Performance of a Standardized Clinical Assay for Urinary C-C Motif Chemokine Ligand 14 (CCL14) for Persistent Severe Acute Kidney Injury.

Background: Clinical use of biomarkers requires the development of standardized assays and establishment of cutoffs. Urinary C-C motif chemokine ligand 14 (CCL14) has been validated to predict persistent severe AKI in critically ill patients with established AKI. We now report on the performance of standardized cutoffs using a clinical assay. Methods: A second aim of the multicenter RUBY Study was to establish two cutoffs for the prediction of persistent severe AKI (defined as KDIGO stage 3 AKI for at least 72 consecutive hours). Patients who received renal replacement therapy (RRT) or died before achieving 72 hours in stage 3 AKI were also considered to have reached the end point. Results: A cutoff value for urinary CCL14 of 1.3 ng/ml was determined to achieve high sensitivity (91%; 95% CI, 84% to 96%), and 13 ng/ml achieved high specificity (93%; 95% CI, 89% to 96%). The cutoff of 1.3 ng/ml identifies the majority (91%) of patients who developed persistent severe AKI with a negative predictive value of 92%. The cutoff at 13 ng/ml had a positive predictive value of 72% (with a negative predictive value of 75%). In multivariable adjusted analyses, a CCL14 concentration between 1.3 and 13 ng/ml had an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 3.82 (95% CI, 1.73 to 9.12; P=0.001) for the development of persistent severe AKI compared with those with a CCL14 ≤1.3 ng/ml, whereas a CCL14 >13 ng/ml had an aOR of 10.4 (95% CI, 3.89 to 29.9; P<0.001). Conclusions: Using a clinical assay, these standardized cutoffs (1.3 and 13 ng/ml) allow for the identification of patients at high risk for the development of persistent severe AKI. These results have immediate utility in helping to guide AKI patient care and may facilitate future clinical trials.Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: Identification and Validation of Biomarkers of Acute Kidney Injury Recovery, NCT01868724.

Diagnosing COVID-19 in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review of Clinical Examinations, Laboratory Tests, Imaging Accuracy, and Biases.

OBJECTIVE: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged as a global pandemic in early 2020 with rapidly evolving approaches to diagnosing the clinical illness called coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The primary objective of this scoping review is to synthesize current research of the diagnostic accuracy of history, physical examination, routine laboratory tests, real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), immunology tests, and computed tomography (CT) for the emergency department (ED) diagnosis of COVID-19. Secondary objectives included a synopsis of diagnostic biases likely with current COVID-19 research as well as corresponding implications of false-negative and false-positive results for clinicians and investigators. METHODS: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR)-adherent synthesis of COVID-19 diagnostic accuracy through May 5, 2020, was conducted. The search strategy was designed by a medical librarian and included studies indexed by PubMed and Embase since January 2020. RESULTS: A total of 1,907 citations were screened for relevance. Patients without COVID-19 are rarely reported, so specificity and likelihood ratios were generally unavailable. Fever is the most common finding, while hyposmia and hypogeusia appear useful to rule in COVID-19. Cough is not consistently present. Lymphopenia is the mostly commonly reported laboratory abnormality and occurs in over 50% of COVID-19 patients. rRT-PCR is currently considered the COVID-19 criterion standard for most diagnostic studies, but a single test sensitivity ranges from 60% to 78%. Multiple reasons for false-negatives rRT-PCR exist, including sample site tested and disease stage during which sample was obtained. CT may increase COVID-19 sensitivity in conjunction with rRT-PCR, but guidelines for imaging patients most likely to benefit are emerging. IgM and IgG serology levels are undetectable in the first week of COVID-19, but sensitivity (range = 82% to 100%) and specificity (range = 87% to 100%) are promising. Whether detectable COVID-19 antibodies correspond to immunity remains unanswered. Current studies do not adhere to accepted diagnostic accuracy reporting standards and likely report significantly biased results if the same tests were to be applied to general ED populations with suspected COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of fever and disorders of smell/taste, history and physical examination findings are unhelpful to distinguish COVID-19 from other infectious conditions that mimic SARS-CoV-2 like influenza. Routine laboratory tests are also nondiagnostic, although lymphopenia is a common finding and other abnormalities may predict severe disease. Although rRT-PCR is the current criterion standard, more inclusive consensus-based criteria will likely emerge because of the high false-negative rate of PCR tests. The role of serology and CT in ED assessments remains undefined.

