The Impact of Night-time Emergency Department Presentation on Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage Outcomes.

GOALS: The aim was to investigate the impact of night-time emergency department (ED) presentation on outcomes of patients admitted for acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH). BACKGROUND: The relationship between time of ED presentation and outcomes of gastrointestinal hemorrhage is unclear. STUDY: Using the 2016 and 2017 Florida State Inpatient Databases which provide times of ED arrival, we identified and categorized adults hospitalized for UGIH to daytime (07:00 to 18:59 h) and night-time (19:00 to 06:59 h) based on the time of ED presentation. We matched both groups with propensity scores, and assessed their clinical outcomes including all-cause in-hospital mortality, in-hospital endoscopy utilization, length of stay (LOS), total hospitalization costs, and 30-day all-cause readmission rates. RESULTS: Of the identified 38,114 patients with UGIH, 89.4% (n=34,068) had acute nonvariceal hemorrhage (ANVH), while 10.6% (n=4046) had acute variceal hemorrhage (AVH). Compared with daytime patients, ANVH patients admitted at night-time had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio: 1.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.60), lower odds of in-patient endoscopy (odds ratio: 0.83; 95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.90), higher total hospital costs ($9911 vs. $9545, P <0.016), but similar LOS and readmission rates. Night-time AVH patients had a shorter LOS (5.4 vs. 5.8 d, P =0.045) but similar mortality rates, endoscopic utilization, total hospitalization costs, and readmission rates as daytime patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients arriving in the ED at night-time with ANVH had worse outcomes (mortality, hospitalization costs, and endoscopy utilization) compared with daytime patients. However, those with AVH had comparable outcomes irrespective of ED arrival time.

Marijuana, Ondansetron, and Promethazine Are Perceived as Most Effective Treatments for Gastrointestinal Nausea.

BACKGROUND: Many anti-nausea treatments are available for chronic gastrointestinal syndromes, but data on efficacy and comparative effectiveness are sparse. AIMS: To conduct a sectional survey study of patients with chronic nausea to assess comparative effectiveness of commonly used anti-nausea treatments. METHODS: Outpatients at a single center presenting for gastroenterology evaluation were asked to rate anti-nausea efficacy on a scale of 0 (no efficacy) to 5 (very effective) of 29 commonly used anti-nausea treatments and provide other information about their symptoms. Additional information was collected from the patients' chart. The primary outcome was to determine which treatments were better or worse than average using a t test. The secondary outcome was to assess differential response by individual patient characteristics using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-three patients completed the survey. The mean efficacy score of all anti-nausea treatments evaluated was 1.73. After adjustment, three treatments had scores statically higher than the mean, including marijuana (2.75, p < 0.0001), ondansetron (2.64, p < 0.0001), and promethazine (2.46, p < 0.0001). Several treatments, including many neuromodulators, complementary and alternative treatments, erythromycin, and diphenhydramine had scores statistically below average. Patients with more severe nausea responded better to marijuana (p = 0.036) and diphenhydramine (p < 0.001) and less so to metoclopramide (p = 0.020). There was otherwise no significant differential response by age, gender, nausea localization, underlying gastrointestinal cause of nausea, and GCSI. CONCLUSIONS: When treating nausea in patients with chronic gastrointestinal syndromes, clinicians may consider trying higher performing treatments first, and forgoing lower performing treatments. Further prospective research is needed, particularly with respect to highly effective treatments.

Cardiovascular health among Asian Indians (CHAI): a community research project.

The object of this research was to assess cardiovascular (CV) risks in Asian Indians in California. We conducted eight focus groups and a pilot survey using community-based participatory research (CBPR) methods. Focus groups were held in six communities. Surveys were conducted by telephone or in person in areas selected for high population densities of Asian Indians. We selected focus group subjects by snowball sampling (n = 57). We held six English and two Punjabi groups. We used a surname-based phone list from three area codes for telephone interviews (n = 254). We added 50 in-person interviews for comparison (total n = 304) and did 50 interviews in Punjabi. We held community meetings for dissemination. Focus groups discussed CV risks; themes developed aided survey development. In-person and telephone surveys were feasible. Telephone surveys were more gender-balanced and people more often answered alcohol, tobacco, and income questions. Self-reported prevalences for hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes were 20.4, 35.3 and 10.6%, respectively. Only 11.9% of persons reported ever smoking cigarettes. It was concluded that CBPR methods were effective in this exploratory study assessing CV risks in Asian Indians. Hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes were more prevalent in participants than the population average; other risk factors were less common (tobacco).