Risk of falls is associated with 30-day mortality among older adults in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: Falls in older adults correlate with heightened morbidity and mortality. Assessing fall risk in the emergency department (ED) not only aids in identifying candidates for prevention interventions but may also offer insights into overall mortality risk. We sought to examine the link between fall risk and 30-day mortality in older ED adults. METHODS: Observational cohort study of adults aged ≥ 75years who presented to an academic ED and who were assessed for fall risk using the Memorial Emergency Department Fall Risk Assessment Tool (MEDFRAT), a validated, ED-specific screening tool. The fall risk was classified as low (0-2 points), moderate (3-4 points), or high (≥5) risk. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 941 patients whose fall risk was assessed in the ED were included in the study. Median age was 83.7 years; 45.6% were male, 75.6% lived in private residences, and 62.7% were admitted. Mortality at 30 days among the high fall risk group was four times that of the low fall risk group (11.8% vs 3.1%; HR 4.00, 95% CI 2.18 to 7.34, p < 0.001). Moderate fall risk individuals had nearly double the mortality rate of the low-risk group (6.0% vs 3.1%), but the difference was not statistically significant (HR 1.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.32, p = 0.087). CONCLUSION: ED fall risk assessments are linked to 30-day mortality. Screening may facilitate the stratification of older adults at risk for health deterioration.

Effect of Bougie Use on First-Attempt Success in Tracheal Intubations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The use of a bougie, a flexible endotracheal tube introducer, has been proposed to optimize first-attempt success in emergency department intubations. We aimed to evaluate the available evidence on the association of bougie use in the first attempt and success in tracheal intubations. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that evaluated first-attempt success between adults intubated with a bougie versus without a bougie (usually with a stylet) in all settings. Manikin and cadaver studies were excluded. A medical librarian searched Ovid Cochrane Central, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies from inception to June 2023. Study selection and data extraction were done in duplicate by 2 independent reviewers. We conducted a meta-analysis with random-effects models, and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence at the outcome level. We screened a total of 2,699 studies, and 133 were selected for full-text review. A total of 18 studies, including 12 randomized controlled trials, underwent quantitative analysis. In the meta-analysis of 18 studies (9,151 patients), bougie use was associated with increased first-attempt intubation success (pooled risk ratio [RR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06 to 1.17, low certainty evidence). Bougie use was associated with increased first-attempt success across all analyzed subgroups with similar effect estimates, including in emergency intubations (9 studies; 8,070 patients; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.16, low certainty). The highest point estimate favoring the use of a bougie was in the subgroup of patients with Cormack-Lehane III or IV (5 studies, 585 patients, RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.40 to 1.84, moderate certainty). In this meta-analysis, the bougie as an aid in the first intubation attempt was associated with increased success. Despite the certainty of evidence being low, these data suggest that a bougie should probably be used first and not as a rescue device in emergency intubations.

Association of delirium with increased short-term mortality among older emergency department patients: A cohort study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between delirium and subsequent short-term mortality in geriatric patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of adults age ≥75 years who presented to an academic ED and were screened for delirium during their ED visit. The Delirium Triage Screen followed by the Brief Confusion Assessment Method were used to ascertain the presence of delirium. In-hospital, 7-day, and 30-day mortality were compared between patients with and without ED delirium. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated through logistic regression after adjusting for confounders including age, sex, history of dementia, ED disposition, and acuity. RESULTS: A total of 967 ED visits were included for analysis among which delirium was detected in 107 (11.1%). The median age of the cohort was 83 years (IQR 79, 88), 526 (54.4%) were female, 285 (29.5%) had documented dementia, and 171 (17.7%) had a high acuity Emergency Severity Index triage level 1 or 2. During the hospitalization, 5/107 (4.7%) of those with delirium and 4/860 (0.5%) of those without delirium died. Within 7 days of ED departure, 6/107 (5.6%) of those with delirium and 6/860 (0.7%) of those without delirium died (unadjusted OR 8.46, 95% CI 2.68-26.71). Within 30 days, 18/107 (16.8%) of those with delirium and 37/860 (4.3%) of those without delirium died (unadjusted OR 4.50, 95% CI 2.46-8.23). ED delirium remained associated with higher 7-day (adjusted OR 5.23, 95% CI 1.44-19.05, p = 0.008) and 30-day mortality (adjusted OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.45-5.46, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Delirium is an important prognostic factor that ED clinicians and nurses must be aware of to optimize delirium prevention, management, disposition, and communication with patients and families.

