Developing an implementation intervention for managing acute vertigo in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: There are evidence-based bedside tests for diagnosing acute vertigo, but no evidence-based strategies to support clinicians in implementing them. The purpose of this study was to design an implementation strategy for treating acute vertigo by examining current facilitators and barriers to using these tests in the ED using the principles of implementation science. METHODS: A survey was developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to examine barriers and facilitators for using HINTS+ (head impulse, nystagmus, test of skew, plus hearing) and Dix-Hallpike tests. The survey was sent to emergency clinicians (ECs) in a teaching hospital in London, UK, between May and September 2022. Semistructured interviews were conducted simultaneously, and data examined using direct content analysis. Implementation strategies were then selected based on the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change framework. RESULTS: Fifty-one ECs responded to the survey and six ECs volunteered for interview. Less than half reported using the bedside tests to make a diagnosis. The most common barriers were beliefs about complexity, a lack of supporting materials, memory, lack of skills and negative experiences. The interview data revealed negative beliefs about the necessity, validity, safety and practicality. There were also barriers in the ED environment (eg, lack of space). There was a strong perception that the current approach to managing acute vertigo needed to change and ECs view this as part of their professional role and responsibility. Based on clinician input, the authors selected strategies to improve diagnostic efforts, which included guidelines for training, developing vertigo champions, protocols, memory aids, audit and feedback. CONCLUSION: This study found several barriers to managing acute vertigo such as memory constraints, and inadequate supporting materials and training, although a robust desire for change. The implementation strategy's initial phase is described, which must now be tested.

Pharmacokinetics of intramuscular tranexamic acid in bleeding trauma patients: a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous tranexamic acid (TXA) reduces bleeding deaths after injury and childbirth. It is most effective when given early. In many countries, pre-hospital care is provided by people who cannot give i.v. injections. We examined the pharmacokinetics of intramuscular TXA in bleeding trauma patients. METHODS: We conducted an open-label pharmacokinetic study in two UK hospitals. Thirty bleeding trauma patients received a loading dose of TXA 1 g i.v., as per guidelines. The second TXA dose was given as two 5 ml (0·5 g each) i.m. injections. We collected blood at intervals and monitored injection sites. We measured TXA concentrations using liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry. We assessed the concentration time course using non-linear mixed-effect models with age, sex, ethnicity, body weight, type of injury, signs of shock, and glomerular filtration rate as possible covariates. RESULTS: Intramuscular TXA was well tolerated with only mild injection site reactions. A two-compartment open model with first-order absorption and elimination best described the data. For a 70-kg patient, aged 44 yr without signs of shock, the population estimates were 1.94 h-1 for i.m. absorption constant, 0.77 for i.m. bioavailability, 7.1 L h-1 for elimination clearance, 11.7 L h-1 for inter-compartmental clearance, 16.1 L volume of central compartment, and 9.4 L volume of the peripheral compartment. The time to reach therapeutic concentrations (5 or 10 mg L-1) after a single intramuscular TXA 1 g injection are 4 or 11 min, with the time above these concentrations being 10 or 5.6 h, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In bleeding trauma patients, intramuscular TXA is well tolerated and rapidly absorbed. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: 2019-000898-23 (EudraCT); NCT03875937 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Effect of tranexamic acid on intracranial haemorrhage and infarction in patients with traumatic brain injury: a pre-planned substudy in a sample of CRASH-3 trial patients.

