Mechanical versus manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): an umbrella review of contemporary systematic reviews and more.

BACKGROUND: High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can restore spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and neurological function and save lives. We conducted an umbrella review, including previously published systematic reviews (SRs), that compared mechanical and manual CPR; after that, we performed a new SR of the original studies that were not included after the last published SR to provide a panoramic view of the existing evidence on the effectiveness of CPR methods. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline were searched, including English in-hospital (IHCA) and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) SRs, and comparing mechanical versus manual CPR. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) and GRADE were used to assess the quality of included SRs/studies. We included both IHCA and OHCA, which compared mechanical and manual CPR. We analyzed at least one of the outcomes of interest, including ROSC, survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, 30-day survival, and survival to hospital discharge with good neurological function. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were performed for age, gender, initial rhythm, arrest location, and type of CPR devices. RESULTS: We identified 249 potentially relevant records, of which 238 were excluded. Eleven SRs were analyzed in the Umbrella review (January 2014-March 2022). Furthermore, for a new, additional SR, we identified eight eligible studies (not included in any prior SR) for an in-depth analysis between April 1, 2021, and February 15, 2024. The higher chances of using mechanical CPR for male patients were significantly observed in three studies. Two studies showed that younger patients received more mechanical treatment than older patients. However, studies did not comment on the outcomes based on the patient's gender or age. Most SRs and studies were of low to moderate quality. The pooled findings did not show the superiority of mechanical compared to manual CPR except in a few selected subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Given the significant heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the included studies and SRs, our findings do not provide definitive evidence to support the superiority of mechanical CPR over manual CPR. However, mechanical CPR can serve better where high-quality manual CPR cannot be performed in selected situations.

Optimal timing for the Modified Early Warning Score for prediction of short-term critical illness in the acute care chain: a prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: The Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) is an effective tool to identify patients in the acute care chain who are likely to deteriorate. Although it is increasingly being implemented in the ED, the optimal moment to use the MEWS is unknown. This study aimed to determine at what moment in the acute care chain MEWS has the highest accuracy in predicting critical illness. METHODS: Adult patients brought by ambulance to the ED at both locations of the Amsterdam UMC, a level 1 trauma centre, were prospectively included between 11 March and 28 October 2021. MEWS was calculated using vital parameters measured prehospital, at ED presentation, 1 hour and 3 hours thereafter, imputing for missing temperature and/or consciousness, as these values were expected not to deviate. Critical illness was defined as requiring intensive care unit admission, myocardial infarction or death within 72 hours after ED presentation. Accuracy in predicting critical illness was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC). RESULTS: Of the 790 included patients, critical illness occurred in 90 (11.4%). MEWS based on vital parameters at ED presentation had the highest performance in predicting critical illness with an AUROC of 0.73 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.79) but did not significantly differ compared with other moments. Patients with an increasing MEWS over time are significantly more likely to become critical ill compared with patients with an improving MEWS. CONCLUSION: The performance of MEWS is moderate in predicting critical illness using vital parameters measured surrounding ED admission. However, an increase of MEWS during ED admission is correlated with the development of critical illness. Therefore, early recognition of deteriorating patients at the ED may be achieved by frequent MEWS calculation. Further studies should investigate the effect of continuous monitoring of these patients at the ED.

Can acutely ill patients predict their outcomes? A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The full impact of an acute illness on subsequent health is seldom explicitly discussed with patients. Patients' estimates of their likely prognosis have been explored in chronic care settings and can contribute to the improvement of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. This scoping review aimed to identify studies of acutely ill patients' estimates of their outcomes and potential benefits for their care. METHODS: A search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar, using terms related to prognostication and acute care. After removal of duplicates, all articles were assessed for relevance by six investigator pairs; disagreements were resolved by a third investigator. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. RESULTS: Our search identified 3265 articles, of which 10 were included. The methods of assessing self-prognostication were very heterogeneous. Patients seem to be able to predict their need for hospital admission in certain settings, but not their length of stay. The severity of their symptoms and the burden of their disease are often overestimated or underestimated by patients. Patients with severe health conditions and their relatives tend to be overoptimistic about the likely outcome. CONCLUSION: The understanding of acutely ill patients of their likely outcomes and benefits of treatment has not been adequately studied and is a major knowledge gap. Limited published literature suggests patients may be able to predict their need for hospital admission. Illness perception may influence help-seeking behaviour, speed of recovery and subsequent quality of life. Knowledge of patients' self-prognosis may enhance communication between patients and their physicians, which improves patient-centred care.

