Effectiveness of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine among U.S. Health Care Personnel.

BACKGROUND: The prioritization of U.S. health care personnel for early receipt of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), allowed for the evaluation of the effectiveness of these new vaccines in a real-world setting. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative case-control study involving health care personnel across 25 U.S. states. Cases were defined on the basis of a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen-based test for SARS-CoV-2 and at least one Covid-19-like symptom. Controls were defined on the basis of a negative PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms, and were matched to cases according to the week of the test date and site. Using conditional logistic regression with adjustment for age, race and ethnic group, underlying conditions, and exposures to persons with Covid-19, we estimated vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination (assessed 14 days after receipt of the first dose through 6 days after receipt of the second dose) and complete vaccination (assessed ≥7 days after receipt of the second dose). RESULTS: The study included 1482 case participants and 3449 control participants. Vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination was 77.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.9 to 82.7) with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 88.9% (95% CI, 78.7 to 94.2) with the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna); for complete vaccination, vaccine effectiveness was 88.8% (95% CI, 84.6 to 91.8) and 96.3% (95% CI, 91.3 to 98.4), respectively. Vaccine effectiveness was similar in subgroups defined according to age (<50 years or ≥50 years), race and ethnic group, presence of underlying conditions, and level of patient contact. Estimates of vaccine effectiveness were lower during weeks 9 through 14 than during weeks 3 through 8 after receipt of the second dose, but confidence intervals overlapped widely. CONCLUSIONS: The BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were highly effective under real-world conditions in preventing symptomatic Covid-19 in health care personnel, including those at risk for severe Covid-19 and those in racial and ethnic groups that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

Interim Estimates of Vaccine Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 Vaccines Among Health Care Personnel - 33 U.S. Sites, January-March 2021.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, health care personnel (HCP) have been at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, through patient interactions and community exposure (1). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended prioritization of HCP for COVID-19 vaccination to maintain provision of critical services and reduce spread of infection in health care settings (2). Early distribution of two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) to HCP allowed assessment of the effectiveness of these vaccines in a real-world setting. A test-negative case-control study is underway to evaluate mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic illness among HCP at 33 U.S. sites across 25 U.S. states. Interim analyses indicated that the VE of a single dose (measured 14 days after the first dose through 6 days after the second dose) was 82% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 74%-87%), adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and underlying medical conditions. The adjusted VE of 2 doses (measured ≥7 days after the second dose) was 94% (95% CI = 87%-97%). VE of partial (1-dose) and complete (2-dose) vaccination in this population is comparable to that reported from clinical trials and recent observational studies, supporting the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic disease in adults, with strong 2-dose protection.

Characteristics of Adult Outpatients and Inpatients with COVID-19 - 11 Academic Medical Centers, United States, March-May 2020.

Descriptions of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States have focused primarily on hospitalized patients. Reports documenting exposures to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, have generally been described within congregate settings, such as meat and poultry processing plants (1) and long-term care facilities (2). Understanding individual behaviors and demographic characteristics of patients with COVID-19 and risks for severe illness requiring hospitalization can inform efforts to reduce transmission. During April 15-May 24, 2020, telephone interviews were conducted with a random sample of adults aged ≥18 years who had positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results for SARS-CoV-2 in outpatient and inpatient settings at 11 U.S. academic medical centers in nine states. Respondents were contacted 14-21 days after SARS-CoV-2 testing and asked about their demographic characteristics, underlying chronic conditions, symptoms experienced on the date of testing, and potential exposures to SARS-CoV-2 during the 2 weeks before illness onset (or the date of testing among those who did not report symptoms at the time of testing). Among 350 interviewed patients (271 [77%] outpatients and 79 [23%] inpatients), inpatients were older, more likely to be Hispanic and to report dyspnea than outpatients. Fewer inpatients (39%, 20 of 51) reported a return to baseline level of health at 14-21 days than did outpatients (64%, 150 of 233) (p = 0.001). Overall, approximately one half (46%) of patients reported known close contact with someone with COVID-19 during the preceding 2 weeks. This was most commonly a family member (45%) or a work colleague (34%). Approximately two thirds (64%, 212 of 333) of participants were employed; only 35 of 209 (17%) were able to telework. These findings highlight the need for screening, case investigation, contact tracing, and isolation of infected persons to control transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection during periods of community transmission. The need for enhanced measures to ensure workplace safety, including ensuring social distancing and more widespread use of cloth face coverings, are warranted (3).

