Post-COVID-19 condition symptoms among emergency department patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Symptoms of the Post-COVID-19 Condition are often non-specific making it a challenge to distinguish them from symptoms due to other medical conditions. In this study, we compare the proportion of emergency department patients who developed symptoms consistent with the World Health Organization's Post-COVID-19 Condition clinical case definition between those who tested positive for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 infection and time-matched patients who tested negative. Our results show that over one-third of emergency department patients with a proven acute infection meet Post-COVID-19 Condition criteria 3 months post-index visit. However, one in five test-negative patients who claim never having been infected also report symptoms consistent with Post-COVID-19 Condition highlighting the lack of specificity of the clinical case definition. Testing for SARS-CoV-2 during the acute phase of a suspected infection should continue until specific biomarkers of Post-COVID-19 Condition become available for diagnosis and treatment.

Opioid prescribing requirements to minimize unused medications after an emergency department visit for acute pain: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Unused opioid prescriptions can be a driver of opioid misuse. Our objective was to determine the optimal quantity of opioids to prescribe to patients with acute pain at emergency department discharge, in order to meet their analgesic needs while limiting the amount of unused opioids. METHODS: In a prospective, multicentre cohort study, we included consecutive patients aged 18 years and older with an acute pain condition present for less than 2 weeks who were discharged from emergency department with an opioid prescription. Participants completed a pain medication diary for real-time recording of quantity, doses, and names of all analgesics consumed during a 14-day follow-up period. RESULTS: We included 2240 participants, who had a mean age of 51 years; 48% were female. Over 14 days, participants consumed a median of 5 (quartiles, 1-14) morphine 5 mg tablet equivalents, with significant variation across pain conditions (p < 0.001). Most opioid tablets prescribed (63%) were unused. To meet the opioid need of 80% of patients for 2 weeks, we found that those experiencing renal colic or abdominal pain required fewer opioid tablets (8 morphine 5 mg tablet equivalents) than patients who had fractures (24 tablets), back pain (21 tablets), neck pain (17 tablets), or other musculoskeletal pain (16 tablets). INTERPRETATION: Two-thirds of opioid tablets prescribed at emergency department discharge for acute pain were unused, whereas opioid requirements varied significantly based on the cause of acute pain. Smaller, cause-specific opioid prescriptions could provide adequate pain management while reducing the risk of opioid misuse. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT03953534.

Factors associated with frequent buprenorphine / naloxone initiation in a national survey of Canadian emergency physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To identify individual and site-related factors associated with frequent emergency department (ED) buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP) initiation. BUP initiation, an effective opioid use disorder (OUD) intervention, varies widely across Canadian EDs. METHODS: We surveyed emergency physicians in 6 Canadian provinces from 2018 to 2019 using bilingual paper and web-based questionnaires. Survey domains included BUP-related practice, demographics, attitudes toward BUP, and site characteristics. We defined frequent BUP initiation (the primary outcome) as at least once per month, high OUD prevalence as at least one OUD patient per shift, and high OUD resources as at least 3 out of the following 5 resources: BUP initiation pathways, BUP in ED, peer navigators, accessible addiction specialists, and accessible follow-up clinics. We excluded responses from sites with <50% participation (to minimize non-responder bias) and those missing the primary outcome. We used univariate analysis to identify associations between frequent BUP initiation and factors of interest, stratifying by OUD prevalence. RESULTS: We excluded 3 responses for missing BUP initiation frequency and 9 for low response rate at one ED. Of the remaining 649 respondents from 34 EDs, 374 (58%) practiced in metropolitan areas, 384 (59%) reported high OUD prevalence, 312 (48%) had high OUD resources, and 161 (25%) initiated BUP frequently. Age, gender, board certification and years in practice were not associated with frequent BUP initiation. Site-specific factors were associated with frequent BUP initiation (high OUD resources [OR 6.91], high OUD prevalence [OR 4.45], and metropolitan location [OR 2.39],) as were individual attitudinal factors (willingness, confidence, and responsibility to initiate BUP.) Similar associations persisted in the high OUD prevalence subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Individual attitudinal and site-specific factors were associated with frequent BUP initiation. Training to increase physician confidence and increasing OUD resources could increase BUP initiation and benefit ED patients with OUD.

An emergency-department-initiated outreach program for patients with opioid use disorder is associated with an increase in agonist therapy and engagement in addictions care: a one-year cohort study.

BACKGROUND: People with opioid use disorder (OUD) are high-risk for short-term mortality and morbidity. Emergency department (ED) interventions can reduce those risks, but benefits wane without ongoing community follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an ED-based intensive community outreach program. METHODS: At two urban EDs between October 2019 and March 2020, we enrolled patients with OUD not currently on opioid agonist therapy (OAT) in a prospective cohort study evaluating a one-year intensive community outreach program, which provided ongoing addictions care, housing resources, and community support. We surveyed patients at intake and at scheduled outreach encounters at one, two, six, and twelve months. Follow-up surveys assessed OAT uptake, addictions care engagement, housing status, quality of life scores, illicit opioid use, and outreach helpfulness. We used descriptive statistics for each period and conducted sensitivity and subgroup analyses to account for missing data. RESULTS: Of 84 baseline participants, 29% were female and 32% were housed, with a median age of 33. Sixty participants (71%) completed at least one follow-up survey. Survey completion rates were 37%, 38%, 39%, and 40% respectively at one, two, six, and twelve months. Participants had a median of three outreach encounters. Among respondents, OAT was 0% at enrolment and ranged from 38% to 56% at follow-up; addictions care engagement was 22% at enrolment and ranged from 65% to 81% during follow-up; and housing was 40% at enrolment and ranged from 48% to 59% during follow-up. Improvements from baseline to follow-up occurred for all time periods. OAT and engagement in care benefits were maintained in sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Respondents rated the outreach program as helpful at all time periods, CONCLUSION: An ED-initiated intensive outreach program for patients with OUD not yet on OAT was associated with a persistent increase in OAT use and engagement in care, as well as housing.

