External validation of the In-hospital Mortality for PulmonAry embolism using Claims daTa (IMPACT) multivariable prediction rule.

OBJECTIVE: To validate the In-hospital Mortality for PulmonAry embolism using Claims daTa (IMPACT) multivariable prediction rule using admission claims data. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective claims database analysis. METHODS: This analysis was performed using Humana admission claims data from January 2007 to March 2014. We included adult patients admitted for their first PE during this period (International Classification of Diseases, ninth edition, Clinical Modification code of 415.1x in in the primary position or secondary position when accompanied by a primary code for a PE complication). The IMPACT rule, consisting of age plus 11 comorbidities, was used to estimate patients' probability of in-hospital mortality and classify risk. Low risk was defined as in-hospital mortality ≤ 1.5%. IMPACT was evaluated by evaluating prognostic test characteristic values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 23,858 patients admitted for PE were included, and 3.3% died in-hospital. The IMPACT prediction rule classified 2371 (9.9%) as low-risk; with a sensitivity of 97.6%, 95% CI: 96.1-98.5, specificity of 10.2%, 95% CI: 9.8-10.6, negative and positive predictive values of 99.2% (95% CI: 98.7-99.5) and 3.5% (95% CI: 3.3-3.8) and c-statistic of 0.70, 95% CI: 0.0.68-0.72, for in-hospital mortality. IMPACT classified 42.7% of patients < 65 years old as low-risk; with a sensitivity, specificity and c-statistic of 85.0%, 95% CI: 77.4-90.5, 43.3%, 95% CI: 42.0-44.7 and 0.74, 95% CI: 0.69-0.78, respectively. CONCLUSION: The IMPACT prediction rule was valid when implemented in a database consisting largely of Medicare claims. Following further external validation and direct comparison to commonly used clinical prediction rules, IMPACT may become a valuable tool for payers and hospitals wishing to retrospectively assess whether their PE patients are being kept hospitalized for the optimal period of time.

Initial risk stratification and presenting characteristics of patients with evolving myocardial infarctions.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the presenting characteristics and risk stratification of patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain who have a normal initial troponin level followed by a raised troponin level within 12 h (evolving myocardial infarction (EMI)). METHODS: Data from the Internet Tracking Registry for Acute Coronary Syndromes (i*trACS), a registry of patients presenting with undifferentiated chest pain, were used. This analysis included patients without ST segment elevation with at least two troponin assay results < or = 12 h apart. Patients were stratified into three groups: EMI (initial troponin assay negative, second troponin assay positive), non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) (initial troponin assay positive) and no MI (all troponin assays negative). RESULTS: Of 4136 eligible patients, 5% had EMI, 8% had NSTEMI and 87% had no MI. Patients with EMI were more similar to those with NSTEMI than those with no MI with respect to demographic characteristics, presentation, admission patterns and revascularisation. The initial ECG in patients with EMI was most commonly non-diagnostic (51%), but physicians' initial impressions commonly reflected MI, unstable angina or high-risk chest pain (76%). This risk assessment was followed by a high rate of critical care admissions (32%) and revascularisation (percutaneous coronary intervention 17%) among patients with EMI. CONCLUSION: Patients with EMI appear similar at presentation to those with NSTEMI. Patients with EMI are perceived as being at high risk, evidenced by similar diagnostic impressions, admission practices and revascularisation rates to patients with NSTEMI.

Respiratory pearls, pitfalls, and updates.

The scope of respiratory and ventilatory support offered in the emergency department (ED) has expanded substantially in the last 10 years. Emergency physicians are now much more aggressive and sophisticated in their management of bronchospasm, pulmonary edema, and acute respiratory failure. New medications and new technologies that have been tested in intensive care units should also be considered appropriate for use in the ED; indeed, from a respiratory support standpoint, the ED should be viewed as an intensive care unit. In this article, the authors outline these new concepts and treatments that allow initiation of "intensive care" in the ED.