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.

Recognition of Critically Ill Patients by Acute Healthcare Providers: A Multicenter Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: Although the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) is increasingly being used in the acute care chain to recognize disease severity, its superiority compared with clinical gestalt remains unproven. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of medical caregivers and MEWS in predicting the development of critical illness. DESIGN: This was a multicenter observational prospective study. SETTING: It was performed in a level-1 trauma center with two different sites and emergency departments (EDs) with a combined capacity of about 50.000 patients annually. PATIENTS: It included all adult patients presented to the ED by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For all patients, the acute caregivers were asked several standardized questions regarding clinical predicted outcome (clinical gestalt), and the MEWS was calculated. The primary outcome was the occurrence of critical illness, defined as ICU admission, serious adverse events, and mortality within 72 hours. The sensitivity, specificity, and discriminative power of both clinical gestalt and MEWS for the occurrence of critical illness were calculated as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Among the total of 800 included patients, 113 patients (14.1%) suffered from critical illness. The specificity for predicting three-day critical illness for all caregivers (for EMS nurses, ED nurses, and physicians) was 93.2%; 97.3%, and 96.8%, respectively, and was significantly ( p < 0.01) better than an MEWS score of 3 or higher (70.4%). The sensitivity was significantly lower for EMS and ED nurses, but not significantly different for physicians compared with MEWS. The AUROCs for prediction of 3-day critical illness by both the ED nurses (AUROC = 0.809) and the physicians (AUROC = 0.848) were significantly higher ( p = 0.032 and p = 0.010, respectively) compared with MEWS (AUROC = 0.731). CONCLUSIONS: For patients admitted to the ED by EMS, medical professionals can predict the development of critical illness within 3 days significantly better than the MEWS. Although MEWS is able to correctly predict those patients that become critically ill, its use leads to overestimation due to a substantial number of false positives.

Monitoring of pulmonary involvement in critically ill COVID-19 patients - should lung ultrasound be preferred over CT?

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if relevant changes in pulmonary involvement in critically ill COVID-19 patients can be reliably detected by the CT severity score (CTSS) and lung ultrasound score (LUSS), or if these changes have prognostic implications. In addition, it has been argued that adding pleural abnormalities to the LUSS could improve its prognostic value. The objective of this study was to compare LUSS and CTSS for the monitoring of COVID-19 pulmonary involvement through: first, establishing the correlation of LUSS (± pleural abnormalities) and CTSS throughout admission; second, assessing agreement and measurement error between raters for LUSS, pleural abnormalities, and CTSS; third, evaluating the association of the LUSS (± pleural abnormalities) and CTSS with mortality at different timepoints. METHODS: This is a prospective, observational study, conducted during the second COVID-19 wave at the AmsterdamUMC, location VUmc. Adult COVID-19 ICU patients were prospectively included when a CT or a 12-zone LUS was performed at admission or at weekly intervals according to local protocol. Patients were followed 90 days or until death. We calculated the: (1) Correlation of the LUSS (± pleural abnormalities) and CTSS throughout admission with mixed models; (2) Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and smallest detectable changes (SDCs) between raters; (3) Association between the LUSS (± pleural abnormalities) and CTSS with mixed models. RESULTS: 82 consecutive patients were included. Correlation between LUSS and CTSS was 0.45 (95% CI 0.31-0.59). ICCs for LUSS, pleural abnormalities, and CTSS were 0.88 (95% CI 0.73-0.95), 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.96), and 0.84 (95% CI 0.65-0.93), with SDCs of 4.8, 1.4, and 3.9. The LUSS was associated with mortality in week 2, with a score difference between patients who survived or died greater than its SDC. Addition of pleural abnormalities was not beneficial. The CTSS was associated with mortality only in week 1, but with a score difference less than its SDC. CONCLUSIONS: LUSS correlated with CTSS throughout ICU admission but performed similar or better at agreement between raters and mortality prognostication. Given the benefits of LUS over CT, it should be preferred as initial monitoring tool.

Concise Versus Extended Lung Ultrasound Score to Monitor Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasound (LUS) can be used to monitor critically ill patients with COVID-19, but the optimal number of examined lung zones is disputed. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study. The objective was to investigate whether concise (6 zones) and extended (12 zones) LUS scoring protocols are clinically equivalent in critically ill ICU subjects with COVID-19. The primary outcome of this study was (statistical) agreement between concise and extended LUS score index evaluated in both supine and prone position. Agreement was determined using correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots to detect systematic differences between protocols. Secondary outcomes were difference between LUS score index in supine and prone position using similar methods. RESULTS: We included 130 LUS examinations in 40 subjects (mean age 69.0 ± 8.5y, 75% male). Agreement between concise and extended LUS score index had no clinically relevant constant or proportional bias and limits of agreement were below the smallest detectable change. Across position changes, supine LUS score index was 8% higher than prone LUS score index and had limits above the smallest detectable change, indicating true LUS score index differences between protocols may occur due to the position change itself. Lastly, inter-rater and intra-rater agreement were very good. CONCLUSIONS: Concise LUS was equally informative as extended LUS for monitoring critically ill subjects with COVID-19 in supine or prone position. Clinicians can monitor patients undergoing position changes but must be wary that LUS score index alterations may result from the position change itself rather than disease progression or clinical improvement.

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.

