Prehospital analgesia in suspected hip fracture patients: adherence to national prehospital pain management guidelines.

PURPOSE: Patients with hip fractures frequently present at the emergency department (ED). Despite high pain scores, prehospital pain management is often inadequate and insufficient. In the Netherlands, the emergency medical services (EMS) exhibit a high level of training, supported by a comprehensive pain treatment protocol. This study aimed to assess adherence to the protocol and hypothesized that prehospital pain management in hip fracture patients was both sufficient and adequate. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study of patients with suspected hip fractures. The median differences in numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores between the initial score in the ambulance and upon arrival at the ED were compared. Furthermore, adherence to the ambulance pain protocol was studied. RESULTS: From September 2016 to March 2021, 436 ambulance-transported hip fracture patients were included, of whom 81% received analgesics by EMS. The median initial pain score measured by EMS was 8; this number decreased to 5 at ED presentation, a significant decrease (ρ < 0.001). In case a prehospital NRS pain score was assessed, 66.5% of the patients were treated according to the protocol. In 80% of patients, the protocol was not followed correctly, primarily due to missing NRS pain scores. CONCLUSION: In suspected hip fracture patients, initial prehospital pain scores were high and most patients received analgesics from EMS. This resulted in a significant decrease in pain. In nearly 67% of patients in whom an NRS pain score was assessed in the prehospital phase, pain management was according to protocol. However, in 80% of the total population the pain protocol was not adhered to, mainly due to missing NRS pain scores.

Procedural sedation and analgesia versus nerve blocks for reduction of fractures and dislocations in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

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.

Artificial Intelligence for the Prediction of In-Hospital Clinical Deterioration: A Systematic Review.

To analyze the available literature on the performance of artificial intelligence-generated clinical models for the prediction of serious life-threatening events in non-ICU adult patients and evaluate their potential clinical usage. DATA SOURCES: The PubMed database was searched for relevant articles in English literature from January 1, 2000, to January 23, 2022. Search terms, including artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, and deterioration, were both controlled terms and free-text terms. STUDY SELECTION: We performed a systematic search reporting studies that showed performance of artificial intelligence-based models with outcome mortality and clinical deterioration. DATA EXTRACTION: Two review authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Studies with the same outcome were grouped, namely mortality and various forms of deterioration (including ICU admission, adverse events, and cardiac arrests). Meta-analysis was planned in case sufficient data would be extracted from each study and no considerable heterogeneity between studies was present. DATA SYNTHESIS: In total, 45 articles were included for analysis, in which multiple methods of artificial intelligence were used. Twenty-four articles described models for the prediction of mortality and 21 for clinical deterioration. Due to heterogeneity of study characteristics (patient cohort, outcomes, and prediction models), meta-analysis could not be performed. The main reported measure of performance was the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) (n = 38), of which 33 (87%) had an AUROC greater than 0.8. The highest reported performance in a model predicting mortality had an AUROC of 0.935 and an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.96. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, a growing number of studies develop and analyzes artificial intelligence-based prediction models to predict critical illness and deterioration. We show that artificial intelligence-based prediction models have an overall good performance in predicting deterioration of patients. However, external validation of existing models and its performance in a clinical setting is highly recommended.