Symptom Duration and Risk Factors for Delayed Return to Usual Health Among Outpatients with COVID-19 in a Multistate Health Care Systems Network - United States, March-June 2020.

Prolonged symptom duration and disability are common in adults hospitalized with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Characterizing return to baseline health among outpatients with milder COVID-19 illness is important for understanding the full spectrum of COVID-19-associated illness and tailoring public health messaging, interventions, and policy. During April 15-June 25, 2020, telephone interviews were conducted with a random sample of adults aged ≥18 years who had a first positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, at an outpatient visit at one of 14 U.S. academic health care systems in 13 states. Interviews were conducted 14-21 days after the test date. Respondents were asked about demographic characteristics, baseline chronic medical conditions, symptoms present at the time of testing, whether those symptoms had resolved by the interview date, and whether they had returned to their usual state of health at the time of interview. Among 292 respondents, 94% (274) reported experiencing one or more symptoms at the time of testing; 35% of these symptomatic respondents reported not having returned to their usual state of health by the date of the interview (median = 16 days from testing date), including 26% among those aged 18-34 years, 32% among those aged 35-49 years, and 47% among those aged ≥50 years. Among respondents reporting cough, fatigue, or shortness of breath at the time of testing, 43%, 35%, and 29%, respectively, continued to experience these symptoms at the time of the interview. These findings indicate that COVID-19 can result in prolonged illness even among persons with milder outpatient illness, including young adults. Effective public health messaging targeting these groups is warranted. Preventative measures, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and the consistent and correct use of face coverings in public, should be strongly encouraged to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Supplemental thiamine for the treatment of acute heart failure syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this pilot study was to determine if a definitive clinical trial of thiamine supplementation was warranted in patients with acute heart failure. We hypothesized that thiamine, when added to standard of care, would improve dyspnea (primary outcome) in hospitalized patients with acute heart failure. Peak expiratory flow rate, type B natriuretic peptide, free fatty acids, glucose, hospital length of stay, as well as 30-day rehospitalization and mortality were pre-planned secondary outcome measures. METHODS: This was a blinded experimental study at two urban academic hospitals. Consecutive patients admitted from the Emergency Department with a primary diagnosis of acute heart failure were recruited over 2 years. Patients on a daily dietary supplement were excluded. Randomization was stratified by type B natriuretic peptide and diabetes medication categories. Subjects received study drug (100 mg thiamine or placebo) in the evening of their first and second day. Outcome measures were obtained 8 h after study drug infusion. Dyspnea was measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale sitting up on oxygen, sitting up off oxygen, and lying supine off oxygen with 0 indicating no dyspnea. Data were analyzed using mixed-models as well as linear, negative binomial and logistic regression models to assess the impact of group on outcome measures. RESULTS: Of 130 subjects randomized, 118 had evaluable data (55 in the control and 63 in the treatment groups), 89% in both groups were adjudicated to have primarily AHF. Thiamine values increased significantly in the treatment group and were unchanged in the control group. One patient had thiamine deficiency. Only dyspnea measured sitting upright on oxygen differed significantly by group over time. No change was found for the other measures of dyspnea and all of the secondary measures. CONCLUSIONS: In mild-moderate acute heart failure patients without thiamine deficiency, a standard dosing regimen of thiamine did not improve dyspnea, biomarkers, or other clinical parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00680706 , May 20, 2008 (retrospectively registered).

Independent evaluation of a simple clinical prediction rule to identify right ventricular dysfunction in patients with shortness of breath.