Diagnostic accuracy of neuroimaging in emergency department patients with acute vertigo or dizziness: A systematic review and meta-analysis for the guidelines for reasonable and appropriate care in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute vertigo or dizziness represent a diagnostic challenge. Neuroimaging has variable indications and yield. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy of neuroimaging for patients presenting with acute vertigo or dizziness. METHODS: An electronic search was designed following patient-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) question-(P) adult patients with acute vertigo or dizziness presenting to the ED; (I) neuroimaging including computed tomography (CT), CT angiography (CTA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), and ultrasound (US); (C) MRI/clinical criterion standard; and (O) central causes (stroke, hemorrhage, tumor, others) versus peripheral causes of symptoms. Articles were assessed in duplicate. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to assess certainty of evidence in pooled estimates. RESULTS: We included studies that reported diagnostic test accuracy. From 6309 titles, 460 articles were retrieved, and 12 were included: noncontrast CT scan-six studies, 771 patients, pooled sensitivity 28.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.4%-48.5%, moderate certainty) and specificity 98.9% (95% CI 93.4%-99.8%, moderate certainty); MRI-five studies, 943 patients, sensitivity 79.8% (95% CI 71.4%-86.2%, high certainty) and specificity 98.8% (95% CI 96.2%-100%, high certainty); CTA-one study, 153 patients, sensitivity 14.3% (95% CI 1.8%-42.8%) and specificity 97.7% (95% CI 93.8%-99.6%), CT had higher sensitivity than CTA (21.4% and 14.3%) for central etiology; MRA-one study, 24 patients, sensitivity 60.0% (95% CI 26.2%-87.8%) and specificity 92.9% (95% CI 66.1%-99.8%); US-three studies, 258 patients, sensitivity ranged from 30% to 53.6%, specificity from 94.9% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Noncontrast CT has very low sensitivity and MRI will miss approximately one in five patients with stroke if imaging is obtained early after symptom onset. The evidence does not support neuroimaging as the only tool for ruling out stroke and other central causes in patients with acute dizziness or vertigo presenting to the ED.

Corticosteroids for patients with vestibular neuritis: An evidence synthesis for guidelines for reasonable and appropriate care in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: A short course of corticosteroids is among the management strategies considered by specialists for the treatment of vestibular neuritis (VN). We conducted an umbrella review (systematic review of systematic reviews) to summarize the evidence of corticosteroids use for the treatment of VN. METHODS: We included systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that evaluated the effects of corticosteroids compared to placebo or usual care in adult patients with acute VN. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened in duplicate. The quality of reviews was assessed with the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was used to rate certainty of evidence. No meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: From 149 titles, five systematic reviews were selected for quality assessment, and two reviews were of higher methodological quality and were included. These two reviews included 12 individual studies and 660 patients with VN. In a meta-analysis of two RCTs including a total of 50 patients, the use of corticosteroids (compared to placebo) was associated with higher complete caloric recovery (risk ratio 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32 to 6.00, low certainty). It is very uncertain whether this translates into clinical improvement as shown by the imprecise effect estimates for outcomes such as patient-reported vertigo or patient-reported dizziness disability. There was a wide CI for the outcome of dizziness handicap score (one study, 30 patients, 20.9 points in corticosteroids group vs. 15.8 points in placebo, mean difference +5.1, 95% CI -8.09 to +18.29, very low certainty). Higher rates of minor adverse effects for those receiving corticosteroids were reported, but the certainty in this evidence was very low. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to support the use of corticosteroids for the treatment of VN in the emergency department.

