Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
J Int Med Res ; 49(4): 3000605211010638, 2021 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33926275

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the role of the HEART (history, EKG, age, risk factors, and troponin) score in the evaluation of six clinical outcomes among three groups of patients in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study among three ED patient groups including White, Black, and Hispanic patients. ED providers used the HEART score to assess the need for patient hospital admission and for emergent cardiac imaging tests (CITs). HEART scores were measured using classification accuracy rates. Performance accuracies were measured in terms of HEART score in relation to four clinical outcomes (positive findings of CITs, ED returns, hospital readmissions, and 30-day major adverse cardiac events [MACE]). RESULTS: A high classification accuracy rate (87%) was found for use of the HEART score to determine hospital admission. HEART scores showed moderate accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.66-0.78) in predicting results of emergent CITs, 30-day hospital readmissions, and 30-day MACE outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Providers adhered to use of the HEART score to determine hospital admission. The HEART score may be associated with emergent CIT findings, 30-day hospital readmissions, and 30-day MACE outcomes, with no differences among White, Black, and Hispanic patient populations.


Asunto(s)
Dolor en el Pecho , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Humanos , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo
3.
High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev ; 28(1): 69-78, 2021 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33369723

RESUMEN

The HEART score is used to effectively risk stratify undifferentiated chest pain patients in the Emergency Department (ED). It is unclear whether such risk stratification can be applied among ED high utilizers. We aim to determine the efficacy and safety of using the HEART score to predict 30-day short-term major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in ED high utilizers. We conducted a retrospective, observational study in which ED high utilizers were defined as patients who had four or more ED visits within the past 12 months. ED high utilizers presenting at the study ED with chest pain were enrolled. Patients in which the HEART score was utilized were placed in the HEART group and patients with no HEART scores documented were placed to the usual care group. Hospital admissions and cardiac stress tests performed during the index hospitalizations, and 30-day MACE rates were analyzed and compared between the HEART and usual care groups. From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2019, a total of 8,315 patient visits from ED high utilizers were enrolled. In the HEART group, 49% of ED visits were admitted with 20% receiving stress tests. A 30-day MACE outcome occurred among 1.4% of visits. In the usual care group, 44% of ED visits were admitted, with only 9% receiving index stress tests and a 1.5% of 30-day MACE occurrence (p=0.727). The study showed that similar short-term MACE outcomes occurred between patients using HEART scores and usual care to risk stratify chest pain among ED high utilizers.


Asunto(s)
Angina de Pecho/diagnóstico , Técnicas de Apoyo para la Decisión , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Indicadores de Salud , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud , Adulto , Angina de Pecho/etiología , Angina de Pecho/terapia , Registros Electrónicos de Salud , Femenino , Pruebas de Función Cardíaca , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Admisión del Paciente , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Pronóstico , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo
4.
West J Emerg Med ; 18(3): 373-381, 2017 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28435487

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Headaches represent over three million emergency department (ED) visits per year, comprising 2.4% of all ED visits. There are many proposed methods and clinical guidelines of treating acute headache presentations. However, data on intravenous acetaminophen usage in these settings are lacking. In this study, we sought to determine the efficacy of intravenous (IV) acetaminophen as an adjunct to a standard therapy for the treatment of patients who present to the ED with a chief complaint of "headache." METHODS: We conducted a single site, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating the clinical efficacy of IV acetaminophen as an adjunct to a standard therapy with prochlorperazine and diphenhydramine for the treatment of patients who present to the ED with a chief complaint of "headache" or variants thereof. (See below for variants). The primary outcome measure of the efficacy of parenteral acetaminophen as an adjunct treatment for headache in addition to a standard therapy was a threshold two-point reduction in visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores on a 1-10 level at 90 minutes. Secondary outcomes measures included assessment of decreased requirement of "rescue" pain medicines, defined as any analgesic medications outside of diphenhydramine, prochlorperazine and acetaminophen, with particular interest to potential opioid-sparing effects with parenteral acetaminophen. Additional secondary outcome measure included time to disposition from arrival in the ED. RESULTS: For the acetaminophen group the initial mean pain score was 8.67, for the placebo group 8.61. At 90 minutes pain score was 2.23 for the acetaminophen group and 3.99 for placebo (p<0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.8%-16%]. Of 45 patients in each group, we observed at least a threshold two-point decrease in pain score 36/45 (80%) with acetaminophen vs. 25/45 (55%) with placebo (p <0.01) 95% CI [5%-41%], number needed to treat (NNT) = 4). Secondary outcome measure did not demonstrate a difference in length of stay (161 minutes for acetaminophen arm and 159 minutes for placebo). However, 17/45 (38%) of patients who received IV acetaminophen required rescue analgesia, opposed to 24/45 (53%) of patients in the placebo group (p=0.13) 95% CI [-5%-34%]. CONCLUSION: IV acetaminophen when used with prochlorperazine and diphenhydramine to treat acute headaches in the ED resulted in statistically significant pain reduction compared with prochlorperazine and diphenhydramine alone as measured by both threshold of lowering VAS pain score by at least two points (NNT = 4) and overall decline in VAS pain score. Further study is required to validate these results.


Asunto(s)
Acetaminofén/uso terapéutico , Analgésicos/uso terapéutico , Difenhidramina/uso terapéutico , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Cefalea/tratamiento farmacológico , Proclorperazina/uso terapéutico , Acetaminofén/administración & dosificación , Administración Intravenosa , Adulto , Analgésicos/administración & dosificación , Difenhidramina/administración & dosificación , Método Doble Ciego , Quimioterapia Combinada , Femenino , Cefalea/fisiopatología , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación/estadística & datos numéricos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dimensión del Dolor/efectos de los fármacos , Proclorperazina/administración & dosificación , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estados Unidos , Adulto Joven
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...