Diagnostic agreement between emergency medical service and emergency department physicians, a prospective multicentre study.

INTRODUCTION: Early and adequate preliminary diagnosis reduce emergency department (ED) and hospital stay and may reduce mortality. Several studies demonstrated adequate preliminary diagnosis as stated by emergency medical services (EMS) ranging between 61 and 77%. Dutch EMS are highly trained, but performance of stating adequate preliminary diagnosis remains unknown. METHODS: This prospective observational study included 781 patients (> 18years), who arrived in the emergency department (ED) by ambulance in two academic hospitals. For each patient, the diagnosis as stated by EMS and the ED physician was obtained and compared. Diagnosis was categorized based on the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision. RESULTS: The overall diagnostic agreement was 79% [95%-CI: 76-82%]. Agreement was high for traumatic injuries (94%), neurological emergencies (90%), infectious diseases (84%), cardiovascular (78%), moderate for mental and drug related (71%), gastrointestinal (70%), and low for endocrine and metabolic (50%), and acute internal emergencies (41%). There is no correlation between 28-day mortality, the need for ICU admission or the need for hospital admission with an adequate preliminary diagnosis. CONCLUSION: In the Netherlands, the extent of agreement between EMS diagnosis and ED discharge diagnosis varies between categories. Accuracy is high in diseases with specific observations, e.g., neurological failure, detectable injuries, and electrocardiographic abnormalities. Further studies should use these findings to improve patient outcome.

The accuracy of predicting hospital admission by emergency medical service and emergency department personnel compared to the prehospital MEWS: a prospective multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: Overcrowding in the emergency department (ED) is a global problem. Early and accurate recognition of a patient's disposition could limit time spend at the ED and thus improve throughput and quality of care provided. This study aims to compare the accuracy among healthcare providers and the prehospital Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) in predicting the requirement for hospital admission. METHODS: A prospective, observational, multi-centre study was performed including adult patients brought to the ED by ambulance. Involved Emergency Medical Service (EMS) personnel, ED nurses and physicians were asked to predict the need for hospital admission using a structured questionnaire. Primary endpoint was the comparison between the accuracy of healthcare providers and prehospital MEWS in predicting patients' need for hospital admission. RESULTS: In total 798 patients were included of whom 393 (49.2%) were admitted to the hospital. Sensitivity of predicting hospital admission varied from 80.0 to 91.9%, with physicians predicting hospital admission significantly more accurately than EMS and ED nurses (p < 0.001). Specificity ranged from 56.4 to 67.0%. All healthcare providers outperformed MEWS ≥ 3 score on predicting hospital admission (sensitivity 80.0-91.9% versus 44.0%; all p < 0.001). Predictions for ward admissions specifically were significantly more accurate than MEWS (specificity 94.7-95.9% versus 60.6%, all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers can accurately predict the need for hospital admission, and all providers outperformed the MEWS score.

Patients' Perspectives and Feasibility of Home Monitoring in Acute Care: The AcuteCare@Home Flash Mob Study.

Objective: To determine patients' perspectives on home monitoring at emergency department (ED) presentation and shortly after admission and compare these with their physicians' perspectives. Methods: Forty Dutch hospitals participated in this prospective flash mob study. Adult patients with acute medical conditions, treated by internal medicine specialties, presenting at the ED or admitted at the admission ward within the previous 24 h were included. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who were able and willing to undergo home monitoring. Secondary outcomes included identifying barriers to home monitoring, patient's prerequisites, and assessing the agreement between the perspectives of patients and treating physicians. Results: On February 2, 2023, in total 665 patients [median age 69 (interquartile range: 55-78) years; 95.5% community dwelling; 29.3% Modified Early Warning Score ≥3; 29.5% clinical frailty score ≥5] were included. In total, 19.6% of ED patients were admitted and 26% of ward patients preferred home monitoring as continuation of care. Guaranteed readmission (87.8%), ability to contact the hospital 24/7 (77.3%), and a family caregiver at home (55.7%) were the most often reported prerequisites. Barriers for home monitoring were feeling too severely ill (78.8%) and inability to receive the required treatment at home (64.4%). The agreement between patients and physicians was fair (Cohens kappa coefficient 0.26). Conclusions: A substantial proportion of acutely ill patients stated that they were willing and able to be monitored at home. Guaranteed readmission, availability of a treatment team (24/7), and a home support system are needed for successful implementation of home monitoring in acute care.

