Epidemiology of brief resolved unexplained events and impact of clinical practice guidelines in general and pediatric emergency departments.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the incidence of brief resolved unexplained events (BRUEs) and compare the impact of a national clinical practice guideline (CPG) on admission and diagnostic testing practices between general and pediatric emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: Using the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample for 2012-2019, we conducted a cross-sectional study of children <1 year of age with an International Classification of Diseases diagnostic code for BRUE. Population incidence rate was estimated using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention birth data. ED incidence rate was estimated for all ED encounters. We used interrupted time series to evaluate the associated impact of the CPG publication on the outcomes of ED disposition (discharge, admission, and transfer) and electrocardiogram (ECG) use. RESULTS: Of 133,972 encounters for BRUE, 80.0% occurred in general EDs. BRUE population incidence was 4.28 per 1000 live births and the annual incidence remained stable (p = 0.19). BRUE ED incidence was 5.06 per 1000 infant ED encounters (p = 0.14). The impact of the BRUE CPG on admission rates was limited to pediatric EDs (level shift -23.3%, p = 0.002). Transfers from general EDs did not change with the CPG (level shift 2.2%, p = 0.17). After the CPG was published, ECGs increased by 13.7% in pediatric EDs (p = 0.005) but did not change in general EDs (level shift -0.2%, p = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: BRUEs remain a common pediatric problem at a population level and in EDs. Although a disproportionate number of infants present to general EDs, there is differential uptake of the CPG recommendations between pediatric and general EDs. These findings may support quality improvement opportunities aimed at improving care for these infants and decreasing unnecessary hospital admissions or transfers.

Diagnostic testing for evaluation of brief resolved unexplained events.

BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) clinical practice guideline for brief resolved unexplained events (BRUEs), a few small, single-center studies have suggested low yield of diagnostic testing in infants presenting with such an event. We conducted this large retrospective multicenter study to determine the role of diagnostic testing in leading to a confirmatory diagnosis in BRUE patients. METHODS: Secondary analysis from a large multicenter cohort derived from 15 hospitals participating in the BRUE Quality Improvement and Research Collaborative. The study subjects were infants < 1 year of age presenting with a BRUE to the emergency departments (EDs) of these hospitals between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2018. Potential BRUE cases were identified using a validated algorithm that relies on administrative data. Chart review was conducted to confirm study inclusion/exclusion, AAP risk criteria, final diagnosis, and contribution of test results. Findings were stratified by ED or hospital discharge and AAP risk criteria. For each patient, we identified whether any diagnostic test contributed to the final diagnosis. We distinguished true (contributory) results from false-positive results. RESULTS: Of 2036 patients meeting study criteria, 63.2% were hospitalized, 87.1% qualified as AAP higher risk, and 45.3% received an explanatory diagnosis. Overall, a laboratory test, imaging, or an ancillary test supported the final diagnosis in 3.2% (65/2036, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.7%-4.4%) of patients. Out of 5163 diagnostic tests overall, 1.1% (33/2897, 95% CI 0.8%-1.5%) laboratory tests and 1.5% (33/2266, 95% CI 1.0%-1.9%) of imaging and ancillary studies contributed to a diagnosis. Although 861 electrocardiograms were performed, no new cardiac diagnoses were identified during the index visit. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic testing to explain BRUE including for those with AAP higher risk criteria is low yield and rarely contributes to an explanation. Future research is needed to evaluate the role of testing in more specific, at-risk populations.

Risk Prediction After a Brief Resolved Unexplained Event.

OBJECTIVES: Only 4% of brief resolved unexplained events (BRUE) are caused by a serious underlying illness. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines do not distinguish patients who would benefit from further investigation and hospitalization. We aimed to derive and validate a clinical decision rule for predicting the risk of a serious underlying diagnosis or event recurrence. METHODS: We retrospectively identified infants presenting with a BRUE to 15 children's hospitals (2015-2020). We used logistic regression in a split-sample to derive and validate a risk prediction model. RESULTS: Of 3283 eligible patients, 565 (17.2%) had a serious underlying diagnosis (n = 150) or a recurrent event (n = 469). The AAP's higher-risk criteria were met in 91.5% (n = 3005) and predicted a serious diagnosis with 95.3% sensitivity, 8.6% specificity, and an area under the curve of 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47-0.57). A derived model based on age, previous events, and abnormal medical history demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.64 (95%CI: 0.59-0.70). In contrast to the AAP criteria, patients >60 days were more likely to have a serious underlying diagnosis (odds ratio:1.43, 95%CI: 1.03-1.98, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Most infants presenting with a BRUE do not have a serious underlying pathology requiring prompt diagnosis. We derived 2 models to predict the risk of a serious diagnosis and event recurrence. A decision support tool based on this model may aid clinicians and caregivers in the discussion on the benefit of diagnostic testing and hospitalization (https://www.mdcalc.com/calc/10400/brief-resolved-unexplained-events-2.0-brue-2.0-criteria-infants).

