Outcome of Immediate Versus Early Antibiotics in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Debate exists about the mortality benefit of administering antibiotics within either 1 or 3 hours of sepsis onset. We performed this meta-analysis to analyze the effect of immediate (0 to 1 hour after onset) versus early (1 to 3 hours after onset) antibiotics on mortality in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. METHODS: This review was consistent with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Searched databases included PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, as well as gray literature. Included studies were conducted with consecutive adults with severe sepsis or septic shock who received antibiotics within each period and provided mortality data. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers and pooled with random effects. Two authors independently assessed quality of evidence across all studies with Cochrane's Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology and risk of bias within each study, using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included: 5 prospective longitudinal and 8 retrospective cohort ones. Three studies (23%) had a high risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). Overall, quality of evidence across all studies (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was low. Pooling of data (33,863 subjects) showed no difference in mortality between patients receiving antibiotics in immediate versus early periods (odds ratio 1.09; 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.21). Analysis of severe sepsis studies (8,595 subjects) found higher mortality in immediate versus early periods (odds ratio 1.29; 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.53). CONCLUSION: We found no difference in mortality between immediate and early antibiotics across all patients. Although the quality of evidence across studies was low, these findings do not support a mortality benefit for immediate compared with early antibiotics across all patients with sepsis.

Association of E-cigarettes with adolescent alcohol use and binge drinking-drunkenness: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: E-cigarette (ECIG) use has increased substantially in the past decade. Co-use of alcohol and ECIGS may have serious consequences in adolescents. Objectives: To evaluate the association of e-cigarettes (ECIGs) with alcohol use in adolescents. Methods: Searched databases included PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and gray literature. Studies were included if they contained a non-E-cigarette group (NON-ECIG), an ECIG group, detailed rates of alcohol use, binge drinking, or drunkenness and included adolescents. Two independent reviewers extracted data using MOOSE guidelines. Evidence quality across studies was assessed using Cochrane GRADE methodology. Summary effects of ECIG vs. NON-ECIG use on any alcohol use and a composite of binge drinking/drunkenness were calculated using a random-effects model. Results: 28 of 3768 initially identified studies were included: 25 cross-sectional, 3 cohort studies, N = 458,357 total subjects (49.6% females). Pooling of data showed that ECIG users had a higher risk for any alcohol use compared to NON-ECIG users (Odds Ratio/OR 6.62, 95% confidence interval/CI 5.67-7.72) and a higher rate of binge drinking/drunkenness compared to NON-ECIG users (OR 6.73, 95% CI 4.5 - 10.07). The subset of high school ECIG users had higher rates of alcohol use (OR 8.17, 95% CI 5.95-11.2) and binge drinking/drunkenness (OR 7.98, 95% CI 5.98-10.63) compared to NON-ECIG users. Conclusion: ECIG users had a higher risk of alcohol use and binge drinking/drunkenness compared to NON-ECIG users. Our findings indicate that interventions to reduce ECIG use should be coupled with measures to reduce alcohol use in adolescents.Abbreviations: ECIG: e-cigarettes; NON-ECIG: non e-cigarettes.