The Accuracy of Interqual Criteria in Determining the Observation versus Inpatient Status in Older Adults with Syncope.

BACKGROUND: McKesson's InterQual criteria are widely used in hospitals to determine if patients should be classified as observation or inpatient status, but the accuracy of the criteria is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether InterQual criteria accurately predicted length of stay (LOS) in older patients with syncope. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a cohort study of adults ≥60 years of age who had syncope. We calculated InterQual criteria and classified the patient as observation or inpatient status. Outcomes were whether LOS were less than or greater than 2 midnights. RESULTS: We analyzed 2361 patients; 1227 (52.0%) patients were male and 1945 (82.8%) were white, with a mean age of 73.2 ± 9.0 years. The median LOS was 32.6 h (interquartile range 24.2-71.8). The sensitivity of InterQual criteria for LOS was 60.8% (95% confidence interval 57.9-63.6%) and the specificity was 47.8% (95% confidence interval 45.0-50.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In older adults with syncope, those who met InterQual criteria for inpatient status had longer LOS compared with those who did not; however, the accuracy of the criteria to predict length of stay over 2 days is poor, with a sensitivity of 60% and a specificity of 48%. Future research should identify criteria to improve LOS prediction.

Risk Stratification of Older Adults Who Present to the Emergency Department With Syncope: The FAINT Score.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Older adults with syncope are commonly treated in the emergency department (ED). We seek to derive a novel risk-stratification tool to predict 30-day serious cardiac outcomes. METHODS: We performed a prospective, observational study of older adults (≥60 years) with unexplained syncope or near syncope who presented to 11 EDs in the United States. Patients with a serious diagnosis identified in the ED were excluded. We collected clinical and laboratory data on all patients. Our primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality or serious cardiac outcome. RESULTS: We enrolled 3,177 older adults with unexplained syncope or near syncope between April 2013 and September 2016. Mean age was 73 years (SD 9.0 years). The incidence of the primary outcome was 5.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.9% to 6.5%). Using Bayesian logistic regression, we derived the FAINT score: history of heart failure, history of cardiac arrhythmia, initial abnormal ECG result, elevated pro B-type natriuretic peptide, and elevated high-sensitivity troponin T. A FAINT score of 0 versus greater than or equal to 1 had sensitivity of 96.7% (95% CI 92.9% to 98.8%) and specificity 22.2% (95% CI 20.7% to 23.8%), respectively. The FAINT score tended to be more accurate than unstructured physician judgment: area under the curve 0.704 (95% CI 0.669 to 0.739) versus 0.630 (95% CI 0.589 to 0.670). CONCLUSION: Among older adults with syncope or near syncope of potential cardiac cause, a FAINT score of zero had a reasonably high sensitivity for excluding death and serious cardiac outcomes at 30 days. If externally validated, this tool could improve resource use for this common condition.