BACKGROUND: Early tranexamic acid (TXA) treatment reduces head injury deaths after traumatic brain injury (TBI). We used brain scans that were acquired as part of the routine clinical practice during the CRASH-3 trial (before unblinding) to examine the mechanism of action of TXA in TBI. Specifically, we explored the potential effects of TXA on intracranial haemorrhage and infarction. METHODS: This is a prospective substudy nested within the CRASH-3 trial, a randomised placebo-controlled trial of TXA (loading dose 1 g over 10 min, then 1 g infusion over 8 hours) in patients with isolated head injury. CRASH-3 trial patients were recruited between July 2012 and January 2019. Participants in the current substudy were a subset of trial patients enrolled at 10 hospitals in the UK and 4 in Malaysia, who had at least one CT head scan performed as part of the routine clinical practice within 28 days of randomisation. The primary outcome was the volume of intraparenchymal haemorrhage (ie, contusion) measured on a CT scan done after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were progressive intracranial haemorrhage (post-randomisation CT shows >25% of volume seen on pre-randomisation CT), new intracranial haemorrhage (any haemorrhage seen on post-randomisation CT but not on pre-randomisation CT), cerebral infarction (any infarction seen on any type of brain scan done post-randomisation, excluding infarction seen pre-randomisation) and intracranial haemorrhage volume (intraparenchymal + intraventricular + subdural + epidural) in those who underwent neurosurgical haemorrhage evacuation. We planned to conduct sensitivity analyses excluding patients who were severely injured at baseline. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed using relative risks (RR) or hazard ratios (HR), and continuous outcomes using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: 1767 patients were included in this substudy. One-third of the patients had a baseline GCS (Glasgow Coma Score) of 3 (n=579) and 24% had unilateral or bilateral unreactive pupils. 46% of patients were scanned pre-randomisation and post-randomisation (n=812/1767), 19% were scanned only pre-randomisation (n=341/1767) and 35% were scanned only post-randomisation (n=614/1767). In all patients, there was no evidence that TXA prevents intraparenchymal haemorrhage expansion (estimate=1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.45) or intracranial haemorrhage expansion in patients who underwent neurosurgical haemorrhage evacuation (n=363) (estimate=0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.11). In patients scanned pre-randomisation and post-randomisation (n=812), there was no evidence that TXA reduces progressive haemorrhage (adjusted RR=0.91, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.13) and new haemorrhage (adjusted RR=0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.01). When patients with unreactive pupils at baseline were excluded, there was evidence that TXA prevents new haemorrhage (adjusted RR=0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98). In patients scanned post-randomisation (n=1431), there was no evidence of an increase in infarction with TXA (adjusted HR=1.28, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.76). A larger proportion of patients without (vs with) a post-randomisation scan died from head injury (38% vs 19%: RR=1.97, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.34, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: TXA may prevent new haemorrhage in patients with reactive pupils at baseline. This is consistent with the results of the CRASH-3 trial which found that TXA reduced head injury death in patients with at least one reactive pupil at baseline. However, the large number of patients without post-randomisation scans and the possibility that the availability of scan data depends on whether a patient received TXA, challenges the validity of inferences made using routinely collected scan data. This study highlights the limitations of using routinely collected scan data to examine the effects of TBI treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15088122.

Diagnostic accuracy of the Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (T-MACS) decision aid with a point-of-care cardiac troponin assay.

OBJECTIVE: Point-of-care (POC) cardiac troponin (cTn) assays have a rapid turnaround time but are generally less sensitive than laboratory-based assays. Previous research found that the Abbott i-Stat cardiac troponin I (cTnI) assay has good diagnostic accuracy when used with the Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (T-MACS) decision aid and serial sampling over 3 hours. Accuracy of other assays may differ. We therefore evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a different POC cTnI assay with serial sampling over 3 hours, both with T-MACS and when used alone. METHODS: In a prospective diagnostic accuracy study at eight EDs in England (July 2015-October 2017), we collected clinical data from consenting adults with suspected ACS at the time of assessment in the ED. Blood samples were drawn on arrival and 3 hours later for POC cTnI (Cardio 3 Triage, Alere). The target condition was an adjudicated diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), based on reference standard serial laboratory-based cTn testing. We calculated test characteristics for POC cTnI using the limit of detection (LoD, 0.01 µg/L) and the T-MACS decision aid. RESULTS: Of 347 participants, 59 (14.9%) had AMI. With serial POC cTnI testing over 3 hours, POC cTnI at the LoD cut-off ruled out AMI in 193 (55.6%) patients with 98.1% sensitivity (95% CI 89.9% to 100.0%) and 99.5% negative predictive value (NPV, 95% CI 96.5% to 99.9%). T-MACS ruled out AMI in 117 (33.7%) patients with 98.1% sensitivity (95% CI 89.9% to 100%) and 99.2% NPV (95% CI 94.3% to 99.9%). T-MACS ruled in AMI with 97.9% specificity (95% CI 95.8% to 99.5%) and 83.7% positive predictive value (95% CI 70.6% to 91.7%). CONCLUSIONS: With serial sampling over 3 hours, the Alere Cardio 3 Triage cTnI assay has relatively high NPV for AMI using either the LoD cut-off alone or the T-MACS decision aid. However, wide CIs around the measures of diagnostic accuracy mean that further prospective testing of this strategy is required before clinical implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UKCRN 18000.

