Disposition of acute decompensated heart failure from the emergency department: An evidence-based review.

INTRODUCTION: Acute heart failure (HF) exacerbation is a serious and common condition seen in the Emergency Department (ED) that has significant morbidity and mortality. There are multiple clinical decision tools that Emergency Physicians (EPs) can use to reach an appropriate evidence-based disposition for these patients. OBJECTIVE: This narrative review is an evidence-based discussion of clinical decision-making tools aimed to assist EPs risk stratify patients with AHF and determine disposition. DISCUSSION: Risk stratification in patients with AHF exacerbation presenting to the ED is paramount in reaching an appropriate disposition decision. High risk features include hypotension, hypoxemia, elevated brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and/or troponin, elevated creatinine, and hyponatremia. Patients who require continuous vasoactive infusions, respiratory support, or are initially treatment-resistant generally require intensive care unit admission. In most instances, new-onset AHF patients should be admitted for further evaluation. Other AHF patients in the ED can be risk stratified with the Ottawa HF Risk Score (OHFRS), the Multiple Estimation of Risk Based on Spanish Emergency Department Score (MEESSI), or the Emergency HF Mortality Risk Grade (EHFMRG). These tools take various factors into account such as mode of arrival to the ED, vital signs, laboratory values like troponin and pro-BNP, and clinical course. If used appropriately, these scores can predict patients at low risk for adverse outcomes. CONCLUSION: This article discusses evidence-based disposition of patients in acute decompensated HF presenting to the ED. Knowledge of these factors and risk tools can assist emergency clinicians in determining appropriate disposition of patients with HF.

Resident Attitudes Toward Performing Pelvic Examinations in the Emergency Department.

Mounting evidence suggests that emergency physicians tend to avoid patients with gynecologic chief complaints, and that avoidance may be higher for male physicians compared to females. One underlying reason could be discomfort with performing pelvic examinations. The goal of this study was to assess whether male residents report greater discomfort with pelvic examinations than females. We performed a cross-sectional, Institutional Review Board-approved survey of residents at 6 academic emergency medicine programs. Of 100 residents who completed the survey, 63 self-identified as male, 36 female, and one selected "prefer not to say" and was excluded. Responses were compared between male and females using chi-square tests. In secondary analysis, t-tests were used to compare preferences for various chief complaints. Self-reported comfort with pelvic examinations did not differ significantly between males and females (p = 0.4249). Barriers for male respondents in performing pelvic examinations included lack of training, general dislike, and concern the patient would prefer female providers. Male residents had a statistically significant higher aversion ranking towards patients with vaginal bleeding than female residents (mean difference = 0.48, confidence interval = 0.11-0.87). Aversion ranking was the same between males and females on other chief complaints. There is a gender disparity among male and female residents in attitudes towards patients with vaginal bleeding. However, the results from this study do not demonstrate a significant difference in self-reported comfort amongst male and female residents in performing pelvic examinations. This disparity may be driven by other barriers, including self-reported lack of training and concern about patients' physician gender preferences.