Diagnostic accuracy of the physical examination in emergency department patients with acute vertigo or dizziness: A systematic review and meta-analysis for GRACE-3.

BACKGROUND: History and physical examination are key features to narrow the differential diagnosis of central versus peripheral causes in patients presenting with acute vertigo. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy of physical examination findings. METHODS: This study involved a patient-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) question: (P) adult ED patients with vertigo/dizziness; (I) presence/absence of specific physical examination findings; and (O) central (ischemic stroke, hemorrhage, others) versus peripheral etiology. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was assessed. RESULTS: From 6309 titles, 460 articles were retrieved, and 43 met the inclusion criteria: general neurologic examination-five studies, 869 patients, pooled sensitivity 46.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.3%-61.9%, moderate certainty) and specificity 92.8% (95% CI 75.7%-98.1%, low certainty); limb weakness/hemiparesis-four studies, 893 patients, sensitivity 11.4% (95% CI 5.1%-23.6%, high) and specificity 98.5% (95% CI 97.1%-99.2%, high); truncal/gait ataxia-10 studies, 1810 patients (increasing severity of truncal ataxia had an increasing sensitivity for central etiology, sensitivity 69.7% [43.3%-87.9%, low] and specificity 83.7% [95% CI 52.1%-96.0%, low]); dysmetria signs-four studies, 1135 patients, sensitivity 24.6% (95% CI 15.6%-36.5%, high) and specificity 97.8% (94.4%-99.2%, high); head impulse test (HIT)-17 studies, 1366 patients, sensitivity 76.8% (64.4%-85.8%, low) and specificity 89.1% (95% CI 75.8%-95.6%, moderate); spontaneous nystagmus-six studies, 621 patients, sensitivity 52.3% (29.8%-74.0%, moderate) and specificity 42.0% (95% CI 15.5%-74.1%, moderate); nystagmus type-16 studies, 1366 patients (bidirectional, vertical, direction changing, or pure torsional nystagmus are consistent with a central cause of vertigo, sensitivity 50.7% [95% CI 41.1%-60.2%, moderate] and specificity 98.5% [95% CI 91.7%-99.7%, moderate]); test of skew-15 studies, 1150 patients (skew deviation is abnormal and consistent with central etiology, sensitivity was 23.7% [95% CI 15%-35.4%, moderate] and specificity 97.6% [95% CI 96%-98.6%, moderate]); HINTS (head impulse, nystagmus, test of skew)-14 studies, 1781 patients, sensitivity 92.9% (95% CI 79.1%-97.9%, high) and specificity 83.4% (95% CI 69.6%-91.7%, moderate); and HINTS+ (HINTS with hearing component)-five studies, 342 patients, sensitivity 99.0% (95% CI 73.6%-100%, high) and specificity 84.8% (95% CI 70.1%-93.0%, high). CONCLUSIONS: Most neurologic examination findings have low sensitivity and high specificity for a central cause in patients with acute vertigo or dizziness. In acute vestibular syndrome (monophasic, continuous, persistent dizziness), HINTS and HINTS+ have high sensitivity when performed by trained clinicians.

Prognostic accuracy of syncope clinical prediction rules in older adults in the emergency department.

