as measured by persistence of symptoms and quality of life at day 7. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrialsregister.eu: 2013-003145-42.

Initial Asthma Severity Assessment Tools as Predictors of Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Assessment tools to classify and prioritize patients, such as systems of triage, and indicators of severity, such as clinical respiratory scores, are helpful in guiding the flow of asthmatic patients in the emergency department. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess the performance of the Pediatric Assessment Triangle (PAT), triage level (TL), Pulmonary Score (PS), and initial O2 saturation (O2 sat), in predicting hospitalization in pediatric acute asthma exacerbations. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study evaluating PAT, TL, and PS at presentation, and initial O2 sat of asthmatic children in the pediatric emergency department (PED). The primary outcome measure was the rate of hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS) in the PED and admission to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). RESULTS: PAT, TL, PS, and initial O2 sat were recorded in 14,953 asthmatic children. Multivariate analysis yielded the following results: Abnormal PAT and more severe TLs (I-II) were independent risk factors for hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-1.8; OR 3.4, 95% CI 2.6-4.3, respectively) and longer LOS (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3-1.7; OR 2.6, 95% CI 2-3.3, respectively). PS > 3 showed a strong association with hospitalization (OR 8.1, 95% CI 7-9.4), PICU admission (OR 9.6, 95% CI 3-30.9) and longer LOS (OR 6.2, 95% CI 5.6-6.9). O2 sat < 94% was an independent predictor of admission (OR 5.2, 95% CI 4.6-5.9), PICU admission (OR 4.6, 95% CI 4.5-4.6), and longer LOS (OR 4.6, 95% CI 4.1-5.2). CONCLUSIONS: PAT, TL, PS, and initial O2 sat are good predictors of hospitalization in pediatric acute asthma exacerbations.

Elaboration of a risk map in a paediatric Emergency Department of a teaching hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a risk map in a paediatric ED of a tertiary teaching hospital, combining proactive and reactive strategies. METHODS: Between June and December 2013, a multidisciplinary committee in a paediatric Emergency Department (ED) in Bilbao (Basque Country of Spain) mapped the patient's journey and identified potential risks to patients (proactive strategy). The researchers also analysed incidents reported by professionals and caregivers (mainly parents) in the paediatric ED from November 2004-December 2013 (reactive strategies). Combining the results of both strategies, we applied the 'Failure mode and effects analysis' tool to identify and prioritise high or very high-risk situations and apply them to the risk map. RESULTS: Using proactive strategies, 49 opportunities for failures, 60 effects and 252 causes were identified. The most common failures were related to the discharge of the patient; the most common effects were complaints by parents, long stay in the ED, delay in diagnosis/treatment and unnecessary treatment. Main causes were not including the family in the process, shift change, incorrect identification of the patient and computer errors. Using reactive strategies, 1795 reported incidents were analysed. The most common incidents were related to medical equipment (38%), resources/organisation of staff (17%), clinical process (15%), facilities (12%) and medication errors (5%). Proactive strategies identified risks in tests, treatment and discharge. The reactive strategy added risks concerning prehospital transfer, triage, medical care, tests, treatment and discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Proactive and reactive strategies, involving professionals and caregivers, can complement each other in identifying potential patient safety risks in a paediatric ED.