Pharmacological agents for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department and intensive care unit: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of various i.v. pharmacologic agents used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED) and ICU. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to enable direct and indirect comparisons between available medications. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed from inception to 2 March 2023 for RCTs comparing two or more procedural sedation and analgesia medications in all patients (adults and children >30 days of age) requiring emergent procedures in the ED or ICU. We focused on the outcomes of sedation recovery time, patient satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs). We performed frequentist random-effects model network meta-analysis and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate certainty in estimates. RESULTS: We included 82 RCTs (8105 patients, 78 conducted in the ED and four in the ICU) of which 52 studies included adults, 23 included children, and seven included both. Compared with midazolam-opioids, recovery time was shorter with propofol (mean difference 16.3 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.4-24.3 fewer minutes; high certainty), and patient satisfaction was better with ketamine-propofol (mean difference 1.5 points, 95% CI 0.3-2.6 points, high certainty). Regarding AEs, compared with midazolam-opioids, respiratory AEs were less frequent with ketamine (relative risk [RR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.96; high certainty), gastrointestinal AEs were more common with ketamine-midazolam (RR 3.08, 95% CI 1.15-8.27; high certainty), and neurological AEs were more common with ketamine-propofol (RR 3.68, 95% CI 1.08-12.53; high certainty). CONCLUSION: When considering procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED and ICU, compared with midazolam-opioids, sedation recovery time is shorter with propofol, patient satisfaction is better with ketamine-propofol, and respiratory adverse events are less common with ketamine.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Canadian emergency medical system management of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective cohort study.

AIM: We sought to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care provided by Canadian emergency medical system (EMS) clinicians to patients suffering out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), and whether any observed changes persisted beyond the initial phase of the pandemic. METHODS: We analysed cases of adult, non-traumatic, OHCA from the Canadian Resuscitation Outcome Consortium (CanROC) registry who were treated between January 27th, 2018, and December 31st, 2021. We used adjusted regression models and interrupted time series analysis to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (January 27th, 2020 - December 31st, 2021)on the care provided to patients with OHCA by EMS clinicians. RESULTS: There were 12,947 cases of OHCA recorded in the CanROC registry in the pre-COVID-19 period and 17,488 during the COVID-19 period. We observed a reduction in the cumulative number of defibrillations provided by EMS (aRR 0.91, 95% CI 0.89 - 0.93, p < 0.01), a reduction in the odds of attempts at intubation (aOR 0.33, 95% CI 0.31 - 0.34, p < 0.01), higher rates of supraglottic airway use (aOR 1.23, 95% CI 1.16-1.30, p < 0.01), a reduction in vascular access (aOR for intravenous access 0.84, 95% CI 0.79 - 0.89, p < 0.01; aOR for intraosseous access 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 - 0.96, p < 0.01), a reduction in the odds of epinephrine administration (aOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.85 - 0.94, p < 0.01), and higher odds of resuscitation termination on scene (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 1.31 - 1.46, p < 0.01). Delays to initiation of chest compressions (2 min. vs. 3 min., p < 0.01), intubation (16 min. vs. 19 min., p = 0.01), and epinephrine administration (11 min. vs. 13 min., p < 0.01) were observed, whilst supraglottic airways were inserted earlier (11 min. vs. 10 min., p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with substantial changes in EMS management of OHCA. EMS leaders should consider these findings to optimise current OHCA management and prepare for future pandemics.

Supraglottic Airway Versus Tracheal Intubation for Airway Management in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Given the uncertainty regarding the optimal approach for airway management for adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the use of supraglottic airways (SGAs) with tracheal intubation for initial airway management in OHCA. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, as well as unpublished sources, from inception to February 7, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult OHCA patients randomized to SGA compared with tracheal intubation for initial prehospital airway management. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers screened abstracts, full texts, and extracted data independently and in duplicate. We pooled data using a random-effects model. We used the modified Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and assessed certainty of evidence using the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We preregistered the protocol on PROSPERO (CRD42022342935). DATA SYNTHESIS: We included four RCTs ( n = 13,412 patients). Compared with tracheal intubation , SGA use probably increases return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (relative risk [RR] 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15; moderate certainty) and leads to a faster time to airway placement (mean difference 2.5 min less; 95% CI, 1.6-3.4 min less; high certainty). SGA use may have no effect on survival at longest follow-up (RR 1.06; 95% CI, 0.84-1.34; low certainty), has an uncertain effect on survival with good functional outcome (RR 1.11; 95% CI, 0.82-1.50; very low certainty), and may have no effect on risk of aspiration (RR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.16; low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In adult patients with OHCA, compared with tracheal intubation, the use of SGA for initial airway management probably leads to more ROSC, and faster time to airway placement, but may have no effect on longer-term survival outcomes or aspiration events.

