Chest ultrasonography versus supine chest radiography for diagnosis of pneumothorax in trauma patients in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Chest X-ray (CXR) is a longstanding method for the diagnosis of pneumothorax but chest ultrasonography (CUS) may be a safer, more rapid, and more accurate modality in trauma patients at the bedside that does not expose the patient to ionizing radiation. This may lead to improved and expedited management of traumatic pneumothorax and improved patient safety and clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasonography (CUS) by frontline non-radiologist physicians versus chest X-ray (CXR) for diagnosis of pneumothorax in trauma patients in the emergency department (ED). To investigate the effects of potential sources of heterogeneity such as type of CUS operator (frontline non-radiologist physicians), type of trauma (blunt vs penetrating), and type of US probe on test accuracy. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of the following electronic databases from database inception to 10 April 2020: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Web of Science Core Collection and Clinicaltrials.gov. We handsearched reference lists of included articles and reviews retrieved via electronic searching; and we carried out forward citation searching of relevant articles in Google Scholar and looked at the "Related articles" on PubMed. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective, paired comparative accuracy studies comparing CUS performed by frontline non-radiologist physicians to supine CXR in trauma patients in the emergency department (ED) suspected of having pneumothorax, and with computed tomography (CT) of the chest or tube thoracostomy as the reference standard. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from each included study using a data extraction form. We included studies using patients as the unit of analysis in the main analysis and we included those using lung fields in the secondary analysis. We performed meta-analyses by using a bivariate model to estimate and compare summary sensitivities and specificities. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies of which nine (410 traumatic pneumothorax patients out of 1271 patients) used patients as the unit of analysis; we thus included them in the primary analysis. The remaining four studies used lung field as the unit of analysis and we included them in the secondary analysis. We judged all studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in one or more domains, with most studies (11/13, 85%) being judged at high or unclear risk of bias in the patient selection domain. There was substantial heterogeneity in the sensitivity of supine CXR amongst the included studies. In the primary analysis, the summary sensitivity and specificity of CUS were 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.94) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00); and the summary sensitivity and specificity of supine CXR were 0.47 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.63) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00). There was a significant difference in the sensitivity of CUS compared to CXR with an absolute difference in sensitivity of 0.44 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.61; P < 0.001). In contrast, CUS and CXR had similar specificities: comparing CUS to CXR, the absolute difference in specificity was -0.007 (95% CI -0.018 to 0.005, P = 0.35). The findings imply that in a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients if 30 patients have traumatic pneumothorax (i.e. prevalence of 30%), CUS would miss 3 (95% CI 2 to 4) cases (false negatives) and overdiagnose 1 (95% CI 0 to 2) of those without pneumothorax (false positives); while CXR would miss 16 (95% CI 11 to 21) cases with 0 (95% CI 0 to 2) overdiagnosis of those who do not have pneumothorax. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of CUS performed by frontline non-radiologist physicians for the diagnosis of pneumothorax in ED trauma patients is superior to supine CXR, independent of the type of trauma, type of CUS operator, or type of CUS probe used. These findings suggest that CUS for the diagnosis of traumatic pneumothorax should be incorporated into trauma protocols and algorithms in future medical training programmes; and that CUS may beneficially change routine management of trauma.

Developing outcome, process and balancing measures for an emergency department longitudinal patient monitoring system using a modified Delphi.

BACKGROUND: Early warning score systems have been widely recommended for use to detect clinical deterioration in patients. The Irish National Emergency Medicine Programme has developed and piloted an emergency department specific early warning score system. The objective of this study was to develop a consensus among frontline healthcare staff, quality and safety staff and health systems researchers regarding evaluation measures for an early warning score system in the Emergency Department. METHODS: Participatory action research including a modified Delphi consensus building technique with frontline hospital staff, quality and safety staff, health systems researchers, local and national emergency medicine stakeholders was the method employed in this study. In Stage One, a workshop was held with the participatory action research team including frontline hospital staff, quality and safety staff and health systems researchers to gather suggestions regarding the evaluation measures. In Stage Two, an electronic modified-Delphi study was undertaken with a panel consisting of the workshop participants, key local and national emergency medicine stakeholders. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the characteristics of the panellists who completed the questionnaires in each round. The mean Likert rating, standard deviation and 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence interval for each variable was calculated. Bonferroni corrections were applied to take account of multiple testing. Data were analysed using Stata 14.0 SE. RESULTS: Using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement framework, 12 process, outcome and balancing metrics for measuring the effectiveness of an ED-specific early warning score system were developed. CONCLUSION: There are currently no published measures for evaluating the effectiveness of an ED early warning score system. It was possible in this study to develop a suite of evaluation measures using a modified Delphi consensus approach. Using the collective expertise of frontline hospital staff, quality and safety staff and health systems researchers to develop and categorise the initial set of potential measures was an innovative and unique element of this study.

