Modelo de riesgo de crisis en acúmulos o estado epiléptico e intervención en servicios de urgencias / Risk model of seizure cluster or status epilepticus and intervention in the emergency department

Objetivos Identificar posibles factores predictores de crisis epilépticas en acúmulos o estado epiléptico (EE) y evaluar si estos pacientes reciben una mayor intervención en urgencias. Metodología Análisis secundario del Registro ACESUR el cual es un registro observacional de cohortes multipropósito, prospectivo y multicéntrico de pacientes adultos con crisis epilépticas en 18 servicios de urgencias. Se recogen variables clínico-asistenciales. Se identifican factores y modelo de riesgo de presentar crisis en acúmulos o EE y se evalúa el efecto de intervención en servicios de urgencias extrahospitalarios y hospitalarios. Resultados Del registro ACESUR se analizan 186 (28%) con crisis en acúmulos (126; 19%) o EE (60; 9%) frente a 478 (72%) pacientes con crisis aislada. El modelo de riesgo de crisis en acúmulo o EE en urgencias incluyó la presencia de alta comorbilidad según índice de Charlson > 3 (OR: 1,60; IC95%: 1,05-2,46; p = 0,030), > 2 fármacos antiepilépticos habituales (OR: 2,29; IC95%: 1,49-3,51; p < 0,001) y crisis focal (OR: 1,56; IC95%: 1,05-2,32; p = 0,027). El ABC del modelo fue de 0,735 (IC95%: 0,693-0,777; p = 0,021). La intervención en pacientes con crisis en acúmulos y EE fue mayor en los servicios de urgencias extrahospitalarios (OR: 2,89; IC95%: 1,91-4,36; p < 0,001) y en los servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (OR: 4,41; IC95%: 2,69-7,22; p < 0,001). Conclusiones El modelo presentado podría ser una herramienta con valor predictivo de utilidad para identificar al paciente adulto con riesgo de presentar crisis en acúmulos o EE en urgencias. Estos pacientes recibieron una mayor intervención frente a pacientes con crisis epiléptica aislada por parte de los servicios de urgencias extrahospitalarios y más aún por los servicios de urgencias hospitalarios en nuestra muestra. (AU)

Objectives To identify possible predictors of seizure cluster or status epilepticus (SE) and to evaluate whether these patients receive greater interventions in emergency departments. Methodology We conducted a secondary analysis of the ACESUR Registry, a multipurpose, observational, prospective, multicentre registry of adult patients with seizures from 18 emergency departments. Clinical and care-related variables were collected. We identified risk factors and risk models for seizure cluster or SE and assessed the effect of interventions by prehospital emergency services and the hospital emergency department. Results We identified a total of 186 (28%) patients from the ACESUR registry with seizure cluster (126 [19%]) or SE (60 [9%]); the remaining 478 patients (72%) had isolated seizures. The risk model for seizure cluster or SE in the emergency department included Charlson Comorbidity Index scores ≥ 3 (OR: 1.60; 95% CI, 1.05-2.46; P = .030), ≥ 2 habitual antiepileptic drugs (OR: 2.29; 95% CI, 1.49-3.51; P < .001), and focal seizures (OR: 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.32; P = .027). The area under the curve of the model was 0.735 (95% CI, 0.693-0.777; P = .021). Patients with seizure cluster and SE received more aggressive interventions both by prehospital emergency services (OR: 2.89; 95% CI, 1.91-4.36; P < .001) and at the emergency department (OR: 4.41; 95% CI, 2.69-7.22; P < .001). Conclusions This risk model may be of prognostic value in identifying adult patients at risk of presenting seizure cluster or SE in the emergency department. In our sample, these patients received more aggressive treatment than adult patients with isolated seizures before arriving at hospital, and even more so in the emergency department. (AU)

Modelo de riesgo de crisis en acúmulos o estado epiléptico e intervención en servicios de urgencias / Risk model of seizure cluster or status epilepticus and intervention in the emergency department