Patient opinion and acceptance of emergency department buprenorphine/naloxone to-go home initiation packs.

OBJECTIVES: Many emergency department (ED) patients with opioid use disorder are candidates for home buprenorphine/naloxone initiation with to-go packs. We studied patient opinions and acceptance of buprenorphine/naloxone to-go packs, and factors associated with their acceptance. METHODS: We identified patients at two urban EDs in British Columbia who met opioid use disorder criteria, were not presently on opioid agonist therapy and not in active withdrawal. We offered patients buprenorphine/naloxone to-go as standard of care and then administered a survey to record buprenorphine/naloxone to-go acceptance, the primary outcome. Survey domains included current substance use, prior experience with opioid agonist therapy, and buprenorphine/naloxone related opinions. Patient factors were examined for association with buprenorphine/naloxone to-go acceptance. RESULTS: Of the 89 patients enrolled, median age was 33 years, 27% were female, 67.4% had previously taken buprenorphine/naloxone, and 19.1% had never taken opioid agonist therapy. Overall, 78.7% believed that EDs should dispense buprenorphine/naloxone to-go packs. Thirty-eight (42.7%) patients accepted buprenorphine/naloxone to-go. Buprenorphine/naloxone to-go acceptance was associated with lack of prior opioid agonist therapy, less than 10 years of opioid use and no injection drug use. Reasons to accept included initiating treatment while in withdrawal; reasons to reject included prior unsatisfactory buprenorphine/naloxone experience and interest in other treatments. CONCLUSION: Although less than half of our study population accepted buprenorphine/naloxone to-go when offered, most thought this intervention was beneficial. In isolation, ED buprenorphine/naloxone to-go will not meet the needs of all patients with opioid use disorder. Clinicians and policy makers should consider buprenorphine/naloxone to-go as a low-barrier option for opioid use disorder treatment from the ED when integrated with robust addiction care services.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: De nombreux patients des services d'urgence (SU) atteints d'un trouble lié à la consommation d'opioïdes sont des candidats à l'initiation à la buprénorphine/naloxone à domicile avec des trousses à emporter. Nous avons étudié les opinions des patients et l'acceptation des paquets de buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter, ainsi que les facteurs associés à leur acceptation. MéTHODES: Nous avons identifié des patients à deux urgences urbaines de la Colombie-Britannique qui répondaient aux critères relatifs aux troubles liés à l'utilisation d'opioïdes, qui ne suivaient pas actuellement un traitement aux agonistes des opioïdes et qui n'étaient pas en sevrage actif. Nous avons offert aux patients la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter comme norme de soins, puis nous avons administré une enquête pour enregistrer l'acceptation de la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter, le critère de jugement principal. Les domaines d'enquête comprenaient la consommation actuelle de substances, l'expérience antérieure avec le traitement aux agonistes opioïdes et les opinions liées à la buprénorphine/naloxone. Les facteurs du patient ont été examinés pour déterminer l'association avec l'acceptation de la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter. RéSULTATS: Sur 89 patients inscrits, l'âge médian était de 33 ans, 27,0% étaient des femmes, 67,4% avaient déjà pris de la buprénorphine/naloxone et 19,1% n'avaient jamais pris de traitement aux agonistes opioïdes. Dans l'ensemble, 78,7% des répondants étaient d'avis que les SU devraient distribuer des paquets de buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter. Trente-huit (42,7%) patients ont accepté la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter. L'acceptation de la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter était associée à l'absence de traitement antérieur par agonistes opioïdes, à moins de 10 ans d'utilisation d'opioïdes et à l'absence de consommation de drogues injectables. Les raisons d'accepter comprenaient le fait de commencer un traitement pendant le sevrage; les raisons de rejeter comprenaient une expérience antérieure insatisfaisante de buprénorphine/naloxone et un intérêt pour d'autres traitements. CONCLUSION: Bien que moins de la moitié de notre population à l'étude ait accepté la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter lorsqu'elle lui était offerte, la plupart ont pensé que cette intervention était bénéfique. Isolément, la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter à l'urgence ne répondra pas aux besoins de tous les patients atteints de troubles liés à l'utilisation d'opioïdes. Les cliniciens et les décideurs devraient considérer la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter comme une option à faible barrière pour le traitement des troubles liés à la consommation d'opioïdes par l'urgence lorsqu'elle est intégrée à de solides services de soins de la toxicomanie.