Study objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the prognostic accuracy of existing rules (San Francisco Syncope Rule [SFSR], Canadian Syncope Risk Score [CSRS], and FAINT score) in older adults. Methods: This is a cohort study of adults aged ≥60 years presenting to an academic emergency department (ED) with syncope or near syncope. We used original criteria for all rules except for the FAINT score, in which N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide was largely missing from the extracted data. Patients were deemed positive for each rule if classified as non-low risk. The primary outcome was the presence of 30-day serious outcome, as defined by syncope research guidelines. Sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of 404 ED visits (mean age of patients, 75.5 years) were included. Of these, 44 (10.9%) had a 30-day serious outcome, and 24 (5.9%) had incomplete 30-day follow-up. SFSR was positive for 280 of 380 visits with complete follow-up. Its sensitivity and NLR for predicting 30-day serious outcomes were 86.4% (95% CI, 72.0%-94.3%) and 0.53 (95% CI, 0.25-1.15), respectively. The CSRS was positive for 299 of 380 visits (sensitivity was 88.6% [95% CI, 76.4%-95.7%], and NLR was 0.50 [95% CI, 0.22-1.17]). The modified FAI(N)T score was positive for 318 of 380 visits (sensitivity was 90.9% [95% CI, 77.4%-97.0%], and NLR was 0.53 [95% CI, 0.20-1.38]). Conclusion: Existing rules are suboptimal to predict 30-day serious outcomes in older adults presenting with syncope or near syncope to the ED.

Association of outpatient use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers on outcomes of acute respiratory illness during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the associations between patients taking ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and their clinical outcomes after an acute viral respiratory illness (AVRI) due to COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: The USA; 2017-2018 influenza season, 2018-2019 influenza season, and 2019-2020 influenza/COVID-19 season. PARTICIPANTS: People with hypertension (HTN) taking an ACEi, ARB or other HTN medications, and experiencing AVRI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) or coronary care unit (CCU), acute respiratory distress (ARD), ARD syndrome (ARDS) and all-cause mortality, comparing COVID-19 to pre-COVID-19 influenza seasons. RESULTS: The cohort included 1 059 474 episodes of AVRI (653 797 filled an ACEi or ARB, and 405 677 other HTN medications). 58.6% were women and 72.9% with age ≥65. The ACEi/ARB cohort saw a larger increase in risk in the COVID-19 influenza season than the other HTN medication cohort for four out of five outcomes, with an additional 1.5 percentage point (pp) increase in risk of an inpatient stay (95% CI 1.2 to 1.9 pp) and of ICU/CCU use (95% CI 0.3 to 2.7 pp) as well as a 0.7 pp (0.1 to 1.2 pp) additional increase in risk of ARD and 0.9 pp (0.4 to 1.3 pp) additional increase in risk of ARDS. There was no statistically significant difference in the absolute risk of death (-0.2 pp, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.1 pp). However, the relative risk of death in 2019/2020 versus 2017/2018 for the ACEi/ARB group was larger (1.40 (1.36 to 1.44)) than for the other HTN medication cohort (1.24 (1.21 to 1.28)). CONCLUSIONS: People with AVRI using ACEi/ARBs for HTN had a greater increase in poor outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic than those using other medications to treat HTN. The small absolute magnitude of the differences likely does not support changes in clinical practice.

Guidelines for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department 2 (GRACE-2): Low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department.

This second Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-2) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic "low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department." The multidisciplinary guideline panel applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding four priority questions for adult emergency department patients with low-risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain. The intended population includes adults with multiple similar presentations of abdominal signs and symptoms recurring over a period of months or years. The panel reached the following recommendations: (1) if a prior negative computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) has been performed within 12 months, there is insufficient evidence to accurately identify populations in whom repeat CTAP imaging can be safely avoided or routinely recommended; (2) if CTAP with IV contrast is negative, we suggest against ultrasound unless there is concern for pelvic or biliary pathology; (3) we suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety may be performed during the ED evaluation; and (4) we suggest an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The GRACE-2 writing group developed clinically relevant questions to address the care of adult patients with low-risk, recurrent, previously undifferentiated abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED). Four patient-intervention-comparison-outcome-time (PICOT) questions were developed by consensus of the writing group, who performed a systematic review of the literature and then synthesized direct and indirect evidence to formulate recommendations, following GRADE methodology. The writing group found that despite the commonality and relevance of these questions in emergency care, the quantity and quality of evidence were very limited, and even fundamental definitions of the population and outcomes of interest are lacking. Future research opportunities include developing precise and clinically relevant definitions of low-risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain and determining the scope of the existing populations in terms of annual national ED visits for this complaint, costs of care, and patient and provider preferences.