Derivation of a screen to identify severe sepsis and septic shock in the ED-BOMBARD vs. SIRS and qSOFA.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To predict severe sepsis/septic shock in ED patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective case-control study of patients ≥18 admitted to two urban hospitals with a combined ED census of 162,000. Study cases included patients with severe sepsis/septic shock admitted via the ED. Controls comprised admissions without severe sepsis/septic shock. Using multivariate logistic regression, a prediction rule was constructed. The model's AUROC was internally validated using 1000 bootstrap samples. RESULTS: 143 study and 286 control patients were evaluated. Features predictive of severe sepsis/septic shock included: SBP ≤ 110 mm Hg, shock index/SI ≥ 0.86, abnormal mental status or GCS < 15, respirations ≥ 22, temperature ≥ 38C, assisted living facility residency, disabled immunity. Two points were assigned to SI and temperature with other features assigned one point (mnemonic: BOMBARD). BOMBARD was superior to SIRS criteria (AUROC 0.860 vs. 0.798, 0.062 difference, 95% CI 0.022-0.102) and qSOFA scores (0.860 vs. 0.742, 0.118 difference, 95% CI 0.081-0.155) at predicting severe sepsis/septic shock. A BOMBARD score ≥ 3 was more sensitive than SIRS ≥ 2 (74.8% vs. 49%, 25.9% difference, 95% CI 18.7-33.1) and qSOFA ≥ 2 (74.8% vs. 33.6%, 41.2% difference, 95% CI 33.2-49.3) at predicting severe sepsis/septic shock. A BOMBARD score ≥ 3 was superior to SIRS ≥ 2 (76% vs. 45%, 32% difference, 95% CI 10-50) and qSOFA ≥ 2 (76% vs. 29%, 47% difference, 95% CI 25-63) at predicting sepsis mortality. CONCLUSION: BOMBARD was more accurate than SIRS and qSOFA at predicting severe sepsis/septic shock and sepsis mortality.

Quality, Trustworthiness, Readability, and Accuracy of Medical Information Regarding Common Pediatric Emergency Medicine-Related Complaints on the Web.

BACKGROUND: The Internet is a universal source of information for parents of children with acute complaints. OBJECTIVES: We sought to analyze information directed at parents regarding common acute pediatric complaints. METHODS: Authors searched three search engines for four complaints (child + fever, vomiting, cough, stomach pain), assessing the first 20 results for each query. Readability was evaluated using: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and the Coleman-Liau Index. Two reviewers independently evaluated Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria and National Library of Medicine (NLM) Trustworthy scores. Two physicians (emergency medicine/EM, pediatric EM) analyzed text accuracy (number correct divided by total number of facts). Disagreements were settled by a third physician. Accuracy was defined as ≥ 95% correct, readability as an 8th-grade reading level, high quality as at least three JAMA criteria, and trustworthiness as an NLM score ≥ 3. Accurate and inaccurate websites were compared using chi-squared analysis and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Eighty-seven websites (60%) were accurate (k = 0.94). Sixty (42%) of 144 evaluable websites were readable, 38 (26%) had high-quality JAMA criteria (kappa/k = 0.68), and 44 (31%) had reliable NLM trustworthy scores (k = 0.66). Accurate websites were more frequently published by professional medical organizations (hospitals, academic societies, governments) compared with inaccurate websites (63% vs. 33%, p < 0.01). There was no association between accuracy and physician authorship, search rank, quality, trustworthiness, or readability. CONCLUSION: Many studied websites had inadequate accuracy, quality, trustworthiness, and readability. Measures should be taken to improve web-based information related to acute pediatric complaints.

Ranking Programs: Medical Student Strategies.

BACKGROUND: Selecting a training program is one of the most challenging choices an applicant to the Match has to make. DISCUSSION: To make an informed decision, applicants should do a comprehensive research and carefully plan their upcoming steps. Factors that might influence the applicants' decision include geography, program reputation, specific areas of academic focus, subspecialty interests, university-versus community-based training, length of training and interest in combined programs. Such information can be gathered from published material, websites, and personal advice (from faculty, residents and advisors). This process is time-consuming and stressful. CONCLUSION: Therefore, in this article we elaborate on the above to facilitate this process for applicants.

Accuracy of health-related information regarding COVID-19 on Twitter during a global pandemic.

This study was performed to analyze the accuracy of health-related information on Twitter during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Authors queried Twitter on three dates for information regarding COVID-19 and five terms (cure, emergency or emergency room, prevent or prevention, treat or treatments, vitamins or supplements) assessing the first 25 results with health-related information. Tweets were authoritative if written by governments, hospitals, or physicians. Two physicians assessed each tweet for accuracy. Metrics were compared between accurate and inaccurate tweets using χ 2 analysis and Mann-Whitney U. A total of 25.4% of tweets were inaccurate. Accurate tweets were more likely written by Twitter authenticated authors (49.8% vs. 20.9%, 28.9% difference, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 17.7-38.2) with accurate tweet authors having more followers (19,491 vs. 7346; 3446 difference, 95% CI: 234-14,054) versus inaccurate tweet authors. Likes, retweets, tweet length, botometer scores, writing grade level, and rank order did not differ between accurate and inaccurate tweets. We found 1/4 of health-related COVID-19 tweets inaccurate indicating that the public should not rely on COVID-19 health information written on Twitter. Ideally, improved government regulatory authority, public/private industry oversight, independent fact-checking, and artificial intelligence algorithms are needed to ensure inaccurate information on Twitter is removed.