Efficacy of prescribed opioids for acute pain after being discharged from the emergency department: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are often prescribed for acute pain to patients discharged from the emergency department (ED), but there is a paucity of data on their short-term use. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the evidence regarding the efficacy of prescribed opioids compared to nonopioid analgesics for acute pain relief in ED-discharged patients. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and gray literature databases were searched from inception to January 2023. Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of prescribed opioids for ED-discharged patients, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Authors were contacted for missing data and to identify additional studies. The primary outcome was the difference in pain intensity scores or pain relief. All meta-analyses used a random-effect model and a sensitivity analysis compared patients treated with codeine versus those treated with other opioids. RESULTS: From 5419 initially screened citations, 46 full texts were evaluated and six studies enrolling 1161 patients were included. Risk of bias was low for five studies. There was no statistically significant difference in pain intensity scores or pain relief between opioids versus nonopioid analgesics (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.10 to 0.34). Contrary to children, adult patients treated with opioid had better pain relief (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.13-0.42) compared to nonopioids. In another sensitivity analysis excluding studies using codeine, opioids were more effective than nonopioids (SMD 0.30, 95% CI 0.15-0.45). However, there were more adverse events associated with opioids (odds ratio 2.64, 95% CI 2.04-3.42). CONCLUSIONS: For ED-discharged patients with acute musculoskeletal pain, opioids do not seem to be more effective than nonopioid analgesics. However, this absence of efficacy seems to be driven by codeine, as opioids other than codeine are more effective than nonopioids (mostly NSAIDs). Further prospective studies on the efficacy of short-term opioid use after ED discharge (excluding codeine), measuring patient-centered outcomes, adverse events, and potential misuse, are needed.

Accuracy of Self-Reported COVID-19 Vaccination Status Compared With a Public Health Vaccination Registry in Québec: Observational Diagnostic Study.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of self-reported vaccination status is important to guide real-world vaccine effectiveness studies and policy making in jurisdictions where access to electronic vaccine registries is restricted. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the accuracy of self-reported vaccination status and reliability of the self-reported number of doses, brand, and time of vaccine administration. METHODS: This diagnostic accuracy study was completed by the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network. We enrolled consecutive patients presenting to 4 emergency departments (EDs) in Québec between March 24, 2020, and December 25, 2021. We included adult patients who were able to consent, could speak English or French, and had a proven COVID-19 infection. We compared the self-reported vaccination status of the patients with their vaccination status in the electronic Québec Vaccination Registry. Our primary outcome was the accuracy of the self-reported vaccination status (index test) ascertained during telephone follow-up compared with the Québec Vaccination Registry (reference standard). The accuracy was calculated by dividing all correctly self-reported vaccinated and unvaccinated participants by the sum of all correctly and incorrectly self-reported vaccinated and unvaccinated participants. We also reported interrater agreement with the reference standard as measured by unweighted Cohen κ for self-reported vaccination status at telephone follow-up and at the time of their index ED visit, number of vaccine doses, and brand. RESULTS: During the study period, we included 1361 participants. At the time of the follow-up interview, 932 participants reported at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The accuracy of the self-reported vaccination status was 96% (95% CI 95%-97%). Cohen κ for self-reported vaccination status at phone follow-up was 0.91 (95% CI 0.89-0.93) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.77-0.92) at the time of their index ED visit. Cohen κ was 0.89 (95% CI 0.87-0.91) for the number of doses, 0.80 (95% CI 0.75-0.84) for the brand of the first dose, 0.76 (95% CI 0.70-0.83) for the brand of the second dose, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.34-0.83) for the brand of the third dose. CONCLUSIONS: We reported a high accuracy of self-reported vaccination status for adult patients without cognitive disorders who can express themselves in English or French. Researchers can use self-reported COVID-19 vaccination data on the number of doses received, vaccine brand name, and timing of vaccination to guide future research with patients who are capable of self-reporting their vaccination data. However, access to official electronic vaccine registries is still needed to determine the vaccination status in certain susceptible populations where self-reported vaccination data remain missing or impossible to obtain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04702945; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04702945.

Impact of vitamin C on the reduction of opioid consumption after an emergency department visit for acute musculoskeletal pain: a double-blind randomised control trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Recent evidence has shown that vitamin C has some analgesic properties in addition to its antioxidant effect and can, therefore, reduce opioid use during recovery time. Vitamin C analgesic effect has been explored mostly during short-term postoperative context or in disease-specific chronic pain prevention, but never after acute musculoskeletal injuries, which are often seen in the emergency department (ED). The protocol's primary aim is to compare the total morphine 5 mg pills consumed during a 2-week follow-up between patients receiving vitamin C or a placebo after ED discharge for an acute musculoskeletal pain complaint. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a two-centre double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial with 464 participants distributed in two arms, one group receiving 1000 mg of vitamin C two times a day for 14 days and another one receiving a placebo. Participants will be ≥18 years of age, treated in ED for acute musculoskeletal pain present for less than 2 weeks and discharged with an opioid prescription for home pain management. Total morphine 5 mg pills consumed during the 2-week follow-up will be assessed via an electronic (or paper) diary. In addition, patients will report their daily pain intensity, pain relief, side effects and other types of pain medication or other non-pharmacological approach used. Three months after the injury, participants will also be contacted to evaluate chronic pain development. We hypothesised that vitamin C, compared with a placebo, will reduce opioid consumption during a 14-day follow-up for ED discharged patients treated for acute musculoskeletal pain. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received approval from the Ethics Review Committee from the 'Comité d'éthique de la recherche du CIUSSS du Nord-de-l'Île-de-Montréal (No 2023-2442)'. Findings will be disseminated through scientific conferences and peer-reviewed journal publication. The data sets generated during the study will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05555576 ClinicalTrials.Gov PRS.