Association between emergency department modifiable risk factors and subsequent delirium among hospitalized older adults.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between potential emergency department (ED)-based modifiable risk factors and subsequent development of delirium among hospitalized older adults free of delirium at the time of ED stay. METHODS: Observational cohort study of patients aged ≥75 years who screened negative for delirium in the ED, were subsequently admitted to the hospital, and had delirium screening performed within 48 h of admission. Potential ED-based risk factors for delirium included ED length of stay (LOS), administration of opioids, benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, or anticholinergics, and the placement of urinary catheter while in the ED. Odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Among 472 patients without delirium in the ED (mean age 84 years, 54.2% females), 33 (7.0%) patients developed delirium within 48 h of hospitalization. The ED LOS of those who developed delirium was similar to those who did not develop delirium (312.1 vs 325.6 min, MD -13.5 min, CI -56.1 to 29.0). Patients who received opioids in the ED were as likely to develop delirium as those who did not receive opioids (7.2% vs 6.9%: OR 1.04, CI 0.44 to 2.48). Patients who received benzodiazepines had a higher risk of incident delirium, the difference was clinically but not statistically significant (37.3% vs 6.5%, OR 5.35, CI 0.87 to 23.81). Intermittent urinary catheterization (OR 2.05, CI 1.00 to 4.22) and Foley placement (OR 3.69, CI 1.55 to 8.80) were associated with a higher risk of subsequent delirium. After adjusting for presence of dementia, only Foley placement in the ED remained significantly associated with development of in-hospital delirium (adjusted OR 3.16, CI 1.22 to 7.53). CONCLUSION: ED LOS and ED opioid use were not associated with higher risk of incident delirium in this cohort. Urinary catheterization in the ED was associated with an increased risk of subsequent delirium. These findings can be used to design ED-based initiatives and increase delirium prevention efforts.

Comparison of Intravenous Antihypertensives on Blood Pressure Control in Acute Neurovascular Emergencies: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Acute blood pressure (BP) management in neurologic patients is paramount. Different neurologic emergencies dictate various BP goals. There remains a lack of literature determining the optimal BP regimen regarding safety and efficacy. The objective of this study was to identify which intravenous antihypertensive is the most effective and safest for acute BP management in neurologic emergencies. METHODS: Ovid EBM (Evidence Based Medicine) Reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched from inception to August 2020. Randomized controlled trials or comparative observational studies that evaluated clevidipine, nicardipine, labetalol, esmolol, or nitroprusside for acute neurologic emergencies were included. Outcomes of interest included mortality, functional outcome, BP variability, time to goal BP, time within goal BP, incidence of hypotension, and need for rescue antihypertensives. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to evaluate the degree of certainty in the evidence available. RESULTS: A total of 3878 titles and abstracts were screened, and 183 articles were selected for full-text review. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria; however, the significant heterogeneity and very low quality of studies precluded a meta-analysis. All studies included nicardipine. Five studies compared nicardipine with labetalol, three studies compared nicardipine with clevidipine, and two studies compared nicardipine with nitroprusside. Compared with labetalol, nicardipine appears to reach goal BP faster, have less BP variability, and need less rescue antihypertensives. Compared with clevidipine, nicardipine appears to reach goal BP goal slower. Lastly, nicardipine appears to be similar for BP-related outcomes when compared with nitroprusside; however, nitroprusside may be associated with increased mortality. The confidence in the evidence available for all the outcomes was deemed very low. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the very low quality of evidence, an optimal BP agent for the treatment of patients with neurologic emergencies was unable to be determined. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to compare the most promising agents.

