Evaluation of the revised trauma and injury severity scores in elderly trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Severity-of-illness scoring systems have primarily been developed for, and validated in, younger trauma patients. AIMS: We sought to determine the accuracy of the injury severity score (ISS) and the revised trauma score (RTS) in predicting mortality and hospital length of stay (LOS) in trauma patients over the age of 65 treated in our emergency department (ED). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the Illinois Trauma Registry, we identified all patients 65 years and older treated in our level I trauma facility from January 2004 to November 2007. The primary outcome was death; the secondary outcome was overall hospital length of stay (LOS). We measured associations between scores and outcomes with binary logistic and linear regression. RESULTS: A total of 347 patients, 65 years of age and older were treated in our hospital during the study period. Median age was 76 years (IQR 69-82), with median ISS 13 (IQR 8-17), and median RTS 7.8 (IQR 7.1-7.8). Overall mortality was 24%. A higher value for ISS showed a positive correlation with likelihood of death, which although statistically significant, was numerically small (OR=1.10, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.13, P<0.001). An elevated RTS had an inverse correlation to likelihood of death that was also statistically significant (OR=0.48, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.58, P<0.001). Total hospital LOS increased with increasing ISS, with statistical significance decreasing at the highest levels of ISS, but an increase in RTS not confirming the predicted decrease in total hospital LOS consistently across all ranges of RTS. CONCLUSIONS: The ISS and the RTS were better predictors of mortality than hypothesized, but had limited correlation with hospital LOS in elderly trauma patients. Although there may be some utility in these scores when applied to the elderly population, caution is warranted if attempting to predict the prognosis of patients.

A comparison of the effects of etomidate and midazolam on hospital length of stay in patients with suspected sepsis: a prospective, randomized study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Etomidate, a widely used induction agent for rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department (ED), causes measurable adrenal suppression after a single bolus dose. The clinical significance of this adrenal suppression in patients with sepsis remains controversial. We seek to determine the difference in hospital length of stay between patients with suspected sepsis who receive either etomidate or midazolam during intubation in our ED. METHODS: We performed a prospective, double-blind, randomized study of patients with suspected sepsis who were intubated in our ED during an 18-month period. Eligible patients who were critically ill and were suspected of having sepsis were randomized to receive either etomidate or midazolam before intubation. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients were enrolled; 59 received midazolam and 63 received etomidate. Two patients in the etomidate group were lost to follow-up. Patient baseline characteristics were similar between groups. There were no significant differences in median hospital length of stay (9.5 versus 7.3 days), ICU length of stay (4.2 versus 3.1 days), or ventilator days (2.8 versus 2.1) between patients who received midazolam and those who received etomidate, respectively. Inhospital mortality was 21 of 59 (36%; 95% confidence interval 24% to 49%) for patients who received midazolam and 26 of 61 (43%; 95% confidence interval 30% to 56%) for patients who received etomidate. For patients who survived to hospital discharge, the median length of stay was 11.3 days in the midazolam group versus 11.8 days in the etomidate group; for patients who died, the median length of stay was 2.9 days in the midazolam group versus 3.3 days in the etomidate group. CONCLUSION: Patients with suspected sepsis and who received a single bolus dose of etomidate for rapid sequence intubation showed no significant increase in hospital length of stay compared with patients who received a single bolus dose of midazolam.

The effect of alpha-blockade in emergency department patients with ureterolithiasis.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that alpha-blockade with tamsulosin may be useful in the treatment of ureterolithiasis by increasing the success of, and decreasing the time to, stone passage. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine stone passage success rates in patients diagnosed with ureterolithiasis and discharged from our Emergency Department (ED) with tamsulosin. METHODS: We conducted a non-randomized retrospective cohort study over a 1-year period during which we made monthly follow-up telephone calls to patients discharged from our ED with a diagnosis of ureterolithiasis determined by computed tomography (CT) scan. Stone size and location (proximal, middle, or distal ureter) were determined from radiologist reports and prescriptions were determined from electronic medical records. Patients were asked if they spontaneously passed their stone, how much time was required before stone passage, and if any subsequent hospital visit was required after discharge due to pain or complication resulting from the ureteral stone. RESULTS: During the study, a total of 213 patients were discharged from the ED with ureterolithiasis diagnosed by CT scan; of these, 119 (56%) were successfully contacted and 113 (53%) agreed to participate. Of the 113 patients, 83 (73%) had been prescribed tamsulosin and 30 (27%) had not. Overall age (43 years), gender (67% male), median stone size (3 mm, interquartile range 2-4 mm), and location (71% distal ureter) were similar in the two cohorts. Of tamsulosin recipients, 84% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75-91%) reported passing their stone, whereas 60% (95% CI 42-75%) of non-recipients passed their stone. CONCLUSION: Patients with ureterolithiasis discharged from our ED and given tamsulosin by prescription had moderately high ureteral stone passage success rates in our non-randomized retrospective cohort study. Compared to non-recipients of tamsulosin, patients receiving tamsulosin seemed to have greater success in stone passage.

