A Clinical Review of Vasopressors in Emergency Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Vasopressor medications raise blood pressure through vasoconstriction and are essential in reversing the hypotension seen in many critically ill patients. Previously, vasopressor administration was largely limited to continuous infusions through central venous access. OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW: This review addresses the clinical use of vasopressors in various shock states, including practical considerations and innovations in vasopressor administration. The focus is on the clinical administration of vasopressors across a range of shock states, including hypovolemic, distributive, cardiogenic, and obstructive shock. DISCUSSION: Criteria for starting vasopressors are not clearly defined, though early use may be beneficial. A number of physiologic factors affect the body's response to vasopressors, such as acidosis and adrenal insufficiency. Peripheral and push-dose administration of vasopressors are becoming more common. Distributive shock is characterized by inappropriate vasodilation and vasopressors play a crucial role in maintaining adequate blood pressure. The use of vasopressors is more controversial in hypovolemic shock, as the preferred treatment is correction of the volume deficit. Evidence for vasopressors is limited in cardiogenic shock. For obstructive shock, vasopressors can temporize a patient's blood pressure until definitive therapy can reverse the underlying cause. CONCLUSION: Across the categories of shock states, norepinephrine has wide applicability and is a reasonable first-line agent for shock of uncertain etiology. Keeping a broad differential when hypotension is refractory to vasopressors may help to identify adjunctive treatments in physiologic states that impair vasopressor effectiveness. Peripheral administration of vasopressors is safe and facilitates early administration, which may help to improve outcomes in some shock states.

Pharmacists in Trauma: a randomised controlled trial of emergency medicine pharmacists in trauma response teams.

BACKGROUND: Analgesia is an important component for patient well-being, but commonly delayed during trauma resuscitation. The Pharmacists in Trauma trial assessed the effects of integrating pharmacists into trauma response teams to improve analgesia delivery and medication management. METHODS: This unblinded randomised trial compared emergency medicine (EM) pharmacist involvement in trauma callouts versus standard care at an Australian level 1 trauma centre. Randomisation was performed via an online single sequence randomisation service. Eligible patients included those managed with a trauma callout during working hours of an EM pharmacist. Pharmacists were able to prescribe medications using a Partnered Pharmacist Medication Charting model. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had first dose analgesia within 30 min compared using the χ2 test. RESULTS: From 15 July 2021 until 31 January 2022, there were 119 patients randomised with 37 patients excluded as no analgesia was required. There were 82 patients included for analysis, 39 in the control arm and 43 in the intervention arm. The primary outcome was achieved in 25 (64.1%) patients in the control arm and 36 (83.7%) patients in the pharmacist arm (relative risk 1.31; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.71; p=0.042). Time to analgesia in the control arm was 28 (22-35) mins and 20 (15-26 mins) with pharmacist involvement; p=0.025. In the pharmacist arm, the initial dose of analgesia was prescribed by the pharmacist for 38 (88.4%) patients. There were 27 other medications prescribed by the pharmacist for the management of these patients. There were no differences in emergency and trauma centre or hospital length of stay. CONCLUSION: Addition of the EM pharmacist in trauma response teams improved time to analgesia. Involvement of an EM pharmacist in trauma reception and resuscitation may assist by optimising medication management, with members of the team more available to focus on other life-saving interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000338864.

Emergency medicine updates: Lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