Performance of early warning and risk stratification scores versus clinical judgement in the acute setting: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Risk stratification is increasingly based on Early Warning Score (EWS)-based models, instead of clinical judgement. However, it is unknown how risk-stratification models and EWS perform as compared with the clinical judgement of treating acute healthcare providers. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of all available literature evaluating clinical judgement of healthcare providers to the use of risk-stratification models in predicting patients' clinical outcome. METHODS: Studies comparing clinical judgement and risk-stratification models in predicting outcomes in adult patients presenting at the ED were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes included the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission; severe adverse events; clinical deterioration and mortality. Risk of bias among the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. RESULTS: Six studies (6419 participants) were included of which 4 studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. Only descriptive analysis was performed as a meta-analysis was not possible due to few included studies and high clinical heterogeneity. The performance of clinical judgement and risk-stratification models were both moderate in predicting mortality, deterioration and need for ICU admission with area under the curves between 0.70 and 0.89. The performance of clinical judgement did not significantly differ from risk-stratification models in predicting mortality (n=2 studies) or deterioration (n=1 study). However, clinical judgement of healthcare providers was significantly better in predicting the need for ICU admission (n=2) and severe adverse events (n=1 study) as compared with risk-stratification models. CONCLUSION: Based on limited existing data, clinical judgement has greater accuracy in predicting the need for ICU admission and the occurrence of severe adverse events compared with risk-stratification models in ED patients. However, performance is similar in predicting mortality and deterioration. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020218893.

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.

Comparing complaint-based triage scales and early warning scores for emergency department triage.

BACKGROUND: Emergency triage systems are used globally to prioritise care based on patients' needs. These systems are commonly based on patient complaints, while the need for timely interventions on regular hospital wards is usually assessed with early warning scores (EWS). We aim to directly compare the ability of currently used triage scales and EWS scores to recognise patients in need of urgent care in the ED. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, single-centre study on all patients who presented to the ED of a Dutch Level 1 trauma centre, between 1 September 2018 and 24 June 2020 and for whom a Netherlands Triage System (NTS) score as well as a Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) was recorded. The performance of these scores was assessed using surrogate markers for true urgency and presented using bar charts, cross tables and a paired area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: We identified 12 317 unique patient visits where NTS and MEWS scores were documented during triage. A paired comparison of the AUC of these scores showed that the MEWS score had a significantly better AUC than the NTS for predicting the need for hospital admission (0.65 vs 0.60; p<0.001) or 30-day all-cause mortality (0.70 vs 0.60; p<0.001). Furthermore, when non-urgent MEWS scores co-occur with urgent NTS scores, the MEWS score seems to more accurately capture the urgency level that is warranted. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that EWSs could potentially be used to replace the current emergency triage systems.

Early warning scores to assess the probability of critical illness in patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Validated clinical risk scores are needed to identify patients with COVID-19 at risk of severe disease and to guide triage decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the performance of early warning scores (EWS) in the ED when identifying patients with COVID-19 who will require intensive care unit (ICU) admission for high-flow-oxygen usage or mechanical ventilation. METHODS: Patients with a proven SARS-CoV-2 infection with complete resuscitate orders treated in nine hospitals between 27 February and 30 July 2020 needing hospital admission were included. Primary outcome was the performance of EWS in identifying patients needing ICU admission within 24 hours after ED presentation. RESULTS: In total, 1501 patients were included. Median age was 71 (range 19-99) years and 60.3% were male. Of all patients, 86.9% were admitted to the general ward and 13.1% to the ICU within 24 hours after ED admission. ICU patients had lower peripheral oxygen saturation (86.7% vs 93.7, p≤0.001) and had a higher body mass index (29.2 vs 27.9 p=0.043) compared with non-ICU patients. National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) ≥ 6 and q-COVID Score were superior to all other studied clinical risk scores in predicting ICU admission with a fair area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.740 (95% CI 0.696 to 0.783) and 0.760 (95% CI 0.712 to 0.800), respectively. NEWS2 ≥6 and q-COVID Score ≥3 discriminated patients admitted to the ICU with a sensitivity of 78.1% and 75.9%, and specificity of 56.3% and 61.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this multicentre study, the best performing models to predict ICU admittance were the NEWS2 and the Quick COVID-19 Severity Index Score, with fair diagnostic performance. However, due to the moderate performance, these models cannot be clinically used to adequately predict the need for ICU admission within 24 hours in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection presenting at the ED.

A Lower Global Lung Ultrasound Score Is Associated with Higher Likelihood of Successful Extubation in Invasively Ventilated COVID-19 Patients.

Lung ultrasound (LUS) can be used to assess loss of aeration, which is associated with outcome in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presenting to the emergency department. We hypothesized that LUS scores are associated with outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving invasive ventilation. This retrospective international multicenter study evaluated patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with at least one LUS study within 5 days after invasive mechanical ventilation initiation. The global LUS score was calculated by summing the 12 regional scores (range 0-36). Pleural line abnormalities and subpleural consolidations were also scored. The outcomes were successful liberation from the ventilator and intensive care mortality within 28 days, analyzed with multistate, competing risk proportional hazard models. One hundred thirty-seven patients with COVID-19-related ARDS were included in our study. The global LUS score was associated with successful liberation from mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.91 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-0.96; P = 0.0007) independently of the ARDS severity, but not with 28 days mortality (HR: 1.03; 95% CI 0.97-1.08; P = 0.36). Subpleural consolidation and pleural line abnormalities did not add to the prognostic value of the global LUS score. Examinations within 24 hours of intubation showed no prognostic value. To conclude, a lower global LUS score 24 hours after invasive ventilation initiation is associated with increased probability of liberation from the mechanical ventilator COVID-19 ARDS patients, independently of the ARDS severity.

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.