Patiromer utility as an adjunct treatment in patients needing urgent hyperkalaemia management (PLATINUM): design of a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study.

INTRODUCTION: Hyperkalaemia is common, life-threatening and often requires emergency department (ED) management; however, no standardised ED treatment protocol exists. Common treatments transiently reducing serum potassium (K+) (including albuterol, glucose and insulin) may cause hypoglycaemia. We outline the design and rationale of the Patiromer Utility as an Adjunct Treatment in Patients Needing Urgent Hyperkalaemia Management (PLATINUM) study, which will be the largest ED randomised controlled hyperkalaemia trial ever performed, enabling assessment of a standardised approach to hyperkalaemia management, as well as establishing a new evaluation parameter (net clinical benefit) for acute hyperkalaemia treatment investigations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PLATINUM is a Phase 4, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in participants who present to the ED at approximately 30 US sites. Approximately 300 adult participants with hyperkalaemia (K+ ≥5.8 mEq/L) will be enrolled. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive glucose (25 g intravenously <15 min before insulin), insulin (5 units intravenous bolus) and aerosolised albuterol (10 mg over 30 min), followed by a single oral dose of either 25.2 g patiromer or placebo, with a second dose of patiromer (8.4 g) or placebo after 24 hours. The primary endpoint is net clinical benefit, defined as the mean change in the number of additional interventions less the mean change in serum K+, at hour 6. Secondary endpoints are net clinical benefit at hour 4, proportion of participants without additional K+-related medical interventions, number of additional K+-related interventions and proportion of participants with sustained K+ reduction (K+ ≤5.5 mEq/L). Safety endpoints are the incidence of adverse events, and severity of changes in serum K+ and magnesium. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: A central Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Ethics Committee provided protocol approval (#20201569), with subsequent approval by local IRBs at each site, and participants will provide written consent. Primary results will be published in peer-reviewed manuscripts promptly following study completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04443608.

Spanish-Speaking Caregivers' Perception of Emergency Physicians' Interpersonal and Communication Skills in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: Medical communication is more than just the delivery of information; language differences between physicians and patients/caregivers create a challenge to providing effective care in the pediatric emergency department (ED). Overcoming this barrier is vital to providing high-quality care. We evaluated Spanish- versus English-speaking caregivers' perception of their pediatric ED physicians' interpersonal and communication skills. We also compared perceptions of Spanish- versus English-speaking caregivers who self-identified as Hispanic. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of data from surveys administered in an urban, free-standing children's hospital ED. Surveys were administered in English and Spanish to pediatric patient caregivers. In person, video, and telephonic interpretations were available during patient encounters. RESULTS: There were 2542 (82.4%) surveys completed in English and 543 (17.6%) in Spanish. There were significant differences in demographic data of English versus Spanish survey respondents, including level of education, insurance status, and rates of nonpublic insurance. Spanish survey respondents rated their physicians' interpersonal skills lower than English survey respondents. There were 1455 (47%) surveys completed by the respondents who self-identified as Hispanic. Within this group, 928 (63.8%) respondents completed the survey in English and 527 (36.2%) in Spanish. Among this Hispanic population, the Spanish survey respondents rated their physicians' interpersonal and communication skills lower than English survey respondents. After adjusting for education level and insurance type, these differences persisted. CONCLUSIONS: Language barriers have a meaningful impact on physician ability to communicate effectively in the pediatric ED. Improving physicians' ability to overcome this barrier is essential toward enriching patient outcomes and experience in the ED.