Intubation practices and outcomes for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19: a national observational study by the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN).

OBJECTIVE: Intubation practices changed during the COVID-19 pandemic to protect healthcare workers from transmission of disease. Our objectives were to describe intubation characteristics and outcomes for patients tested for SARS CoV-2 infection. We compared outcomes between patients testing SARS COV-2 positive with those testing negative. METHODS: We conducted a health records review using the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) registry. We included consecutive eligible patients who presented to one of 47 EDs across Canada between March 1, 2020 and June 20, 2021, were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and intubated in the ED. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients experiencing a post-intubation adverse event during the ED stay. Secondary outcomes included first-pass success, intubation practices, and hospital mortality. We used descriptive statistics to summarize variables with subgroup differences examined using t tests, z tests, or chi-squared tests where appropriate with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of 1720 patients with suspected COVID-19 who were intubated in the ED during the study period, 337 (19.6%) tested SARS-CoV-2 positive and 1383 (80.4%) SARS-CoV-2 negative. SARS-CoV-2 positive patients presented to hospital with lower oxygen levels than SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (mean pulse oximeter SaO2 86 vs 94%, p < 0.001). In total, 8.5% of patients experienced an adverse event post-intubation. More patients in the SARS-CoV-2 positive subgroup experienced post-intubation hypoxemia (4.5 vs 2.2%, p = 0.019). In-hospital mortality was greater for patients who experienced intubation-related adverse events (43.2 vs 33.2%, p = 0.018). There was no significant difference in adverse event-associated mortality by SARS-CoV-2 status. First-pass success was achieved in 92.4% of all intubations, with no difference by SARS-CoV-2 status. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed a low risk of adverse events associated with intubation, even though hypoxemia was common in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. We observed high rates of first-pass success and low rates of inability to intubate. The limited number of adverse events precluded multivariate adjustments. Study findings should reassure emergency medicine practitioners that system modifications made to intubation processes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic do not appear to be associated with worse outcomes compared to pre-COVID-19 practices.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les pratiques d'intubation ont changé au cours de la pandémie de COVID-19 afin de protéger le personnel de santé contre la transmission de la maladie. Nos objectifs étaient de décrire les caractéristiques de l'intubation et les résultats pour les patients testés pour l'infection par le CoV-2 du SRAS. Nous avons comparé les résultats entre les patients testés positifs au SARS COV-2 et ceux testés négatifs. MéTHODES: Nous avons effectué un examen des dossiers de santé à l'aide du registre du Réseau canadien d'intervention rapide dans les services d'urgence pour la COVID-19 (RCIRSUC). Nous avons inclus les patients éligibles consécutifs qui se sont présentés à l'un des 47 services d'urgence du Canada entre le 1er mars 2020 et le 20 juin 2021, qui ont été testés pour le SRAS-CoV-2 et qui ont été intubés dans le service d'urgence. Le résultat principal était la proportion de patients ayant subi un événement indésirable après l'intubation pendant leur séjour aux urgences. Les critères de jugement secondaires comprenaient le succès du premier passage, les pratiques d'intubation et la mortalité hospitalière. Nous avons utilisé des statistiques descriptives pour résumer les variables avec des différences de sous-groupes examinées à l'aide de tests t, de tests z ou de tests du chi carré, le cas échéant, avec des IC à 95%. RéSULTATS: Sur les 1720 patients suspects de COVID-19 qui ont été intubés aux urgences pendant la période de l'étude, 337 (19,6%) ont été testés positifs au SARS-CoV-2 et 1383 (80,4%) négatifs au SARS-CoV-2. Les patients positifs au SRAS-CoV-2 se sont présentés à l'hôpital avec des niveaux d'oxygène inférieurs à ceux des patients négatifs pour le SRAS-CoV-2 (oxymètre de pouls moyen SaO2 86% contre 94%, p < 0,001). Au total, 8,5% des patients ont présenté un événement indésirable après l'intubation. Un plus grand nombre de patients du sous-groupe positif au SRAS-CoV-2 ont présenté une hypoxémie post-intubation (4,5% vs 2,2%, p = 0,019). La mortalité hospitalière était plus élevée chez les patients ayant subi des événements indésirables liés à l'intubation (43,2% vs 33,2%, p = 0,018). Il n'y avait pas de différence significative dans la mortalité associée aux événements indésirables selon le statut du SRAS-CoV-2. Le succès du premier passage a été obtenu dans 92,4% de toutes les intubations, sans différence selon le statut SARS-CoV-2 CONCLUSIONS: Pendant la pandémie de COVID-19, nous avons observé un faible risque d'événements indésirables associés à l'intubation, même si l'hypoxémie était fréquente chez les patients atteints de SRAS-CoV-2 confirmé. Nous avons observé des taux élevés de réussite du premier passage et des taux faibles d'incapacité à intuber. Le nombre limité d'événements indésirables a empêché les ajustements multivariés. Les résultats de l'étude devraient rassurer les praticiens de la médecine d'urgence que les modifications apportées aux processus d'intubation en réponse à la pandémie de COVID-19 ne semblent pas être associées à des résultats plus défavorables que les pratiques antérieures à la pandémie de COVID-19.

