Early management of severe pelvic injury (first 24 hours).

OBJECTIVE: Pelvic fractures represent 5% of all traumatic fractures and 30% are isolated pelvic fractures. Pelvic fractures are found in 10 to 20% of severe trauma patients and their presence is highly correlated to increasing trauma severity scores. The high mortality of pelvic trauma, about 8 to 15%, is related to actively bleeding pelvic injuries and/or associated injuries to the head, abdomen or chest. Regardless of the severity of pelvic trauma, diagnosis and treatment must proceed according to a strategy that does not delay the management of the most severely injured patients. To date, in France, there are no guidelines issued by healthcare authorities or professional societies that address this subject. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 22 experts from the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (Société Française d'Anesthésie et de Réanimation; SFAR) and the French Society of Emergency Medicine (Société Française de Médecine d'Urgence; SFMU) in collaboration with the French Society of Radiology (Société Française de Radiologie; SFR), French Defence Health Service (Service de Santé des Armées; SSA), French Society of Urology (Association Française d'Urologie; AFU), the French Society of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (Société Française de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique; SOCFCOT), and the French Society of Digestive Surgery (Société Française de Chirurgie digestive; SFCD) was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently from any industry funding. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasised. METHODS: Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. The analysis of the literature and the recommendations were then conducted according to the GRADE® methodology. RESULTS: The SFAR Guideline panel provided 22 statements on prehospital and hospital management of the unstable patient with pelvic fracture. After three rounds of discussion and various amendments, a strong agreement was reached for 100% of recommendations. Of these recommendations, 11 have a high level of evidence (Grade 1 ± ), 11 have a low level of evidence (Grade 2 ± ). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among experts regarding many strong recommendations for management of the unstable patient with pelvic fracture.

Safety and efficiency of a redirection procedure toward an out of hours general practice before admission to an emergency department, an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care patients are often cited as a cause of Emergency Department overcrowding (ED). The aim of this study was to evaluate a physician led redirection procedure of selected patients towards an out of hours general practice (OHGP) in an Emergency Department with 55,000 admissions per year. METHODS: Observational monocentric study over a period of 2 months. Every patient redirected to the OHGP was included and subsequently contacted by telephone to answer a standardized questionnaire, in order to measure: Redirection rate over the entire period and during weekdays or weekends/holiday Rate of redirected patients who went to the OHGP Rate of redirected patients who consulted in an ED in the next 72 h for the same reason Redirected patients' satisfaction rate RESULTS: During the study period 9551 patients presented to the ED, of which 288 were redirected towards the OHGP (3%). The redirection rate was 1.9% during weekdays and 5.7% during weekends/holiday (p < 0.001). Of the redirected patients, 77% answered the telephone interview. Ninety percent of these patients consulted the OHGP. The main reasons for not consulting were: unduly long wait, opening hours not suitable, too costly. The rate of redirected patients who consulted in an ED in the following 72 h for the same reason was 4.1%. The satisfaction rate was 79.6% among interviewed patients. CONCLUSIONS: A physician led procedure to redirect selected patients from the ED towards an OHGP results in a low redirection rate, unlikely to have a significant effect on ED patient flow. However, the procedure is safe and well accepted by a majority of patients.

Reliability of the CARE rule and the HEART score to rule out an acute coronary syndrome in non-traumatic chest pain patients.

In patients consulting in the Emergency Department for chest pain, a HEART score ≤ 3 has been shown to rule out an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with a low risk of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) occurrence. A negative CARE rule (≤ 1) that stands for the first four elements of the HEART score may have similar rule-out reliability without troponin assay requirement. We aim to prospectively assess the performance of the CARE rule and of the HEART score to predict MACE in a chest pain population. Prospective two-center non-interventional study. Patients admitted to the ED for non-traumatic chest pain were included, and followed-up at 6 weeks. The main study endpoint was the 6-week rate of MACE (myocardial infarction, coronary angioplasty, coronary bypass, and sudden unexplained death). 641 patients were included, of whom 9.5% presented a MACE at 6 weeks. The CARE rule was negative for 31.2% of patients, and none presented a MACE during follow-up [0, 95% confidence interval: (0.0-1.9)]. The HEART score was ≤ 3 for 63.0% of patients, and none presented a MACE during follow-up [0% (0.0-0.9)]. With an incidence below 2% in the negative group, the CARE rule seemed able to safely rule out a MACE without any biological test for one-third of patients with chest pain and the HEART score for another third with a single troponin assay.