Triage Performance of School Personnel Using the SALT System.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine if school personnel can understand and apply the Sort, Assess, Life-saving interventions, Treat/Transport (SALT) triage methods after a brief training. The investigators predicted that subjects can learn to triage with accuracy similar to that of medically trained personnel, and that subjects can pass an objective-structured clinical exam (OSCE) evaluating hemorrhage control. METHODS: School personnel were eligible to participate in this prospective observational study. Investigators recorded subject demographic information and prior medical experience. Participants received a 30-minute lecture on SALT triage and a brief lecture and demonstration of hemorrhage control and tourniquet application. A test with brief descriptions of mass-casualty victims was administered immediately after training. Participants independently categorized the victims as dead, expectant, immediate, delayed, or minimal. They also completed an OSCE to evaluate hemorrhage control and tourniquet application using a mannequin arm. RESULTS: Subjects from two schools completed the study. Fifty-nine were from a private school that enrolls early childhood through grade eight, and 45 from a public school that enrolls grades seven and eight (n = 104). The average subject age was 45 years and 68% were female. Approximately 81% were teachers and 87% had prior cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training. Overall triage accuracy was 79.2% (SD = 10.7%). Ninety-six (92.3%) of the subjects passed the hemorrhage control OSCE. CONCLUSIONS: After two brief lectures and a short demonstration, school personnel were able to triage descriptions of mass-casualty victims with an overall accuracy similar to medically trained personnel, and most were able to apply a tourniquet correctly. Opportunities for future study include integrating high-fidelity simulation and mock disasters, evaluating for knowledge retention, and exploring the study population's baseline knowledge of medical care, among others.

Clinical Benefit of Hospitalization for Older Adults With Unexplained Syncope: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Many adults with syncope are hospitalized solely for observation and testing. We seek to determine whether hospitalization versus outpatient management for older adults with unexplained syncope is associated with a reduction in postdisposition serious adverse events at 30 days. METHODS: We performed a propensity score analysis using data from a prospective, observational study of older adults with unexplained syncope or near syncope who presented to 11 emergency departments (EDs) in the United States. We enrolled adults (≥60 years) who presented with syncope or near syncope. We excluded patients with a serious diagnosis identified in the ED. Clinical and laboratory data were collected on all patients. The primary outcome was rate of post-ED serious adverse events at 30 days. RESULTS: We enrolled 2,492 older adults with syncope and no serious ED diagnosis from April 2013 to September 2016. Mean age was 73 years (SD 8.9 years), and 51% were women. The incidence of serious adverse events within 30 days after the index visit was 7.4% for hospitalized patients and 3.19% for discharged patients, representing an unadjusted difference of 4.2% (95% confidence interval 2.38% to 6.02%). After propensity score matching on risk of hospitalization, there was no statistically significant difference in serious adverse events at 30 days between the hospitalized group (4.89%) and the discharged group (2.82%) (risk difference 2.07%; 95% confidence interval -0.24% to 4.38%). CONCLUSION: In our propensity-matched sample of older adults with unexplained syncope, for those with clinical characteristics similar to that of the discharged cohort, hospitalization was not associated with improvement in 30-day serious adverse event rates.

Orthostatic vital signs do not predict 30 day serious outcomes in older emergency department patients with syncope: A multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: Syncope is a common chief complaint among older adults in the Emergency Department (ED), and orthostatic vital signs are often a part of their evaluation. We assessed whether abnormal orthostatic vital signs in the ED are associated with composite 30-day serious outcomes in older adults presenting with syncope. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a prospective, observational study at 11 EDs in adults ≥ 60 years who presented with syncope or near syncope. We excluded patients lost to follow up. We used the standard definition of abnormal orthostatic vital signs or subjective symptoms of lightheadedness upon standing to define orthostasis. We determined the rate of composite 30-day serious outcomes, including those during the index ED visit, such as cardiac arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, cardiac intervention, new diagnosis of structural heart disease, stroke, pulmonary embolism, aortic dissection, subarachnoid hemorrhage, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, hemorrhage/anemia requiring transfusion, with major traumatic injury from fall, recurrent syncope, and death) between the groups with normal and abnormal orthostatic vital signs. RESULTS: The study cohort included 1974 patients, of whom 51.2% were male and 725 patients (37.7%) had abnormal orthostatic vital signs. Comparing those with abnormal to those with normal orthostatic vital signs, we did not find a difference in composite 30-serious outcomes (111/725 (15.3%) vs 184/1249 (14.7%); unadjusted odds ratio, 1.05 [95%CI, 0.81-1.35], p = 0.73). After adjustment for gender, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure (CHF), history of arrhythmia, dyspnea, hypotension, any abnormal ECG, physician risk assessment, medication classes and disposition, there was no association with composite 30-serious outcomes (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82 [95%CI, 0.62-1.09], p = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of older adult patients presenting with syncope who were able to have orthostatic vital signs evaluated, abnormal orthostatic vital signs did not independently predict composite 30-day serious outcomes.

