RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Older patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) after falling are increasingly prevalent. Falls are associated with functional decline and death. Biomarkers predicting short-term mortality might facilitate decisions regarding resource allocation and disposition. D-dimer levels are used to rule out thromboembolic disease, while copeptin and adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) may be used as measures of the patient`s stress level. These nonspecific biomarkers were selected as potential predictors for mortality. METHODS: Prospective, international, multicenter, cross-sectional observation was performed in two tertiary and two regional hospitals in Germany and Switzerland. Patients aged 65 years or older presenting to the ED after a fall were enrolled. Demographic data, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), and D-dimers were collected upon presentation. Copeptin and MR-proADM levels were determined from frozen samples. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality; and secondary outcomes were mortality at 90, 180, and 365 days. RESULTS: Five hundred and seventy-two patients were included. Median age was 83 [IQR 78, 89] years, 236 (67.7%) were female. Mortality overall was 3.1% (30 d), 5.4% (90 d), 7.5% (180 d), and 13.8% (365 d), respectively. Non-survivors were older, had a lower ADL index and higher levels of all three biomarkers. Elevated levels of MR-proADM and D-dimer were associated with higher risk of mortality. MR-proADM and D-dimer showed high sensitivity and low negative likelihood ratio regarding short-term mortality, whereas copeptin did not. CONCLUSION: D-dimer and MR-proADM levels might be useful as prognostic markers in older patients presenting to the ED after a fall, by identifying patients at low risk of short-term mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02244983.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) presentations after a ground-level fall (GLF) are common. Falls were suggested to be another possible presenting feature of a myocardial infarction (MI), as unrecognized MIs are common in older adults. Elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) concentrations could help determine the etiology of a GLF in ED. We investigated the prevalence of both MI and elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and I (hs-cTnI), as well as the diagnostic accuracy of hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI regarding MI, and their prognostic value in older ED patients presenting after a GLF. METHODS: This was a prospective, international, multicenter, cohort study with a follow-up of up to 1 year. Patients aged 65 years or older presenting to the ED after a GLF were prospectively enrolled. Two outcome assessors independently reviewed all discharge records to ascertain final gold standard diagnoses. Hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI levels were determined from thawed samples for every patient. RESULTS: In total, 558 patients were included. Median (IQR) age was 83 (77-89) years, and 67.7% were female. Elevated hs-cTnT levels were found in 384 (68.8%) patients, and elevated hs-cTnI levels in 86 (15.4%) patients. Three patients (0.5%) were ascertained the gold standard diagnosis MI. Within 30 days, 18 (3.2%) patients had died. Nonsurvivors had higher hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI levels compared with survivors (hs-cTnT 40 [23-85] ng/L in nonsurvivors and 20 [13-33] ng/L in survivors; hs-cTnI 25 [14-54] ng/L in nonsurvivors and 8 [4-16] ng/L in survivors; p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: A majority of patients (n = 364, 68.8%) presenting to the ED after a fall had elevated hs-cTnT levels and 86 (15.4%) elevated hs-cTnI levels. However, the incidence of MI in these patients was low (n = 3, 0.5%). Our data do not support the opinion that falls may be a common presenting feature of MI. We discourage routine troponin testing in this population. However, hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI were both found to have prognostic properties for mortality prediction up to 1 year.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Optimal throughput times in emergency departments can be adjudicated by emergency physicians. Emergency physicians can also define causes of delays during work-up, such as waiting for imaging, clinical chemistry, consultations, or exit blocks. For adequate streaming, the identification of predictors of delays is important, as the attribution of resources depends on acuity, resources, and expected throughput times. OBJECTIVE: This observational study aimed to identify the causes, predictors, and outcomes of emergency physician-adjudicated throughput delays. METHODS: Two prospective emergency department cohorts from January to February 2017 and from March to May 2019 around the clock in a tertiary care centre in Switzerland were investigated. All consenting patients were included. Delay was defined as the subjective adjudication of the responsible emergency physician regarding delay during emergency department work-up. Emergency physicians were interviewed for the occurrence and cause of delays. Baseline demographics, predictor values, and outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome - delay - was presented using descriptive statistics. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the associations between possible predictors and delays and hospitalization, intensive care, and death with delay. RESULTS: In 3656 (37.3%) of 9818 patients, delays were adjudicated. The patients with delays were older (59 years, interquartile range [IQR]: 39-76 years vs 49 years, IQR: 33-68 years) and more likely had impaired mobility, nonspecific complaints (weakness or fatigue), and frailty than the patients without delays. The main causes of delays were resident work-up (20.4%), consultations (20.2%), and imaging (19.4%). The predictors of delays were an Emergency Severity Index of 2 or 3 at triage (odds ratio [OR]: 3.00; confidence interval [CI]: 2.21-4.16; OR: 3.25; CI: 2.40-4.48), nonspecific complaints (OR: 1.70; CI: 1.41-2.04), and consultation and imaging (OR: 2.89; CI: 2.62-3.19). The patients with delays had an increased risk for admission (OR: 1.56; CI: 1.41-1.73) but not for mortality than those without delays. CONCLUSION: At triage, simple predictors such as age, immobility, nonspecific complaints, and frailty may help to identify patients at risk of delay, with the main reasons being resident work-up, imaging, and consultations. This hypothesis-generating observation will allow the design of studies aimed at the identification and elimination of possible throughput obstacles.