Utility of COVID-19 antigen testing in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The BinaxNOW coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Ag Card test (Abbott Diagnostics Scarborough, Inc.) is a lateral flow immunochromatographic point-of-care test for the qualitative detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid protein antigen. It provides results from nasal swabs in 15 minutes. Our purpose was to determine its sensitivity and specificity for a COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS: Eligible patients had symptoms of COVID-19 or suspected exposure. After consent, 2 nasal swabs were collected; 1 was tested using the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 (ie, the gold standard polymerase chain reaction test) and the second run on the BinaxNOW point of care platform by emergency department staff. RESULTS: From July 20 to October 28, 2020, 767 patients were enrolled, of which 735 had evaluable samples. Their mean (SD) age was 46.8 (16.6) years, and 422 (57.4%) were women. A total of 623 (84.8%) patients had COVID-19 symptoms, most commonly shortness of breath (n = 404; 55.0%), cough (n = 314; 42.7%), and fever (n = 253; 34.4%). Although 460 (62.6%) had symptoms ≤7 days, the mean (SD) time since symptom onset was 8.1 (14.0) days. Positive tests occurred in 173 (23.5%) and 141 (19.2%) with the gold standard versus BinaxNOW test, respectively. Those with symptoms >2 weeks had a positive test rate roughly half of those with earlier presentations. In patients with symptoms ≤7 days, the sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values for the BinaxNOW test were 84.6%, 98.5%, 94.9%, and 95.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The BinaxNOW point-of-care test has good sensitivity and excellent specificity for the detection of COVID-19. We recommend using the BinasNOW for patients with symptoms up to 2 weeks.

A Rapid, Mobile Neurocognitive Screening Test to Aid in Identifying Cognitive Impairment and Dementia (BrainCheck): Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The US population over the age of 65 is expected to double by the year 2050. Concordantly, the incidence of dementia is projected to increase. The subclinical stage of dementia begins years before signs and symptoms appear. Early detection of cognitive impairment and/or cognitive decline may allow for interventions to slow its progression. Furthermore, early detection may allow for implementation of care plans that may affect the quality of life of those affected and their caregivers. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the accuracy and validity of BrainCheck Memory as a diagnostic aid for age-related cognitive impairment, as compared against physician diagnosis and other commonly used neurocognitive screening tests, including the Saint Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) exam, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). METHODS: We tested 583 volunteers over the age of 49 from various community centers and living facilities in Houston, Texas. The volunteers were divided into five cohorts: a normative population and four comparison groups for the SLUMS exam, the MMSE, the MoCA, and physician diagnosis. Each comparison group completed their respective assessment and BrainCheck Memory. RESULTS: A total of 398 subjects were included in the normative population. A total of 84 participants were in the SLUMS exam cohort, 51 in the MMSE cohort, 35 in the MoCA cohort, and 18 in the physician cohort. BrainCheck Memory assessments were significantly correlated to the SLUMS exam, with coefficients ranging from .5 to .7. Correlation coefficients for the MMSE and BrainCheck and the MoCA and BrainCheck were also significant. Of the 18 subjects evaluated by a physician, 9 (50%) were healthy, 6 (33%) were moderately impaired, and 3 (17%) were severely impaired. A significant difference was found between the severely and moderately impaired subjects and the healthy subjects (P=.02). We derived a BrainCheck Memory composite score that showed stronger correlations with the standard assessments as compared to the individual BrainCheck assessments. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis of this composite score found a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 94%. CONCLUSIONS: BrainCheck Memory provides a sensitive and specific metric for age-related cognitive impairment in older adults, with the advantages of a mobile, digital, and easy-to-use test. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03608722; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03608722 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/76JLoYUGf).

The management of acute hypertension in patients with renal dysfunction: labetalol or nicardipine?

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended doses of labetalol and nicardipine for hypertension (HTN) management in a subset of patients with renal dysfunction (RD). DESIGN: Randomized, open label, multicenter prospective clinical trial. SETTING: Thirteen United States tertiary care emergency departments. PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS: Subgroup analysis of the Evaluation of IV Cardene (Nicardipine) and Labetalol Use in the Emergency Department (CLUE) clinical trial. The subjects were 104 patients with RD (i.e., creatinine clearance < 75 mL/min) who presented to the emergency department with a systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 180 mmHg on 2 consecutive readings and for whom the emergency physician felt intravenous antihypertensive therapy was desirable. INTERVENTIONS: The FDA recommended doses of either labetalol or nicardipine for HTN management. MEASUREMENTS: The number of patients achieving the physician's predefined target SBP range within 30 minutes of treatment. RESULTS: Patients treated with nicardipine were within target range more often than those receiving labetalol (92% vs. 78%, P = 0.046). On 6 SBP measures, patients treated with nicardipine were more likely to achieve the target range on either 5 or all 6 readings than were patients treated with labetalol (46% vs. 25%, P = 0.024). Labetalol patients were more likely to require rescue medication (27% vs. 17%, P = 0.020). Adverse events thought to be related to either treatment group were not reported in the 30-minute active study period, and patients had slower heart rates at all time points after 5 minutes (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In severe HTN with RD, nicardipine-treated patients are more likely to reach a target blood pressure range within 30 minutes than are patients receiving labetalol. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Within 30 minutes of administration, nicardipine is more efficacious than labetalol for acute blood pressure control in patients with RD.

