Emergency department presentations for chest complaints after mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate characteristics and management of children presenting with chest complaints to a tertiary paediatric ED post-mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: This was a retrospective medical record review with data linkage to the Australian Immunisation Register. The study setting was the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. Children <18 years who had a troponin blood test performed in hospital within 14 days of receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccination were included. Elevated troponin and myocarditis or pericarditis as per Brighton criteria was the primary outcome. Vaccination status, length of stay, investigations and clinical management were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Six hundred and ten patients had a troponin test in 13 months. After exclusion of trauma-related tests (n = 31), known cardiac patients (n = 75) and others (n = 145), 359 troponins were obtained due to chest complaints and related symptoms, with 283 troponins assessed to be mRNA vaccination-related. There was a temporal peak in presentations with a 30-fold monthly increase in troponin post-commencement of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. In those with chest complaints following mRNA vaccination, mean age was 14 years and 50.4% were female. Fourteen out of 283 (5%) vaccine-related troponins were abnormal with 14 patients assessed to have vaccine-associated myocarditis. No patients had pericarditis. CONCLUSIONS: There was a large number of possible mRNA COVID-19 vaccine-related chest complaints presenting to the ED. Few patients had abnormal troponins or myocarditis.

Is this child suitable to be seen in primary care? Poor agreement between caregiver/family perception and definitions of a 'primary care-type' patient.

AIMS: To compare and evaluate the number of paediatric patients classified as 'suitable for primary care' using the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) method, the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) method, and parental judgement. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study enrolling parents/carers presenting with their children to two Victorian EDs in Victoria, Australia over a 1-week period. Trained research assistants were posted within both EDs and surveyed all eligible parents/carers whether they agreed with the statement 'I think a GP would be able to look after my child's current illness/injury'. Survey responses were linked to clinical outcomes and length of stay. Each presentation was classified as suitable for primary care using the AIHW method, the ACEM method and parental survey. Agreement between definitions was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistic. RESULTS: During the study (June 2016), 1069 patients presented to the two EDs; 677 patients were able to be classified under all three definitions (AIHW: 1069, ACEM: 991, survey: 677 patients). Only 80/677 (12%) patients met all three criteria. Agreement was slight between the parent survey and the ACEM method (K = 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06-0.21), and the parent survey and the AIHW method (K = 0.12, 95% CI 0.05-0.19). There was moderate agreement between the ACEM and AIHW methods (K = 0.45, 95% CI 0.39-0.51). CONCLUSIONS: There is very poor agreement on what defines a 'primary care-type' paediatric patient between the definitions used by government, professional bodies and caregivers.