Interventions for the symptoms and signs resulting from jellyfish stings.

BACKGROUND: Jellyfish envenomation is common in many coastal regions and varies in severity depending upon the species. Stings cause a variety of symptoms and signs including pain, dermatological reactions, and, in some species, Irukandji syndrome (which may include abdominal/back/chest pain, tachycardia, hypertension, cardiac phenomena, and, rarely, death). Many treatments have been suggested for these symptoms, but their effectiveness is unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms associated with the use of any intervention, in both adults and children, for the treatment of jellyfish stings, as assessed by randomised and quasi-randomised trials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science up to 27 October 2022. We searched clinical trials registers and the grey literature, and conducted forward-citation searching of relevant articles.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any intervention given to treat stings from any species of jellyfish stings. Interventions were compared to another active intervention, placebo, or no treatment. If co-interventions were used, we included the study only if the co-intervention was used in each group.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.  MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies (six RCTs and three quasi-RCTs) involving a total of 574 participants. We found one ongoing study. Participants were either stung accidentally, or were healthy volunteers exposed to stings in a laboratory setting. Type of jellyfish could not be confirmed in beach settings and was determined by investigators using participant and local information. We categorised interventions into comparison groups: hot versus cold applications; topical applications. A third comparison of parenteral administration included no relevant outcome data: a single study (39 participants) evaluated intravenous magnesium sulfate after stings from jellyfish that cause Irukandji syndrome (Carukia). No studies assessed a fourth comparison group of pressure immobilisation bandages.  We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious and very serious imprecision, and serious inconsistency in some results.  Application of heat versus application of cold Four studies involved accidental stings treated on the beach or in hospital. Jellyfish were described as bluebottles (Physalia; location: Australia), and box jellyfish that do not cause Irukandji syndrome (Hawaiian box jellyfish (Carybdea alata) and major box jellyfish (Chironex fleckeri, location: Australia)). Treatments were applied with hot packs or hot water (showers, baths, buckets, or hoses), or ice packs or cold packs.  The evidence for all outcomes was of very low certainty, thus we are unsure whether heat compared to cold leads to at least a clinically significant reduction in pain within six hours of stings from Physalia (risk ratio (RR) 2.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 3.56; 2 studies, 142 participants) or Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 4.94; 2 studies, 71 participants). We are unsure whether there is a difference in adverse events due to treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.19; 2 studies, 142 participants); these were minor adverse events reported for Physalia stings. We are also unsure whether either treatment leads to a clinically significant reduction in pain in the first hour (Physalia: RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.15; 1 study, 88 participants; Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.89; 1 study, 42 participants) or cessation of pain at the end of treatment (Physalia: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.27; 1 study, 54 participants; Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri: RR 3.54, 95% CI 0.82 to 15.31; 1 study, 29 participants). Evidence for retreatment with the same intervention was only available for Physalia, with similar uncertain findings (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.90; 1 study, 96 participants), as was the case for retreatment with the alternative hot or cold application after Physalia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.82; 1 study, 54 participants) and Chironex fleckeri stings (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.02 to 11.17; 1 study, 42 participants). Evidence for dermatological signs (itchiness or rash) was available only at 24 hours for Physalia stings (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.65; 2 studies, 98 participants).  Topical applications One study (62 participants) included accidental stings from Hawaiian box jellyfish (Carybdea alata) treated on the beach with fresh water, seawater, Sting Aid (a commercial product), or Adolph's (papain) meat tenderiser. In another study, healthy volunteers (97 participants) were stung with an Indonesian sea nettle (Chrysaora chinensis from Malaysia) in a laboratory setting and treated with isopropyl alcohol, ammonia, heated water, acetic acid, or sodium bicarbonate. Two other eligible studies (Carybdea alata and Physalia stings) did not measure the outcomes of this review.  The evidence for all outcomes was of very low certainty, thus we could not be certain whether or not topical applications provided at least a clinically significant reduction in pain (1 study, 62 participants with Carybdea alata stings, reported only as cessation of pain). For adverse events due to treatment, one study (Chrysaora chinensis stings) withdrew ammonia as a treatment following a first-degree burn in one participant. No studies evaluated clinically significant reduction in pain, retreatment with the same or the alternative treatment, or dermatological signs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Few studies contributed data to this review, and those that did contribute varied in types of treatment, settings, and range of jellyfish species. We are unsure of the effectiveness of any of the treatments evaluated in this review given the very low certainty of all the evidence. This updated review includes two new studies (with 139 additional participants). The findings are consistent with the previous review.

