RESUMO
Background: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) and peripheral nerve blocks (NBs) are techniques to manage pain and facilitate reduction of dislocated joints or fractures. However, it is unclear if either approach provides any distinct advantage in the emergency department (ED). The aim of this systematic review is to compare these 2 techniques on pain scores, adverse events, patient satisfaction, and length of stay (LOS) in the ED. Methods: We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, and references were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PSA with NBs for orthopedic reductions in the ED were included. Outcomes of interest included pain scores, adverse events, patient satisfaction, and LOS in the ED. A total of 2 reviewers independently screened abstracts and extracted data into a standardized form. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to evaluate study quality. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty and strength of the evidence. Data on pain scores were pooled using a random-effects model and are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of 6 RCTs (n = 256) were included in a qualitative review, and 4 RCTs (n = 101) were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in pain scores between the PSA and NB groups (P = 0.47; SMD, 0.45; 95% CI, -0.78 to 1.69; I2 = 0.94). There were less adverse events in the NB group (0%-3.3%) compared with the PSA group (0%-20%; n = 256). LOS times were consistently shorter in the NB group (n = 215). Patient satisfaction was comparable in both groups (n = 196). Conclusion: Based on the available evidence, NBs performed by emergency physicians are as effective as PSA in managing pain during orthopedic reductions in the ED. NBs are associated with fewer adverse events and shorter LOS in the ED. The quality of evidence is low.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Identifying patients with a possible SARS-CoV-2 infection in the emergency department (ED) is challenging. Symptoms differ, incidence rates vary and test capacity may be limited. As PCR-testing all ED patients is neither feasible nor effective in most centres, a rapid, objective, low-cost early warning score to triage ED patients for a possible infection is developed. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: Secondary and tertiary hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: The study included patients presenting to the ED with venous blood sampling from July 2019 to July 2020 (n=10 417, 279 SARS-CoV-2-positive). The temporal validation cohort covered the period from July 2020 to October 2021 (n=14 080, 1093 SARS-CoV-2-positive). The external validation cohort consisted of patients presenting to the ED of three hospitals in the Netherlands (n=12 061, 652 SARS-CoV-2-positive). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was one or more positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results within 1 day prior to or 1 week after ED presentation. RESULTS: The resulting 'CoLab-score' consists of 10 routine laboratory measurements and age. The score showed good discriminative ability (AUC: 0.930, 95% CI 0.909 to 0.945). The lowest CoLab-score had high sensitivity for COVID-19 (0.984, 95% CI 0.970 to 0.991; specificity: 0.411, 95% CI 0.285 to 0.520). Conversely, the highest score had high specificity (0.978, 95% CI 0.973 to 0.983; sensitivity: 0.608, 95% CI 0.522 to 0.685). The results were confirmed in temporal and external validation. CONCLUSIONS: The CoLab-score is based on routine laboratory measurements and is available within 1 hour after presentation. Depending on the prevalence, COVID-19 may be safely ruled out in over one-third of ED presentations. Highly suspect cases can be identified regardless of presenting symptoms. The CoLab-score is continuous, in contrast to the binary outcome of lateral flow testing, and can guide PCR testing and triage ED patients.