Improving emergency department flow by introducing a simple time out moment (The TRAFFIC LIGHT study).

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: Long waiting times in the emergency department (ED) is an increasing problem in the recent years and is expected to become an even bigger problem in the future Objective: We aimed to test the hypothesis whether increasing awareness of the time lapse with the treating physician, 2 hours after patient arrival, can reduce long patient turnaround time (TAT). METHOD: In this prospective single-center cohort study we compared and analyzed patient TAT in the ED before and after implementation of a so called 'traffic light' moment 2 hours after patient arrival. At this 'traffic light' moment a team member contacted the treating physician to increased awareness over the time lapse. Difference in percentage of patients who stayed more than 4 hours in the ED before and after intervention was the primary outcome Results: Between October 2nd 2021 and January 2nd,2022 1494 patients were included for primary outcome analysis. A total of 419 patients (n=740, 56.6%) had a TAT of less than 4 hour in the ED before intervention, compared to 497 (n=754, 65.9%) after intervention (p <0.001). Median time spent in de ED before intervention was 3:40 (IQR 2:24 - 5:04) compared to 3:15 (IQR 2:03 - 4:38) after intervention (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: This simple and low-cost intervention reduces the ED length of stay significantly. Although multiple interventions will be required to ensure less patients spending more than 4-hours in the ED, a 'traffic light' moment can be a simple and an effective tool.

Recognition of Critically Ill Patients by Acute Healthcare Providers: A Multicenter Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: Although the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) is increasingly being used in the acute care chain to recognize disease severity, its superiority compared with clinical gestalt remains unproven. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of medical caregivers and MEWS in predicting the development of critical illness. DESIGN: This was a multicenter observational prospective study. SETTING: It was performed in a level-1 trauma center with two different sites and emergency departments (EDs) with a combined capacity of about 50.000 patients annually. PATIENTS: It included all adult patients presented to the ED by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For all patients, the acute caregivers were asked several standardized questions regarding clinical predicted outcome (clinical gestalt), and the MEWS was calculated. The primary outcome was the occurrence of critical illness, defined as ICU admission, serious adverse events, and mortality within 72 hours. The sensitivity, specificity, and discriminative power of both clinical gestalt and MEWS for the occurrence of critical illness were calculated as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Among the total of 800 included patients, 113 patients (14.1%) suffered from critical illness. The specificity for predicting three-day critical illness for all caregivers (for EMS nurses, ED nurses, and physicians) was 93.2%; 97.3%, and 96.8%, respectively, and was significantly ( p < 0.01) better than an MEWS score of 3 or higher (70.4%). The sensitivity was significantly lower for EMS and ED nurses, but not significantly different for physicians compared with MEWS. The AUROCs for prediction of 3-day critical illness by both the ED nurses (AUROC = 0.809) and the physicians (AUROC = 0.848) were significantly higher ( p = 0.032 and p = 0.010, respectively) compared with MEWS (AUROC = 0.731). CONCLUSIONS: For patients admitted to the ED by EMS, medical professionals can predict the development of critical illness within 3 days significantly better than the MEWS. Although MEWS is able to correctly predict those patients that become critically ill, its use leads to overestimation due to a substantial number of false positives.

The impact of a sepsis performance improvement program in the emergency department: a before-after intervention study.