Viral and atypical respiratory co-infections in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives: Respiratory co-infections have the potential to affect the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 patients. This meta-analysis was performed to analyze the prevalence of respiratory pathogens (viruses and atypical bacteria) in COVID-19 patients. Methods: This review was consistent with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Searched databases included: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and grey literature. Studies with a series of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with additional respiratory pathogen testing were included. Independently, 2 authors extracted data and assessed quality of evidence across all studies using Cochrane's Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and within each study using the Newcastle Ottawa scale. Data extraction and quality assessment disagreements were settled by a third author. Pooled prevalence of co-infections was calculated using a random-effects model with univariate meta-regression performed to assess the effect of study subsets on heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plot inspection, Begg's correlation, and Egger's test. Results: Eighteen retrospective cohorts and 1 prospective study were included. Pooling of data (1880 subjects) showed an 11.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.9-17.4, I 2 = 0.92) pooled prevalence of respiratory co-pathogens. Studies with 100% co-pathogen testing (1210 subjects) found a pooled prevalence of 16.8% (95% CI = 8.1-27.9, I 2 = 0.95) and studies using serum antibody tests (488 subjects) found a pooled prevalence of 26.8% (95%, CI = 7.9-51.9, I 2 = 0.97). Meta-regression found no moderators affecting heterogeneity. Conclusion: Co-infection with respiratory pathogens is a common and potentially important occurrence in patients with COVID-19. Knowledge of the prevalence and type of co-infections may have diagnostic and management implications.

Predicting outcome of patients with severe urinary tract infections admitted via the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical prediction tools for making decisions in patients with severe urinary tract infections (UTIs). METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted at 2 hospitals (combined emergency department (ED) census 190,000). Study patients were admitted via the ED with acute pyelonephritis or severe sepsis-septic shock related UTI. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) augmented by decision curve analysis and sensitivity of each rule for predicting mortality and ICU admission were compared. RESULTS: The AUROC of PRACTICE was greater than that of BOMBARD (0.15 difference, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.09-0.22), SIRS (0.21 difference, 95% CI = 0.14-0.28) and qSOFA (0.06 difference, 95% CI = 0-0.11) for predicting mortality. PRACTICE had a greater net benefit compared to BOMBARD and SIRS at all thresholds and a greater net benefit compared to qSOFA between a 1% and 10% threshold probability level for predicting mortality. PRACTICE had a greater net benefit compared to all other scores for predicting ICU admission across all threshold probabilities. A PRACTICE score >75 was more sensitive than a qSOFA score >1 (90% versus 54.3%, 35.7 difference, 95% CI = 24.5-46.9), SIRS criteria >1 (18.6 difference, 95% CI = 9.5-27.7), and a BOMBARD score >2 (12.9 difference, 95% CI = 5-12.9) for predicting mortality. CONCLUSION: PRACTICE was more accurate than BOMBARD, SIRS, and qSOFA for predicting mortality. PRACTICE had a superior net benefit at most thresholds compared to other scores for predicting mortality and ICU admissions.