BACKGROUND: Many patients have unexplained persistent dyspnea after negative computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA). We hypothesized that many of these patients have isolated right ventricular (RV) dysfunction from treatable causes. We previously derived a clinical decision rule (CDR) for predicting RV dysfunction consisting of persistent dyspnea and normal CTPA, finding that 53% of CDR-positive patients had isolated RV dysfunction. Our goal is to validate this previously derived CDR by measuring the prevalence of RV dysfunction and outcomes in dyspneic emergency department patients. METHODS: A secondary analysis of a prospective observational multicenter study that enrolled patients presenting with suspected PE was performed. We included patients with persistent dyspnea, a nonsignificant CTPA, and formal echo performed. Right ventricular dysfunction was defined as RV hypokinesis and/or dilation with or without moderate to severe tricuspid regurgitation. RESULTS: A total of 7940 patients were enrolled. Two thousand six hundred sixteen patients were analyzed after excluding patients without persistent dyspnea and those with a significant finding on CTPA. One hundred ninety eight patients had echocardiography performed as standard care. Of those, 19% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14%-25%) and 33% (95% CI, 25%-42%) exhibited RV dysfunction and isolated RV dysfunction, respectively. Patients with isolated RV dysfunction or overload were more likely than those without RV dysfunction to have a return visit to the emergency department within 45 days for the same complaint (39% vs 18%; 95% CI of the difference, 4%-38%). CONCLUSION: This simple clinical prediction rule predicted a 33% prevalence of isolated RV dysfunction or overload. Patients with isolated RV dysfunction had higher recidivism rates and a trend toward worse outcomes.

Emergency medicine residents' knowledge of mechanical ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Although Emergency physicians frequently intubate patients, management of mechanical ventilation has not been emphasized in emergency medicine (EM) residency curricula. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to quantify EM residents' education, experience, and knowledge regarding mechanical ventilation. METHODS: We developed a survey of residents' educational experiences with ventilators and an assessment tool with nine clinical questions. Correlation and regression analyses were performed to evaluate the relationship between residents' scores on the assessment instrument and their training, education, and comfort with ventilation. RESULTS: Of 312 EM residents, 218 responded (69.9%). The overall correct response rate for the assessment tool was 73.3%, standard deviation (SD) ± 22.3. Seventy-seven percent (n = 167) of respondents reported ≤ 3 h of mechanical ventilation education in their residency curricula over the past year. Residents reported frequently caring for ventilated patients in the ED, as 64% (n = 139) recalled caring for ≥ 4 ventilated patients per month. Fifty-three percent (n = 116) of residents endorsed feeling comfortable caring for mechanically ventilated ED patients. In multiregression analysis, the only significant predictor of total test score was residents' comfort with caring for mechanically ventilated patients (F = 10.963, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: EM residents report caring for mechanically ventilated patients frequently, but receive little education on mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, as residents' performance on the assessment tool is only correlated with their self-reported comfort with caring for ventilated patients, these results demonstrate an opportunity for increased educational focus on mechanical ventilation management in EM residency training.

A standardized protocol using clinical adjudication to define true infection status in patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected infections and/or sepsis.

In absence of a "gold standard", a standardized clinical adjudication process was developed for a registrational trial of a transcriptomic host response (HR) test. Two physicians independently reviewed clinical data to adjudicate presence and source of bacterial and viral infections in emergency department patients. Discordant cases were resolved by a third physician. Agreement among 955 cases was 74.1% (708/955) for bacterial, 75.6% (722/955) for viral infections, and 71.2% (680/955) overall. Most discordances were minor (85.2%; 409/480) versus moderate (11.7%; 56/480) or complete (3.3%; 16/480). Concordance levels were lowest for bacterial skin and soft tissue infections (8.2%) and for viral respiratory tract infections (4.5%). This robust adjudication process can be used to evaluate HR tests and other diagnostics by regulatory agencies and for educating clinicians, laboratorians, and clinical researchers. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04094818. SUMMARY: Without a gold standard for evaluating host response tests, clinical adjudication is a robust reference standard that is essential to determine the true infection status in diagnostic registrational clinical studies.

Effectiveness of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection among U.S. Healthcare personnel, September 2022-May 2023.