Objetivos Identificar posibles factores predictores de crisis epilépticas en acúmulos o estado epiléptico (EE) y evaluar si estos pacientes reciben una mayor intervención en urgencias. Metodología Análisis secundario del Registro ACESUR el cual es un registro observacional de cohortes multipropósito, prospectivo y multicéntrico de pacientes adultos con crisis epilépticas en 18 servicios de urgencias. Se recogen variables clínico-asistenciales. Se identifican factores y modelo de riesgo de presentar crisis en acúmulos o EE y se evalúa el efecto de intervención en servicios de urgencias extrahospitalarios y hospitalarios. Resultados Del registro ACESUR se analizan 186 (28%) con crisis en acúmulos (126; 19%) o EE (60; 9%) frente a 478 (72%) pacientes con crisis aislada. El modelo de riesgo de crisis en acúmulo o EE en urgencias incluyó la presencia de alta comorbilidad según índice de Charlson > 3 (OR: 1,60; IC95%: 1,05-2,46; p = 0,030), > 2 fármacos antiepilépticos habituales (OR: 2,29; IC95%: 1,49-3,51; p < 0,001) y crisis focal (OR: 1,56; IC95%: 1,05-2,32; p = 0,027). El ABC del modelo fue de 0,735 (IC95%: 0,693-0,777; p = 0,021). La intervención en pacientes con crisis en acúmulos y EE fue mayor en los servicios de urgencias extrahospitalarios (OR: 2,89; IC95%: 1,91-4,36; p < 0,001) y en los servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (OR: 4,41; IC95%: 2,69-7,22; p < 0,001). Conclusiones El modelo presentado podría ser una herramienta con valor predictivo de utilidad para identificar al paciente adulto con riesgo de presentar crisis en acúmulos o EE en urgencias. Estos pacientes recibieron una mayor intervención frente a pacientes con crisis epiléptica aislada por parte de los servicios de urgencias extrahospitalarios y más aún por los servicios de urgencias hospitalarios en nuestra muestra. (AU)

Objectives To identify possible predictors of seizure cluster or status epilepticus (SE) and to evaluate whether these patients receive greater interventions in emergency departments. Methodology We conducted a secondary analysis of the ACESUR Registry, a multipurpose, observational, prospective, multicentre registry of adult patients with seizures from 18 emergency departments. Clinical and care-related variables were collected. We identified risk factors and risk models for seizure cluster or SE and assessed the effect of interventions by prehospital emergency services and the hospital emergency department. Results We identified a total of 186 (28%) patients from the ACESUR registry with seizure cluster (126 [19%]) or SE (60 [9%]); the remaining 478 patients (72%) had isolated seizures. The risk model for seizure cluster or SE in the emergency department included Charlson Comorbidity Index scores ≥ 3 (OR: 1.60; 95% CI, 1.05-2.46; P = .030), ≥ 2 habitual antiepileptic drugs (OR: 2.29; 95% CI, 1.49-3.51; P < .001), and focal seizures (OR: 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.32; P = .027). The area under the curve of the model was 0.735 (95% CI, 0.693-0.777; P = .021). Patients with seizure cluster and SE received more aggressive interventions both by prehospital emergency services (OR: 2.89; 95% CI, 1.91-4.36; P < .001) and at the emergency department (OR: 4.41; 95% CI, 2.69-7.22; P < .001). Conclusions This risk model may be of prognostic value in identifying adult patients at risk of presenting seizure cluster or SE in the emergency department. In our sample, these patients received more aggressive treatment than adult patients with isolated seizures before arriving at hospital, and even more so in the emergency department. (AU)

Risk model of seizure cluster or status epilepticus and intervention in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: To identify possible predictors of seizure cluster or status epilepticus (SE) and to evaluate whether these patients receive greater interventions in emergency departments. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a secondary analysis of the ACESUR Registry, a multipurpose, observational, prospective, multicentre registry of adult patients with seizures from 18 emergency departments. Clinical and care-related variables were collected. We identified risk factors and risk models for seizure cluster or SE and assessed the effect of interventions by prehospital emergency services and the hospital emergency department. RESULTS: We identified a total of 186 (28%) patients from the ACESUR registry with seizure cluster (126 [19%]) or SE (60 [9%]); the remaining 478 patients (72%) had isolated seizures. The risk model for seizure cluster or SE in the emergency department included Charlson Comorbidity Index scores ≥ 3 (OR: 1.60; 95% CI, 1.05-2.46; P=.030), ≥ 2 habitual antiepileptic drugs (OR: 2.29; 95% CI, 1.49-3.51; P<.001), and focal seizures (OR: 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.32; P=.027). The area under the curve of the model was 0.735 (95% CI, 0.693-0.777; P=.021). Patients with seizure cluster and SE received more aggressive interventions both by prehospital emergency services (OR: 2.89; 95% CI, 1.91-4.36; P<.001) and at the emergency department (OR: 4.41; 95% CI, 2.69-7.22; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: This risk model may be of prognostic value in identifying adult patients at risk of presenting seizure cluster or SE in the emergency department. In our sample, these patients received more aggressive treatment than adult patients with isolated seizures before arriving at hospital, and even more so in the emergency department.