Do High-sensitivity Troponin and Natriuretic Peptide Predict Death or Serious Cardiac Outcomes After Syncope?

OBJECTIVES: An estimated 1.2 million annual emergency department (ED) visits for syncope/near syncope occur in the United States. Cardiac biomarkers are frequently obtained during the ED evaluation, but the prognostic value of index high-sensitivity troponin (hscTnT) and natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are unclear. The objective of this study was to determine if hscTnT and NT-proBNP drawn in the ED are independently associated with 30-day death/serious cardiac outcomes in adult patients presenting with syncope. METHODS: A prespecified secondary analysis of a prospective, observational trial enrolling participants ≥ age 60 presenting with syncope, at 11 United States hospitals, was conducted between April 2013 and September 2016. Exclusions included seizure, stroke, transient ischemic attack, trauma, intoxication, hypoglycemia, persistent confusion, mechanical/electrical invention, prior enrollment, or predicted poor follow-up. Within 3 hours of consent, hscTnT and NT-proBNP were collected and later analyzed centrally using Roche Elecsys Gen 5 STAT and 2010 Cobas, respectively. Primary outcome was combined 30-day all-cause mortality and serious cardiac events. Adjusting for illness severity, using multivariate logistic regression analysis, variations between primary outcome and biomarkers were estimated, adjusting absolute risk associated with ranges of biomarkers using Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. RESULTS: The cohort included 3,392 patients; 367 (10.8%) experienced the primary outcome. Adjusted absolute risk for the primary outcome increased with hscTnT and NT-proBNP levels. HscTnT levels ≤ 5 ng/L were associated with a 4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3%-5%) outcome risk, and hscTnT > 50 ng/L, a 29% (95% CI = 26%-33%) risk. NT-proBNP levels ≤ 125 ng/L were associated with a 4% (95% CI = 4%-5%) risk, and NT-proBNP > 2,000 ng/L a 29% (95% CI = 25%-32%) risk. Likelihood ratios and predictive values demonstrated similar results. Sensitivity analyses excluding ED index serious outcomes demonstrated similar findings. CONCLUSIONS: hscTnT and NT-proBNP are independent predictors of 30-day death and serious outcomes in older ED patients presenting with syncope.

QTc prolongation as a marker of 30-day serious outcomes in older patients with syncope presenting to the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Syncope is a common chief complaint in the ED, and the electrocardiogram (ECG) is a routine diagnostic tool in the evaluation of syncope. We assessed whether increasingly prolonged QTc intervals are associated with composite 30-day serious outcomes in older adults presenting to the ED with syncope. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective, observational study at 11 EDs in adults 60 years or older who presented with syncope or near syncope. We excluded patients presenting without an ECG, measurement of QTc, non-sinus rhythm, bundle branch block or those without 30-day follow-up. We categorized QTc cutoffs into values of <451; 451-470; 471-500, and >500 ms. We determined the rate of composite 30-day serious outcomes including ED serious outcomes and 30-day arrhythmias not identified in ED. RESULTS: The study cohort included 2609 patients. There were 1678 patients (64.3%) that had QTc intervals <451 ms; 544 (20.8%) were 451-470 ms; 302 (11.6%) were 471-500 ms, and 85 (3.3%) had intervals >500 ms. Composite 30-day serious outcomes was associated with increasingly prolonged QTc intervals (13.0%, 15.3%, 18.2%, 22.4%, p = 0.01), but this association did not persist in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of older patients presenting with syncope, increased QTc interval was a marker of but was not independently predictive of composite 30-day serious outcomes.