Diagnostic Accuracy of a High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin Assay with a Single Serum Test in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate diagnostic accuracy of a high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) assay for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in the emergency department (ED). The assay has high precision at low concentrations and can detect cTnI in 96.8% of healthy individuals. METHODS: In successive prospective multicenter studies ("testing" and "validation"), we included ED patients with suspected ACS. We drew blood for hs-cTnI [Singulex Clarity® cTnI; 99th percentile, 8.67 ng/L; limit of detection (LoD), 0.08 ng/L] on arrival. Patients also underwent hs-cTnT (Roche Elecsys) testing over ≥3 h. The primary outcome was an adjudicated diagnosis of ACS, defined as acute myocardial infarction (AMI; prevalent or incident), death, or revascularization within 30 days. RESULTS: The testing and validation studies included 665 and 2470 patients, respectively, of which 94 (14.1%) and 565 (22.9%) had ACS. At a 1.5-ng/L cutoff, hs-cTnI had good sensitivity for AMI in both studies (98.7% and 98.1%, respectively) and would have "ruled out" 40.1% and 48.9% patients. However, sensitivity was lower for ACS (95.7% and 90.6%, respectively). At a 0.8-ng/L cutoff, sensitivity for ACS was higher (97.5% and 97.9%, ruling out 28.6% patients in each cohort). The hs-cTnT assay had similar performance at the LoD (24.6% ruled out; 97.2% sensitivity for ACS). CONCLUSIONS: The hs-cTnI assay could immediately rule out AMI in 40% of patients and ACS in >25%, with similar accuracy to hs-cTnT at the LoD. Because of its high precision at low concentrations, this hs-cTnI assay has favorable characteristics for this clinical application.

Optimising antiplatelet utilisation in the acute care setting: a novel threshold for medical intervention in suspected acute coronary syndromes.

OBJECTIVES: To construct a model to optimise and personalise recommendations for antiplatelet prescription for patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Acknowledging that emergency physicians work with diagnostic uncertainty, we sought to identify the point at which the probability of ACS is sufficiently high that the benefits of antiplatelet treatment outweigh the risks. Second, we evaluated the projected clinical impact of this approach by using a clinical prediction model (Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (T-MACS)) to calculate the probability of ACS. METHODS: We conducted three systematic reviews, quantifying the effects of ticagrelor, clopidogrel or aspirin-alone treatment strategies for ACS (November 2017). We extracted data for (a) clinical outcomes and (b) weighted patient preferences (utilities) for each outcome. We then constructed utilitarian models, simulating the probability of clinical outcomes with different treatment strategies. This identified the threshold probability of ACS at which each treatment strategy became superior.We validated this approach in a prospective diagnostic study including patients with suspected ACS that was conducted at two large UK teaching hospitals (St George's Hospital London recruited October 2015 to June 2017 and Manchester Royal Infirmary: February 2015 to August 2017). We calculated the probability of ACS using T-MACS. The diagnosis of ACS was adjudicated based on serial high-sensitivity troponin testing and 30-day follow-up. RESULTS: We constructed three models using data from six studies. Prescribing ticagrelor had greatest overall benefit when the probability of ACS exceeded 8.0%. Below that threshold, aspirin alone yielded greater benefit. The validation study included 660 patients, of which 87 (13.2%) had ACS. Prescription of combined antiplatelet strategy to patients with >8% probability of ACS had greater utility than aspirin alone. CONCLUSION: Treatment with ticagrelor appears to yield greater net benefit for patients when the probability of ACS >8%. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of this 'precision medicine' approach warrants further study.