BACKGROUND: Bivalent mRNA vaccines were recommended since September 2022. However, coverage with a recent vaccine dose has been limited, and there are few robust estimates of bivalent VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against COVID-19 among eligible U.S. healthcare personnel who had previously received monovalent mRNA vaccine doses. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study in 22 U.S. states, and enrolled healthcare personnel with COVID-19 (case-participants) or without COVID-19 (control-participants) during September 2022-May 2023. Participants were considered eligible for a bivalent mRNA dose if they had received 2-4 monovalent (ancestral-strain) mRNA vaccine doses, and were ≥67 days after the most recent vaccine dose. We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA dose using conditional logistic regression, accounting for matching by region and four-week calendar period. We adjusted estimates for age group, sex, race and ethnicity, educational level, underlying health conditions, community COVID-19 exposure, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and days since the last monovalent mRNA dose. RESULTS: Among 3,647 healthcare personnel, 1,528 were included as case-participants and 2,119 as control-participants. Participants received their last monovalent mRNA dose a median of 404 days previously; 1,234 (33.8%) also received a bivalent mRNA dose a median of 93 days previously. Overall, VE of a bivalent dose was 34.1% (95% CI, 22.6%-43.9%) against COVID-19 and was similar by product, days since last monovalent dose, number of prior doses, age group, and presence of underlying health conditions. However, VE declined from 54.8% (95% CI, 40.7%-65.6%) after 7-59 days to 21.6% (95% CI 5.6%-34.9%) after ≥60 days. CONCLUSIONS: Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines initially conferred approximately 55% protection against COVID-19 among U.S. healthcare personnel. However, protection waned after two months. These findings indicate moderate initial protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection by remaining up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccines.

Factors associated with the decision to receive bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccination among health care personnel.

COVID-19 vaccination is effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 complications, but uptake has been low. Our objective in this study was to compare the importance of factors reported to influence the decision to receive a bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccine among health care personnel (HCP) tested for SARS-CoV-2 between October 2022 and April 2023 in a 20-hospital vaccine effectiveness study in the United States (n = 1656). Compared with those who had not received the booster, the factors most likely to be reported to be important were concerns about contracting COVID-19 (84.0% of those who had received the bivalent booster vs. 47.5% of those who had not, difference 36.6% points (PP), 95% confidence interval [CI] 32.1 to 41.1%), spreading infection to family members (89.2% vs. 62.8%, difference 26.3 PP, 95% CI 22.3 to 30.4%), and spreading infection to colleagues at work (85.5% vs. 59.4%, difference 26.1 PP, 95% CI 21.7 to 30.5%). HCP who had received the booster more frequently cited the primary literature (61.7% vs. 31.8%, difference 29.9 PP, 95% CI 24.6 to 35.2%) and employer recommendations (48.3% vs. 29.8%, difference 18.5 PP, 95% CI 13.2 to 23.9%) as influencing their decision. This analysis provides insight into factors for targeting future vaccine messaging.

Effectiveness of a Messenger RNA Vaccine Booster Dose Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Among US Healthcare Personnel, October 2021-July 2022.

Background: Protection against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) can limit transmission and the risk of post-COVID conditions, and is particularly important among healthcare personnel. However, lower vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been reported since predominance of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant. Methods: We evaluated the VE of a monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) booster dose against COVID-19 from October 2021 to June 2022 among US healthcare personnel. After matching case-participants with COVID-19 to control-participants by 2-week period and site, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate the VE of a booster dose compared with completing only 2 mRNA doses >150 days previously, adjusted for multiple covariates. Results: Among 3279 case-participants and 3998 control-participants who had completed 2 mRNA doses, we estimated that the VE of a booster dose against COVID-19 declined from 86% (95% confidence interval, 81%-90%) during Delta predominance to 65% (58%-70%) during Omicron predominance. During Omicron predominance, VE declined from 73% (95% confidence interval, 67%-79%) 14-60 days after the booster dose, to 32% (4%-52%) ≥120 days after a booster dose. We found that VE was similar by age group, presence of underlying health conditions, and pregnancy status on the test date, as well as among immunocompromised participants. Conclusions: A booster dose conferred substantial protection against COVID-19 among healthcare personnel. However, VE was lower during Omicron predominance, and waning effectiveness was observed 4 months after booster dose receipt during this period. Our findings support recommendations to stay up to date on recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccines for all those eligible.

Pharmacokinetics of high-dose oral thiamine hydrochloride in healthy subjects.

BACKGROUND: High dose oral thiamine may have a role in treating diabetes, heart failure, and hypermetabolic states. The purpose of this study was to determine the pharmacokinetic profile of oral thiamine hydrochloride at 100 mg, 500 mg and 1500 mg doses in healthy subjects. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, single-dose, 4-way crossover study. Pharmacokinetic measures were calculated. RESULTS: The AUC0₋10 hr and C(max) values increased nonlinearly between 100 mg and 1500 mg. The slope of the AUC0₋10 hr vs dose, as well as the C(max) vs dose, plots are steepest at the lowest thiamine doses. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that high blood levels of thiamine can be achieved rapidly with oral thiamine hydrochloride. Thiamine is absorbed by both an active and nonsaturable passive process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00981877.