Comparison of 30-Day Serious Adverse Clinical Events for Elderly Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Near-Syncope Versus Syncope.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Controversy remains in regard to the risk of adverse events for patients presenting with syncope compared with near-syncope. The purpose of our study is to describe the difference in outcomes between these groups in a large multicenter cohort of older emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: From April 28, 2013, to September 21, 2016, we conducted a prospective, observational study across 11 EDs in adults (≥60 years) with syncope or near-syncope. A standardized data extraction tool was used to collect information during their index visit and at 30-day follow-up. Our primary outcome was the incidence of 30-day death or serious clinical events. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusting for relevant demographic or historical variables. RESULTS: A total of 3,581 patients (mean age 72.8 years; 51.6% men) were enrolled in the study. There were 1,380 patients (39%) presenting with near-syncope and 2,201 (61%) presenting with syncope. Baseline characteristics revealed a greater incidence of congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, previous arrhythmia, nonwhite race, and presenting dyspnea in the near-syncope compared with syncope cohort. There were no differences in the primary outcome between the groups (near-syncope 18.7% versus syncope 18.2%). A multivariate logistic regression analysis identified no difference in 30-day serious outcomes for patients with near-syncope (odds ratio 0.94; 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.14) compared with syncope. CONCLUSION: Near-syncope confers risk to patients similar to that of syncope for the composite outcome of 30-day death or serious clinical event.

Recurrent syncope is not an independent risk predictor for future syncopal events or adverse outcomes.

Almost 20% of patients with syncope will experience another event. It is unknown whether recurrent syncope is a marker for a higher or lower risk etiology of syncope. The goal of this study is to determine whether older adults with recurrent syncope have a higher likelihood of 30-day serious clinical events than patients experiencing their first episode. METHODS: This study is a pre-specified secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective, observational study conducted at 11 emergency departments in the US. Adults 60 years or older who presented with syncope or near syncope were enrolled. The primary outcome was occurrence of 30-day serious outcome. The secondary outcome was 30-day serious cardiac arrhythmia. In multivariate analysis, we assessed whether prior syncope was an independent predictor of 30-day serious events. RESULTS: The study cohort included 3580 patients: 1281 (35.8%) had prior syncope and 2299 (64.2%) were presenting with first episode of syncope. 498 (13.9%) patients had 1 prior episode while 771 (21.5%) had >1 prior episode. Those with recurrent syncope were more likely to have congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, previous diagnosis of arrhythmia, and an abnormal ECG. Overall, 657 (18.4%) of the cohort had a serious outcome by 30 days after index ED visit. In multivariate analysis, we found no significant difference in risk of events (adjusted odds ratio 1.09; 95% confidence interval 0.90-1.31; p = 0.387). CONCLUSION: In older adults with syncope, a prior history of syncope within the year does not increase the risk for serious 30-day events.

Predictors of Clinically Significant Echocardiography Findings in Older Adults with Syncope: A Secondary Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Syncope is a common reason for visiting the emergency department (ED) and is associated with significant healthcare resource utilization. OBJECTIVE: To develop a risk-stratification tool for clinically significant findings on echocardiography among older adults presenting to the ED with syncope or nearsyncope. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cohort study from April 2013 to September 2016. SETTING: Eleven EDs in the United States. PATIENTS: We enrolled adults (=60 years) who presented to the ED with syncope or near-syncope who underwent transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a clinically significant finding on TTE. Clinical, electrocardiogram, and laboratory variables were also collected. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of significant findings on echocardiography. RESULTS: A total of 3,686 patients were enrolled. Of these, 995 (27%) received echocardiography, and 215 (22%) had a significant finding on echocardiography. Regression analysis identified five predictors of significant finding: (1) history of congestive heart failure, (2) history of coronary artery disease, (3) abnormal electrocardiogram, (4) high-sensitivity troponin-T >14 pg/mL, and 5) N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide >125 pg/mL. These five variables make up the ROMEO (Risk Of Major Echocardiography findings in Older adults with syncope) criteria. The sensitivity of a ROMEO score of zero for excluding significant findings on echocardiography was 99.5% (95% CI: 97.4%-99.9%) with a specificity of 15.4% (95% CI: 13.0%-18.1%). CONCLUSIONS: If validated, this risk-stratification tool could help clinicians determine which syncope patients are at very low risk of having clinically significant findings on echocardiography. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01802398.