Risk factors for amendment in type, duration and setting of prescribed outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) for adult patients with cellulitis: a retrospective cohort study and CART analysis.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To measure the percentage rate and risk factors for amendment in the type, duration and setting of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) for the treatment of cellulitis. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of adult patients receiving OPAT for cellulitis was performed. Treatment amendment (TA) was defined as hospital admission or change in antibiotic therapy in order to achieve clinical response. Multivariable logistic regression (MVLR) and classification and regression tree (CART) analysis were performed. RESULTS: There were 307 patients enrolled. TA occurred in 36 patients (11.7%). Significant risk factors for TA on MVLR were increased age, increased Numerical Pain Scale Score (NPSS) and immunocompromise. The median OPAT duration was 7 days. Increased age, heart rate and C reactive protein were associated with treatment prolongation. CART analysis selected age <64.5 years, female gender and NPSS <2.5 in the final model, generating a low-sensitivity (27.8%), high-specificity (97.1%) decision tree. CONCLUSIONS: Increased age, NPSS and immunocompromise were associated with OPAT amendment. These identified risk factors can be used to support an evidence-based approach to patient selection for OPAT in cellulitis. The CART algorithm has good specificity but lacks sensitivity and is shown to be inferior in this study to logistic regression modelling.

Simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults.

BACKGROUND: For management of pneumothorax that occurs without underlying lung disease, also referred to as primary spontaneous pneumothorax, simple aspiration is technically easier to perform than intercostal tube drainage. In this systematic review, we seek to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage for management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. This review was first published in 2007 and was updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage for management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (1966 to January 2017); and Embase (1980 to January 2017). We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry for ongoing trials (January 2017). We checked the reference lists of included trials and contacted trial authors. We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults 18 years of age and older with primary spontaneous pneumothorax that compared simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We combined studies using the random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Of 2332 publications obtained through the search strategy, seven studies met the inclusion criteria; one study was ongoing and six studies of 435 participants were eligible for inclusion in the updated review. Data show a significant difference in immediate success rates of procedures favouring tube drainage over simple aspiration for management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.89; 435 participants, 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Duration of hospitalization however was significantly less for patients treated by simple aspiration (mean difference (MD) -1.66, 95% CI -2.28 to -1.04; 387 participants, 5 studies; moderate-quality evidence). A narrative synthesis of evidence revealed that simple aspiration led to fewer adverse events (245 participants, 3 studies; low-quality evidence), but data suggest no differences between groups in terms of one-year success rate (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; 318 participants, 4 studies; moderate-quality evidence), hospitalization rate (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.47; 245 participants, 3 studies; very low-quality evidence), and patient satisfaction (median between-group difference of 0.5 on a scale from 1 to 10; 48 participants, 1 study; low-quality evidence). No studies provided data on cost-effectiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available trials showed low to moderate-quality evidence that intercostal tube drainage produced higher rates of immediate success, while simple aspiration resulted in a shorter duration of hospitalization. Although adverse events were reported more commonly for patients treated with tube drainage, the low quality of the evidence warrants caution in interpreting these findings. Similarly, although this review observed no differences between groups when early failure rate, one-year success rate, or hospital admission rate was evaluated, this too needs to be put into the perspective of the quality of evidence, specifically, for evidence of very low and low quality for hospitalization rate and patient satisfaction, respectively. Future adequately powered research is needed to strengthen the evidence presented in this review.

Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for analgesia in traumatic corneal abrasions.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic corneal abrasions are relatively common and there is a lack of consensus about analgesia in their management. It is therefore important to document the clinical efficacy and safety profile of topical ophthalmic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the management of traumatic corneal abrasions. OBJECTIVES: To identify and evaluate all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of topical NSAIDs with placebo or any alternative analgesic interventions in adults with traumatic corneal abrasions (including corneal abrasions arising from foreign body removal), to reduce pain, and its effects on healing time. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 30 March 2017), Embase Ovid (1947 to 30 March 2017), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to 30 March 2017), OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) (www.opengrey.eu/); searched 30 March 2017, ZETOC (1993 to 30 March 2017), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 30 March 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 30 March 2017 and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 30 March 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.We checked the reference lists of identified trials to search for further potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing topical NSAIDs to placebo or any alternative analgesic interventions in adults with traumatic corneal abrasions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed data extraction and assessed risks of bias in the included studies. We rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies that met the inclusion criteria, reporting data on 637 participants.The studies took place in the UK, USA, Israel, Italy, France and Portugal. These studies compared five types of topical NSAIDs (0.1% indomethacin, 0.03% flurbiprofen, 0.5% ketorolac, 1% indomethacin, 0.1% diclofenac) to control (consisting of standard care and in four studies used placebo eye drops). Overall, the studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias (particularly selection and reporting bias). None of the included studies reported the primary outcome measures of this review, namely participant-reported pain intensity reduction of 30% or more or 50% or more at 24 hours. Four trials, that included data on 481 participants receiving NSAIDs or control (placebo/standard care), reported on the use of 'rescue' analgesia at 24 hours as a proxy measure of pain control. Topical NSAIDs were associated with a reduction in the need for oral analgesia compared with control (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.61; low-certainty evidence). Approximately 4 out of 10 people in the control group used rescue analgesia at 24 hours. No data were available on the use of analgesia at 48 or 72 hours.One trial (28 participants) reported on the proportion of abrasions healed after 24 and 48 hours. These outcomes were similar in both arms of the trial. (at 24 hours RR 1.00 (0.81 to 1.23); at 48 hours RR 1.00 (0.88 to 1.14); low-certainty evidence). In the control group nine out of 10 abrasions were healed within 24 hours and all were healed by 48 hours. Complications of corneal abrasions were reported in 6 studies (609 participants) and were infrequently reported (4 complications, 1 in NSAID groups (recurrent corneal erosion) and 3 in control groups (2 recurrent corneal erosions and 1 corneal abscess), very low-certainty evidence). Possible drug-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in two trials (163 participants), with the number of adverse events low (4 AEs, 3 in NSAID group, including discomfort/photophobia on instillation, conjunctival hyperaemia and urticaria, and 1 in the control group, corneal abscess) very low-certainty evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the included studies do not provide strong evidence to support the use of topical NSAIDs in traumatic corneal abrasions. This is important, since NSAIDs are associated with a higher cost compared to oral analgesics. None of the trials addressed our primary outcome measure of participant-reported pain intensity reduction of 30% or more or 50% or more at 24 hours.

Study protocol for evaluating the implementation and effectiveness of an emergency department longitudinal patient monitoring system using a mixed-methods approach.

BACKGROUND: Early detection of patient deterioration is a key element of patient safety as it allows timely clinical intervention and potential rescue, thus reducing the risks of serious patient safety incidents. Longitudinal patient monitoring systems have been widely recommended for use to detect clinical deterioration. However, there is conflicting evidence on whether they improve patient outcomes. This may in part be related to variation in the rigour with which they are implemented and evaluated. This study aims to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of a longitudinal patient monitoring system designed for adult patients in the unique environment of the Emergency Department (ED). METHODS: A novel participatory action research (PAR) approach is taken where socio-technical systems (STS) theory and analysis informs the implementation through the improvement methodology of 'Plan Do Study Act' (PDSA) cycles. We hypothesise that conducting an STS analysis of the ED before beginning the PDSA cycles will provide for a much richer understanding of the current situation and possible challenges to implementing the ED-specific longitudinal patient monitoring system. This methodology will enable both a process and an outcome evaluation of implementing the ED-specific longitudinal patient monitoring system. Process evaluations can help distinguish between interventions that have inherent faults and those that are badly executed. DISCUSSION: Over 1.2 million patients attend EDs annually in Ireland; the successful implementation of an ED-specific longitudinal patient monitoring system has the potential to affect the care of a significant number of such patients. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study combining PAR, STS and multiple PDSA cycles to evaluate the implementation of an ED-specific longitudinal patient monitoring system and to determine (through process and outcome evaluation) whether this system can significantly improve patient outcomes by early detection and appropriate intervention for patients at risk of clinical deterioration.

An introduction to the Emergency Department Adult Clinical Escalation protocol: ED-ACE.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: This study demonstrates how a participatory action research approach was used to address the challenge of the early and effective detection of the deteriorating patient in the ED setting. The approach enabled a systematic approach to patient monitoring and escalation of care to be developed to address the wide-ranging spectrum of undifferentiated presentations and the phases of ED care from triage to patient admission. This paper presents a longitudinal patient monitoring system, which aims to provide monitoring and escalation of care, where necessary, of adult patients from triage to admission to hospital in a manner that is feasible in the unique ED environment. METHODS: An action research approach was taken to designing a longitudinal patient monitoring system appropriate for the ED. While the first draft protocol for post-triage monitoring and escalation was designed by a core research group, six clinical sites were included in iterative cycles of planning, action, reviewing and further planning. Reasons for refining the system at each site were collated and the protocol was adjusted accordingly before commencing the process at the next site. RESULTS: The ED Adult Clinical Escalation longitudinal patient monitoring system (ED-ACE) evolved through iterative cycles of design and testing to include: (1) a monitoring chart for adult patients; (2) a standardised approach to the monitoring and reassessment of patients after triage until they are assessed by a clinician; (3) the ISBAR (I=Identify, S=Situation, B=Background, A=Assessment, R=Recommendation) tool for interprofessional communication relating to clinical escalation; (4) a template for prescribing a patient-specific monitoring plan to be used by treating clinicians to guide patient monitoring from the time the patient is assessed until when they leave the ED and (5) a protocol for clinical escalation prompted by single physiological triggers and clinical concern. CONCLUSIONS: This tool offers a link in the 'Chain of Prevention' between the Manchester Triage System and ward-based early warning scores taking account of the importance of standardisation, while being sufficiently adaptable for the unique working environment and patient population in the ED.

