Diagnosis and management of patients who present with narrow complex tachycardia in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: While narrow complex tachycardia (NCT) is a common presentation to the emergency department (ED), little is known about its incidence in the ED or about emergency physician expertise in its diagnosis and management. We sought to compare cases of NCT due to primary arrhythmias to those with a rapid heart rate secondary to a medical issue, as well as to determine the accuracy of ED physician diagnosis and appropriateness of treatment. METHODS: We conducted a health records review at a large academic hospital ED staffed by 95 physicians and included consecutive adult patients over 7 months (2020-2021) with NCT (heart rate ≥ 130 bpm and QRS < 120 ms). Cases were reviewed for accuracy of ECG diagnosis and for correctness of treatment as per guidelines by an adjudication committee. RESULTS: We identified 310 ED visits (0.8% of all ED visits), mean age 65.1 years, 52.6% female. Primary arrhythmias accounted for 54.8%. ED physicians correctly interpreted 86.6% of ECGs. The most common arrhythmias and accuracy of ED physician ECG interpretation were atrial fibrillation 44.5% (95.1%), sinus tachycardia 24.2% (90.5%), atrial flutter 15.8% (61.5%), and supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) 12.9% (81.6%). Treatments were judged optimal in 96.5% of primary NCT and 99.3% in secondary NCT. Treatments were suboptimal for failure to reduce heart rate < 100 bpm prior to discharge in 2.1% of primary cases and failure to treat underlying cause in 0.7% of secondary cases. CONCLUSION: NCT was found in 0.8% of all ED visits, with more being primary NCT. ED physicians correctly interpreted 86.6% of ECGs but had difficulty differentiating atrial flutter and SVT. They implemented appropriate care in most cases but sometimes failed to adequately control heart rate or to treat the underlying condition, suggesting opportunities to improve care of NCT in the ED.

RéSUMé: INTRODUCTION: Bien que la tachycardie à complexe QRS étroite (narrow complex tachycardia [NCT]) soit une présentation courante au service des urgences (SU), on sait peu de choses sur son incidence dans le SU ou sur l'expertise des médecins urgentistes dans son diagnostic et sa prise en charge. Nous avons cherché à comparer les cas de NCT dus à des arythmies primaires à ceux avec une fréquence cardiaque rapide secondaire à un problème médical, ainsi que pour déterminer l'exactitude du diagnostic de médecin ED et la pertinence du traitement. MéTHODES: Nous avons effectué un examen des dossiers médicaux dans les urgences d'un grand hôpital universitaire où travaillent 95 médecins et avons inclus des patients adultes consécutifs sur 7 mois (2020-2021) présentant une NCT (fréquence cardiaque ≥ 130 bpm et QRS < 120 ms). Les cas ont été examinés par un comité d'adjudication pour vérifier l'exactitude du diagnostic ECG et la justesse du traitement conformément aux directives. RéSULTATS: Nous avons recensé 310 visites aux urgences (0,8 % de toutes les visites aux urgences), l'âge moyen étant de 65,1 ans, 52,6 % de femmes. Les arythmies primaires représentaient 54,8 %. Les médecins urgentistes ont correctement interprété 86,6 % des ECG. Les arythmies les plus fréquentes et la précision de l'interprétation de l'ECG par le médecin de l'urgence étaient la fibrillation auriculaire 44,5 % (95,1 %), la tachycardie sinusale 24,2 % (90,5 %), le flutter auriculaire 15,8 % (61,5 %) et la tachycardie supraventriculaire (TSV) 12,9 % (81,6 %). Les traitements ont été jugés optimaux dans 96,5 % des NCT primaires et 99,3 % des NCT secondaires. Les traitements étaient sous-optimaux en raison de l'incapacité à réduire la fréquence cardiaque < 100 bpm avant la sortie de l'hôpital dans 2,1 % des cas primaires et de l'incapacité à traiter la cause sous-jacente dans 0,7 % des cas secondaires. CONCLUSION: Une NCT a été constatée dans 0,8 % de toutes les visites aux urgences, la plupart étant des NCT primaires. Les médecins des services d'urgence ont interprété correctement 86,6 % des ECG mais ont eu des difficultés à différencier le flutter auriculaire et la TSV. Ils ont mis en œuvre des soins appropriés dans la plupart des cas, mais n'ont parfois pas réussi à contrôler adéquatement la fréquence cardiaque ou à traiter l'affection sous-jacente, ce qui laisse entrevoir des possibilités d'améliorer la prise en charge des NCT aux urgences.

Pharmacologic treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 3% of adults globally. Many pharmacologic treatments options exist, yet the comparative benefits and harms of individual treatments are largely unknown. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of individual pharmacologic treatments for adults with ADHD. METHODS: We searched English-language published and grey literature sources for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving pharmacologic treatment of ADHD in adults (December 2018). The primary outcome was clinical response; secondary outcomes were quality of life, executive function, driving behaviour, withdrawals due to adverse events, treatment discontinuation, serious adverse events, hospitalization, cardiovascular adverse events, and emergency department visits. Data were pooled via pair-wise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed by use of Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed by use of the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Eighty-one unique trials that reported at least one outcome of interest were included, most of which were at high or unclear risk of at least one important source of bias. Notably, only 5 RCTs were deemed at overall low risk of bias. Included pharmacotherapies were methylphenidate, atomoxetine, dexamfetamine, lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine, bupropion, mixed amphetamine salts, and modafinil. As a class, ADHD pharmacotherapy improved patient- and clinician-reported clinical response compared with placebo (range: 4 to 15 RCTs per outcome); however, these findings were not conserved when the analyses were restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and the certainty of the finding is very low. There were few differences among individual medications, although atomoxetine was associated with improved patient-reported clinical response and quality of life compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of serious adverse events or treatment discontinuation between ADHD pharmacotherapies and placebo; however, the proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events was significantly higher among participants who received any ADHD pharmacotherapy. Few RCTs reported on the occurrence of adverse events over a long treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, despite a class effect of improving clinical response relative to placebo, there were few differences among the individual ADHD pharmacotherapies, and most studies were at risk of at least one important source of bias. Furthermore, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low for all outcomes, and there was limited reporting of long-term adverse events. As such, the choice between ADHD pharmacotherapies may depend on individual patient considerations, and future studies should assess the long-term effects of individual pharmacotherapies on patient-important outcomes, including quality of life, in robust blinded RCTs. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO no. CRD 42015026049.