Clinical outcomes following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: The minute-by-minute impact of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

AIMS: The time-dependent prognostic role of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients has not been described with great precision, especially for neurologic outcomes. Our objective was to assess the association between bystander CPR, emergency medical service (EMS) response time, and OHCA patients' outcomes. METHODS: This cohort study used the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Cardiac Epidemiologic Registries. Bystander-witnessed adult OHCA treated by EMS were included. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge and secondary outcome was survival with a good neurologic outcome (modified Rankin scale 0-2). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the associations and interactions between bystander CPR, EMS response time and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 229,637 patients, 41,012 were included (18,867 [46.0%] without bystander CPR and 22,145 [54.0%] with bystander CPR). Bystander CPR was independently associated with higher survival (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.70 [95%CI 1.61-1.80]) and survival with a good neurologic outcome (AOR = 1.87 [95%CI 1.70-2.06]), while longer EMS response times were independently associated with lower survival to hospital discharge (each additional minute of EMS response time: AOR = 0.92 [95%CI 0.91-0.93], p < 0.001) and lower survival with a good neurologic outcome (AOR = 0.88 [95%CI 0.86-0.89], p < 0.001). There was no interaction between bystander CPR and EMS response time's association with survival (p = 0.12) and neurologic outcomes (p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Although bystander CPR is associated with an immediate increase in odds of survival and of good neurologic outcome for OHCA patients, it does not influence the negative association between longer EMS response time and survival and good neurologic outcome.

Prognostic association between d-dimer thresholds and 30-day pulmonary embolism diagnosis among emergency department patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection: a Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network study.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to quantify the prognostic association between various D-dimer thresholds and 30-day PE diagnosis among emergency department (ED) patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients enrolled in the Canadian COVID-19 ED Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) registry from March 1, 2020 to July 2, 2021. We included consecutive adults (≥ 18 years) presenting to 49 EDs with chest pain, shortness of breath, hypoxia, syncope, presyncope, or hemoptysis who were tested for both SARS-CoV-2 and D-dimer at index ED visit. The primary outcome measure was the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value of D-dimer test thresholds for the outcome of 30-day PE diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 10,837 patients included in our study, 404 (3.7%) were diagnosed with PE at 30-days. A standard D-Dimer threshold of 500 ng/mL had a sensitivity of 97.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95.8-99.0%), specificity of 40.9% (95% CI 39.9-41.8%), and negative predictive value of 99.8% (95% CI 99.6-99.9%). An age-adjusted D-dimer threshold had a sensitivity of 96.0% (95% CI 93.6-97.7%), specificity of 48.5% (95% CI 47.5-49.4%), and negative predictive value of 99.7% (95% CI 99.5-99.8%). D-dimer testing had slightly lower prognostic performance among SARS-CoV-2 positive compared to SARS-CoV-2 negative patients in predicting 30-day PE diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Among ED patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2, the standard 500 ng/mL and age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds were comparable for the prediction of PE at 30-days. The prognostic performance of D-dimer was lower among SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04702945.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'objectif principal était de quantifier l'association pronostique entre différents seuils de D-dimères et le diagnostic d'EP à 30 jours chez les patients des services d'urgence suspectés d'être infectés par le SRAS-CoV-2. MéTHODES: Il s'agissait d'une étude rétrospective des patients inscrits au registre du réseau canadien de réponse rapide aux urgences COVID-19 (CCEDRRN) du 1er mars 2020 au 2 juillet 2021. Nous avons inclus des adultes consécutifs (>18 ans) se présentant dans 49 services d'urgence pour une douleur thoracique, un essoufflement, une hypoxie, une syncope, une présyncope ou une hémoptysie et qui ont été testés à la fois pour le SRAS-CoV-2 et les D-dimères lors de la visite de référence aux urgences. Le principal critère d'évaluation était la sensibilité, la spécificité et la valeur prédictive négative des seuils du test des D-dimères pour le diagnostic de l'EP à 30 jours. RéSULTATS: Parmi les 10 837 patients inclus dans notre étude, 404 (3,7 %) ont reçu un diagnostic d'EP à 30 jours. Un seuil standard de D-Dimer de 500 ng/mL avait une sensibilité de 97,8 % (intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % 95,8-99,0 %), une spécificité de 40,9 % (IC à 95 % 39,9-41,8 %) et une valeur prédictive négative de 99,8 % (IC à 95 % 99,6-99,9 %). Un seuil de D-dimères ajusté à l'âge avait une sensibilité de 96,0% (IC à 95 % 93,6-97,7 %), une spécificité de 48,5% (IC à 95 % 47,5-49,4 %) et une valeur prédictive négative de 99,7 % (IC à 95 % 99,5-99,8 %). Le test des D-dimères avait une performance pronostique légèrement inférieure chez les patients positifs pour le SRAS-CoV-2 par rapport aux patients négatifs pour le SRAS-CoV-2 en ce qui concerne la prédiction du diagnostic d'EP à 30 jours. CONCLUSIONS: Chez les patients des urgences suspectés d'être atteints du SRAS-CoV-2, les seuils standard de 500 ng/ml et les seuils de D-dimères ajustés à l'âge étaient comparables pour la prédiction de l'EP à 30 jours. La performance pronostique des D-dimères était plus faible chez les patients positifs pour le SRAS-CoV-2. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'ESSAI: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04702945.