Prospective real-time evaluation of the QTc interval variation after low-dose droperidol among emergency department patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the QTc interval variation after low-dose droperidol in a population of undifferentiated, stable, and non-agitated patients receiving droperidol in the emergency department. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of patients aged ≥12 years of age who received low-dose droperidol (≤ 2.5 mg) for indications other than acute behavioral disturbances. QTc intervals were monitored in real-time during pre-specified observation periods in the ED. Primary outcome was variation of QTc interval after droperidol administration, defined as the maximum delta (change) of QTc interval. Other outcomes included proportion of patients with a QTc ≥ 500 ms after droperidol, delta ≥ +60 ms, and incidence of clinical adverse events. Patients were monitored up to 30 min after IV bolus and up to 46 min after infusion. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients were included (mean age 42.1 years, 66.2% females). The median dose of droperidol was 1.875 mg (range 0.625 mg, 2.5 mg) and 94.1% received droperidol for headache management. Most patients received droperidol as a 2-min bolus (n = 41, 60.3%). The mean maximum delta of QTc interval after droperidol across all 68 patients was +29.9 ms (SD 15). A total of 12 patients (17.6%) experienced a QTc interval ≥ 500 ms during the observation period after droperidol, and 3 patients (4.4%) had a delta QTc ≥ +60 ms. There were no serious arrhythmias, such as TdP, or deaths among the 68 participants in this study (0/68). However, 13.2% (n = 9) had at least one non-serious adverse event including restlessness and/or anxiety. CONCLUSION: The QTc interval slightly increased after droperidol administration, but these prolongations were brief, mostly below 500 msec and did not lead to serious arrhythmias. The yield of continuous cardiac monitoring in patients receiving low doses of droperidol is likely low.

REcognizing DElirium in geriatric Emergency Medicine: The REDEEM risk stratification score.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to derive a risk score that uses variables available early during the emergency department (ED) encounter to identify high-risk geriatric patients who may benefit from delirium screening. METHODS: This was an observational study of older adults age ≥ 75 years who presented to an academic ED and who were screened for delirium during their ED visit. Variable selection from candidate predictors was performed through a LASSO-penalized logistic regression. A risk score was derived from the final prediction model, and predictive accuracy characteristics were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: From the 967 eligible ED visits, delirium was detected in 107 (11.1%). The area under the curve for the REcognizing DElirium in Emergency Medicine (REDEEM) score was 0.901 (95% CI = 0.864-0.938). The REEDEM risk score included 10 different variables (seven based on triage information and three obtained during early history taking) with a score ranging from -3 to 66. Using an optimal cutoff of ≥11, we found a sensitivity of 84.1% (90 of 107 ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 75.5%-90.2%) and a specificity of 86.6% (745 of 860 non-ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 84.1%-88.8%). A lower cutoff of ≥5 was found to minimize false negatives with an improved sensitivity at 91.6% (98 of 107 ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 84.2%-95.8%). CONCLUSION: A risk stratification score was derived with the potential to augment delirium recognition in geriatric ED patients. This has the potential to assist on delirium-targeted screening of high-risk patients in the ED. Validation of REDEEM, however, is needed prior to implementation.

Increased short-term mortality among patients presenting with altered mental status to the emergency department: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the short-term mortality of adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with altered mental status (AMS) as compared to other common chief complaints. METHODS: Observational cohort study of adult patients (age ≥ 40) who presented to an academic ED over a 1-year period with five pre-specified complaints at ED triage: AMS, generalized weakness, chest pain, abdominal pain, and headache. Primary outcomes included 7 and 30-day mortality. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, acuity level, and comorbidities. RESULTS: A total of 9850 ED visits were included for analysis from which 101 (1.0%) and 295 (3.0%) died within 7 and 30 days, respectively. Among 683 AMS visits, the 7-day mortality rate was 3.2%. Mortality was lower for all other chief complaints, including generalized weakness (17/1170, 1.5%), abdominal pain (32/3609, 0.9%), chest pain (26/3548, 0.7%), and headache (4/840, 0.5%). After adjusting for key confounders, patients presenting with AMS had a significantly higher risk of death within 7 days of ED arrival than patients presenting with chest pain (HR 3.72, 95% CI 2.05 to 6.76, p < .001). Similarly, we found that patients presenting with AMS had a significantly higher risk of dying within 30 days compared to patients with chest pain (HR 3.65, 95% CI 2.49 to 5.37, p < .001), and headache (HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.01, p = .026). Differences were not statistically significant for comparisons with abdominal pain and generalized weakness, but confidence intervals were wide. CONCLUSION: Patients presenting with AMS have worse short-term prognosis than patients presenting to the ED with chest pain or headache. AMS may indicate an underlying brain dysfunction (delirium), which is associated with adverse outcomes and increased mortality.