INTRODUCTION: Lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a condition commonly seen in the emergency department. Therefore, it is important for emergency medicine clinicians to be aware of the current evidence regarding the diagnosis and management of this disease. OBJECTIVE: This paper evaluates key evidence-based updates concerning LGIB for the emergency clinician. DISCUSSION: LGIB is most commonly due to diverticulosis or anorectal disease, though there are a variety of etiologies. The majority of cases resolve spontaneously, but patients can have severe bleeding resulting in hemodynamic instability. Initial evaluation should focus on patient hemodynamics, the severity of bleeding, and differentiating upper gastrointestinal bleeding from LGIB. Factors associated with LGIB include prior history of LGIB, age over 50 years, and presence of blood clots per rectum. Computed tomography angiography is the imaging modality of choice in those with severe bleeding to diagnose the source of bleeding and guide management when embolization is indicated. Among stable patients without severe bleeding, colonoscopy is the recommended modality for diagnosis and management. A transfusion threshold of 7 g/dL hemoglobin is recommended based on recent data and guidelines (8 g/dL in those with myocardial ischemia), though patients with severe bleeding and hemodynamic instability should undergo emergent transfusion. Anticoagulation reversal may be necessary. If bleeding does not resolve, embolization or endoscopic therapies are necessary. There are several risk scores that can predict the risk of adverse outcomes; however, these scores should not replace clinical judgment in determining patient disposition. CONCLUSIONS: An understanding of literature updates can improve the care of patients with LGIB.

Editorial for the Special Issue "Emergency Medicine and Emergency Room Medical Issues II".

The variety of clinical issues presented by patients, along with the need for a rapid diagnosis and treatment, represents the main reasons for the risk of burnout among physicians who work in emergency departments [...].

Assessment and Application of the Hear Score in Remote Emergency Medicine Outposts in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Background and Objectives. In emergency departments, chest pain is a common concern, highlighting the critical importance of distinguishing between acute coronary syndrome and other potential causes. Our research aimed to introduce and implement the HEAR score, specifically, in remote emergency outposts in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Materials and Methods. This follow-up study conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort consisting of patients who were admitted to the remote emergency medicine outposts in Canton Sarajevo and Zenica from 1 November to 31 December 2023. Results. This study comprised 103 (12.9%) patients with low-risk HEAR scores and 338 (83.8%) with high-risk HEAR scores, primarily female (221, 56.9%), with a mean age of 63.5 ± 11.2). Patients with low-risk HEAR scores were significantly younger (50.5 ± 15.6 vs. 65.9 ± 12.1), had fewer smokers (p < 0.05), and exhibited a lower incidence of cardiovascular risk factors compared to those with high-risk HEAR scores. Low-risk HEAR score for prediction of AMI had a sensitivity of 97.1% (95% CI 89.9-99.6%); specificity of 27.3% (95% CI 22.8-32.1%); PPV of 19.82% (95% CI 18.67-21.03%), and NPV of 98.08% (95% CI 92.80-99.51%). Within 30 days of the admission to the emergency department outpost, out of all 441 patients, 100 (22.7%) were diagnosed with MACE, with AMI 69 (15.6%), 3 deaths (0.7%), 6 (1.4%) had a CABG, and 22 (4.9%) underwent PCI. A low-risk HEAR score had a sensitivity of 97.0% (95% CI 91.7-99.4%) and specificity of 27.3% (95% CI 22.8-32.1%); PPV of 25.5% (95% CI 25.59-28.37%); NPV of 97.14% (95% CI 91.68-99.06%) for 30-day MACE. Conclusions. In conclusion, the outcomes of this study align with existing research, underscoring the effectiveness of the HEAR score in risk stratification for patients with chest pain. In practical terms, the implementation of the HEAR score in clinical decision-making processes holds significant promise.

2022 consensus conference on diversity, equity, and inclusion: Developing an emergency medicine research agenda for addressing racism through health care research.

Racism in emergency medicine (EM) health care research is pervasive but often underrecognized. To understand the current state of research on racism in EM health care research, we developed a consensus working group on this topic, which concluded a year of work with a consensus-building session as part of the overall Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) consensus conference on diversity, equity, and inclusion: "Developing a Research Agenda for Addressing Racism in Emergency Medicine," held on May 10, 2022. In this article, we report the development, details of preconference methods and preliminary results, and the final consensus of the Healthcare Research Working Group. Preconference work based on literature review and expert opinion identified 13 potential priority research questions that were refined through an iterative process to a list of 10. During the conference, the subgroup used consensus methodology and a "consensus dollar" (contingent valuation) approach to prioritize research questions. The subgroup identified three research gaps: remedies for racial bias and systematic racism, biases and heuristics in clinical care, and racism in study design, and we derived a list of six high-priority research questions for our specialty.