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.

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.

Early Versus Delayed Coronary Angiography After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Without ST-Segment Elevation-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

The optimal timing of coronary angiography remains unclear following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) without ST elevation on electrocardiogram. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early angiography versus delayed angiography following OHCA without ST elevation. DATA SOURCES: The databases MEDLINE, PubMed EMBASE, and CINHAL, as well as unpublished sources from inception to March 9, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: A systematic search was performed for randomized controlled trials of adult patients after OHCA without ST elevation who were randomized to early as compared to delayed angiography. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers screened and abstracted data independently and in duplicate. The certainty of evidence was assessed for each outcome using the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The protocol was preregistered (CRD 42021292228). DATA SYNTHESIS: Six trials were included (n = 1,590 patients). Early angiography probably has no effect on mortality (relative risk [RR] 1.04; 95% CI 0.94-1.15; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on survival with good neurologic outcome (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.87-1.07; low certainty) or ICU length of stay (LOS) (mean difference 0.41 days fewer; 95% CI -1.3 to 0.5 d; low certainty). Early angiography has an uncertain effect on adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In OHCA patients without ST elevation, early angiography probably has no effect on mortality and may have no effect on survival with good neurologic outcome and ICU LOS. Early angiography has an uncertain effect on adverse events.

2022 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces.

This is the sixth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. This summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews include cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transport; approach to resuscitation after drowning; passive ventilation; minimizing pauses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation; temperature management after cardiac arrest; use of diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest; use of vasopressin and corticosteroids during cardiac arrest; coronary angiography after cardiac arrest; public-access defibrillation devices for children; pediatric early warning systems; maintaining normal temperature immediately after birth; suctioning of amniotic fluid at birth; tactile stimulation for resuscitation immediately after birth; use of continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress at term birth; respiratory and heart rate monitoring in the delivery room; supraglottic airway use in neonates; prearrest prediction of in-hospital cardiac arrest mortality; basic life support training for likely rescuers of high-risk populations; effect of resuscitation team training; blended learning for life support training; training and recertification for resuscitation instructors; and recovery position for maintenance of breathing and prevention of cardiac arrest. Members from 6 task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and generated consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections, and priority knowledge gaps for future research are listed.

Demographic characteristics, outcomes and experience of patients using virtual urgent care services from 14 emergency department led sites in Ontario.

INTRODUCTION: As part of the COVID-19 pandemic response, the Ontario Ministry of Health funded a virtual care pilot program intended to support emergency department (ED) diversion of patients with low acuity complaints and reduce the need for face-to-face contact. The objective was to describe the demographic characteristics, outcomes and experience of patients using the provincial pilot program. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of patients using virtual care services provided by 14 ED-led pilot sites from December 2020 to September 2021. Patients who completed a virtual visit were invited by email to complete a standardized, 25-item online survey, which included questions related to satisfaction and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: There were 22,278 virtual visits. When patients were asked why they contacted virtual urgent care, of the 82.7% patients who had a primary care provider, 31.0% said they could not make a timely appointment with their family physician. Rash, fever, abdominal pain, and COVID-19 vaccine queries represented 30% of the presenting complaints. Of 19,613 patients with a known disposition, 12,910 (65.8%) were discharged home and 3,179 (16.2%) were referred to the ED. Of the 2,177 survey responses, 94% rated their overall experience as 8/10 or greater. More than 80% said they had answers to all the questions they had related to their health concern, believed they were able to manage the issue, had a plan they could follow, and knew what to do if the issue got worse or came back. CONCLUSIONS: Many presenting complaints were low acuity, and most patients had a primary care provider, but timely access was not available. Future work should focus on health equity to ensure virtual care is accessible to underserved populations. We question if virtual urgent care can be safely and more economically provided by non-emergency physicians.