A Randomized Trial of Single-Dose Oral Dexamethasone Versus Multidose Prednisolone for Acute Exacerbations of Asthma in Children Who Attend the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In acute exacerbations of asthma in children, corticosteroids reduce relapses, subsequent hospital admission, and the need for ß2-agonist bronchodilators. Prednisolone is the most commonly used corticosteroid, but prolonged treatment course, vomiting, and a bitter taste may reduce patient compliance. Dexamethasone has a longer half-life and has been used safely in other acute pediatric conditions. We examine whether a single dose of oral dexamethasone is noninferior to prednisolone in the emergency department (ED) treatment of asthma exacerbations in children, as measured by the Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM) at day 4. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial comparing oral dexamethasone (single dose of 0.3 mg/kg) with prednisolone (1 mg/kg per day for 3 days) in patients aged 2 to 16 years and with a known diagnosis of asthma or at least 1 previous episode of ß2-agonist-responsive wheeze who presented to a tertiary pediatric ED. The primary outcome measure was the mean PRAM score (range of 0 to 12 points) performed on day 4. Secondary outcome measures included requirement for further steroids, vomiting of study medication, hospital admission, and unscheduled return visits to a health care practitioner within 14 days. RESULTS: There were 245 enrollments involving 226 patients. There was no difference in mean PRAM scores at day 4 between the dexamethasone and prednisolone groups (0.91 versus 0.91; absolute difference 0.005; 95% CI -0.35 to 0.34). Fourteen patients vomited at least 1 dose of prednisolone compared with no patients in the dexamethasone group. Sixteen children (13.1%) in the dexamethasone group received further systemic steroids within 14 days after trial enrollment compared with 5 (4.2%) in the prednisolone group (absolute difference 8.9%; 95% CI 1.9% to 16.0%). There was no significant difference between the groups in hospital admission rates or the number of unscheduled return visits to a health care practitioner. CONCLUSION: In children with acute exacerbations of asthma, a single dose of oral dexamethasone (0.3 mg/kg) is noninferior to a 3-day course of oral prednisolone (1 mg/kg per day) as measured by the mean PRAM score on day 4.

A Prevalence and Management Study of Acute Pain in Children Attending Emergency Departments by Ambulance.

Pain is the most common symptom in the emergency setting and remains one of the most challenging problems for emergency care providers, particularly in the pediatric population. The primary objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of acute pain in children attending emergency departments (EDs) in Ireland by ambulance. In addition, this study sought to describe the prehospital and initial ED management of pain in this population, with specific reference to etiology of pain, frequency of pain assessment, pain severity, and pharmacological analgesic interventions. A prospective cross-sectional study was undertaken over a 12-month period of all pediatric patients transported by emergency ambulance to four tertiary referral hospitals in Ireland. All children (<16 years) who had pain as a symptom (regardless of cause) at any stage during the prehospital phase of care were included in this study. Over the study period, 6,371 children attended the four EDs by emergency ambulance, of which 2,635 (41.4%, 95% confidence interval 40.2-42.3%) had pain as a documented symptom on the ambulance patient care report (PCR) form. Overall 32% (n = 856) of children who complained of pain were subject to a formal pain assessment during the prehospital phase of care. Younger age, short transfer time to the ED, and emergency calls between midnight and 6 am were independently associated with decreased likelihood of having a documented assessment of pain intensity during the prehospital phase of care. Of the 2,635 children who had documented pain on the ambulance PCR, 26% (n = 689) received some form of analgesic agent prior to ED arrival. Upon ED arrival 54% (n = 1,422) of children had a documented pain assessment and some form of analgesic agent was administered to 50% (n = 1,324). Approximately 41% of children who attend EDs in Ireland by ambulance have pain documented as their primary symptom. This study suggests that the management of acute pain in children transferred by ambulance to the ED in Ireland is currently poor, with documentary evidence of only 26% receiving prehospital analgesic agents.

Development of key performance indicators for prehospital emergency care.