Association of Initial Pulseless Electrical Activity Heart Rate and Clinical Outcomes following Adult Non-Traumatic Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

OBJECTIVE: Studies evaluating the prognostic value of the pulseless electrical activity (PEA) heart rate in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients have reported conflicting results. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between the initial PEA heart rate and favorable clinical outcomes for OHCA patients. METHODS: The present post-hoc cohort study used the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Cardiac Epidemiologic Registry Version 3, which included OHCA patients in seven US and three Canadian sites from April 2011 to June 2015. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge and the secondary outcome was survival with a good functional outcome. For the primary analysis, the patients were separated into eight groups according to their first rhythms and PEA heart rates: (1) initial PEA heart rate of 1-20 beats per minute (bpm); (2) 21-40 bpm; (3) 41-60 bpm; (4) 61-80 bpm; (5) 81-100 bpm; (6) 101-120 bpm; (7) over 120 bpm; (8) initial shockable rhythm (reference category). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the associations of interest. RESULTS: We identified 17,675 patients (PEA: 7,089 [40.1%]; initial shockable rhythm: 10,797 [59.9%]). Patients with initial PEA electrical frequencies ≤100 bpm were less likely to survive to hospital discharge than patients with initial shockable rhythms (1-20 bpm: adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.15 [95%CI 0.11-0.21]; 21-40 bpm: AOR = 0.21 [0.18-0.25]; 41-60 bpm: AOR = 0.30 [0.25-0.36]; 61-80 bpm: AOR = 0.37 [0.28-0.49]; 81-100 bpm: AOR = 0.55 [0.41-0.65]). However, there were no statistical outcome differences between PEA patients with initial electrical frequencies of >100 bpm and patients with initial shockable rhythms (101-120 bpm: AOR = 0.65 [95%CI 0.42-1.01]; >120 bpm: AOR = 0.72 [95%CI 0.37-1.39]). Similar results were observed for survival with good functional outcomes (101-120 bpm: AOR = 0.60 [95%CI 0.31-1.15]; >120 bpm: AOR = 1.08 [95%CI 0.50-2.28]). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a good association between higher initial PEA electrical frequency and favorable clinical outcomes for OHCA patients. As there is no significant difference in outcomes between patients with initial PEA heart rates of more than 100 bpm and those with initial shockable rhythms, we can hypothesize that these patients could be considered in the same prognostic category.

Derivation and validation of a clinical decision rule to risk-stratify COVID-19 patients discharged from the emergency department: The CCEDRRN COVID discharge score.

Objective: To risk-stratify COVID-19 patients being considered for discharge from the emergency department (ED). Methods: We conducted an observational study to derive and validate a clinical decision rule to identify COVID-19 patients at risk for hospital admission or death within 72 hours of ED discharge. We used data from 49 sites in the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) between March 1, 2020, and September 8, 2021. We randomly assigned hospitals to derivation or validation and prespecified clinical variables as candidate predictors. We used logistic regression to develop the score in a derivation cohort and examined its performance in predicting short-term adverse outcomes in a validation cohort. Results: Of 15,305 eligible patient visits, 535 (3.6%) experienced the outcome. The score included age, sex, pregnancy status, temperature, arrival mode, respiratory rate, and respiratory distress. The area under the curve was 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.73) in derivation and 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.73) in combined derivation and validation cohorts. Among those with a score of 3 or less, the risk for the primary outcome was 1.9% or less, and the sensitivity of using 3 as a rule-out score was 89.3% (95% CI 82.7-94.0). Among those with a score of ≥9, the risk for the primary outcome was as high as 12.2% and the specificity of using 9 as a rule-in score was 95.6% (95% CI 94.9-96.2). Conclusion: The CCEDRRN COVID discharge score can identify patients at risk of short-term adverse outcomes after ED discharge with variables that are readily available on patient arrival.

Accuracy of a self-report prescription opioid use diary for patients discharge from the emergency department with acute pain: a multicentre prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Self-reported approaches that assess opioid usage can be subject to social desirability and recall biases that may underestimate actual pill consumption. Our objective was to determine the accuracy of patient self-reported opioid consumption using a 14-day daily paper or electronic diary. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Multicentre study conducted in four Québec (Canada) emergency departments (ED): three university-affiliated centres, two of them Level I trauma centres and one urban community hospital. PARTICIPANTS: ED patients aged ≥18 years with acute pain (≤2 weeks) who were discharged with an opioid prescription. Patients completed a 14-day daily diary (paper or electronic) assessing the quantity of opioids consumed. On diary completion, a random sample from the main cohort was selected for a follow-up visit to the hospital or a virtual video visit where they had to show and count the remaining pills. Patients were blinded to the main objective of the follow-up visit. OUTCOMES: Quantity of opioid pills consumed during the 2-week follow-up period self-reported in the 14-day diary (paper or electronic) and calculated from remaining pills counted during the follow-up visit. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess accuracy. RESULTS: A total of 166 participants completed the 14-day diary as well as the in-person or virtual visit; 49.4% were women and median age was 47 years (IQR=21). The self-reported consumed quantity of opioid in the 14-day diary and the one calculated from counting remaining opioid pills during the follow-up visit were very similar (ICC=0.992; 95% CI: 0.989 to 0.994). The mean difference between both measures from Bland-Altman analysis was almost zero (0.048 pills; 95% CI: -3.77 to 3.87). CONCLUSION: Self-reported prescription opioid use in a 14-day diary is an accurate assessment of the quantity of opioids consumed in ED discharged patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03953534.