D-dimer and exhaled CO2/O2 to detect segmental pulmonary embolism in moderate-risk patients.

RATIONALE: Pulmonary embolism (PE) decreases the exhaled end-tidal ratio of carbon dioxide to oxygen (etCO(2)/O(2)). OBJECTIVES: To test if the etCO(2)/O(2) can produce clinically important changes in the probability of segmental or larger PE on computerized tomography multidetector-row pulmonary angiography (MDCTPA) in a moderate-risk population with a positive D-dimer. METHODS: Emergency department and hospitalized patients with one or more predefined symptoms or signs, one or more risk factors for PE, and 64-slice MDCTPA enrolled from four hospitals. D-dimer greater than 499 ng/ml was test(+), and D-dimer less than 500 ng/ml was test(-). The median etCO(2)/O(2) less than 0.28 from seven or more breaths was test(+) and etCO(2)/O(2) greater than 0.45 was test(-). MDCTPA images were read by two independent radiologists and the criterion standard was the interpretation of acute PE by either reader. PE size was then graded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We enrolled 495 patients, including 60 (12%) with segmental or larger, and 29 (6%) with subsegmental PE. A total of 367 (74%) patients were D-dimer(+), including all 60 with segmental or larger PE (posterior probability 16%). The combination of D-dimer(+) and etCO(2)/O(2)(+) increased the posterior probability of segmental or larger PE to 28% (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference of 12%, 3.0-22%). The combination of D-dimer(+) and etCO(2)/O(2)(-) was observed in 40 patients (8%; 95% CI, 6-11%), and none (0/40; 95% CI, 0-9%) had segmental or larger PE on MDCTPA. No strategy changed the prevalence of subsegmental PE. CONCLUSIONS: In moderate-risk patients with a positive D-dimer, the et etCO(2)/O(2) less than 0.28 significantly increases the probability of segmental or larger PE and the etCO(2)/O(2) greater than 0.45 predicts the absence of segmental or larger PE on MDCTPA.

Emergency department medication lists are not accurate.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors are a common source of adverse events. Errors in the home medication list may impact care in the Emergency Department (ED), the hospital, and the home. Medication reconciliation, a Joint Commission requirement, begins with an accurate home medication list. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of the ED home medication list. METHODS: Prospective, observational study of patients aged > 64 years admitted to the hospital. After obtaining informed consent, a home medication list was compiled by research staff after consultation with the patient, their family and, when appropriate, their pharmacy and primary care doctor. This home medication list was not available to ED staff and was not placed in the ED chart. ED records were then reviewed by a physician, blinded to the research-generated home medication list, using a standardized data sheet to record the ED list of medications. The research-generated home medication list was compared to the standard medication list and the number of omissions, duplications, and dosing errors was determined. RESULTS: There were 98 patients enrolled in the study; 56% (55/98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 46-66%) of the medication lists for these patients had an omission and 80% (78/98, 95% CI 70-87%) had a dosing or frequency error; 87% of ED medication lists had at least one error (85/98, 95% CI 78-93%). CONCLUSION: Our findings now add the ED to the list of other areas within health care with inaccurate medication lists. Strategies are needed that support ED providers in obtaining and communicating accurate and complete medication histories.

Geography and travel distance impact emergency department visits.

BACKGROUND: Little has been written about the geographic basis of emergency department (ED) visits. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to describe the impact of geography on ED visits. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of ED visits during a 1-year period at a single institution using spatial interaction analysis that models the pattern of flow between a series of origins (census block groups) and a destination (ED). Patients were assigned to census block groups based upon their verified home address. The study hospital is the only Level I trauma, pediatric, and tertiary referral center in the area. There are 11 other hospitals with EDs within a 40-mile radius. Each patient visit within this radius, including repeat visits, was included. Patients with an invalid home address, a post office box address, or those who lived outside a 40-mile radius were excluded. ED visits per 100 population were calculated for each census block group. RESULTS: There were 98,584 (95%) visits by 63,524 patients that met study inclusion criteria. Visit rates decreased with increasing distance from the ED (p < 0.0001). Nineteen percent of patients lived within 2 miles, 48% within 4 miles, and 92% within 12 miles of the ED. The Connecticut border, 7 miles south of the ED (p < 0.0001), the Connecticut River, 1 mile west of the ED (p < 0.0001), and the presence of a competing ED within 1 mile (p < 0.0001) negatively impacted block group ED visit rates. Travel distance was related to the percentage of visits that were high acuity (p < 0.0001), daytime (p < 0.01), or resulted in admission (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Geography and travel distance significantly impact ED visits.