PURPOSE: The latest Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines advocate that all hospitals use sepsis performance improvement programs. However, there is a limited evidence about how to structure such programs and what their potential impact is on sepsis management and outcomes in the emergency department (ED). In this study, we evaluated the implementation of a sepsis performance improvement program in the ED including a dedicated sepsis response team and analyzed the management and outcomes of sepsis patients before and after. METHODS: We conducted a before-after interventional study in the ED of the Amsterdam University Medical Centers, the Netherlands. The sepsis performance improvement program included regular educational meetings, daily audits and weekly feedback, a screening tool, and a dedicated multidisciplinary sepsis response team. We studied all adult patients who presented to the ED with a suspected infection and a Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) ≥ 3 during their stay. In the postintervention phase, these patients were seen by the sepsis team. Process-related and patient-related outcomes were measured between November 2019 and February 2020 (preintervention) and December 2021-May 2022 (postintervention). RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were included in the primary study, 132 patients preintervention and 133 patients postintervention. The postintervention phase was associated with improvements in nearly all process-related outcomes, such as a shorter time to antibiotics (66 vs. 143 min; p < 0.001), increased number of lactate measurements (72.9 vs. 46.2%; p < 0.001), and improved completeness of documented MEWS scores (85.0 vs. 62.9%; p < 0.001). Except for an improvement in the number of immediate versus delayed ICU admissions (100% immediate vs. 64.3% immediate; p = 0.012), there was no improvement in the other patient-related outcomes such as 28 days mortality (14.3 vs. 9.1%; p = 0.261), during the postintervention phase. CONCLUSION: Our program stimulated physicians to make timely decisions regarding diagnostics and treatment of sepsis in the ED. Implementing the sepsis performance improvement program was associated with significant improvements in most process-related outcomes but with minimal improvements in patient-related outcomes in our cohort.

The usefulness of implementing minimum retest intervals in reducing inappropriate laboratory test requests in a Dutch hospital.

OBJECTIVES: Inappropriate use of laboratory testing remains a challenging problem worldwide. Minimum retest intervals (MRI) are used to reduce inappropriate laboratory testing. However, their effectiveness and the usefulness in reducing inappropriate laboratory testing is still a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of broadly implemented MRIs as a means of reducing inappropriate laboratory test requests. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study in a general care and teaching hospital in the Netherlands, where MRI alerts have been implemented as standard care since June 7th 2017. Clinical chemistry test orders in adult internal medicine patients placed between July 13th 2017 and December 31st 2019 were included. The primary outcome was the effectiveness of MRIs, expressed as percentages of tests ordered and barred as a result of MRIs. RESULTS: Of a total of 218,511 test requests, 4,159 (1.90%) got an MRI alert. These MRIs were overruled by physicians in 21.76% of the cases. As a result of implementing MRIs, 3,254 (1.49%) tests were barred. The financial savings for the department of internal medicine directly related to the included barred laboratory tests during this period were 11,880 euros on a total amount of 636,598 euros for all performed tests. CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of laboratory tests are barred after implementation of MRIs, with a limited impact on the annual costs. However, MRIs provide a continuous reminder to focus on appropriate testing and the effectiveness of MRIs is potentially higher than described in this study.

Leaving the hospital on time: hospital bed utilization and reasons for discharge delay in the Netherlands.

Inappropriate bed occupancy due to delayed hospital discharge affects both physical and psychological well-being in patients and can disrupt patient flow. The Dutch healthcare system is facing ongoing pressure, especially during the current coronavirus disease pandemic, intensifying the need for optimal use of hospital beds. The aim of this study was to quantify inappropriate patient stays and describe the underlying reasons for the delays in discharge. The Day of Care Survey (DoCS) is a validated tool used to gain information about appropriate and inappropriate bed occupancy in hospitals. Between February 2019 and January 2021, the DoCS was performed five times in three different hospitals within the region of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. All inpatients were screened, using standardized criteria, for their need for in-hospital care at the time of survey and reasons for discharge delay. A total of 782 inpatients were surveyed. Of these patients, 94 (12%) were planned for definite discharge that day. Of all other patients, 145 (21%, ranging from 14% to 35%) were without the need for acute in-hospital care. In 74% (107/145) of patients, the reason for discharge delay was due to issues outside the hospital; most frequently due to a shortage of available places in care homes (26%, 37/145). The most frequent reason for discharge delay inside the hospital was patients awaiting a decision or review by the treating physician (14%, 20/145). Patients who did not meet the criteria for hospital stay were, in general, older [median 75, interquartile range (IQR) 65-84 years, and 67, IQR 55-75 years, respectively, P < .001] and had spent more days in hospital (7, IQR 5-14 days, and 3, IQR 1-8 days respectively, P < .001). Approximately one in five admitted patients occupying hospital beds did not meet the criteria for acute in-hospital stay or care at the time of the survey. Most delays were related to issues outside the immediate control of the hospital. Improvement programmes working with stakeholders focusing on the transfer from hospital to outside areas of care need to be further developed and may offer potential for the greatest gain. The DoCS can be a tool to periodically monitor changes and improvements in patient flow.