RéSUMé: INTRODUCTION: Dans le cadre de la réponse à la pandémie de COVID-19, le ministère de la Santé de l'Ontario a financé un programme pilote de soins virtuels visant à soutenir la réorientation vers les services d'urgence des patients présentant des problèmes de faible acuité et à réduire le besoin de contact en personne. L'objectif était de décrire les caractéristiques démographiques, les résultats et l'expérience des patients utilisant le programme pilote provincial. MéTHODES: Il s'agissait d'une étude de cohorte prospective de patients utilisant des services de soins virtuels fournis par 14 sites pilotes dirigés par des services d'urgence, de décembre 2020 à septembre 2021. Les patients qui ont effectué une visite virtuelle ont été invités par courriel à répondre à une enquête en ligne standardisée de 25 questions, qui comprenait des questions relatives à la satisfaction et aux résultats rapportés par les patients. RéSULTATS: Il y a eu 22 278 visites virtuelles. Lorsqu'on a demandé aux patients pourquoi ils avaient contacté les soins urgents virtuels, sur les 82,7 % de patients qui avaient un prestataire de soins primaires, 31,0 % ont répondu qu'ils n'avaient pas pu obtenir un rendez-vous en temps voulu avec leur médecin de famille. Les éruptions cutanées, la fièvre, les douleurs abdominales et les interrogations sur le vaccin COVID-19 représentaient 30 % des plaintes présentées. Sur les 19 613 patients dont la disposition était connue, 12 910 (65,8 %) ont été renvoyés chez eux et 3 179 (16,2 %) ont été orientés vers les urgences. Sur les 2 177 réponses à l'enquête, 94 % ont attribué une note de 8/10 ou plus à leur expérience globale. Plus de 80 % d'entre eux ont déclaré avoir obtenu des réponses à toutes les questions qu'ils se posaient sur leur problème de santé, se croire capables de le gérer, avoir un plan qu'ils pouvaient suivre et savoir quoi faire si le problème s'aggravait ou revenait. CONCLUSIONS: De nombreuses plaintes présentées étaient de faible acuité, et la plupart des patients avaient un fournisseur de soins primaires, mais l'accès en temps opportun n'était pas disponible. Les travaux futurs devraient se concentrer sur l'équité en matière de santé pour s'assurer que les soins virtuels sont accessibles aux populations mal desservies et nous nous demandons si ces services peuvent être fournis en toute sécurité et de manière plus économique par des médecins non urgentistes.

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.

2022 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces.

This is the sixth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. This summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews include cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transport; approach to resuscitation after drowning; passive ventilation; minimizing pauses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation; temperature management after cardiac arrest; use of diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest; use of vasopressin and corticosteroids during cardiac arrest; coronary angiography after cardiac arrest; public-access defibrillation devices for children; pediatric early warning systems; maintaining normal temperature immediately after birth; suctioning of amniotic fluid at birth; tactile stimulation for resuscitation immediately after birth; use of continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress at term birth; respiratory and heart rate monitoring in the delivery room; supraglottic airway use in neonates; prearrest prediction of in-hospital cardiac arrest mortality; basic life support training for likely rescuers of high-risk populations; effect of resuscitation team training; blended learning for life support training; training and recertification for resuscitation instructors; and recovery position for maintenance of breathing and prevention of cardiac arrest. Members from 6 task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and generated consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections, and priority knowledge gaps for future research are listed.

2022 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces.