A randomized placebo-controlled study of intravenous montelukast for the treatment of acute asthma.

BACKGROUND: Current treatments for acute asthma provide inadequate benefit for some patients. Intravenous montelukast may complement existent therapies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy of intravenous montelukast as adjunctive therapy for acute asthma. METHODS: A total of 583 adults with acute asthma were treated with standard care during a < or = 60-minute screening period. Patients with FEV(1) < or =50% predicted were randomly allocated to intravenous montelukast 7 mg (n = 291) or placebo (n = 292) in addition to standard care. This double-blind treatment period lasted until a decision for discharge, hospital admission, or discontinuation from the study. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time-weighted average change in FEV(1) during 60 minutes after drug administration. Secondary endpoints included the time-weighted average change in FEV(1) at various intervals (10-120 minutes) and percentage of patients with treatment failure (defined as hospitalization or lack of decision to discharge by 3 hours postadministration). RESULTS: Montelukast significantly increased FEV(1) at 60 minutes postdose; the difference between change from baseline for placebo (least-squares mean of 0.22 L; 95% CI, 0.17, 0.27) and montelukast (0.32 L; 95% CI, 0.27, 0.37) was 0.10 L (95% CI, 0.04, 0.16). Similar improvements in FEV(1)-related variables were seen at all time points (all P <.05). Although treatment failure did not differ between groups (OR 0.92; 95% CI, 0.63, 1.34), a prespecified subgroup analysis suggests likely benefit for intravenous montelukast at US sites. CONCLUSION: Intravenous montelukast added to standard care in adults with acute asthma produced significant relief of airway obstruction throughout the 2 hours after administration, with an onset of action as early as 10 minutes.

12-lead ECG findings of pulmonary hypertension occur more frequently in emergency department patients with pulmonary embolism than in patients without pulmonary embolism.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Acute pulmonary embolism can produce abnormalities on ECG that reflect severity of pulmonary hypertension. Early recognition of these findings may alter the estimated pretest probability of pulmonary embolism and prompt more aggressive treatment before hemodynamic instability ensues, but it is first important to test whether these findings are specific to patients with pulmonary embolism. We hypothesize that ECG findings consistent with pulmonary hypertension would be observed more frequently in patients with pulmonary embolism. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a prospective, observational cohort of emergency department patients who were tested for pulmonary embolism. ECGs were ordered at clinician's discretion and interpreted at presentation. RESULTS: Six thousand forty-nine patients had an ECG, 354 (5.9%) of whom were diagnosed with pulmonary embolism. The frequency, positive likelihood ratio (LR+) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of each predictor were as follows: S1Q3T3 8.5% with pulmonary embolism versus 3.3% without pulmonary embolism (LR+ 3.7; 95% CI 2.5 to 5.4); nonsinus rhythm, 23.5% versus 16.6% (LR+ 1.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.7); inverted T waves in V1 to V2, 14.4% versus 8.1% (LR+ 1.8; 95% CI 1.3 to 2.3); inversion in V1 to V3, 10.5% versus 4.0% (LR+ 2.6; 95% CI 1.9 to 3.6); inversion in V1 to V4, 7.3% versus 2.0% (LR+ 3.7; 95% CI 2.4 to 5.5); incomplete right bundle branch block, 4.8% versus 2.8% (LR+ 1.7; 95% CI 1.0 to 2.7); tachycardia (pulse rate >100 beats/min), 28.8% versus 15.7% (LR+ 1.8; 95% CI 1.5 to 2.2). Likelihood ratios and specificities were similar when patients with previous cardiopulmonary disease were excluded from analysis. CONCLUSION: Findings of acute pulmonary hypertension were infrequent overall but were observed more frequently in patients with the final diagnosis of pulmonary embolism compared with patients who do not have pulmonary embolism.

