Effect of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria on Subsequent Thromboembolic Events Among Low-Risk Emergency Department Patients: The PROPER Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The safety of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC), an 8-item block of clinical criteria aimed at ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE), has not been assessed in a randomized clinical trial. Objective: To prospectively validate the safety of a PERC-based strategy to rule out PE. Design, Setting, and Patients: A crossover cluster-randomized clinical noninferiority trial in 14 emergency departments in France. Patients with a low gestalt clinical probability of PE were included from August 2015 to September 2016, and followed up until December 2016. Interventions: Each center was randomized for the sequence of intervention periods. In the PERC period, the diagnosis of PE was excluded with no further testing if all 8 items of the PERC rule were negative. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the occurrence of a thromboembolic event during the 3-month follow-up period that was not initially diagnosed. The noninferiority margin was set at 1.5%. Secondary end points included the rate of computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA), median length of stay in the emergency department, and rate of hospital admission. Results: Among 1916 patients who were cluster-randomized (mean age 44 years, 980 [51%] women), 962 were assigned to the PERC group and 954 were assigned to the control group. A total of 1749 patients completed the trial. A PE was diagnosed at initial presentation in 26 patients in the control group (2.7%) vs 14 (1.5%) in the PERC group (difference, 1.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.7%]; P = .052). One PE (0.1%) was diagnosed during follow-up in the PERC group vs none in the control group (difference, 0.1% [95% CI, -∞ to 0.8%]). The proportion of patients undergoing CTPA in the PERC group vs control group was 13% vs 23% (difference, -10% [95% CI, -13% to -6%]; P < .001). In the PERC group, rates were significantly reduced for the median length of emergency department stay (mean reduction, 36 minutes [95% CI, 4 to 68]) and hospital admission (difference, 3.3% [95% CI, 0.1% to 6.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among very low-risk patients with suspected PE, randomization to a PERC strategy vs conventional strategy did not result in an inferior rate of thromboembolic events over 3 months. These findings support the safety of PERC for very low-risk patients presenting to the emergency department. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02375919.

Outpatient Appendectomy in an Emergency Outpatient Surgery Unit 24 h a Day: An Intention-to-Treat Analysis of 194 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of patients operated on for uncomplicated acute appendicitis (UAA) in our 24-h emergency outpatient surgery unit. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study with intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. From 12/2013 to 03/2015, all consecutive patients admitted for acute appendicitis (AA) were prospectively screened. A computed tomography or abdominal ultrasound confirmed the diagnosis of AA. Eligibility criteria for outpatient appendectomy were: UAA, no comorbidity, no physical or mental condition preventing participation in the study, absence of pregnancy, age older than 15 years, an accompanying adult person available for the hospital discharge and place of residence within 1 h of our hospital. In the case of intraoperative complication (abscess, local or general peritonitis) or complication of general anesthesia, patients were excluded from the outpatient pathway. The primary endpoint was the feasibility of outpatient appendectomy among all consecutive patients admitted for UAA. RESULTS: Of the 194 screened patients, 150 (77%) presented an UAA and 102 (68%) were eligible for an outpatient procedure. Thirteen eligible patients (13%) were excluded from the outpatient circuit (7 intraoperative and 6 postoperative contraindications). Outpatient appendectomy was performed in 89 patients, representing 59% (89/150) of the ITT population and 87% (89/102) of the eligible patients. The median length of hospital stay was 13 h. Postoperative complications were observed in six patients (6%). CONCLUSIONS: This study reports a safe and feasible management of UAA. Our organization allows a short hospitalization for postoperative recovery without using conventional surgery beds and enables discharge throughout the night.

Is procalcitonin a useful biomarker for the risk stratification of facial cellulitis?

BACKGROUND: Facial cellulitis is an infectious disease that may require emergency surgical drainage based on clinical assessment. To date, no biological marker has been reported to be useful for risk stratification. Procalcitonin (PCT) is a diagnostic and prognostic sepsis biomarker. We aimed to study the usefulness of PCT dosage for the risk-stratification of facial cellulitis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a monocentric prospective study conducted in a referral center for maxillofacial emergencies. Patients with a diagnosis of facial cellulitis were included and underwent a PCT measurement at admission. The main criterion was the requirement for surgical drainage. RESULTS: Seventy consecutive patients were included in a 7-months period, mean age 35 ± 14 years. Surgical drainage was required for 48 patients (68%). Serum PCT concentrations were strictly negative in most patients (median [IQR]: 0.05 µg/L [0.05; 0.10]). Only 6 patients (9%) had PCT values above the clinical threshold of 0.25 µg/L. At a threshold of 0.1 µg/L, PCT was 30% sensitive and 100% specific for surgical drainage requirement. CONCLUSION: PCT level usually remains in a low range in facial cellulitis and seems to have a limited added value for risk stratification.

Emergency Care for Homeless Patients: A French Multicenter Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether homeless patients experience suboptimal care in the emergency department (ED) by the provision of fewer health care resources. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicenter cohort study in 30 EDs in France. During 72 hours in March 2015, all homeless patients that visited the participating EDs were included in the study. The primary health care service measure was the order by the physician of a diagnostic investigation or provision of a treatment in the ED. Secondary measures of health care services included ED waiting time, number and type of investigations per patient, treatment in the ED, and discharge disposition. RESULTS: A total of 254 homeless patients and 254 nonhomeless patients were included. After excluding homeless patients that attended the ED for the sole purpose of housing, we analyzed 214 homeless and 214 nonhomeless. We found no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of health care resource consumption, and for our secondary endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find significant differences in the level of medical care delivered in French EDs to homeless patients compared with matched nonhomeless patients.