Association of early doses of diuretics and nitrates in acute heart failure with 30 days outcomes: ancillary analysis of ELISABETH study.

AIMS: The optimal dose of diuretics and nitrates for acute heart failure treatment remains uncertain. This study aimed to assess the association between intravenous nitrates and loop diuretics doses within the initial 4 h of emergency department presentation and the number of days alive and out of hospital (NDAOH) through 30 days. METHODS: This was an ancillary study of the ELISABETH stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial that included 502 acute heart failure patients 75 years or older in 15 French emergency departments. The primary endpoint was the NDAOH at 30 days. The total dose of intravenous nitrates and loop diuretics administered in the initial 4 h were each categorized into three classes: 'no nitrate', '> 0-16', and '> 16 mg' for nitrates and '< 60', '60', and '> 60 mg' for diuretics. Secondary endpoints included 30-day mortality, 30-day hospital readmission, and hospital length of stay in patients alive at 30 days. Generalized linear mixed models were used to examine associations with the endpoints. RESULTS: Of 502 patients, the median age was 87 years, with 59% women. The median administered dose within the initial 4 h was 16 mg (5.0; 40.0) for nitrates and 40 mg (40.0; 80.0) for diuretics. The median NDAOH at 30 days was 19 (0.0-24.0). The adjusted ratios of the NDAOH were 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63-1.23] and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.58-1.00) for patients that received 60 and > 60 mg, respectively, compared with patients that received 40 mg or less of diuretics. Compared with patients who did not receive nitrates, the adjusted ratios of the NDAOH were 1.17 (95% CI: 0.82-1.67) and 1.45 (95% CI: 0.90-2.33) for patients who received 1-16 and > 16 mg, respectively. There was no significant association with any of the secondary endpoints. CONCLUSION: In this ancillary analysis, there was no significant association between different doses of diuretics and nitrates with the NDAOH at 30 days. Point estimates and CIs may suggest that the optimal doses are less than 60 mg of diuretics, and more than 16 mg of nitrates in the first 4 h.

Corticosteroid burst therapy in patients with acute heart failure: Design of the CORTAHF pilot study.

AIMS: Inflammation has emerged as a potential key pathophysiological mechanism in heart failure (HF) in general and acute HF (AHF) specifically, with inflammatory biomarkers shown to be highly predictive of adverse outcomes in these patients. The CORTAHF study builds on both these data and the fact that steroid burst therapy has been shown to be effective in the treatment of respiratory diseases and COVID-19. Our hypothesis is that in patients with AHF and elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels without symptoms or signs of infection, a 7-day course of steroid therapy will lead to reduced inflammation and short-term improvement in quality of life and a reduced risk of worsening HF (WHF) events. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study, which is currently ongoing, will include 100 patients with AHF ages 18-85, regardless of ejection fraction, screened within 12 h of presentation. Patients will be included who have NT-proBNP > 1500 pg/mL and CRP > 20 mg/L at screening. Exclusion criteria include haemodynamic instability and symptoms and signs of infection. After signed consent, eligible patients will be randomized according to a central randomization scheme stratified by centre 1:1 to either treatment once daily for 7 days with 40 mg prednisone orally or to standard care. Patients will be assessed at study day 2, day 4 or at discharge if earlier, and at days 7 and 31 at the hospital; and at day 91 through a telephone follow-up. The primary endpoint is the change in CRP level from baseline to day 7, estimated from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including all measured timepoints, in patients without a major protocol violation. Secondary endpoints include the time to the first event of WHF adverse event, readmission for HF, or death through day 91; and changes to day 7 in EQ-5D visual analogue scale score and utility index. Additional clinical and laboratory measures will be assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study will add to the knowledge of the role of inflammation in AHF and potentially inform the design of larger studies with possibly longer duration of anti-inflammatory therapies in AHF.

Effect of early initiation of noninvasive ventilation in patients transported by emergency medical service for acute heart failure.