The effectiveness of out-of-hospital use of continuous end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring on the rate of unrecognized misplaced intubation within a regional emergency medical services system.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the association between out-of-hospital use of continuous end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) monitoring and unrecognized misplaced intubations within a regional emergency medical services (EMS) system. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study, conducted during a 10-month period, on all patients arriving at a regional Level I trauma center emergency department who underwent out-of-hospital endotracheal intubation. The regional EMS system that serves the trauma service area is composed of multiple countywide systems containing numerous EMS agencies. Some of the EMS agencies had independently implemented continuous ETCO2 monitoring before the start of the study. The main outcome measure was the unrecognized misplaced intubation rate with and without use of continuous ETCO2 monitoring. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-eight patients received out-of-hospital airway management, of whom 153 received intubation. Of the 153 patients, 93 (61%) had continuous ETCO2 monitoring, and 60 (39%) did not. Forty-nine (32%) were medical patients, 104 (68%) were trauma patients, and 51 (33%) were in cardiac arrest. The overall incidence of unrecognized misplaced intubations was 9%. The rate of unrecognized misplaced intubations in the group for whom continuous ETCO2 monitoring was used was zero, and the rate in the group for whom continuous ETCO2 monitoring was not used was 23.3% (95% confidence interval 13.4% to 36.0%). CONCLUSION: No unrecognized misplaced intubations were found in patients for whom paramedics used continuous ETCO2 monitoring. Failure to use continuous ETCO2 monitoring was associated with a 23% unrecognized misplaced intubation rate.

High yield criteria for obtaining non-trauma chest radiography in the adult emergency department population.

To develop a clinical decision rule for predicting significant chest radiography abnormalities in adult Emergency Department (ED) patients, a prospective, observational study was conducted of consecutive adults (>or=18 years old) who underwent chest radiography for nontraumatic complaints at an urban ED with an annual census of 85,000. The official radiologist interpretation of the film was used as the gold standard for defining radiographic abnormalities. Using predefined criteria and author consensus, patients were divided into two groups: those with clinically significant abnormalities (CSA) and those with either normal or nonclinically significant abnormalities. Chi square recursive partitioning was used to derive a decision rule. Odds ratios and kappa statistics were calculated for derived criteria. The results showed 284 (17%) of 1650 patients had clinically significant abnormal radiographs. The presence of any of 10 criteria (age >or= 60 years, temperature >or= 38 degrees C, oxygen saturation < 90%, respiratory rate > 24 breaths/min, hemoptysis, rales, diminished breath sounds, a history of alcohol abuse, tuberculosis, or thromboembolic disease) was 95% sensitive (95% CI: 92-98%) and 40% specific (95% CI: 37-43%) in detecting CSA radiographs. Positive and negative predictive values were 25% (95% CI: 23-27%) and 98% (95% CI: 96-99%), respectively. A highly sensitive decision rule for detecting clinically significant abnormalities on chest radiographs in nontraumatized adults has been developed. If prospectively validated, these criteria may permit clinicians to confidently reduce the number of radiographs in this population.

Can paramedics accurately identify patients who do not require emergency department care?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether paramedics can identify patients contacting 9-1-1 who do not require emergency department (ED) care. METHODS: The setting was an urban county with a two-tiered, dual response to 9-1-1 calls comprising eight local fire departments with advanced life support capabilities and a private advanced life support 9-1-1 agency with primary transport responsibilities (approximately 39,000 of the 78,000 total system patient transports in this county per year). The study population consisted of consecutive patients transported by a private transporting paramedic agency. After patient contact and stabilization, paramedics completed a survey detailing the necessity for transport to an ED for each patient. Prior to data analysis, it was determined that patients would be designated as requiring ED care if they 1) were admitted, 2) required surgical, surgical subspecialty, obstetric, or gynecologic consult, or 3) required advanced radiologic procedures (excluding plain films). Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for paramedic assessment of necessity for ED care were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: Over the study period, 313 patients were enrolled. Paramedic assessment was 81% sensitive (72-88%, 95% CI) and 34% specific (28-41%, 95% CI) in predicting requirement for ED care. In 85 cases where paramedics felt ED transport was unnecessary, 27 (32%) met criteria for ED treatment, including 15 (18%) who were admitted and five (6%) who were admitted to an intensive care unit. CONCLUSION: In this urban system, paramedics cannot reliably predict which patients do and do not require ED care.