Outcomes of Patients With Syncope and Suspected Dementia.

OBJECTIVES: Syncope and near-syncope are common in patients with dementia and a leading cause of emergency department (ED) evaluation and subsequent hospitalization. The objective of this study was to describe the clinical trajectory and short-term outcomes of patients who presented to the ED with syncope or near-syncope and were assessed by their ED provider to have dementia. METHODS: This multisite prospective cohort study included patients 60 years of age or older who presented to the ED with syncope or near-syncope between 2013 and 2016. We analyzed a subcohort of 279 patients who were identified by the treating ED provider to have baseline dementia. We collected comprehensive patient-level, utilization, and outcomes data through interviews, provider surveys, and chart abstraction. Outcome measures included serious conditions related to syncope and death. RESULTS: Overall, 221 patients (79%) were hospitalized with a median length of stay of 2.1 days. A total of 46 patients (16%) were diagnosed with a serious condition in the ED. Of the 179 hospitalized patients who did not have a serious condition identified in the ED, 14 (7.8%) were subsequently diagnosed with a serious condition during the hospitalization, and an additional 12 patients (6.7%) were diagnosed postdischarge within 30 days of the index ED visit. There were seven deaths (2.5%) overall, none of which were cardiac-related. No patients who were discharged from the ED died or had a serious condition in the subsequent 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with perceived dementia who presented to the ED with syncope or near-syncope were frequently hospitalized. The diagnosis of a serious condition was uncommon if not identified during the initial ED assessment. Given the known iatrogenic risks of hospitalization for patients with dementia, future investigation of the impact of goals of care discussions on reducing potentially preventable, futile, or unwanted hospitalizations while improving goal-concordant care is warranted.

ECG Predictors of Cardiac Arrhythmias in Older Adults With Syncope.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Cardiac arrhythmia is a life-threatening condition in older adults who present to the emergency department (ED) with syncope. Previous work suggests the initial ED ECG can predict arrhythmia risk; however, specific ECG predictors have been variably specified. Our objective is to identify specific ECG abnormalities predictive of 30-day serious cardiac arrhythmias in older adults presenting to the ED with syncope. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study at 11 EDs in adults aged 60 years or older who presented with syncope or near syncope. We excluded patients with a serious cardiac arrhythmia diagnosed during the ED evaluation from the primary analysis. The outcome was occurrence of 30-day serous cardiac arrhythmia. The exposure variables were predefined ECG abnormalities. Independent predictors were identified through multivariate logistic regression. The sensitivities and specificities of any predefined ECG abnormality and any ECG abnormality identified on adjusted analysis to predict 30-day serious cardiac arrhythmia were also calculated. RESULTS: After exclusion of 197 patients (5.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.7% to 6.2%) with serious cardiac arrhythmias in the ED, the study cohort included 3,416 patients. Of these, 104 patients (3.0%; 95% CI 2.5% to 3.7%) had a serious cardiac arrhythmia within 30 days from the index ED visit (median time to diagnosis 2 days [interquartile range 1 to 5 days]). The presence of nonsinus rhythm, multiple premature ventricular conductions, short PR interval, first-degree atrioventricular block, complete left bundle branch block, and Q wave/T wave/ST-segment abnormalities consistent with acute or chronic ischemia on the initial ED ECG increased the risk for a 30-day serious cardiac arrhythmia. This combination of ECG abnormalities had a similar sensitivity in predicting 30-day serious cardiac arrhythmia compared with any ECG abnormality (76.9% [95% CI 67.6% to 84.6%] versus 77.9% [95% CI 68.7% to 85.4%]) and was more specific (55.1% [95% CI 53.4% to 56.8%] versus 46.6% [95% CI 44.9% to 48.3%]). CONCLUSION: In older ED adults with syncope, approximately 3% receive a diagnosis of a serious cardiac arrhythmia not recognized on initial ED evaluation. The presence of specific abnormalities on the initial ED ECG increased the risk for 30-day serious cardiac arrhythmias.