[On the treatment of epileptic seizures in patients with epilepsy in hospital emergency departments]. / Acerca de la atención de las crisis epilépticas en pacientes con epilepsia en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios.

TITLE: Acerca de la atención de las crisis epilépticas en pacientes con epilepsia en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios.

Risk model of seizure cluster or status epilepticus and intervention in the emergency department. / Modelo de riesgo de crisis en acúmulos o estado epiléptico e intervención en servicios de urgencias.

OBJECTIVES: To identify possible predictors of seizure cluster or status epilepticus (SE) and to evaluate whether these patients receive greater interventions in emergency departments. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a secondary analysis of the ACESUR Registry, a multipurpose, observational, prospective, multicentre registry of adult patients with seizures from 18 emergency departments. Clinical and care-related variables were collected. We identified risk factors and risk models for seizure cluster or SE and assessed the effect of interventions by prehospital emergency services and the hospital emergency department. RESULTS: We identified a total of 186 (28%) patients from the ACESUR registry with seizure cluster (126 [19%]) or SE (60 [9%]); the remaining 478 patients (72%) had isolated seizures. The risk model for seizure cluster or SE in the emergency department included Charlson Comorbidity Index scores≥3 (OR: 1.60; 95% CI, 1.05-2.46; P=.030), ≥2 habitual antiepileptic drugs (OR: 2.29; 95% CI, 1.49-3.51; P<.001), and focal seizures (OR: 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.32; P=.027). The area under the curve of the model was 0.735 (95% CI, 0.693-0.777; P=.021). Patients with seizure cluster and SE received more aggressive interventions both by prehospital emergency services (OR: 2.89; 95% CI, 1.91-4.36; P<.001) and at the emergency department (OR: 4.41; 95% CI, 2.69-7.22; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: This risk model may be of prognostic value in identifying adult patients at risk of presenting seizure cluster or SE in the emergency department. In our sample, these patients received more aggressive treatment than adult patients with isolated seizures before arriving at hospital, and even more so in the emergency department.

[Adequacy and effect of preventive antiepileptic treatment after a first epileptic seizure 30 days after discharge from hospital emergency departments: the ACESUR registry]. / Adecuacion y efecto del tratamiento antiepileptico preventivo tras una primera crisis epileptica a los 30 dias del alta de servicios de urgencias hospitalarios: registro ACESUR.

AIM: To evaluate the adequacy and effect of preventive antiepileptic treatment in adult patients with the first epileptic seizure in adverse outcomes at 30 days after discharge from the hospital emergency department (HED). PATIENTS AND METHODS: ACESUR was an observational registry of multipurpose, prospective and multicentric cohorts with a systematic sampling. Phone follow-up was done at 30 days. Clinical variables were collected in the index visit and the follow-up result. The main variable was «adequate preventive treatment according to indications¼ and the result of «some adverse outcome¼ (recurrence of epileptic seizure, revisits to HED, hospitalization or death) 30 days after discharge from HED. A logistic regression model was used to isolate the effect of adequate preventive treatment. RESULTS: 151 (22.7%) patients with a mean age of 55 years old were included with first epileptic seizure discharged from 18 HED with follow-up data. Preventive treatment was considered adequate in 128 (84.8%) patients. 41 (27.2%) patients presented some adverse outcome 30 days after discharge. After the logistic regression, the appropriate preventive treatment to the discharge of the HED exerts a protective effect on the variable «some adverse outcome to 30 days¼. CONCLUSIONS: In the ACESUR registry, preventive treatment was adequate for most patients and its effect was independent protective at 30 days. Therefore, adequate preventive treatment could improve the short-term results of adult patients discharged with the first epileptic seizure of the HED.