INTRODUCTION: Key performance indicators (KPIs) are used to monitor and evaluate critical areas of clinical and support functions that influence patient outcome. Traditional prehospital emergency care performance monitoring has focused solely on response time metrics. The landscape of emergency care delivery in Ireland is in the process of significant national reconfiguration. The development of KPIs is therefore considered one of the key priorities in prehospital research. AIMS: The aim of this study was to develop a suite of KPIs for prehospital emergency care in Ireland. METHODS: A systematic literature review of prehospital care performance measurement was undertaken followed by a three-round Delphi consensus process facilitated by a broad-based multidisciplinary group of panellists. The consensus process was conducted between June 2012 and October 2013. Each candidate indicator on the Delphi survey questionnaire was rated using a 5-point Likert-type rating scale. Agreement was defined as at least 70% of responders rating an indicator as 'agree' or 'strongly agree' on the rating scale. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Sensitivity of the ratings was examined for robustness by bootstrapping the original sample. RESULTS: Of the 78 citations identified by the systematic review, 5 relevant publications were used to select candidate indicators for the Delphi round 1 questionnaire. Response rates in Delphi rounds 1 and 2 were 89% and 83%, respectively. Following the consensus development conference, 101 KPIs reached consensus. Based on the Donabedian framework for quality-of-care indicators, 7 of the KPIs which reached agreement were structure KPIs, 74 were process KPIs and 20 were outcome KPIs. The highest ranked indicator was a process KPI ('Direct transport of ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients to a primary percutaneous intervention (PCI)-capable facility for ECG to PCI time <90 min'). CONCLUSION: Improving the quality of prehospital care requires the development and implementation of performance measurement using scientifically valid and reliable KPIs. Employing a Delphi panel of key multidisciplinary Emergency Medical Service stakeholders, it was feasible to develop a suite of 101 KPIs for performance monitoring of prehospital emergency care in Ireland. This suite of KPIs may contribute to a framework for achieving safer, better care in the prehospital environment.

The use of propofol for procedural sedation in emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that propofol is efficacious and safe for procedural sedation (PS) in the emergency department (ED) setting. However, propofol has a narrow therapeutic window and lacks of a reversal agent. The aim of this review was to cohere the evidence base regarding the efficacy and safety profile of propofol when used in the ED setting for PS. OBJECTIVES: To identify and evaluate all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing propofol with alternative drugs (benzodiazepines, barbiturates, etomidate and ketamine) used in the ED setting for PS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1950 to September week 2 2013) and EMBASE (1980 to week 2 2013). We searched the Current Controlled Trials metaRegister of Clinical Trials (compiled by Current Science) (September 2013). We checked the reference lists of trials and contacted trial authors. We imposed no language restriction. We re-ran the search in February 2015. We will deal with the one study awaiting classification when we update the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing propofol to alternative drugs (benzodiazepines, barbiturates, etomidate and ketamine) used in the ED setting for PS in participants of all ages. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed data extraction. Two authors performed trial quality assessment. We used mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to measure effect sizes. Two authors independently assessed and rated the methodological quality of each trial using The Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies (813 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Two studies only included participants 18 years and younger; six studies only included participants 18 years and older; one study included participants between 16 and 65 years of age and one study included only adults but did not specify the age range. Eight of the included studies had a high risk of bias. The included studies were clinically heterogeneous. We undertook no meta-analysis.The primary outcome measures of this review were: adverse effects (as defined by the study authors) and participant satisfaction (as defined by the study authors). In one study comparing propofol/fentanyl with ketamine/midazolam, delayed adverse reactions (nightmares and behavioural change) were noted in 10% of the ketamine/midazolam group and none in the propofol/fentanyl group. Seven individual studies reported no evidence of a difference in adverse effects between intravenous propofol, with and without adjunctive analgesic agents, and alternative interventions. Three individual studies reported no evidence of a difference in pain at the injection site between intravenous propofol and alternative interventions. Four individual studies reported no evidence of a difference in participant satisfaction between intravenous propofol, with and without adjunctive analgesic agents, and alternative interventions (ketamine, etomidate, midazolam). All the studies employed propofol without the use of an adjunctive analgesic and all, except one, were small (fewer than 100 participants) studies. The quality of evidence for the adverse effects and participant satisfaction outcomes was very low.Nine included studies (eight comparisons) reported all the secondary outcome measures of the review except mortality. It was not possible to pool the results of the included studies for any of the secondary outcome measures because the comparator interventions were different and the measures were reported in different ways. Seven individual studies reported no evidence of difference in incidence of hypoxia between intravenous propofol, with and without adjunctive analgesic agents, and alternative interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No firm conclusions can be drawn concerning the comparative effects of administering intravenous propofol, with or without an adjunctive analgesic agent, with alternative interventions in participants undergoing PS in the ED setting on adverse effects (including pain at the injection site) and participant satisfaction. The review was limited because no two included studies employed the same comparator interventions, and because the number of participants in eight of the included studies were small (fewer than 100 participants).

Intranasal fentanyl for the management of acute pain in children.