BACKGROUND: While the indication for noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in severely hypoxemic patients with acute heart failure (AHF) is often indicated and may improve clinical course, the benefit of early initiation before patient arrival to the emergency department (ED) remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of early initiation of NIV during emergency medical service (EMS) transportation on outcomes in patients with AHF. DESIGN: A secondary retrospective analysis of the EAHFE (Epidemiology of AHF in EDs) registry. SETTING: Fifty-three Spanish EDs. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with AHF transported by EMS physician-staffed ambulances who were treated with NIV at any time during of their emergency care were included and categorized into two groups based on the place of NIV initiation: prehospital (EMS group) or ED (ED group). OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the composite of in-hospital mortality and 30-day postdischarge death, readmission to hospital or return visit to the ED due to AHF. Secondary outcomes included 30-day all-cause mortality after the index event (ED admission) and the different component of the composite primary endpoint considered individually. Multivariate logistic regressions were employed for analysis. RESULTS: Out of 2406 patients transported by EMS, 487 received NIV (EMS group: 31%; EMS group: 69%). Mean age was 79 years, 48% were women. The EMS group, characterized by younger age, more coronary artery disease, and less atrial fibrillation, received more prehospital treatments. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for composite endpoint was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.42-1.05). The aOR for secondary endpoints were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.38-1.45) for in-hospital mortality, 0.74 (95% CI: 0.40-1.37) for 30-day mortality, 0.70 (95% CI: 0.41-1.21) for 30-day postdischarge ED reconsultation, 0.80 (95% CI: 0.44-1.44) for 30-day postdischarge rehospitalization, and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.25-2.04) for 30-day postdischarge death. CONCLUSION: In this ancillary analysis, prehospital initiation of NIV in patients with AHF was not associated with a significant reduction in short-term outcomes. The large confidence intervals, however, may preclude significant conclusion, and all point estimates consistently pointed toward a potential benefit from early NIV initiation.

Effect of the 1-h bundle on mortality in patients with suspected sepsis in the emergency department: a stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The efficacy of the 1-h bundle for emergency department (ED) patients with suspected sepsis, which includes lactate measurement, blood culture, broad-spectrum antibiotics administration, administration of 30 mL/kg crystalloid fluid for hypotension or lactate ≥ 4 mmol/L, remains controversial. METHODS: We carried out a pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial in 23 EDs in France and Spain. Adult patients with Sepsis-3 criteria or a quick sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 2 or a lactate > 2 mmol/L were eligible. The intervention was the implementation of the 1-h sepsis bundle. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality truncated at 28 days. Secondary outcomes included volume of fluid resuscitation at 24 h, acute heart failure at 24 h, SOFA score at 72 h, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, number of days on mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, vasopressor free days, unnecessary antibiotic administration, and mortality at 28 days. 1148 patients were planned to be analysed; the study period ended after 873 patients were included. RESULTS: 872 patients (mean age 66, 42% female) were analyzed: 387 (44.4%) in the intervention group and 485 (55.6%) in the control group. Median SOFA score was 3 [1-5]. Median time to antibiotic administration was 40 min in the intervention group vs 113 min in the control group (difference - 73 [95% confidence interval (CI) - 93 to - 53]). There was a significantly higher rate, volume, and shorter time to fluid resuscitation within 3 h in the intervention group. There were 47 (12.1%) in-hospital deaths in the intervention group compared to 61 (12.6%) in the control group (difference in percentage - 0.4 [95% CI - 5.1 to 4.2], adjusted relative risk (aRR) 0.81 [95% CI 0.48 to 1.39]). There were no differences between groups for other secondary endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with suspected sepsis in the ED, the implementation of the 1-h sepsis bundle was not associated with significant difference in in-hospital mortality. However, this study may be underpowered to report a statistically significant difference between groups.

Norepinephrine dosing in France: Time to move forward!

Norepinephrine is the first-line vasopressor used in acute cardio-circulatory failure. At the bedside, its dose is critical as it serves to determine the severity of patients, to compare the patients between different studies, and to start specific interventions. Recently, several investigators underlined differences in the expression of norepinephrine doses according to countries and manufacturers. For various reasons, all norepinephrine products are processed to a salt formulation thereby generating a stable and soluble conjugated acid in a slightly acidic solution. Depending on the salt used, the total weight will differ, but the weight of pure norepinephrine base is the same. This results in at-risk situations with large variations in terms of practices, evaluation and treatment. In this technical note, we summarized the evidence and provided a few suggestions to improve the practices at different levels.

Contemporary approaches to pulmonary embolism diagnosis: a clinical review.