Clinical features from the history and physical examination that predict the presence or absence of pulmonary embolism in symptomatic emergency department patients: results of a prospective, multicenter study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Prediction rules for pulmonary embolism use variables explicitly shown to estimate the probability of pulmonary embolism. However, clinicians often use variables that have not been similarly validated, yet are implicitly believed to modify probability of pulmonary embolism. The objective of this study is to measure the predictive value of 13 implicit variables. METHODS: Patients were enrolled in a prospective cohort study from 12 centers in the United States; all had an objective test for pulmonary embolism (D-dimer, computed tomographic angiography, or ventilation-perfusion scan). Clinical features including 12 predefined previously validated (explicit) variables and 13 variables not part of existing prediction rules (implicit) were prospectively recorded at presentation. The primary outcome was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis), diagnosed by imaging up to 45 days after enrollment. Variables with adjusted odds ratios from logistic regression with 95% confidence intervals not crossing unity were considered significant. RESULTS: Seven thousand nine hundred forty patients (7.2% venous thromboembolism positive) were enrolled. Mean age was 49 years (standard deviation 17 years) and 67% were female patients. Eight of 13 implicit variables were significantly associated with venous thromboembolism; those with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) greater than 1.5 included non-cancer-related thrombophilia (OR 1.99), pleuritic chest pain (OR 1.53), and family history of venous thromboembolism (OR 1.51). Implicit variables that predicted no venous thromboembolism outcome included substernal chest pain, female sex, and smoking. Nine of 12 explicit variables predicted a positive outcome of venous thromboembolism, including patient history of pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis in the past, unilateral leg swelling, recent surgery, estrogen, hypoxemia, and active malignancy. CONCLUSION: In symptomatic outpatients being considered for possible pulmonary embolism, non-cancer-related thrombophilia, pleuritic chest pain, and family history of venous thromboembolism increase probability of pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis. Other variables that are part of existing pretest probability systems were validated as important predictors in this diverse sample of US emergency department patients.

Pulse oximetry using a disposable finger sensor placed on the forehead in hypoxic patients.

BACKGROUND: Disposable pulse oximetry sensors designed for the finger are sometimes placed on the forehead. Although finger sensors have not been designed to accurately measure arterial oxygen saturation when placed on other body parts, they are used on the forehead when an oximetry waveform cannot be obtained from the finger. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this prospective observational study was to measure the agreement between disposable transmittal sensors placed on the finger and the same sensors placed on the forehead. METHODS: We used a convenience sample of hypoxic emergency department patients. Patients were attached to three oximeters: 1) a non-disposable finger sensor (reference); 2) a disposable finger sensor placed on the finger; and 3) a disposable finger sensor placed on the forehead. Data were analyzed using the Bland-Altman method. A difference of 5% was considered clinically significant. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were approached, and 20 were enrolled. Eleven of the patients had an absolute difference between the disposable finger sensor placed on the finger compared to the forehead > or = 5%. CONCLUSION: Pulse oximetry measurements taken on the forehead using a disposable finger sensor were inaccurate in over half of the subjects. Therefore, disposable finger oximetry sensors should not be placed on the forehead.

Emergency department patients who stay more than 6 hours contribute to crowding.

BACKGROUND: Admitted and discharged patients with prolonged emergency department (ED) stays may contribute to crowding by utilizing beds and staff time that would otherwise be used for new patients. OBJECTIVES: To describe patients who stay > 6 h in the ED and determine their association with measures of crowding. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study carried out over 1 year at a single, urban, academic ED. RESULTS: Of the 96,562 patients seen, 16,017 (17%) stayed > 6 h (51% admitted). When there was at least one patient staying > 6 h, 60% of the time there was at least one additional patient in the waiting room who could not be placed in an ED bed because none was open. The walk-out rate was 0.34 patients/hour when there were no patients staying in the ED > 6 h, vs. 0.77 patients/hour walking out when there were patients staying > 6 h in the ED (p < 0.001). When the ED contained more than 3 patients staying > 6 h, a trend was noted between increasing numbers of patients staying in the ED > 6 h and the percentage of time the ED was on ambulance diversion (p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: In our ED, having both admitted and discharged patients staying > 6 h is associated with crowding.