Early fibrinogen concentrate therapy for major haemorrhage in trauma (E-FIT 1): results from a UK multi-centre, randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the timely administration of concentrated sources of fibrinogen to patients with major traumatic bleeding. Following evaluation of early cryoprecipitate in the CRYOSTAT 1 trial, we explored the use of fibrinogen concentrate, which may have advantages of more rapid administration in acute haemorrhage. The aims of this pragmatic study were to assess the feasibility of fibrinogen concentrate administration within 45 minutes of hospital admission and to quantify efficacy in maintaining fibrinogen levels ≥ 2 g/L during active haemorrhage. METHODS: We conducted a blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at five UK major trauma centres with adult trauma patients with active bleeding who required activation of the major haemorrhage protocol. Participants were randomised to standard major haemorrhage therapy plus 6 g of fibrinogen concentrate or placebo. RESULTS: Twenty-seven of 39 participants (69%; 95% CI, 52-83%) across both arms received the study intervention within 45 minutes of admission. There was some evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants with fibrinogen levels ≥ 2 g/L between arms (p = 0.10). Fibrinogen levels in the fibrinogen concentrate (FgC) arm rose by a mean of 0.9 g/L (SD, 0.5) compared with a reduction of 0.2 g/L (SD, 0.5) in the placebo arm and were significantly higher in the FgC arm (p < 0.0001) at 2 hours. Fibrinogen levels were not different at day 7. Transfusion use and thromboembolic events were similar between arms. All-cause mortality at 28 days was 35.5% (95% CI, 23.8-50.8%) overall, with no difference between arms. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, early delivery of fibrinogen concentrate within 45 minutes of admission was not feasible. Although evidence points to a key role for fibrinogen in the treatment of major bleeding, researchers need to recognise the challenges of timely delivery in the emergency setting. Future studies must explore barriers to rapid fibrinogen therapy, focusing on methods to reduce time to randomisation, using 'off-the-shelf' fibrinogen therapies (such as extended shelf-life cryoprecipitate held in the emergency department or fibrinogen concentrates with very rapid reconstitution times) and limiting the need for coagulation test-based transfusion triggers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN67540073 . Registered on 5 August 2015.

Performance evaluation of the LumiraDx quantitative microfluidic point-of-care CRP test.

C-reactive protein (CRP) is an established acute-phase marker for infection, inflammation and tissue injury, used to guide clinical decision-making in primary and secondary care. This study compared the analytical performance of the quantitative microfluidic point-of-care LumiraDx CRP Test to a laboratory-based reference method (Siemens RCRP Flex assay on the Dimension® Xpand®) and evaluated equivalence of sample matrices (blood versus plasma) in point-of-care settings using samples from patients presenting with symptoms of infection or inflammation. The LumiraDx CRP Test demonstrated close agreement with the lab reference test (range, 5.1 to 245.2 mg/L, r = 0.992, slope = 0.998, intercept = -0.476; n = 205) and notable agreement between fingerstick and venous blood and plasma (r = 0.974-0.983; n = 44). Paired replicate precision had mean coefficients of variation of 6.4 % (plasma), 6.6 % (capillary direct) and 8.1 % (venous blood); overall error rates were 2.9 %. The quantitative LumiraDx CRP Test showed robust analytical performance across sample matrices and close agreement compared to the laboratory reference method when used at the point of care.

Configurations and outcomes of acute hospital care for frail and older patients with moderate to major trauma: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review research on acute hospital care for frail or older adults experiencing moderate to major trauma. SETTING: Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, ASSIA, CINAHL Plus, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, EconLit, The Cochrane Library) were searched using index and key words, and reference lists and related articles hand-searched. INCLUDED ARTICLES: Peer-reviewed articles of any study design, published in English, 1999-2020 inclusive, referring to models of care for frail and/or older people in the acute hospital phase of care following traumatic injury defined as either moderate or major (mean or median Injury Severity Score ≥9). Excluded articles reported no empirical findings, were abstracts or literature reviews, or referred to frailty screening alone. METHODS: Screening abstracts and full text, and completing data extractions and quality assessments using QualSyst was a blinded parallel process. A narrative synthesis, grouped by intervention type, was undertaken. OUTCOME MEASURES: Any outcomes reported for patients, staff or care system. RESULTS: 17 603 references were identified and 518 read in full; 22 were included-frailty and major trauma (n=0), frailty and moderate trauma (n=1), older people and major trauma (n=8), moderate or major trauma (n=7) 0r moderate trauma (n=6) . Studies were observational, heterogeneous in intervention and with variable methodological quality.Specific attention given to the care of older and/or frail people with moderate to major trauma in the North American context resulted in improvements to in-hospital processes and clinical outcomes, but highlights a relative paucity of evidence, particularly in relation to the first 48 hours post-injury. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review supports the need for, and further research into an intervention to address the care of frail and/or older patients with major trauma, and for the careful definition of age and frailty in relation to moderate or major trauma. INTERNATIONAL PROSPECTIVE REGISTER OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS PROSPERO: CRD42016032895.