The optimal diagnosis strategy for pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED) remains complex. This review summarizes PE diagnosis with clinical presentation, decision rules and investigations for acute PE. This review was performed using studies published between January 1, 2010, and September 1, 2023. PE should be considered in ED in patients with chest pain, shortness of breath, syncope or signs of deep veinous thrombosis. Definitive diagnosis of PE relies on thoracic imaging, with the use of chest tomographic pulmonary angiogram or ventilation-perfusion lung scintigraphy. To limit the continuous increased use of chest imaging, the clinical probability should be the first step for PE workup. The pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) can rule out PE at this stage. If not, for low or intermediate probability, several clinical decision rules have been validated, either by ruling out PE on clinical signs, or by raising D-dimer thresholds (YEARS or PEGeD [Pulmonary Embolism Graduated D-Dimer] criteria) or by combination of these different rules. It is recommended that patients with a high clinical probability of PE should undergo chest imaging without the need for D-dimer testing. The PE diagnostic approach can be tailored in specific populations such as pregnant, younger, COVID-19, or cancer patients. PE diagnosis workup illustrates the complexity of modern probabilistic-based approaches of decision-making in medicine. It is recommended to use a Bayesian approach with the evaluation of clinical probability, then order D-dimer if the PERC rule is positive, then adapt the D-dimer threshold for ordering chest imaging using clinical decision rules.

Pulmonary embolism rule-out decision-making tools for patients aged 35 years or younger in hospital emergency departments: a post-hoc analysis of performance in 3 prospective cohorts. / Capacidad de diferentes reglas de decisión clínica para descartar tromboembolismo pulmonar en pacientes de 35 o menos años atendidos en servicios de urgencias: análisis post-hoc de tres cohortes prospectivas.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) and the age-modified PERC-35 tool in hospital emergency departments (EDs) for evaluating patients aged 35 years or younger. A secondary aim was to assess other decision-making criteria. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of 3 European cohort studies. We included data for patients aged 35 years or younger suspected of PE who were followed for 3 months. The safety and efficacy of applying the PERC and PERC-35 were assessed with the diagnostic error rate (failure to detect PE) and the proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis of PE was ruled out. We also assessed the safety and efficacy of applying the YEARS and PEGeD criteria. RESULTS: Data for 1235 patients aged 35 years or younger were analyzed. Twenty-two (1.8%; 95% CI, 1.2%-2.7%) PE cases were diagnosed at 3 months. Six (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.5%-2.2%) and 5 (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.4%-2.1%) PE cases were not diagnosed by the PERC and PERC-35 tools, respectively. These tools allowed PE to be ruled out in 591 (48.2%; 95% CI, 45.4%-51.0%) and 554 (46.2%; 95% CI, 43.4%-49.0%) cases, respectively. The error rates of the YEARS and PEGeD criteria, respectively, were 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.1%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.2%); their efficacy was similar. CONCLUSION: The safety and efficacy profiles of the PERC and PERC-35 algorithms were similar in patients aged 35 years or younger. However, the large confidence intervals we report do not allow us to confirm the safety of using the tools in patients in this age group.

OBJETIVO: Evaluar la capacidad de la regla PERC (Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria) y la regla modificada por edad (PERC-35) para descartar tromboembolia pulmonar (TEP) en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) en pacientes 35 años. El objetivo secundario fue analizar otras reglas de decisión clínica. METODO: Análisis post-hoc de 3 estudios de cohorte europeos (PROPER, PERCEPIC y MODIGLIANI). Se incluyeron pacientes 35 años con sospecha de TEP en SUH y con seguimiento a 3 meses. La seguridad y eficacia de PERC y PERC-35 se evaluaron con su tasa de error -no detectar TEP- y la proporción de pacientes con diagnóstico de TEP descartado. Se evaluó la seguridad y eficacia de las reglas YEARS y PEGeD. RESULTADOS: Se analizaron 1.235 pacientes 35 años. Hubo 22 (1,8%, IC 95%: 1,2-2,7) TEP diagnosticados a los 3 meses. Hubo 6 (1,0%, IC 95%: 0,5-2,2) y 5 (0,9%, IC 95%: 0,4-2,1) TEP no diagnosticados con las reglas PERC y PERC-35 respectivamente. Estas reglas permitieron descartar TEP en 591 (48,2%, IC 95%: 45,4- 51,0) y 554 (46,2%, IC 95%: 43,4- 49,0) respectivamente. La tasa de error de YEARS y PEGeD fue del 0,4% (IC 95%: 0,1- 1,1) y 0,5% (IC 95%: 0,2-1,2), con una eficacia similar. CONCLUSIONES: En pacientes 35 años, las reglas PERC y PERC-35 mostraron perfiles de seguridad y eficacia similares. Sin embargo, el amplio intervalo de confianza comunicado en este estudio no permite confirmar su seguridad.