The Prognostic Accuracy of Clinical Judgment Versus a Validated Frailty Screening Instrument in Older Patients at the Emergency Department: Findings of the AmsterGEM Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the prognostic accuracy of clinical judgment for frailty in older patients at the emergency department with a validated screening instrument and patient-perceived frailty. METHODS: A prospective cohort study in patients 70 years of age and older in 2 Dutch EDs with a follow-up of 3 months. A dichotomous question was asked to the physician and patient: "Do you consider the patient / yourself to be frail?" The Identification of Seniors At Risk-Hospitalized Patients (ISAR-HP) was used as a validated screening instrument. The primary composite outcome consisted of either functional decline, institutionalization, or mortality. RESULTS: A total of 736 patients were included. The physician identified 59% as frail, compared with 49% by ISAR-HP and 43% by patients themselves. The level of agreement was fair (Fleiss Kappa, 0.31). After 3 months, 31% of the patients experienced at least 1 adverse health outcome. The sensitivity was 79% for the physician, 72% for ISAR-HP, 61% for the patient, and 48% for all 3 combined. The specificity was 50% for the physician, 63% for ISAR-HP, 66% for the patient, and 85% for all 3 positive. The highest positive likelihood ratio was 3.03 (physician, ISAR-HP, patient combined), and the lowest negative likelihood ratio was 0.42 (physician). The areas under the receiver operating curves were all poor: 0.68 at best for ISAR-HP. CONCLUSION: Clinical judgment for frailty showed fair agreement with a validated screening instrument and patient-perceived frailty. All 3 instruments have poor prognostic accuracy, which does not improve when combined. These findings illustrate the limited prognostic value of clinical judgment as a frailty screener in older patients at the ED.

Sepsis Performance Improvement Programs: From Evidence Toward Clinical Implementation.

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2022. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2022 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from https://link.springer.com/bookseries/8901 .

Performance of early warning and risk stratification scores versus clinical judgement in the acute setting: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Risk stratification is increasingly based on Early Warning Score (EWS)-based models, instead of clinical judgement. However, it is unknown how risk-stratification models and EWS perform as compared with the clinical judgement of treating acute healthcare providers. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of all available literature evaluating clinical judgement of healthcare providers to the use of risk-stratification models in predicting patients' clinical outcome. METHODS: Studies comparing clinical judgement and risk-stratification models in predicting outcomes in adult patients presenting at the ED were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes included the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission; severe adverse events; clinical deterioration and mortality. Risk of bias among the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. RESULTS: Six studies (6419 participants) were included of which 4 studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. Only descriptive analysis was performed as a meta-analysis was not possible due to few included studies and high clinical heterogeneity. The performance of clinical judgement and risk-stratification models were both moderate in predicting mortality, deterioration and need for ICU admission with area under the curves between 0.70 and 0.89. The performance of clinical judgement did not significantly differ from risk-stratification models in predicting mortality (n=2 studies) or deterioration (n=1 study). However, clinical judgement of healthcare providers was significantly better in predicting the need for ICU admission (n=2) and severe adverse events (n=1 study) as compared with risk-stratification models. CONCLUSION: Based on limited existing data, clinical judgement has greater accuracy in predicting the need for ICU admission and the occurrence of severe adverse events compared with risk-stratification models in ED patients. However, performance is similar in predicting mortality and deterioration. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020218893.