Cross-sectional study of carbon monoxide alarm use in patients attending the emergency department: a multicentre survey protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The most common place for unintentional, non-fire-related carbon monoxide (CO) exposure to occur is in the home, but this is preventable if CO producing sources are properly maintained and CO alarms/detectors are in use. It is estimated that less than half of all homes have a CO alarm, but there is variation across countries, housing types and different demographic and socioeconomic groups. The purpose of this study is to provide up-to-date data on the use of CO alarms by surveying attendees to emergency departments using an online anonymous questionnaire. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre prospective, cross-sectional survey of 4000 patients or carers in three emergency departments will be used. A questionnaire comprising of a maximum of 14 items will be administered following completion of an informed consent process. Data collected include participant demographics, household information and CO alarm use. Statistical analyses will comprise descriptive techniques to present respondents' use of CO alarms and examine associations between alarm use and participant characteristics. The proportion of homes with CO alarms installed will be calculated for all subjects and for selected subgroups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study obtained ethical approval from the Westminster Research Ethics Committee (REC number 1/PR/1657). Informed consent will be obtained prior to the participant undergoing any activities that are specifically for the purposes of the study. Findings will be published in scientific journals, presented to national and international conferences and disseminated to CO safety groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN registry 12562718.

Azithromycin versus standard care in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (ATOMIC2): an open-label, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antiviral properties of azithromycin suggest therapeutic potential against COVID-19. Randomised data in mild-to-moderate disease are not available. We assessed whether azithromycin is effective in reducing hospital admission in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. METHODS: This prospective, open-label, randomised superiority trial was done at 19 hospitals in the UK. We enrolled adults aged at least 18 years presenting to hospitals with clinically diagnosed, highly probable or confirmed COVID-19 infection, with fewer than 14 days of symptoms, who were considered suitable for initial ambulatory management. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg once daily orally for 14 days) plus standard care or to standard care alone. The primary outcome was death or hospital admission from any cause over the 28 days from randomisation. The primary and safety outcomes were assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381962) and recruitment is closed. FINDINGS: 298 participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, to Jan 29, 2021. Three participants withdrew consent and requested removal of all data, and three further participants withdrew consent after randomisation, thus, the primary outcome was assessed in 292 participants (145 in the azithromycin group and 147 in the standard care group). The mean age of the participants was 45·9 years (SD 14·9). 15 (10%) participants in the azithromycin group and 17 (12%) in the standard care group were admitted to hospital or died during the study (adjusted OR 0·91 [95% CI 0·43-1·92], p=0·80). No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 managed without hospital admission, adding azithromycin to standard care treatment did not reduce the risk of subsequent hospital admission or death. Our findings do not support the use of azithromycin in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford and Pfizer.

Diagnostic accuracy of the T-MACS decision aid with a contemporary point-of-care troponin assay.

OBJECTIVES: The rapid turnaround time of point-of-care (POC) cardiac troponin (cTn) assays is highly attractive for crowded emergency departments (EDs). We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (T-MACS) decision aid with a POC cTn assay. METHODS: In a prospective diagnostic accuracy study at eight EDs, we included patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Blood drawn on arrival and 3 hours later was analysed for POC cTnI (i-Stat, Abbott Point of Care). The primary outcome was a diagnosis of ACS, which included both an adjudicated diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) based on serial laboratory cTn testing and major adverse cardiac events (death, AMI or coronary revascularisation) within 30 days. RESULTS: Of 716 patients included, 105 (14.7%) had ACS. Using serial POC cTnI concentrations over 3 hours could have 'ruled out' ACS in 198 (31.2%) patients with a sensitivity of 99.0% (95% CI 94.4% to 100.0%) and negative predictive value 99.5% (95% CI 96.5% to 99.9%). No AMIs were missed. T-MACS 'ruled in' ACS for 65 (10.4%) patients with a positive predictive value of 91.2% (95% CI 82.1% to 95.9%) and specificity 98.9% (97.6% to 99.6%). CONCLUSION: With a POC cTnI assay, T-MACS could 'rule out' ACS for approximately one-third of patients within 3 hours while 'ruling in' ACS for another 10%. The rapid turnaround time and portability of the POC assay make this an attractive pathway for use in crowded EDs or urgent care centres. Future work should also evaluate use in the prehospital environment.