TITLE: Adecuacion y efecto del tratamiento antiepileptico preventivo tras una primera crisis epileptica a los 30 dias del alta de servicios de urgencias hospitalarios: registro ACESUR.Objetivo. Evaluar la adecuacion y el efecto del tratamiento antiepileptico preventivo en pacientes adultos con una primera crisis epileptica en cuanto a resultados adversos a los 30 dias del alta del servicio de urgencias hospitalario (SUH). Pacientes y metodos. ACESUR fue un registro observacional de cohortes multiproposito, prospectivo y multicentrico con un muestreo sistematico. Se realizo seguimiento telefonico a los 30 dias. Se recogieron variables clinicas en la visita indice y de resultado en seguimiento. La variable principal fue «tratamiento preventivo adecuado segun indicaciones¼, y la de resultado, «algun resultado adverso¼ (recurrencia de crisis epileptica, revisita a SUH, hospitalizacion o muerte) a los 30 dias del alta de urgencias. Se realizo un modelo de regresion logistica para aislar el efecto del tratamiento preventivo adecuado. Resultados. Se incluyo a 151 (22,7%) pacientes con una media de 55 años con primera crisis epileptica, dados de alta de 18 SUH con datos de seguimiento. El tratamiento preventivo se considero adecuado en 128 (84,8%) pacientes. Cuarenta y un (27,2%) pacientes presentaron algun resultado adverso a los 30 dias del alta. Tras la regresion logistica, el tratamiento preventivo adecuado al alta del SUH ejerce un efecto protector sobre la variable «algun resultado adverso a 30 dias¼. Conclusiones. En el registro ACESUR, el tratamiento preventivo fue adecuado en la mayoria de los pacientes y su efecto resulto, de forma independiente, protector a los 30 dias. Por tanto, el tratamiento preventivo adecuado podria mejorar los resultados a corto plazo de pacientes adultos dados de alta con una primera crisis epileptica del SUH.

[Asymmetries in the hospital treatment of acute ischemic stroke]. / Asimetrías en el tratamiento hospitalario del ictus isquémico en fase aguda.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the degree of implementation of the protocolized care for acute stroke in the Spanish emergency departments and to discuss the territorial differences in the treatment of stroke. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Multicenter national survey conducted to evaluate the current treatment of ischemic stroke in emergency departments. The main variables analyzed were focused at evaluating the participation of ERs in the performance of thrombolysis, interventional treatment and destination of patients with stroke. RESULTS: 42 emergency services participated. 90.5% have stroke protocol. In 52.4% is identified an emergency physician referent in cerebrovascular pathology. In 2016 2090 thrombolysis were performed, we observe a great variability in the number of treatments per hospital [0-222]. 11.9% were admitted in the Observation area. Only one-third of the hospitals currently treat stroke with thrombectomy. 31% have a telemedicine service available. CONCLUSIONS: Urgencies plays a fundamental role in the chain of care of stroke treatment. There is a worrying variability between centers in the management of the stroke.

Infestación por Hirudo medicinalis (sanguijuela) / Hirudo medicinalis (leech) infestation

Las sanguijuelas son anélidos hermafroditas de los que existen más de 700 especies, siendo Hirudo medicinalis la más conocida por su empleo durante más de 2000 años en Medicina. Sin embargo, con el advenimiento de la Medicina científica cayeron en desuso siendo hoy día poco conocidas. Presentamos el caso de un varón de 71 años que consultó en el Servicio de Urgencias por el hallazgo de restos hemáticos en la saliva y sensación de cuerpo extraño en la orofaringe, descubriéndose como causa de los síntomas una infestación accidental por este gusano. Se comenta la rareza de este hallazgo y se describe el empleo actual de la sanguijuela en técnicas de microcirugía reconstructiva, así como los últimos estudios publicados por la producción de sustancias anticoagulantes (AU)

Leeches are hermaphroditic annelides, and over 700 species have been described. Hirudo medicinalis is the best-known one, because of its medicinal use over the last 2,000 years or more. However, the advent of scientific Medicine has led to their being proressively forgotten, and leeches are at present almost unknown to the physician. We report the case of a 71-year-old male who was seen at the Emergency Outpatient Clinic because of bloody residues in his saliva and a sensation of oropharyngeal foreign body. The cause of these symptoms was found to be an accidental infestation by these blood-sucking worms. The rarity of this findings is discussed, as well as the present use of leeches in reconstructive surgery techniques and procedures, and the latest published studies of their use in the production of anticoagulant agents (AU)