The TriAGe + score for vertigo or dizziness: A validation study in a university hospital emergency department in Hong Kong.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with dizziness commonly present to Emergency Departments (ED) and 6% of these patients will be diagnosed with acute stroke. The TriAGe+ score comprises of eight clinical parameters and stratifies patients into four risk groups. The Japanese authors reported that the tool performed well, so our aim was to validate this diagnostic tool in our ED in Hong Kong. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center retrospective observational study was conducted in the ED of our university hospital in Hong Kong. The primary outcome was the diagnosis of an acute cerebrovascular event. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the best cut-off score. Secondary outcomes included univariable and multivariable analyses of stroke predictors. RESULTS: 455 patients aged 18 years or above with dizziness or vertigo at ED triage were recruited between 19 July and 30 September 2021. The overall prevalence of stroke was 11.9%. The median TriAGe+ score was 7 (IQR = 4-9). The AUC was 0.9. At a cut-off >5, sensitivity was 96.4% (95%CI: 87.3-99.5) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.09 (95%CI: 0.02-0.3). At a cut-off >10, specificity was 99.8% (95%CI: 98.6-100.0), and the positive likelihood ratio was 237.6 (95%CI: 33.1-1704). On multivariable analyses, atrial fibrillation, blood pressure, gender, dizziness (not vertigo) and no history of dizziness, vertigo or labyrinth/vestibular disease were found to be positively associated with stroke outcomes significantly. CONCLUSION: The TriAGe+ score is an efficient stroke prediction score for patients presenting to the ED with dizziness.

Hong Kong Anaphylaxis Consortium Consensus Statements on prescription of adrenaline autoinjectors in the acute care setting.

BACKGROUND: Adrenaline autoinjectors (AAInj) facilitates early administration of adrenaline and remains the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis. However, only a minority of anaphylaxis survivors in Hong Kong are prescribed AAInj and formal guidance do not exist. International anaphylaxis guidelines have been largely based on Western studies, which may not be as relevant for non-Western populations. OBJECTIVE: To formulate a set of consensus statements on the prescription of AAInj in Hong Kong. METHODS: Consensus statements were formulated by the Hong Kong Anaphylaxis Consortium by the Delphi method. Agreement was defined as greater than or equal to 80% consensus. Subgroup analysis was performed to investigate differences between allergy and emergency medicine physicians. RESULTS: A total of 7 statements met criteria for consensus with good overall agreement between allergy and emergency medicine physicians. AAInj should be used as first-line treatment and prescribed for all patients at risk of anaphylaxis. This should be prescribed prior to discharge from the Accident and Emergency Department together with an immediate referral to an allergy center. The decision for prescribing AAInj should be based on the severity of previous reactions; including objective signs of respiratory involvement, objective signs of cardiovascular involvement and multiorgan involvement (regardless of severity). Patient demographics and comorbidities, specifically history of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, should also be considered. Patients deemed eligible for AAInj should be offered avoidance advice and prescribed one AAInj while awaiting review by allergists. AAInj technique should be demonstrated by a healthcare professional or instruction video, and a return demonstration by the patient is required. The patient should also be counseled that the decision on the continued need of AAInj prescription in the long-term should be reviewed by an allergist. CONCLUSION: Consensus statements support the prescription of AAInj by front-line physicians with subsequent allergist review when treating patients at risk of anaphylaxis in Hong Kong.

Prompt diagnosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction with papillary muscle rupture by point-of-care ultrasound in the emergency department.

A previously healthy 61-year-old man presented to the emergency department with chest pain and dyspnoea for 6 hours. Examination revealed distress with an apical pansystolic murmur. Initial electrocardiogram showed sinus tachycardia and ST elevation in leads II, III, and aVF compatible with an inferior ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Point-of-care echocardiography in the emergency department showed a flail anterior mitral leaflet and severe mitral regurgitation, leading to a provisional diagnosis of papillary muscle rupture. Emergency cardiac catheterization showed 100%, 80%, and 70% occlusion of the middle right coronary, left anterior descending, and left circumflex arteries, respectively. An emergency triple vessel coronary artery bypass grafting and mitral valve replacement was performed. Posteromedial papillary muscle rupture resulting in mitral regurgitation was confirmed intraoperatively. The patient recovered uneventfully. In the absence of primary percutaneous coronary intervention, thrombolysis decisions should be made with extreme caution if mechanical complications of ST-elevation myocardial infarction are suspected.

Role of copeptin in dual-cardiac marker strategy for patients with chest pain presented to ED.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to evaluate the role of copeptin in the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and its role in dual-cardiac marker diagnostic strategy with troponin. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study was carried out from May 2012 to October 2012. SETTING: The study was conducted at the emergency department (ED) of a public hospital in a cluster of Hong Kong. METHODS: Patients aged at least 18 years presented with chest pain to ED who have intermediate or high likelihood of ACS were included. All patients had blood taken in the ED for copeptin and troponin I. The adjudicated diagnoses of ACS were made by 2 independent physicians based on the universal definition. Diagnostic characteristics were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic curves were created. Areas under the curves were compared for copeptin, troponin I, and dual-marker strategy with copeptin and troponin I. RESULTS: A total of 637 patients were recruited. Seventy-eight had been diagnosed to be ACS. The negative predictive value of copeptin for ACS was 0.881 (0.849-0.907) compared with troponin I, 0.937 (0.913-0.956). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of copeptin, troponin I, and dual-marker strategy were 0.68, 0.859, and 0.880, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of copeptin to troponin does not have significant improvement of the diagnostic accuracy of ACS in patients presented with chest pain.