Diagnostic yield of screening for SARS-CoV-2 among patients admitted to hospital for alternate diagnoses: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic yield of screening patients for SARS-CoV-2 who were admitted with a diagnosis unrelated to COVID-19 and to identify risk factors for positive tests. DESIGN: Cohort from the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network registry. SETTING: 30 acute care hospitals across Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Patients hospitalised for non-COVID-19-related diagnoses who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between 1 March and 29 December 2020. MAIN OUTCOME: Positive nucleic acid amplification test for SARS-CoV-2. OUTCOME MEASURE: Diagnostic yield. RESULTS: We enrolled 15 690 consecutive eligible adults who were admitted to hospital without clinically suspected COVID-19. Among these patients, 122 tested positive for COVID-19, resulting in a diagnostic yield of 0.8% (95% CI 0.64% to 0.92%). Factors associated with a positive test included presence of fever, being a healthcare worker, having a positive household contact or institutional exposure, and living in an area with higher 7-day average incident COVID-19 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Universal screening of hospitalised patients for COVID-19 across two pandemic waves had a low diagnostic yield and should be informed by individual-level risk assessment in addition to regional COVID-19 prevalence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04702945.

Emergency department opioid discharge instructions: a multidisciplinary national Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: Currently, there are no Canadian guidelines for discharge instruction to be given to patients receiving an opioid prescription in the ED. This likely contributes to inadequate discharge instructions for these potentially dangerous medications. The principal goal of this study was to develop an interdisciplinary Canadian consensus regarding important concepts to be included in written opioid discharge instructions within the ED setting. METHODS: We conducted a modified Delphi study between May and August 2021. The national multidisciplinary panel consisted of 23 healthcare professionals and one patient partner. The survey consisted of 19 initial concepts developed after a review of the literature and a meeting with local experts. The panel added four new concepts after the first survey round. Three rounds of online surveys were distributed in total. Panel consensus was defined a priori as a disagreement index score less than 1, in accordance with the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. RESULTS: We achieved a 100% response rate in round one and a 96% response rate in rounds two and three of our Delphi study. There was group consensus (disagreement index = 0.66, median importance = 9) that all patients receiving opioid prescriptions from the ED should receive written discharge instructions. The interdisciplinary panel arrived at a consensus on 21/23 concepts for ED opioid discharge instructions. The concepts with the highest level of agreement were related to minimizing the use of the prescribed opioid medication and opioid use safety (mixing with drugs/alcohol, storage, and impairment). CONCLUSION: This Delphi study with a national, multidisciplinary panel achieved consensus on 21 concepts that should be included in written discharge instructions to patients receiving an opioid prescription upon discharge from the ED.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Actuellement, il n'y a pas de lignes directrices canadiennes sur les instructions de sortie à donner aux patients qui reçoivent une ordonnance d'opioïdes aux urgences. Cela contribue probablement à des instructions de sortie inadéquates pour ces médicaments potentiellement dangereux. L'objectif principal de cette étude était d'établir un consensus canadien interdisciplinaire sur les concepts importants à inclure dans les directives écrites de sortie des opioïdes dans le contexte des urgences. MéTHODES: Nous avons mené une étude Delphi modifiée entre mai et août 2021. Le comité national multidisciplinaire était composé de 23 professionnels de la santé et d'un patient partenaire. L'enquête comprenait 19 concepts initiaux développés après un examen de la littérature et une réunion avec des experts locaux. Le panel a ajouté quatre nouveaux concepts après la première ronde d'enquête. Trois séries de sondages en ligne ont été distribuées au total. Le consensus du panel a été défini a priori comme un indice de désaccord inférieur à 1, conformément à la méthode de pertinence RAND/UCLA. RéSULTATS: Nous avons atteint un taux de réponse de 100 % au premier tour et un taux de réponse de 96 % aux deuxième et troisième tours de notre étude Delphi. Il y avait un consensus de groupe (indice de désaccord = 0,66, importance médiane = 9) sur le fait que tous les patients recevant une ordonnance d'opioïdes aux urgences devraient recevoir des instructions écrites à la sortie de l'hôpital. Le groupe interdisciplinaire est parvenu à un consensus sur les concepts 21/23 pour les instructions de sortie d'opioïdes aux urgences. Les concepts ayant fait l'objet du plus haut niveau d'entente étaient liés à la réduction de l'utilisation des médicaments opioïdes prescrits et à la sécurité de l'utilisation des opioïdes (mélange avec les drogues/alcool, stockage et affaiblissement des facultés). CONCLUSION: Cette étude Delphi avec un panel national multidisciplinaire a permis de parvenir à un consensus sur 21 concepts qui devraient être inclus dans les instructions écrites de sortie aux patients recevant une ordonnance d'opioïdes à leur sortie de l'urgence.