The Accuracy of Four Frequently Used Frailty Instruments for the Prediction of Adverse Health Outcomes Among Older Adults at Two Dutch Emergency Departments: Findings of the AmsterGEM Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Older adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) are at high risk of adverse health outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of 4 frequently used screening instruments for the prediction of adverse health outcomes among older adults in the ED. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study in patients ≥70 years of age presenting to the ED in 2 hospitals in the Netherlands. Screening instruments included the acutely presenting older patient screening program (APOP) (providing 2 risk scores-functional decline [APOP1] and mortality [APOP2]), the International Resident Assessment Instrument Emergendy Department screener (InterRAI ED), the Identification of Seniors At Risk-Hospitalized Patients (ISAR-HP), and the safety management system (VMS). The primary outcome measure was a composite outcome encompassing functional decline, institutionalization, and mortality at 3 months after ED presentation. Other follow-up time points were 1 and 6 months. Analyses were performed to assess prognostic accuracy. RESULTS: In total, 889 patients were included. After 3 months, 267 (31%) patients experienced at least 1 adverse outcome. The positive likelihood ratio ranged from 1.67 (VMS) to 3.33 (APOP1), and the negative likelihood ratio ranged from 0.41 (ISAR-HP) to 0.88 (APOP2). Sensitivity ranged from 17% (APOP2) to 74% (ISAR-HP), and specificity ranged from 63% (ISAR-HP) to 94% (APOP2). The area under the curve ranged from 0.62 (APOP2) to 0.72 (APOP1 and ISAR-HP). Calibration was reasonable for APOP1 and VMS. The prognostic accuracy was comparable across all outcomes and at all follow-up time points. CONCLUSION: The frailty screening instruments assessed in this study showed poor to moderate prognostic accuracy, which brings into question their usability in the prediction of adverse health outcomes among older adults who present to the ED.

Routine screening for pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients at the emergency department: impact of D-dimer testing followed by CTPA.

COVID-19 patients have increased risk of pulmonary embolism (PE), but symptoms of both conditions overlap. Because screening algorithms for PE in COVID-19 patients are currently lacking, PE might be underdiagnosed. We evaluated a screening algorithm in which all patients presenting to the ED with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 routinely undergo D-dimer testing, followed by CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) if D-dimer is ≥ 1.00 mg/L. Consecutive adult patients presenting to the ED of two university hospitals in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, between 01-10-2020 and 31-12-2020, who had a final diagnosis of COVID-19, were retrospectively included. D-dimer and CTPA results were obtained. Of 541 patients with a final diagnosis of COVID-19 presenting to the ED, 25 (4.6%) were excluded because D-dimer was missing, and 71 (13.1%) because they used anticoagulation therapy. Of 445 included patients, 185 (41.6%; 95%CI 37.0-46.3) had a D-dimer ≥ 1.00 mg/L. CTPA was performed in 169 of them, which showed PE in 26 (15.4%; 95%CI 10.3-21.7), resulting in an overall detection rate of 5.8% (95%CI 3.9-8.4) in the complete study group. In patients with and without PE at CTPA, median D-dimer was 9.84 (IQR 3.90-29.38) and 1.64 (IQR 1.17-3.01), respectively (p < 0.001). PE prevalence increased with increasing D-dimer, ranging from 1.2% (95%CI 0.0-6.4) if D-dimer was 1.00-1.99 mg/L, to 48.6% (95%CI 31.4-66.0) if D-dimer was ≥ 5.00 mg/L. In conclusion, by applying this screening algorithm, PE was identified in a considerable proportion of COVID-19 patients. Prospective management studies should assess if this algorithm safely rules-out PE if D-dimer is < 1.00 mg/L.

Understanding what matters most to patients in acute care in seven countries, using the flash mob study design.

BACKGROUND: Truly patient-centred care needs to be aligned with what patients consider important, and is highly desirable in the first 24 h of an acute admission, as many decisions are made during this period. However, there is limited knowledge on what matters most to patients in this phase of their hospital stay. The objective of this study was to identify what mattered most to patients in acute care and to assess the patient perspective as to whether their treating doctors were aware of this. METHODS: This was a large-scale, qualitative, flash mob study, conducted simultaneously in sixty-six hospitals in seven countries, starting November 14th 2018, ending 50 h later. One thousand eight hundred fifty adults in the first 24 h of an acute medical admission were interviewed on what mattered most to them, why this mattered and whether they felt the treating doctor was aware of this. RESULTS: The most reported answers to "what matters most (and why)?" were 'getting better or being in good health' (why: to be with family/friends or pick-up life again), 'getting home' (why: more comfortable at home or to take care of someone) and 'having a diagnosis' (why: to feel less anxious or insecure). Of all patients, 51.9% felt the treating doctor did not know what mattered most to them. CONCLUSIONS: The priorities for acutely admitted patients were ostensibly disease- and care-oriented and thus in line with the hospitals' own priorities. However, answers to why these were important were diverse, more personal, and often related to psychological well-being and relations. A large group of patients felt their treating doctor did not know what mattered most to them. Explicitly asking patients what is important and why, could help healthcare professionals to get to know the person behind the patient, which is essential in delivering patient-centred care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR (Netherlands Trial Register) NTR7538 .