Evolution of Respiratory Muscles Thickness in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Given the long ventilation times of patients with COVID-19 that can cause atrophy and contractile weakness of respiratory muscle fibers, assessment of changes at the bedside would be interesting. As such, the aim of this study was to determine the evolution of respiratory muscle thickness assessed by ultrasound. METHODS: Adult (> 18 y old) patients admitted to the ICU who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and were ventilated for < 24 h were consecutively included. The first ultrasound examination (diaphragm, rectus abdominis, and lateral abdominal wall muscles) was performed within 24 h of intubation and regarded as baseline measurement. After that, each following day an additional examination was performed, for a maximum of 8 examinations per subject. RESULTS: In total, 30 subjects were included, of which 11 showed ≥ 10% decrease in diaphragm thickness from baseline; 10 showed < 10% change, and 9 showed ≥ 10% increase from baseline. Symptom duration before intubation was highest in the decrease group (12 [11-14] d, P = .03). Total time ventilated within the first week was lowest in the increase group (156 [129-172] h, P = .03). Average initial diaphragm thickness was 1.4 (1.1-1.6) mm and did not differ from final average thickness (1.3 [1.1-1.5] mm, P = .54). The rectus abdominis did not show statistically significant changes, whereas lateral abdominal wall thickness decreased from 14 [10-16] mm at baseline to 11 [9-13] mm on the last day of mechanical ventilation (P = .08). Mixed-effect linear regression demonstrated an association of atrophy and neuromuscular-blocking agent (NMBA) use (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: In ventilated subjects with COVID-19, overall no change in diaphragm thickness was observed. Subjects with decreased or unchanged thickness had a longer ventilation time than those with increased thickness. NMBA use was associated with decreased thickness. Rectus muscle thickness did not change over time, whereas lateral abdominal muscle thickness decreased but this change was not statistically significant.

A pre-hospital risk score predicts critical illness in non-trauma patients transported by ambulance to a Dutch tertiary referral hospital.

BACKGROUND: Early pre-hospital identification of critically ill patients reduces morbidity and mortality. To identify critically ill non-traumatic and non-cardiac arrest patients, a pre-hospital risk stratification tool was previously developed in the United States. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of this tool in a Dutch Emergency Department. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients of 18 years and older transported by ambulance to the Emergency Department of a tertiary referral hospital between January 1st 2017 and December 31st 2017. Documentation of pre-hospital vital parameters had to be available. The tool included a full set of vital parameters, which were categorized by predetermined thresholds. Study outcome was the accuracy of the tool in predicting critical illness, defined as admittance to the Intensive Care Unit for delivery of vital organ support or death within 28 days. Accuracy of the risk stratification tool was measured with the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics (AUROC) curve. RESULTS: Nearly 3000 patients were included in the study, of whom 356 patients (12.2%) developed critical illness. We observed moderate discrimination of the pre-hospital risk score with an AUROC of 0.74 (95%-CI 0.71-0.77). Using a threshold of 3 to identify critical illness, we observed a sensitivity of 45.0% (95%-CI 44.8-45.2) and a specificity of 86.0% (95%-CI 85.9-86.0). CONCLUSION: These data show that this pre-hospital risk stratification tool is a moderately effective tool to predict which patients are likely to become critically ill in a Dutch non-trauma and non-cardiac arrest population.

Salvage surgery for advanced stage head and neck squamous cell carcinoma following radiotherapy or chemoradiation.

PURPOSE: Salvage surgery for recurrent advanced stage head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is known to result in poor prognosis. As there are only small and heterogeneous studies available with wide variety in outcome measures, our purpose was to select and pool literature according to specific criteria. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcome after salvage surgery for recurrent advanced stage HNSCC following primary radiotherapy or chemoradiation. RESULTS: 16 of 3956 screened studies were included for analysis (729 patients). Pooled 5-year OS was 37% (95% CI 30-45%, 12 studies, 17 outcome measurements, 540 patients). Outcome was presented for larynx (6 studies, 397 patients), hypopharynx (2 studies, 47 patients), larynx and hypopharynx combined (3 studies, 69 patients) or separately (1 study, 134 patients), oral cavity (1 study, 11 patients), oropharynx (1 study, 34 patients) and multiple subsites combined (2 studies, 37 patients). There was no significant difference in survival outcome between subsites (pheterogeneity = 0.8116). The pooled tumor-positive resection margin rate was 32% and pooled re-operation rate 17%. Complication rates from the pooled data were: fistulas 33%, wound infections 24% and flap failure 3%. Treatment-related mortality rate was 1% and mean hospital stay was 23 days. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage surgery for recurrent advanced stage head and neck squamous cell carcinoma after primary (chemo)radiotherapy is a good last resort curative treatment option, resulting in 37% overall survival at 5 years. As data from advanced stage non-laryngeal tumors were sparse, no solid conclusions can be drawn with regard to outcome differences between tumor subsites.