Accuracy of the Initial Rhythm to Predict a Short No-Flow Time in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

OBJECTIVES: The no-flow time (NFT) can help establish prognosis in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. It is often used as a selection criterion for extracorporeal resuscitation. In patients with an unwitnessed OHCA for whom the NFT is unknown, the initial rhythm has been proposed to identify those more likely to have had a short NFT. Our objective was to determine the predictive accuracy of an initial shockable rhythm for an NFT of 5 minutes or less (NFT ≤ 5). DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. SETTING: Prehospital OHCA in eight U.S. and three Canadian sites. PATIENTS: A total of 28,139 adult patients with a witnessed nontraumatic OHCA were included, of whom 11,228 (39.9%) experienced an emergency medical service-witnessed OHCA (NFT = 0), 695 (2.7%) had a bystander-witnessed OHCA, and an NFT less than or equal to 5, and 16,216 (57.6%) with a bystander-witnessed OHCA and an NFT greater than 5. INTERVENTIONS: Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios of an initial shockable rhythm to identify patients with an NFT less than or equal to 5 minutes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The sensitivity of an initial shockable rhythm to identify patients with an NFT less than or equal to 5 was poor (25% [95% CI, 25-26]), but specificity was moderate (70% [95% CI, 69-71]). The positive and likelihood ratios were inverted (negative accuracy) (positive likelihood ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.74-0.79]; negative likelihood ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.10-1.12]). Including only patients with a bystander-witnessed OHCA improved the sensitivity to 48% (95% CI, 45-52), the positive likelihood ratio to 1.45 (95% CI, 1.33-1.58), and the negative likelihood ratio to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.83), while slightly lowering the specificity to 67% (95% CI, 66-67). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis demonstrated that the presence of a shockable rhythm at the time of initial assessment was poorly sensitive and only moderately specific for OHCA patients with a short NFT. The initial rhythm, therefore, should not be used as a surrogate for NFT in clinical decision-making.

Safety assessment of a redirection program using an electronic application for low-acuity patients visiting an emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (EDs) are operating at or above capacity, which has negative consequences on patients in terms of quality of care and morbi-mortality. Redirection strategies for low-acuity ED patients to primary care practices are usually based on subjective eligibility criteria that sometimes necessitate formal medical assessment. Literature investigating the effect of those interventions is equivocal. The aim of the present study was to assess the safety of a redirection process using an electronic clinical support system used by the triage nurse without physician assessment. METHODS: A single cohort observational study was performed in the ED of a level 1 academic trauma center. All low-acuity patients redirected to nearby clinics through a clinical decision support system (February-August 2017) were included. This system uses different sets of medical prerequisites to identify patients eligible to redirection. Data on safety and patient experience were collected through phone questionnaires on day 2 and 10 after ED visit. The primary endpoint was the rate of redirected patients returning to any ED for an unexpected visit within 48 h. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of 7-day return visit and satisfaction rates. RESULTS: A total of 980 redirected low-acuity patients were included over the period: 18 patients (2.8%) returned unexpectedly to an ED within 48 h and 31 patients (4.8%) within 7 days. No hospital admission or death were reported within 7 days following the first ED visit. Among redirected patients, 81% were satisfied with care provided by the clinic staff. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a specific electronic-guided decision support redirection protocol appeared to provide safe deferral to nearby clinics for redirected low-acuity patients. EDs are pivotal elements of the healthcare system pathway and redirection process could represent an interesting tool to improve the care to low-acuity patients.

Functional Decline After Nonhospitalized Injuries in Older Patients: Results From the Canadian Emergency Team Initiative Cohort in Elders.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cumulative incidence of functional decline over 6 months following emergency department (ED) assessments of nonhospitalized injuries and to identify its main determinants. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicenter cohort of older adults discharged home following assessment for injuries in 8 Canadian EDs. Participants were assessed at 3 time points: baseline in the ED, 3 months, and 6 months. The primary outcome, functional decline, was defined as a 2-points loss from baseline on the Older American Resources Scale (OARS). Other measures included demographics, comorbidities, injury characteristics, frailty, cognition, mobility status, etc. Cumulative incidences were estimated using proportions with 95% confidence intervals. Log-binomial regressions and the "least absolute shrinkage and selection operator" (LASSO) were used to identify significant functional decline determinants. RESULTS: Among 2,919 participants, 403 (13.8%) were lost to follow-up. Mean age was 76.2±7.6 years, 65.3% were women, 9% were frail, and 40.0% prefrail. Main injury mechanisms were falls (65.5%) and motor vehicle accidents (18.6%). The cumulative incidence of functional decline over 6 months was 17.0% (95% confidence interval 12.5% to 23.0%). Occasional use of walking devices, less than 5 outings/week, frailty, and older age were significant baseline determinants of functional decline. CONCLUSION: A significant 17% of older adults with "minor" injuries experience a persistent functional decline over 6 months following their ED visit. Four frailty-related determinants were identified: occasional use of a walking device, less than 5 outings/week, frailty, and older age. Further work is needed to assess if these can help ED clinicians screen seniors at risk and initiate interventions at discharge.