BACKGROUND: Pain is the most common symptom in the emergency setting; however, timely management of acute pain in children continues to be suboptimal. Intranasal drug delivery has emerged as an alternative method of achieving quicker drug delivery without adding to the distress of a child by inserting an intravenous cannula. OBJECTIVES: We identified and evaluated all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials to assess the effects of intranasal fentanyl (INF) versus alternative analgesic interventions in children with acute pain, with respect to reduction in pain score, occurrence of adverse events, patient tolerability, use of "rescue analgesia," patient/parental satisfaction and patient mortality. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 1); MEDLINE (Ovid SP, from 1995 to January 2014); EMBASE (Ovid SP, from 1995 to January 2014); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO Host, from 1995 to January 2014); the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS) (BIREME, from 1995 to January 2014); Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Abstracts (from 1995 to January 2014); the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (from 1995 to January 2014); BIOSIS Previews (from 1995 to January 2014); the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (from 1995 to January 2014); International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) (from 1995 to January 2014); ClinicalTrials.gov (from 1995 to January 2014); and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (to January 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing INF versus any other pharmacological/non-pharmacological intervention for the treatment of children in acute pain (aged < 18 years). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors assessed each title and abstract for relevance. Full copies of all studies that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved for further assessment. Mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to measure effect sizes. Two review authors independently assessed and rated the methodological quality of each trial using the tool of The Cochrane Collaboration to assess risk of bias, as per Chapter 8 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies (313 participants) met the inclusion criteria. One study compared INF versus intramuscular morphine (IMM); another study compared INF versus intravenous morphine (IVM); and another study compared standard concentration INF (SINF) versus high concentration INF (HINF). All three studies reported a reduction in pain score following INF administration. INF produced a greater reduction in pain score at 10 minutes post administration when compared with IMM (INF group pain score: 1/5 vs IMM group pain score: 2/5; P value 0.014). No other statistically significant differences in pain scores were reported at any other time point. When INF was compared with IVM and HINF, no statistically significant differences in pain scores were noted between treatment arms, before analgesia or at 5, 10, 20 and 30 minutes post analgesia. Specifically, when INF was compared with IVM, both agents were seen to produce a statistically significant reduction in pain score up to 20 minutes post analgesia. No further reduction in pain score was noted after this time. When SINF was compared with HINF, a statistically and clinically significant reduction in pain scores over study time was observed (median decrease for both groups 40 mm, P value 0.000). No adverse events (e.g. opiate toxicity, death) were reported in any study following INF administration. One study described better patient tolerance to INF compared with IMM, which achieved statistical significance. The other studies described reports of a "bad taste" and vomiting with INF. Overall the risk of bias in all studies was considered low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: INF may be an effective analgesic for the treatment of patients with acute moderate to severe pain, and its administration appears to cause minimal distress to children. However, this review of published studies does not allow any definitive conclusions regarding whether INF is superior, non-inferior or equivalent to intramuscular or intravenous morphine. Limitations of this review include the following: few eligible studies for inclusion (three); no study examined the use of INF in children younger than three years of age; no study included children with pain from a "medical" cause (e.g. abdominal pain seen in appendicitis); and all eligible studies were conducted in Australia. Consequently, the findings may not be generalizable to other healthcare settings, to children younger than three years of age and to those with pain from a "medical" cause.

A qualitative study of the barriers to prehospital management of acute pain in children.

INTRODUCTION: Effective pain management in the prehospital setting is gaining momentum as a potential key performance indicator by many emergency medical service systems, but historically has been shown to be inadequate, particularly in the paediatric population. This study aimed to identify the barriers, as perceived by a national cohort of advanced paramedics (APs), to achieving optimal prehospital management of acute pain in children. METHODS: A qualitative approach was employed to capture data through two focus group interviews. Sixteen APs were invited to participate in this study. Both focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed using Attride-Stirling's framework for thematic network analysis. RESULTS: The global theme 'Understanding Barriers to the Prehospital Management of Acute Pain in Children' emerged from three organising themes as follows: AP education and training; current clinical practice guidelines for paediatric pain management; realities of prehospital practice. Limited exposure to children in the prehospital setting, difficulty assessing pain intensity in small children, and challenges in administering oral or inhaled analgesic agents to distressed and uncooperative children were highlighted by participants. Short transfer times to the emergency department, and a 'medical' cause of pain were also implicated as examples of when children are less likely to receive analgesia from practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: The pathway to improving care must include an emphasis on improvements in practitioner education and training, offering alternatives to assessing pain in preverbal children, exploring the intranasal route of drug delivery in managing acute severe pain, and robustly developed evidence-based guidelines that are practitioner friendly and patient-focused.

