Triaging acute pulmonary embolism for home treatment by Hestia or simplified PESI criteria: the HOME-PE randomized trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to compare the Hestia rule vs. the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) for triaging patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for home treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Normotensive patients with PE of 26 hospitals from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland were randomized to either triaging with Hestia or sPESI. They were designated for home treatment if the triaging tool was negative and if the physician-in-charge, taking into account the patient's opinion, did not consider that hospitalization was required. The main outcomes were the 30-day composite of recurrent venous thrombo-embolism, major bleeding or all-cause death (non-inferiority analysis with 2.5% absolute risk difference as margin), and the rate of patients discharged home within 24 h after randomization (NCT02811237). From January 2017 through July 2019, 1975 patients were included. In the per-protocol population, the primary outcome occurred in 3.82% (34/891) in the Hestia arm and 3.57% (32/896) in the sPESI arm (P = 0.004 for non-inferiority). In the intention-to-treat population, 38.4% of the Hestia patients (378/984) were treated at home vs. 36.6% (361/986) of the sPESI patients (P = 0.41 for superiority), with a 30-day composite outcome rate of 1.33% (5/375) and 1.11% (4/359), respectively. No recurrent or fatal PE occurred in either home treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: For triaging PE patients, the strategy based on the Hestia rule and the strategy based on sPESI had similar safety and effectiveness. With either tool complemented by the overruling of the physician-in-charge, more than a third of patients were treated at home with a low incidence of complications.

Procedural Sedation With Dexmedetomidine in Combination With Ketamine in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is an alternative agent for procedural sedation in the emergency department thanks to its ability to maintain hemodynamic and respiratory stability. Dexmedetomidine must, however, be combined with a powerful analgesic. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the quality and safety of procedural sedation using the combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine for patients undergoing painful procedures in the emergency department. METHODS: This prospective interventional single-center study was conducted in an academic emergency department of an urban hospital in Brussels, Belgium. Patients received a bolus injection of 1 µg/kg dexmedetomidine over 10 min and then a continuous infusion of 0.6 µg/kg/h followed by a bolus of 1 mg/kg ketamine. The painful procedure was carried out 1 min later. The level of pain was evaluated with a numerical rating scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximal pain). The level of patient comfort for the procedure was measured using a comfort scale. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included. Overall, 90% of patients felt little or no pain (n = 29 of 30) or discomfort (n = 28 of 30) during the procedure. One patient experienced apnea with desaturation, which was resolved by a jaw-thrust maneuver. Although 23% of patients had significant arterial hypertension, none required drug treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine provides conscious sedation, bringing comfort and pain relief to patients in optimal conditions for respiratory and hemodynamic safety. However, sedation and recovery times are longer than with conventional drug combinations. The dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination should therefore be recommended for nonurgent procedures and fragile patients.