This is the sixth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. This summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews include cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transport; approach to resuscitation after drowning; passive ventilation; minimising pauses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation; temperature management after cardiac arrest; use of diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest; use of vasopressin and corticosteroids during cardiac arrest; coronary angiography after cardiac arrest; public-access defibrillation devices for children; pediatric early warning systems; maintaining normal temperature immediately after birth; suctioning of amniotic fluid at birth; tactile stimulation for resuscitation immediately after birth; use of continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress at term birth; respiratory and heart rate monitoring in the delivery room; supraglottic airway use in neonates; prearrest prediction of in-hospital cardiac arrest mortality; basic life support training for likely rescuers of high-risk populations; effect of resuscitation team training; blended learning for life support training; training and recertification for resuscitation instructors; and recovery position for maintenance of breathing and prevention of cardiac arrest. Members from 6 task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and generated consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections, and priority knowledge gaps for future research are listed.

Treatments, resource utilization, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients presenting to emergency departments across pandemic waves: an observational study by the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN).

BACKGROUND: Treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) evolved between pandemic waves. Our objective was to compare treatments, acute care utilization, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients presenting to emergency departments (ED) across pandemic waves. METHODS: This observational study enrolled consecutive eligible COVID-19 patients presenting to 46 EDs participating in the Canadian COVID-19 ED Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) between March 1 and December 31, 2020. We collected data by retrospective chart review. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included treatments, hospital and ICU admissions, ED revisits and readmissions. Logistic regression modeling assessed the impact of pandemic wave on outcomes. RESULTS: We enrolled 9,967 patients in 8 provinces, 3,336 from the first and 6,631 from the second wave. Patients in the second wave were younger, fewer met criteria for severe COVID-19, and more were discharged from the ED. Adjusted for patient characteristics and disease severity, steroid use increased (odds ratio [OR] 7.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.2-8.9), and invasive mechanical ventilation decreased (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.4-0.7) in the second wave compared to the first. After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics and disease severity, the odds of hospitalization (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-0.8) and critical care admission (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-0.9) decreased, while mortality remained unchanged (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.5-1.1). INTERPRETATION: In patients presenting to cute care facilities, we observed rapid uptake of evidence-based therapies and less use of experimental therapies in the second wave. We observed increased rates of ED discharges and lower hospital and critical care resource use over time. Substantial reductions in mechanical ventilation were not associated with increasing mortality. Advances in treatment strategies created health system efficiencies without compromising patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04702945.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Le traitement de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) a évolué entre les vagues pandémiques. Notre objectif était de comparer les traitements, l'utilisation des soins aigus et les résultats des patients atteints de la maladie COVID-19 se présentant aux urgences à travers les vagues de pandémie. MéTHODES: Cette étude observationnelle a recruté des patients COVID-19 éligibles consécutifs se présentant à 46 services d'urgence participant au Réseau canadien de réponse rapide aux services d'urgence COVID-19 (CCEDRRN) entre le 1er mars et le 31 décembre 2020. Nous avons recueilli des données au moyen d'un examen rétrospectif des dossiers. Notre principal résultat a été la mortalité à l'hôpital. Les résultats secondaires incluaient les traitements, les admissions à l'hôpital et aux soins intensifs, les revisites aux urgences et les réadmissions. La modélisation par régression logistique a évalué l'impact de la vague de pandémie sur les résultats. RéSULTATS: Nous avons recruté 9 967 patients dans 8 provinces, 3 336 de la première vague et 6 631 de la deuxième vague. Les patients de la deuxième vague étaient plus jeunes, moins nombreux à répondre aux critères de gravité de la COVID-19 et plus nombreux à quitter les urgences. Après ajustement en fonction des caractéristiques des patients et de la gravité de la maladie, le recours aux stéroïdes a augmenté (rapport de cotes [RC] 7.4 ; intervalle de confiance à 95 % [IC] 6.2­8.9) et la ventilation mécanique invasive a diminué (RC 0.5 ; IC à 95 % 0.4­0.7) lors de la deuxième vague par rapport à la première. Après ajustement pour tenir compte des différences dans les caractéristiques des patients et la gravité de la maladie, les probabilités d'hospitalisation (RC 0.7 ; IC à 95 % 0.6­0.8) et d'admission en soins intensifs (RC 0.7 ; IC à 95 % 0.6­0.9) ont diminué, tandis que la mortalité est restée inchangée (RC 0.7 ; IC à 95 % 0.5­1.1). INTERPRéTATION: Chez les patients se présentant dans les établissements de soins de santé, nous avons observé une adoption rapide des thérapies fondées sur des données probantes et un moindre recours aux thérapies expérimentales lors de la deuxième vague. Nous avons observé une augmentation des taux de sortie des services d'urgence et une diminution de l'utilisation des ressources hospitalières et des soins intensifs au fil du temps. Les réductions substantielles de la ventilation mécanique n'étaient pas associées à une augmentation de la mortalité. Les progrès réalisés dans les stratégies de traitement ont permis d'améliorer l'efficacité des systèmes de santé sans compromettre les résultats pour les patients.

