Prediction of Early Adverse Events in Emergency Department Patients With Acute Heart Failure: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure (AHF) accounts for a substantial proportion of Emergency Department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. Previous studies have shown that emergency physicians' clinical gestalt is not sufficient to stratify patients with AHF into severe and requiring hospitalization vs nonsevere and safe to be discharged. Various prognostic algorithms have been developed to risk-stratify patients with AHF, however there is no consensus as to the best-performing risk assessment tool in the ED. METHODS: A systematic review of Medline, PubMed, and Embase up to May 2016 was conducted using established methods. Major cardiology and emergency medicine conference proceedings from 2010 to 2016 were also screened. Two independent reviewers identified studies that evaluated clinical risk scores in adult (ED) patients with AHF, with risk prognostication for mortality or significant morbidity within 7-30 days. Studies included patients who were discharged or admitted. RESULTS: The systematic review search generated 2950 titles that were screened according to title and abstract. Nine articles, describing 6 risk prediction tools met full inclusion criteria, however, prognostic performance and ease of bedside application is limited for most. Because of clinical heterogeneity in the prognostic tools and study outcomes, a meta-analysis was not performed. CONCLUSIONS: Several risk scores exist for predicting short-term mortality or morbidity in ED patients with AHF. No single risk tool is clearly superior, however, the Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade might aid in prognostication of mortality and the Ottawa Heart Failure Risk Score might provide useful prognostic information in patients suitable for ED discharge.

Effectiveness of interventions for adult peripheral intravenous catheterization: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheterization (PIVC) is commonly performed on emergency departments and inpatient units. Unsuccessful PIVC first attempts increase pain, and lead to treatment and diagnostic delays. OBJECTIVE: To determine strategies associated with PIVC first attempt success in adult emergency department patients and inpatients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, TRIP, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (OVID), and grey literatures databases such as Proquest Dissertation and Theses Global, and Open Grey databases between November and December, 2014. The search was updated on January 28, 2016. We included full text reports of randomized controlled trials testing PIVC interventions versus standard of care. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. RESULTS: We included 14 randomized controlled trials involving 3201 participants. Interventions included the AccuVein™, AccuCath™ catheter system, ultrasound, safety catheters, and topical anesthetics. Three studies compared AutoGuard and Insyte catheters and were suitable for meta-analysis. There was no difference in first attempt success with a relative risk of 0.0 (95% CI, -0.04, 0.04). There was limited evidence to support the use of ultrasound to increase first attempt success. CONCLUSIONS: Well-designed and reported randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness of ultrasound compared to standard of care are warranted. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration: CRD42014015428.

A systematic review: effectiveness of pediatric peripheral intravenous catheterization strategies.

AIM: The aim of this study was to identify interventions associated with peripheral intravenous catheterization first attempt success in pediatric inpatients and emergency department patients who require vascular access for therapeutic interventions. BACKGROUND: Unsuccessful peripheral intravenous catheterization puts children at risk for increased pain and treatment delays. Effective interventions to increase peripheral intravenous catheterization first attempt success are unclear. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials according to the Cochrane Handbook for the Systematic Review of Interventions. DATA SOURCES: Through November and December 2014, we searched 10 databases including MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID) and CINAHL (EBSCO) without date limits. The references of articles were also reviewed. We included full text reports of randomized controlled trials testing intervention first attempt success rates vs. standard of care. REVIEW METHODS: According to inclusion and exclusion criteria set a priori, data were extracted using a standardized tool. We assessed for risk of bias with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. Due to unclear reporting narrative synthesis was used to report results. RESULTS: Four cluster randomized control trials and ten randomized control trials involving 4539 participants ranging from 15·6 days to 16 years of age met our inclusion criteria. We excluded the four cluster trials from meta-analysis due to unclear reporting. Interventions did not increase first attempt success rate compared with standard of care. CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to support the use of ultrasound, infrared light or transillumination. Interventions to reduce children's pain did not decrease first attempt success. Research examining between-clinician proficiency and persistence differences is absent.