Assessment of Prognostic Scores for Emergency Department Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Early prognostic stratification could optimize the management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding and reduce unnecessary hospitalizations. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the performance of existing prognostic scores in predicting therapeutic intervention and death. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature identified existing prognostic scores. A multicenter retrospective cohort study included adult patients hospitalized for upper gastrointestinal bleeding from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020. The primary outcome was a composite including therapeutic intervention within 7 days (blood transfusion, endoscopic, surgical, or interventional radiology hemostasis) and/or 30-day death. Discrimination performance was estimated by the area under the curve (AUC). The ability to identify low-risk patients was analyzed using sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for defined thresholds. RESULTS: The systematic search identified 39 prognostic scores, 12 of which could be analyzed. Among the 990 patients included, therapeutic intervention and/or death occurred in 755 (76.4%) patients. Scores with the highest discriminative performance to predict the primary composite outcome were Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) (AUC 0.869 [0.842 to 0.895]), modified GBS (AUC 0.872 [0.847 to 0.898]) and modified GBS 2 (AUC 0.855 [0.827 to 0.884]). The best performance to identify low-risk patients was for GBS≤1 (sensitivity 0.99 [0.99 to 1.00], NPV 0.89 [0.75 to 0.97]) and modified GBS=0 (sensitivity 0.99 [0.98 to 1.00], NPV 0.84 [0.71 to 0.94]). CONCLUSIONS: The GBS and the modified GBS are the 2 best performing scores because they achieve both key objectives: stratifying patients based on their risk of therapeutic intervention and/or death and identifying low-risk patients who may qualify for outpatient management.

Evaluation of use and identification of predictive factors for nonuse of peripheral venous catheters in the emergency department.

The placement of peripheral venous catheters (PVC) is a frequent procedure in the emergency department (ED), which exposes patients to complications (hematoma, fluid leakage, phlebitis, edema, infection), increases hemolysis of blood samples, is time-consuming and costly. The main aim of this study is to analyze the rate of PVC nonuse in the ED and to identify predictive factors of their nonuse. This prospective single-center observational study was conducted in the ED of the Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris, France between February and March 2022. Adult patients receiving a PVC were included. In addition to demographic and medical data, the reason for PVC prescription and the prescribing physician's expectation of PVC use were collected. A total of 304 patients were included, with a median age of 61.5 years (IQR: 43-79 years), of whom 152 (50%) were men. PVC were primarily prescribed for intravenous medication administration. Seventy-two (23.7%) PVC were not used. In multivariable analysis, the predictive factors of nonuse were the prescribing physician's expectation of nonuse [OR 6.35, CI 95% (2.64-15.29), for "no" and "not sure" vs. "yes" responses] and the reason for prescribing "just in case" [OR 3.54, CI 95% (1.37-9.17)]. PVC were not used in 23.7% of cases. Predictors of nonuse were the prescribing physician's expectation of nonuse and the reason for prescribing "just in case". A PVC should probably not be prescribed if the prescribing physician thinks it will not be used or prescribes it "just in case".

Effect of the 1-h bundle on mortality in patients with suspected sepsis in the emergency department: a stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The efficacy of the 1-h bundle for emergency department (ED) patients with suspected sepsis, which includes lactate measurement, blood culture, broad-spectrum antibiotics administration, administration of 30 mL/kg crystalloid fluid for hypotension or lactate ≥ 4 mmol/L, remains controversial. METHODS: We carried out a pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial in 23 EDs in France and Spain. Adult patients with Sepsis-3 criteria or a quick sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 2 or a lactate > 2 mmol/L were eligible. The intervention was the implementation of the 1-h sepsis bundle. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality truncated at 28 days. Secondary outcomes included volume of fluid resuscitation at 24 h, acute heart failure at 24 h, SOFA score at 72 h, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, number of days on mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, vasopressor free days, unnecessary antibiotic administration, and mortality at 28 days. 1148 patients were planned to be analysed; the study period ended after 873 patients were included. RESULTS: 872 patients (mean age 66, 42% female) were analyzed: 387 (44.4%) in the intervention group and 485 (55.6%) in the control group. Median SOFA score was 3 [1-5]. Median time to antibiotic administration was 40 min in the intervention group vs 113 min in the control group (difference - 73 [95% confidence interval (CI) - 93 to - 53]). There was a significantly higher rate, volume, and shorter time to fluid resuscitation within 3 h in the intervention group. There were 47 (12.1%) in-hospital deaths in the intervention group compared to 61 (12.6%) in the control group (difference in percentage - 0.4 [95% CI - 5.1 to 4.2], adjusted relative risk (aRR) 0.81 [95% CI 0.48 to 1.39]). There were no differences between groups for other secondary endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with suspected sepsis in the ED, the implementation of the 1-h sepsis bundle was not associated with significant difference in in-hospital mortality. However, this study may be underpowered to report a statistically significant difference between groups.