Depression and anxiety screening in emergency department patients with recurrent abdominal pain: An evidence synthesis for a clinical practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED) might represent an opportunity for screening of depression and/or anxiety. METHODS: We systematically searched five databases for studies evaluating the effect of screening for depression and/or anxiety in ED patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain. Given paucity of direct evidence, we also searched for indirect evidence including studies that assessed prevalence of depression and/or anxiety in EDs (not necessarily recurrent abdominal pain), diagnostic accuracy of screening tools, effectiveness of screening in other settings, and outcomes such as repeat ED visits of patients with abdominal pain who were screened in the ED. Two methodologists evaluated certainty in the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 4,337 citations were reviewed, and zero studies were found on the effect of screening in patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain in the ED. A total of 35 studies were included as relevant indirect evidence. In studies of ED patients with abdominal pain, depression ranged from 10% to 29%, while anxiety ranged from 18% to 50%. False positives appear to be an issue given relatively low specificity of screening tools. One randomized trial including ED patients with vague symptoms evaluated the effect of depression screening on a composite outcome of depression recognition, psychiatric consultation, or referral by the emergency physician (risk ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 4.53, very low certainty). One study reported that patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain who screened positive for depression have had increased ED recidivism (odds ratio = 3.17, 95% CI = 1.14 to 8.85, very low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to identify any evidence that confirms that depression or anxiety screening in ED patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain improves outcomes or changes management downstream.

Repeat computed tomography in recurrent abdominal pain: An evidence synthesis for guidelines for reasonable and appropriate care in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: Computed tomography (CT) imaging is frequently obtained for recurrent abdominal pain after a prior emergency department (ED) evaluation. We evaluate the utility of repeat CT imaging following an indeterminate index CT in low-risk abdominal pain adult ED patients. METHODS: An electronic search was designed for the patient-intervention-control-outcome-timing (PICOT) question: (P) adult patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated atraumatic abdominal pain presenting to the ED after an index-negative CT within 12 months; (I) repeat CT versus (C) no repeat CT; for (O) abdominal surgery or other invasive procedure, mortality, identification of potentially life-threatening diagnosis, and hospital and intensive care unit admission rates; and return ED visit (T), all within 30 days. Four reviewers independently selected evidence for inclusion and then synthesized the results around the most prevalent themes of repeat CT timing, diagnostic yield, ionizing radiation exposure, and predictors of repetitive imaging. RESULTS: Although 637 articles and abstracts were identified, no direct evidence was found. Thirteen documents were synthesized as indirect evidence. None of the indirect evidence defined a low-risk subset of abdominal pain nor did investigators describe whether reimaging occurred for complaints similar to the initial ED evaluation. Included studies did not describe the index CT findings and some reported explanatory findings noted on the original CT for which repeat CTs might have been indicated. The time frame for a repeat CT ranged from hours to 1 year. The frequency of repeat CTs (2%-47%) varied across studies as did the yield of imaging to alter downstream clinical decision making (range = 5%-67%). CONCLUSION: Due to the absence of direct evidence our scoping review is unable to provide high-quality evidence-based recommendations upon which to confidently base an imaging practice guideline. There is no evidence to support or refute performing a CT for low-risk recurrent abdominal pain.