Opinion paper on utility of point-of-care biomarkers in the emergency department pathways decision making.

Overcrowding of the emergency department (ED) is rapidly becoming a global challenge and a major source of concern for emergency physicians. The evaluation of cardiac biomarkers is critical for confirming diagnoses and expediting treatment decisions to reduce overcrowding, however, physicians currently face the dilemma of choosing between slow and accurate central-based laboratory tests, or faster but imprecise assays. With improvements in technology, point-of-care testing (POCT) systems facilitate the efficient and high-throughput evaluation of biomarkers, such as troponin (cTn), brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL). In this context, POCT may help ED physicians to confirm a diagnosis of conditions, such as acute coronary syndrome, heart failure or kidney damage. Compared with classic laboratory methods, the use of cTn, BNP, and NGAL POCT has shown comparable sensitivity, specificity and failure rate, but with the potential to provide prompt and accurate diagnosis, shorten hospital stay, and alleviate the burden on the ED. Despite this potential, the full advantages of rapid delivery results will only be reached if POCT is implemented within hospital standardized procedures and ED staff receive appropriate training.

The men and history behind the Venturi mask.

The delivery of supplemental oxygen is a critical part in the management of patients presenting with acute hypoxemia. While a number of delivery options are available, one of easiest and least invasive is the simple facemask or "Venturi" mask. Worldwide, these types of masks have been used for over 50 years. Developed initially as simple oxygen-delivery system, the face mask has evolved, acquiring more complexity and efficacy by the application of physical principles in an attempt to provide maximal patient benefit. The original Venturi mask was created by the British physician Earl James Moran Campbell. It was named after the Italian physicist Giovanni Battista Venturi who described the principal of increased velocity of a gas resulting in lower pressures, Campbell incorporated Venturi's principle into the oxygen delivery facemask. By using this principle, precise oxygen delivery occurs, thus, representing the standard of supplemental oxygen facemasks today.

Risk stratification for suspected acute coronary syndromes and heart failure in the emergency department.

Many professional societies publish acute intervention guidelines, and most are predicated on the knowledge of an accurate diagnosis. In the emergency department patients do not arrive with a diagnosis, rather they present with symptoms that must be evaluated in the context of their estimated illness severity. Unique to emergency medicine practice, and within a relatively short time frame, all emergency patients must go somewhere else. Appropriate dispositions may be home, admission to a chest pain center, hospitalization to a regular medical floor, or transfer to an intensive care unit, but they cannot stay in the emergency department. This disposition process must occur, even in the setting of great diagnostic uncertainty. Since an accurate diagnosis is a time dependent event, requiring data collection and analysis, emergency department disposition decisions may be based on risk estimates rather than an established diagnosis. Owing to the subjective nature of the early evaluation process, biomarkers currently determine much of the risk stratification process. In this manuscript, we discuss the value of biomarkers as an adjunct to the diagnosis and risk stratification process for patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected acute coronary syndromes and acute heart failure.

Resuscitation great. George W. Crile: a visionary mind in resuscitation.

George Washington Crile was a successful surgeon who lived at the end of the 19th century. He was born on 11 November 1864 on a farm near Chili, Ohio. He became interested in the study of shock after a close friend died from hemorrhage. Crile dedicated his research years to the study of shock, cardiac arrest, and the use of adrenaline. His research on shock and cardiac arrest led to treatment guidelines that are still used today. He also participated in the Spanish-American War and in World War I as a Navy Surgeon and saved the lives of many soldiers with his principles of blood transfusion and sanitation. He is also known in the surgical world as the grandfather of radical neck dissection and received the Gold Lannelongue Medal and prize. Having written over 400 papers and 24 books, George W. Crile died from complications of bacterial endocarditis on 7th January 1943. Although they were published a long time ago, his contributions to medicine remain fundamental to clinical practice in today's operating rooms and critical care units.