RESUMO
Background When obstetric patients present to a hospital without obstetric consultants for medical care, they are often transferred for a higher level of care. Factors associated with patient care during transport between hospitals are unknown. Our study investigated factors associated with care intensity. Methods We retrospectively reviewed charts from peripartum adult patients who were transported to our academic quaternary center between January 1, 2012, and April 19, 2020. We excluded patients transported for gynecologic or fetus-related complications. We defined any transport interventions as any ventilator management, any titration of continuous infusions, and any continuation or initiation of medication during transport. Results We included 126 patients, and the mean age (SD) was 29 (7) years. There were 87 (695) antepartum patients, with nine (7%) requiring mechanical ventilation. Of the patients, 98 (78%) received at least one intervention during transport. Transport time (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.001-1.06, P = 0.040), preeclampsia (OR: 3.8, 95% CI: 1.1-12.7, P = 0.030), and any obstetric hemorrhage (OR: 8.3, 95% CI: 1.03-68, P = 0.047), either antepartum or postpartum, were associated with higher likelihood of receiving any intervention. Conclusions Peripartum patients often received interventions during transport. Preeclampsia and hemorrhage were associated with the likelihood of interventions. Transport clinicians should be prepared when transporting these patients. Further studies are needed to confirm our observations.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Vasopressors are mainstay treatment for patients in shock and are usually infused through central venous catheters (CVCs). However, CVCs are associated with risk of infection or delay from the needs of confirmation of placement. Infusing vasopressor through peripheral venous catheter (PIVs) could be an alternative in the Emergency Departments (ED) but data regarding complications is inconclusive. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to assess literature involving prevalence of complications from infusing vasopressors via PIVs. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus databases from beginnings to 02/02/2020 to identify relevant randomized control trials, cohort, case-control studies. We excluded case reports. Authors assessed studies' quality with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Kappa score was used to assess interrater agreement. Outcome was complications as direct results from infusing vasopressors through PIVs. RESULTS: We identified 325 articles and included 9 studies after reviewing 16 full text articles. Our analysis included 1835 patients whose mean age was 63 (Standard Deviation 12) years and 48% was female. There were 122 (7%) complications, of which 117 (96%) were minor. The meta-analysis with random effects showed the pooled prevalence of complications as 0.086 (95%CI 0.031-0.21). Studies reporting infusion safety guidelines had significantly lower prevalence of complications (0.029, 95%CI 0.018-0.045), compared to those not reporting a safety guideline (0.12, 95%CI 0.038-0.30, p = 0.024). CONCLUSION: There was low prevalence of complications as a direct result from infusing vasopressors through PIVs. Studies with safety guidelines were associated with significantly lower prevalence of complications. Further studies are needed to confirm our observations.