Mannitol for acute traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Mannitol is sometimes effective in reversing acute brain swelling, but its effectiveness in the ongoing management of severe head injury remains unclear. There is evidence that, in prolonged dosage, mannitol may pass from the blood into the brain, where it might cause increased intracranial pressure. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different mannitol therapy regimens, of mannitol compared to other intracranial pressure (ICP) lowering agents, and to quantify the effectiveness of mannitol administration given at other stages following acute traumatic brain injury. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S) and PubMed. We checked reference lists of trials and review articles, and contacted authors of trials. The search was updated on the 20th April 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of mannitol, in patients with acute traumatic brain injury of any severity. The comparison group could be placebo-controlled, no drug, different dose, or different drug. We excluded cross-over trials, and trials where the intervention was started more than eight weeks after injury. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently rated quality of allocation concealment and extracted the data. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each trial on an intention to treat basis. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four eligible randomised controlled trials. One trial compared ICP-directed therapy to 'standard care' (RR for death = 0.83; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.46). One trial compared mannitol to pentobarbital (RR for death = 0.85; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38). One trial compared mannitol to hypertonic saline (RR for death = 1.25; 95% CI 0.47 to 3.33). One trial tested the effectiveness of pre-hospital administration of mannitol against placebo (RR for death = 1.75; 95% CI 0.48 to 6.38). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Mannitol therapy for raised ICP may have a beneficial effect on mortality when compared to pentobarbital treatment, but may have a detrimental effect on mortality when compared to hypertonic saline. ICP-directed treatment shows a small beneficial effect compared to treatment directed by neurological signs and physiological indicators. There are insufficient data on the effectiveness of pre-hospital administration of mannitol.

Nitrates for acute heart failure syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Current drug therapy for acute heart failure syndromes (AHFS) consists mainly of diuretics supplemented by vasodilators or inotropes. Nitrates have been used as vasodilators in AHFS for many years and have been shown to improve some aspects of AHFS in some small studies. The aim of this review was to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of nitrate vasodilators in AHFS. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect of different nitrate preparations (isosorbide dinitrate and nitroglycerin) and the effect of route of administration of nitrates on clinical outcome, and to evaluate the safety and tolerability of nitrates in the management of AHFS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to July week 2 2011) and EMBASE (1980 to week 28 2011). We searched the Current Controlled Trials MetaRegister of Clinical Trials (compiled by Current Science) (July 2011). We checked the reference lists of trials and contacted trial authors. We imposed no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing nitrates (isosorbide dinitrate and nitroglycerin) with alternative interventions (frusemide and morphine, frusemide alone, hydralazine, prenalterol, intravenous nesiritide and placebo) in the management of AHFS in adults aged 18 and over. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed data extraction. Two authors performed trial quality assessment. We used mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to measure effect sizes. Two authors independently assessed and rated the methodological quality of each trial using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies (634 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Two of the included studies included only patients with AHFS following acute myocardial infarction (AMI); one study excluded patients with overt AMI; and one study included participants with AHFS with and without acute coronary syndromes.Based on a single study, there was no significant difference in the rapidity of symptom relief between intravenous nitroglycerin/N-acetylcysteine and intravenous frusemide/morphine after 30 minutes (fixed-effect MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.05), 60 minutes (fixed-effect MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.25), three hours (fixed-effect MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.67) and 24 hours (fixed-effect MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.31). There is no evidence to support a difference in AHFS patients receiving intravenous nitrate vasodilator therapy or alternative interventions with regard to the following outcome measures: requirement for mechanical ventilation, systolic blood pressure (SBP) change after three hours and 24 hours, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) change after 30, 60 and 90 minutes, heart rate change at 30 minutes, 60 minutes, three hours and 24 hours, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP) change after three hours and 18 hours, cardiac output (CO) change at 90 minutes and three hours and progression to myocardial infarction. There is a significantly higher incidence of adverse events after three hours with nitroglycerin compared with placebo (odds ratio 2.29, 95% CI 1.26 to 4.16) based on a single study. There was no consistent evidence to support a difference in AHFS patients receiving intravenous nitrate vasodilator therapy or alternative interventions with regard to the following secondary outcome measures: SBP change after 30 and 60 minutes, heart rate change after 90 minutes, and PAOP change after 90 minutes. None of the included studies reported healthcare costs as an outcome measure. There were no data reported by any of the studies relating to the acceptability of the treatment to the patients (patient satisfaction scores).Overall there was a paucity of relevant quality data in the included studies. Assessment of overall risk of bias in these studies was limited as three of the studies did not give sufficient detail to allow assessment of potential risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be no significant difference between nitrate vasodilator therapy and alternative interventions in the treatment of AHFS, with regard to symptom relief and haemodynamic variables. Nitrates may be associated with a lower incidence of adverse effects after three hours compared with placebo. However, there is a lack of data to draw any firm conclusions concerning the use of nitrates in AHFS because current evidence is based on few low-quality studies.