The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Mortality Score to predict death among nonpalliative patients with COVID-19 presenting to emergency departments: a derivation and validation study.

BACKGROUND: Predicting mortality from COVID-19 using information available when patients present to the emergency department can inform goals-of-care decisions and assist with ethical allocation of critical care resources. The study objective was to develop and validate a clinical score to predict emergency department and in-hospital mortality among consecutive nonpalliative patients with COVID-19; in this study, we define palliative patients as those who do not want resuscitative measures, such as intubation, intensive care unit care or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. METHODS: This derivation and validation study used observational cohort data recruited from 46 hospitals in 8 Canadian provinces participating in the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN). We included adult (age ≥ 18 yr) nonpalliative patients with confirmed COVID-19 who presented to the emergency department of a participating site between Mar. 1, 2020, and Jan. 31, 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 emergency department and in-hospital mortality in a validation cohort. RESULTS: Of 8761 eligible patients, 618 (7.0%) died. The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Mortality Score included age, sex, type of residence, arrival mode, chest pain, severe liver disease, respiratory rate and level of respiratory support. The area under the curve was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.93) in derivation and 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.93) in validation. The score had excellent calibration. These results suggest that scores of 6 or less would categorize patients as being at low risk for in-hospital death, with a negative predictive value of 99.9%. Patients in the low-risk group had an in-hospital mortality rate of 0.1%. Patients with a score of 15 or higher had an observed mortality rate of 81.0%. INTERPRETATION: The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Mortality Score is a simple score that can be used for level-of-care discussions with patients and in situations of critical care resource constraints to accurately predict death using variables available on emergency department arrival. The score was derived and validated mostly in unvaccinated patients, and before variants of concern were circulating widely and newer treatment regimens implemented in Canada. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04702945.

Diagnostic test accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound during cardiopulmonary resuscitation to indicate the etiology of cardiac arrest: A systematic review.

AIM: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is used in cardiac arrest patients to assess for reversible causes. We aimed to conduct a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review of intra-arrest POCUS to indicate the etiology of cardiac arrest in adults in any setting. METHODS: This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020205207) and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library on October 6, 2021. Two investigators screened titles and abstracts, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) template. We estimated sensitivity and specificity when feasible and evaluated the certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: Of 8,621 search results, 12 observational studies reported 26 combinations of index tests and reference standards to indicate six different etiologies of cardiac arrest. All studies had high risks of bias from subject selection, lack of blinding, reference standards susceptible to confounding, and/or differential verification. One study reported sufficient data to complete contingency tables for sensitivity and specificity of POCUS to identify myocardial infarction, cardiac tamponade, and pulmonary embolism as the etiology of cardiac arrest. Heterogeneity and risk of bias precluded meta-analysis and the certainty of evidence was uniformly very low. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to identify reversible causes of cardiac arrest with POCUS, but the current literature is heterogenous with high risks of bias, wide confidence intervals, and very low certainty of evidence, which render these data difficult to interpret.