Emergency department use and barriers to wellness: a survey of emergency department frequent users.

BACKGROUND: There is no common understanding of how needs of emergency department (ED) frequent users differ from other patients. This study sought to examine how to best serve this population. Examinations of why ED frequent users present to the ED, what barriers to care exist, and what service offerings may help these patients achieve an optimal level of health were conducted. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of frequent ED users in an adult only, level 1 trauma center with approximately 90,000 visits per year. Frequent ED users were defined as those who make four or more ED visits in a 12 month period. Participants were administered a piloted structured interview by a trained researcher querying demographics, ED usage, perceived barriers to care, and potential aids to maintaining health. RESULTS: Of 1,523 screened patients, 297 were identified as frequent ED users. One hundred frequent ED users were enrolled. The mean age was 48 years (95% CI 45-51). The majority of subjects were female (64%, 64/100, 95% CI 55-73%), white (61%, 60/98, 95% CI 52-71%) and insured by Medicaid (55%, 47/86, 95% CI 44-65%) or Medicare (23%, 20/86, 95% CI 14-32%). Subjects had a median of 6 ED visits, and 2 inpatient admissions in the past 12 months at this hospital. Most frequent ED users (61%, 59/96, 95% CI 52-71%) stated the primary reason for their visit was that they felt that their health problem could only be treated in an ED. Transportation presented as a major barrier to few patients (7%, 7/95, 95% CI 3-14%). Subjects stated that "after-hours options, besides the ED for minor health issues" (63%, 60/95, 95% CI 53-73%) and having "a nurse to work with you one-on-one to help manage health care needs" (53%, 50/95, 95% CI 43-63%) would be most helpful in achieving optimal health. CONCLUSION: This study characterized ED frequent users and identified several opportunities to better serve this population. By understanding barriers to care from the patient perspective, health systems can potentially address unmet needs that prevent wellness in this population.

Minimizing Attrition for Multisite Emergency Care Research.

Loss to follow-up of enrolled patients (a.k.a. attrition) is a major threat to study validity and power. Minimizing attrition can be challenging even under ideal research conditions, including the presence of adequate funding, experienced study personnel, and a refined research infrastructure. Emergency care research is shifting toward enrollment through multisite networks, but there have been limited descriptions of approaches to minimize attrition for these multicenter emergency care studies. This concept paper describes a stepwise approach to minimize attrition, using a case example of a multisite emergency department prospective cohort of over 3,000 patients that has achieved a 30-day direct phone follow-up attrition rate of <3%. The seven areas of approach to minimize attrition in this study focused on patient selection, baseline contact data collection, patient incentives, patient tracking, central phone banks, local enrollment site assistance, and continuous performance monitoring. Appropriate study design, including consideration of these methods to reduce attrition, will be time well spent and may improve study validity.

Altered Mental Status and Delirium.

Older patients who present to the emergency department frequently have acute or chronic alterations of their mental status, including their level of consciousness and cognition. Recognizing both acute and chronic changes in cognition are important for emergency physicians. Delirium is an acute change in attention, awareness, and cognition. Numerous life-threatening conditions can cause delirium; therefore, prompt recognition and treatment are critical. The authors discuss an organized approach that can lead to a prompt diagnosis within the time constraints of the emergency department.