Early warning scores to assess the probability of critical illness in patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Validated clinical risk scores are needed to identify patients with COVID-19 at risk of severe disease and to guide triage decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the performance of early warning scores (EWS) in the ED when identifying patients with COVID-19 who will require intensive care unit (ICU) admission for high-flow-oxygen usage or mechanical ventilation. METHODS: Patients with a proven SARS-CoV-2 infection with complete resuscitate orders treated in nine hospitals between 27 February and 30 July 2020 needing hospital admission were included. Primary outcome was the performance of EWS in identifying patients needing ICU admission within 24 hours after ED presentation. RESULTS: In total, 1501 patients were included. Median age was 71 (range 19-99) years and 60.3% were male. Of all patients, 86.9% were admitted to the general ward and 13.1% to the ICU within 24 hours after ED admission. ICU patients had lower peripheral oxygen saturation (86.7% vs 93.7, p≤0.001) and had a higher body mass index (29.2 vs 27.9 p=0.043) compared with non-ICU patients. National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) ≥ 6 and q-COVID Score were superior to all other studied clinical risk scores in predicting ICU admission with a fair area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.740 (95% CI 0.696 to 0.783) and 0.760 (95% CI 0.712 to 0.800), respectively. NEWS2 ≥6 and q-COVID Score ≥3 discriminated patients admitted to the ICU with a sensitivity of 78.1% and 75.9%, and specificity of 56.3% and 61.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this multicentre study, the best performing models to predict ICU admittance were the NEWS2 and the Quick COVID-19 Severity Index Score, with fair diagnostic performance. However, due to the moderate performance, these models cannot be clinically used to adequately predict the need for ICU admission within 24 hours in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection presenting at the ED.

Frequency, Determinants, and Satisfaction of Breast Augmentation in Trans Women Receiving Hormone Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: As breast development in trans women (male sex assigned at birth, female gender identity) who receive gender-affirming hormone treatment is often moderate, they may choose breast augmentation as part of their treatment. AIM: The aim of the study was to investigate the frequency, determinants, and satisfaction of breast augmentation among trans women receiving hormone treatment. METHODS: Trans women who started hormone treatment between 1972 and 2018 at our center received an anonymous questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The questionnaire contained questions about the start date of hormone treatment, the current age of the respondent, whether or not she underwent breast augmentation, what her considerations in this decision were, and, if the respondent did have breast implants, whether she was satisfied with the result and/or experienced health complaints she attributed to her breast implants. RESULTS: A total of 3,073 questionnaires were distributed, of which 773 were retrieved back (median age of the respondents: 50 years, interquartile range: 35-59). Age and year of start of hormone treatment was comparable between responders and nonresponders. The frequency of breast augmentation varied from 70% in trans women who started hormone treatment between 1980 and 2000 to 20% in those who started between 2010 and 2015. Trans women underwent breast augmentation median 2 years after the start of hormone treatment (interquartile range: 2-4), and 80% was satisfied with the result. Approximately one-third experienced health complaints they attributed to their breast implants. People who considered breast augmentation reported financial limitations as an important reason not to undergo breast augmentation. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This study shows that it is important to discuss pros and cons of breast augmentation to support trans women in making a well-informed decision. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: This is the largest study performed on the frequency and satisfaction of breast augmentation among trans women, which also includes health complaints and considerations in the decision whether or not to undergo breast augmentation. One of the limitations was that we were unable to link other clinical data. CONCLUSION: 4 of 5 trans women either chose or considered breast augmentation as part of their gender-affirming treatment. Most of the trans women who underwent breast augmentation were satisfied with the result, although approximately one-third experienced health complaints they attributed to their breast implants. Reasons not to undergo breast augmentation included financial limitations. This study shows that it is important to discuss with trans women the positive effects and possible side-effects of breast augmentation to help them make a well-informed decision whether or not to undergo breast augmentation. de Blok CJM, Staphorsius AS, Wiepjes CM, et al. Frequency, Determinants, and Satisfaction of Breast Augmentation in Trans Women Receiving Hormone Treatment. J Sex Med 2020;17:342-348.

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.