Intra-articular lignocaine versus intravenous analgesia with or without sedation for manual reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation in adults.

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence regarding the use of intra-articular lignocaine injection for the closed manual reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocations. A systematic review may help cohere the conflicting evidence. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of intra-articular lignocaine and intravenous analgesia (with or without sedation) for reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2010), and EMBASE (1980 to March 2010). We searched Current Controlled Trials metaRegister of Clinical Trials (compiled by Current Science) (March 2010). We imposed no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing intra-articular lignocaine (IAL) with intravenous analgesia with or without sedation (IVAS) in adults aged 18 years and over for reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Where possible, data were pooled and relative risks (RR) and mean differences (MD), each with 95% confidence intervals (CI), were computed using the Cochrane Review Manager statistical package (RevMan). MAIN RESULTS: Of 1041 publications obtained from the search strategy, we examined nine studies. Four studies were excluded, and five studies with 211 participants were eligible for inclusion. There was no difference in the immediate success rate of IAL when compared with IVAS in the closed manual reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.10). There were significantly fewer adverse effects associated with IAL compared with IVAS (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.43). The mean time spent in the emergency department was significantly less with IAL compared with IVAS (MD 109.46 minutes; 95% CI 84.60 to 134.32). One trial reported significantly less time for reduction with IVAS (105 seconds; 95% CI 84.0 to 126.1) compared with IAL (284.6 seconds; 95% CI 185.3 to 383.9). One trial reported no joint infection associated with intra-articular lignocaine injection and no mortality associated with either IAL or IVAS. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We observed no significant difference between IAL and IVAS with regard to the immediate success rate of reduction, pain during reduction, post-reduction pain relief and reduction failure. Compared to IVAS, IAL may be less expensive and may be associated with fewer adverse effects and a shorter recovery time.

The end of the line? The Visual Analogue Scale and Verbal Numerical Rating Scale as pain assessment tools in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Verbal Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS), in the assessment of acute pain in the emergency department (ED). Furthermore, to determine the influence of demographics on this agreement and practical limitations of the scales. SETTING: St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin; a 479-bed teaching hospital; annual ED census 36,000 adult patients. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted on ED patients with acute pain as a component of their presenting complaint. Eligible patients scored their pain on both VAS and VNRS within 1 hour of arrival. They rescored their pain every 30 minutes for 2 hours using both scales. The primary outcome measure was agreement between VAS and VNRS. Secondary outcomes were ease of pain scale use and effect of patient demographics on pain scores. Agreement between scores was evaluated using the Bland-Altman method. RESULTS: 123 patients were included (median age 35; 43.9% male). There was a strong correlation between VAS and VNRS (rs=0.93). However, there was not perfect agreement between the two scales. Patient age (older age, p<0.005, t=-4.448), gender (female sex, p<0.005, t=4.903) and educational level attained (third level education, p<0.005, t=5.575) had a statistically significant influence on the agreement between VAS and VNRS. There was a preference for VNRS in those patients who expressed a preference for one pain scale over the other. CONCLUSIONS: VAS and VNRS are not interchangeable in assessing an individual patient's pain over time in the ED setting. VNRS has practical advantages over VAS in this setting.

Prevalence and predictors of oral to intravenous antibiotic switch among adult emergency department patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: a pilot, prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and predictors of oral to intravenous antibiotic switch among adult emergency department (ED) patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). DESIGN: Multicentre, pilot cohort study. SETTING: Three urban EDs in Dublin, Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive ED patients aged >16 years old with ABSSSIs between March 2015 and September 2016. INTERVENTION: Oral flucloxacillin 500 mg-1 g four times a day (alternative in penicillin allergy). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was to determine the prevalence and predictors of oral to intravenous antibiotic switch. Secondary outcomes were to determine the prevalence and predictors of receiving an extended course of oral antibiotic treatment and measurement of interobserver reliability for clinical predictors at enrolment. RESULTS: Overall, 159 patients were enrolled of which eight were lost to follow-up and five were excluded. The majority of patients were male (65.1%) and <50 years of age (58.2%). Oral to intravenous antibiotic switch occurred in 13 patients (8.9%; 95% CI 4.8% to 14.7%). Increased lesion size (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.09 to 2.79), white cell count (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67), athlete's foot (OR 8.00; 95% CI 2.31 to 27.71) and fungal nail infections (OR 7.25; 95% CI 1.99 to 26.35) were associated with oral to intravenous antibiotic switch. 24.8% (95% CI 18.1% to 33.0%) of patients received an extended course of oral antibiotic treatment. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of oral to intravenous antibiotic switch in this pilot study is 8.9% (95% CI 4.8% to 14.7%). We identify the predictors of oral to intravenous switch worthy of future investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02230813.