Capacidad de diferentes reglas de decisión clínica para descartar tromboembolismo pulmonar en pacientes de 35 o menos años atendidos en servicios de urgencias: análisis post-hoc de tres cohortes prospectivas / Pulmonary embolism rule-out decision-making tools for patients aged 35 years or younger in hospital emergency departments: a post-hoc analysis of performance in 3 prospective cohorts

Objetivos: Evaluar la capacidad de la regla PERC (Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria) y la regla modificada por edad (PERC-35) para descartar tromboembolia pulmonar (TEP) en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) en pacientes # 35 años. El objetivo secundario fue analizar otras reglas de decisión clínica. Método: Análisis post-hoc de 3 estudios de cohorte europeos (PROPER, PERCEPIC y MODIGLIANI). Se incluyeron pacientes # 35 años con sospecha de TEP en SUH y con seguimiento a 3 meses. La seguridad y eficacia de PERC yPERC-35 se evaluaron con su tasa de error -no detectar TEP- y la proporción de pacientes con diagnóstico de TEP descartado. Se evaluó la seguridad y eficacia de las reglas YEARS y PEGeD. Resultados: Se analizaron 1.235 pacientes # 35 años. Hubo 22 (1,8%, IC 95%: 1,2-2,7) TEP diagnosticados a los 3 meses. Hubo 6 (1,0%, IC 95%: 0,5-2,2) y 5 (0,9%, IC 95%: 0,4-2,1) TEP no diagnosticados con las reglas PERC y PERC-35 respectivamente. Estas reglas permitieron descartar TEP en 591 (48,2%, IC 95%: 45,4- 51,0) y 554 (46,2%, IC 95%: 43,4- 49,0) respectivamente. La tasa de error de YEARS y PEGeD fue del 0,4% (IC 95%: 0,1- 1,1) y 0,5% (IC 95%: 0,2-1,2), con una eficacia similar. Conclusiones: En pacientes # 35 años, las reglas PERC y PERC-35 mostraron perfiles de seguridad y eficacia similares. Sin embargo, el amplio intervalo de confianza comunicado en este estudio no permite confirmar su seguridad. (AU)

Objectives: To assess the performance of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) and the age-modified PERC-35 tool in hospital emergency departments (EDs) for evaluating patients aged 35 years or younger. A secondary aim was to assess other decision-making criteria. Method: Post-hoc analysis of 3 European cohort studies. We included data for patients aged 35 years or younger suspected of PE who were followed for 3 months. The safety and efficacy of applying the PERC and PERC-35 were assessed with the diagnostic error rate (failure to detect PE) and the proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis of PE was ruled out. We also assessed the safety and efficacy of applying the YEARS and PEGeD criteria. Results: Data for 1235 patients aged 35 years or younger were analyzed. Twenty-two (1.8%; 95% CI, 1.2%-2.7%) PE cases were diagnosed at 3 months. Six (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.5%-2.2%) and 5 (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.4%-2.1%) PE cases were not diagnosed by the PERC and PERC-35 tools, respectively. These tools allowed PE to be ruled out in 591 (48.2%; 95% CI, 45.4%-51.0%) and 554 (46.2%; 95% CI, 43.4%-49.0%) cases, respectively. The error rates of the YEARS and PEGeD criteria, respectively, were 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.1%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.2%); their efficacy was similar. Conclusions: The safety and efficacy profiles of the PERC and PERC-35 algorithms were similar in patients aged 35 years or younger. However, the large confidence intervals we report do not allow us to confirm the safety of using the tools in patients in this age group. (AU)

Parada cardiorrespiratoria fuera del hospital: el largo camino haciala equidad en el acceso a la reanimación urgente / Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the long road to equitable emergency care access to resuscitation

No disponible

COVID-19 en los servicios de urgencias franceses y españoles: no somos tan distintos entre nosotros / COVID-19 in French and Spanish emergency departments: We're not so very different from each other

No disponible

Pacientes infectados en el servicio de urgencias: ¿qué debemos detectar? / Patients with infections in the emergency department: What should we look for?

No disponible

Investigación sobre los biomarcadores de sepsis en el servicio de urgencias: ¿qué tenemos ahora?, ¿qué será lo siguiente? / Research on sepsis biomarkers in the emergency department: What now, what next?

No disponible

Sepsis y predicción de la mortalidad hospitalaria / Sepsis and prediction of in-hospital mortality

No disponible