Explanatory Diagnoses Following Hospitalization for a Brief Resolved Unexplained Event.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Most young infants presenting to the emergency department (ED) with a brief resolved unexplained event (BRUE) are hospitalized. We sought to determine the rate of explanatory diagnosis after hospitalization for a BRUE. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study of infants hospitalized with a BRUE after an ED visit between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2018. We included infants without an explanatory diagnosis at admission. We determined the proportion of patients with an explanatory diagnosis at the time of hospital discharge and whether diagnostic testing, consultation, or observed events occurring during hospitalization were associated with identification of an explanatory diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 980 infants hospitalized after an ED visit for a BRUE without an explanatory diagnosis at admission, 363 (37.0%) had an explanatory diagnosis identified during hospitalization. In 805 (82.1%) infants, diagnostic testing, specialty consultations, and observed events did not contribute to an explanatory diagnosis, and, in 175 (17.9%) infants, they contributed to the explanatory diagnosis (7.0%, 10.0%, and 7.0%, respectively). A total of 15 infants had a serious diagnosis (4.1% of explanatory diagnoses; 1.5% of all infants hospitalized with a BRUE), the most common being seizure and infantile spasms, occurring in 4 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Most infants hospitalized with a BRUE did not receive an explanation during the hospitalization, and a majority of diagnoses were benign or self-limited conditions. More research is needed to identify which infants with a BRUE are most likely to benefit from hospitalization for determining the etiology of the event.

Accuracy of Diagnostic Codes for Identifying Brief Resolved Unexplained Events.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) coding strategies for the identification of patients with a brief resolved unexplained event (BRUE). METHODS: Multicenter retrospective cohort study, including patients aged <1 year with an emergency department (ED) visit between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2018, and an ICD-10 code for the following: (1) BRUE; (2) characteristics of BRUE; (3) serious underlying diagnoses presenting as a BRUE; and (4) nonserious diagnoses presenting as a BRUE. Sixteen algorithms were developed by using various combinations of these 4 groups of ICD-10 codes. Manual chart review was used to assess the performance of these ICD-10 algorithms for the identification of (1) patients presenting to an ED who met the American Academy of Pediatrics clinical definition for a BRUE and (2) the subset of these patients discharged from the ED or hospital without an explanation for the BRUE. RESULTS: Of 4512 records reviewed, 1646 (36.5%) of these patients met the American Academy of Pediatrics criteria for BRUE on ED presentation, 1016 (61.7%) were hospitalized, and 959 (58.3%) had no explanation on discharge. Among ED discharges, the BRUE ICD-10 code alone was optimal for case ascertainment (sensitivity: 89.8% to 92.8%; positive predictive value: 51.7% to 72.0%). For hospitalized patients, ICD-10 codes related to the clinical characteristics of BRUE are preferred (specificity 93.2%, positive predictive value 32.7% to 46.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The BRUE ICD-10 code and/or the diagnostic codes for the characteristics of BRUE are recommended, but the choice between approaches depends on the investigative purpose and the specific BRUE population and setting of interest.

Risk Factors and Outcomes After a Brief Resolved Unexplained Event: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of the risk criteria for brief resolved unexplained events (BRUEs) from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is unknown. We sought to evaluate if AAP risk criteria and event characteristics predict BRUE outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective cohort included infants <1 year of age evaluated in the emergency departments (EDs) of 15 pediatric and community hospitals for a BRUE between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2018. A multivariable regression model was used to evaluate the association of AAP risk factors and event characteristics with risk for event recurrence, revisits, and serious diagnoses explaining the BRUE. RESULTS: Of 2036 patients presenting with a BRUE, 87% had at least 1 AAP higher-risk factor. Revisits occurred in 6.9% of ED and 10.7% of hospital discharges. A serious diagnosis was made in 4.0% (82) of cases; 45% (37) of these diagnoses were identified after the index visit. The most common serious diagnoses included seizures (1.1% [23]) and airway abnormalities (0.64% [13]). Risk is increased for a serious underlying diagnosis for patients discharged from the ED with a history of a similar event, an event duration >1 minute, an abnormal medical history, and an altered responsiveness (P < .05). AAP risk criteria for all outcomes had a negative predictive value of 90% and a positive predictive value of 23%. CONCLUSIONS: AAP BRUE risk criteria are used to accurately identify patients at low risk for event recurrence, readmission, and a serious underlying diagnosis; however, their use results in the inaccurate identification of many patients as higher risk. This is likely because many AAP risk factors, such as age, are not associated with these outcomes.

A 3-Month-Old With Failure to Thrive and Persistent Vomiting.

A 3-month-old boy was admitted from his pediatrician's office for failure to thrive and vomiting. On admission, he weighed barely more than his birth weight and was cachectic with muscle wasting. His abdomen was grossly distended but soft and nontender. A trial of nasogastric feeds resulted in a worsening of his clinical status. He was transferred to the ICU, and diagnostic imaging was concerning for a distal bowel obstruction. Surgical pathology revealed a surprising diagnosis, which is described in detail in the following case.