Emergency physicians report infrequent use of alpha-blockade for the treatment of ureteral stones.

PURPOSES: We sought to determine how frequently tamsulosin is used by emergency physicians (EPs) for the treatment of patients with ureteral stones, and examine factors influencing its use. BASIC PROCEDURES: We distributed online and paper surveys to 240 EPs in five states in the United States. Surveys asked the length of time in practice, the type of hospital setting, and the self-reported frequency of tamsulosin use by quartile. FINDINGS: A total of 103 EPs (43%) responded to the survey. The majority (60%, 95% CI 51% to 69%) reported the use of tamsulosin in fewer than 25% of patients presenting with ureteral stones, and many (27%, 95% CI 20% to 36%) had not heard of the use of tamsulosin for urinary-stone passage. Practice in a county hospital was associated with infrequent tamsulosin use (p=.02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence that alpha-blockade may be beneficial to patients presenting to the emergency department with ureteral stones, this approach is still used inconsistently by EPs.

A prospective observational study of the effect of etomidate on septic patient mortality and length of stay.

OBJECTIVES: Etomidate is known to cause adrenal suppression after single-bolus administration. Some studies suggest that when etomidate is used as an induction agent for intubation of septic patients in the emergency department (ED), this adrenal suppression leads to increased mortality, vasopressor requirements, and length of hospital stay. The authors sought to determine differences in the in-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay (LOS) between septic patients given etomidate and patients given alternative or no induction agents for rapid-sequence intubation in our ED. METHODS: This was a nonrandomized, prospective observational study of all patients meeting sepsis criteria who were intubated in an ED over a 9-month period. Times of patient presentation, intubation, admission, discharge, and/or death were recorded, as well as the intubation agent used, if any, and corticosteroid use. The authors also recorded relevant laboratory and demographic variables to determine severity of illness using the Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS) score. Mortality and survivor LOS between the patients given etomidate and those given alternative or no induction agents were compared. RESULTS: A total of 106 patients with sepsis were intubated over the study period. Of these, 74 patients received etomidate, while 32 patients received ketamine, benzodiazepines, propofol, or no induction agents. Age in years (median = 78; interquartile range [IQR] = 67 to 83), gender (45% male), MEDS score (median = 13; IQR = 10 to 15), and receipt of supplemental corticosteroids (56%) were statistically similar between the two groups. In-hospital mortality of patients given etomidate (38%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 28% to 49%) was similar to those receiving alternatives (44%; 95% CI = 28% to 61%). Surviving patients had a median hospital LOS after receiving etomidate of 10 days compared to those receiving alternatives (7.5 days; p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant increase in hospital LOS or mortality in patients given etomidate for rapid-sequence intubation was found. Suggestions that the use of etomidate for intubation in the ED be abandoned are not supported by these data.

The effect of single-bolus etomidate on septic patient mortality: a retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: Because of its many desirable properties, etomidate is widely used as an induction agent for endotracheal intubation. However, some have recently called into question the safety of etomidate for even single-bolus use due to its known effects on adrenal suppression. OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the in-hospital mortality between septic patients given etomidate and those given alternative induction agents for intubation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of intubated septic patients treated in our hospital. We collected data from patients over the age of 18 with sepsis who were intubated in the pre-hospital setting, in our emergency department, or on the wards of our hospital, and calculated the in-hospital mortality of each group. RESULTS: We identified 181 patients with sepsis who were intubated over the study period; 135 received etomidate and 46 received alternative agents or no induction agent. Baseline characteristics, vital signs, and laboratory values were similar between the two groups. Of the 46 patients receiving alternative agents or no agent, 18 died, yielding an unadjusted mortality of 39.1% (95% CI 25.5% to 54.6%), while of the 135 patients receiving etomidate, 63 died, for an unadjusted mortality of 46.7% (95% CI 38.1% to 55.4%), P=0.38. CONCLUSION: We found a non-statistically significant 7.6% absolute increase in mortality in patients given etomidate in our small-sized study population.