CCEDRRN COVID-19 Infection Score (CCIS): development and validation in a Canadian cohort of a clinical risk score to predict SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a clinical risk score that can accurately quantify the probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients presenting to an emergency department without the need for laboratory testing. DESIGN: Cohort study of participants in the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) registry. Regression models were fitted to predict a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result using clinical and demographic predictors, as well as an indicator of local SARS-CoV-2 incidence. SETTING: 32 emergency departments in eight Canadian provinces. PARTICIPANTS: 27 665 consecutively enrolled patients who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 in participating emergency departments between 1 March and 30 October 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test result within 14 days of an index emergency department encounter for suspected COVID-19 disease. RESULTS: We derived a 10-item CCEDRRN COVID-19 Infection Score using data from 21 743 patients. This score included variables from history and physical examination and an indicator of local disease incidence. The score had a c-statistic of 0.838 with excellent calibration. We externally validated the rule in 5295 patients. The score maintained excellent discrimination and calibration and had superior performance compared with another previously published risk score. Score cut-offs were identified that can rule-in or rule-out SARS-CoV-2 infection without the need for nucleic acid testing with 97.4% sensitivity (95% CI 96.4 to 98.3) and 95.9% specificity (95% CI 95.5 to 96.0). CONCLUSIONS: The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Infection Score uses clinical characteristics and publicly available indicators of disease incidence to quantify a patient's probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The score can identify patients at sufficiently high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection to warrant isolation and empirical therapy prior to test confirmation while also identifying patients at sufficiently low risk of infection that they may not need testing. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04702945.

Diagnostic Potential of Coagulation-Related Biomarkers for Sepsis in the Emergency Department: Protocol for a Pilot Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Between 75% and 80% of patients with sepsis arrive in the hospital through the emergency department. Early diagnosis is important to alter patient prognosis, but currently, there is no reliable biomarker. The innate immune response links inflammation and coagulation. Several coagulation -related biomarkers are associated with poor prognosis in the ICU. The role of coagulation biomarkers to aid in early sepsis diagnosis has not previously been investigated. The objective of our study is to determine the individual or combined accuracy of coagulation and inflammation biomarkers with standard biochemical tests to diagnose adult septic patients presenting to the emergency department. METHODS: in the Emergency Department is a prospective, observational cohort study with a target enrolment of 250 suspected septic patients from two Canadian emergency departments. The emergency physicians will enroll patients with suspected sepsis. Blood samples will be collected at two time points (initial presentation and 4 hr following). Patients will be adjudicated into septic, infected, or not infected status in accordance with the Sepsis-3 definitions. Patient demographics, cultures, diagnosis, and biomarkers will be reported using descriptive statistics. Optimal cut off values with sensitivity and specificity for each biomarker will be determined using C-statistics to distinguish between septic and nonseptic patients. Stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis with exclusion of nonsignificant covariates from the final model will be used to establish a panel of biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: Our protocol describes the processes and methods for a pragmatic observational biomarker study in the emergency department. This study will seek to determine the potential diagnostic importance of early coagulation abnormalities to identify additional tools for sepsis diagnosis.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of routine early angiography in patients with return of spontaneous circulation after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Early coronary angiography (CAG) has been reported in individual studies and systematic reviews to significantly improve outcomes of patients with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after cardiac arrest (CA). METHODS: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of early CAG on key clinical outcomes in comatose patients after ROSC following out-of-hospital CA of presumed cardiac origin. We searched the PubMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from 1990 until April 2020. Eligible studies compared patients undergoing early CAG to patients with late or no CAG. When randomized controlled trials (RCTs) existed for a specific outcome, we used their results to estimate the effect of the intervention. In the absence of randomized data, we used observational data. We excluded studies at high risk of bias according to the Robins-I tool from the meta-analysis. The GRADE system was used to assess certainty of evidence at an outcome level. RESULTS: Of 3738 citations screened, 3 randomized trials and 41 observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Evidence certainty across all outcomes for the RCTs was assessed as low. Randomized data showed no benefit from early as opposed to late CAG across all critical outcomes of survival and survival with favourable neurologic outcome for undifferentiated patients and for patient subgroups without ST-segment-elevation on post ROSC ECG and shockable initial rhythm. CONCLUSION: These results do not support routine early CAG in undifferentiated comatose patients and patients without STE on post ROSC ECG after OHCA. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO - CRD42020160152.