4 results
LO09: Role of hospitalization for detection of serious adverse events among emergency department patients with syncope: a propensity-score matched analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort
- R. Krishnan, M. Mukarram, B. Ghaedi, M. Sivilotti, N. Le Sage, J. Yan, P. Huang, M. Hegdekar, E. Mercier, M. Nemnom, L. Calder, A. McRae, B. Rowe, G. Wells, V. Thiruganasambandamoorthy
-
- Journal:
- Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine / Volume 22 / Issue S1 / May 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 13 May 2020, p. S10
- Print publication:
- May 2020
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction: Selecting appropriate patients for hospitalization following emergency department (ED) evaluation of syncope is critical for serious adverse event (SAE) identification. The primary objective of this study is to determine the association of hospitalization and SAE detection using propensity score (PS) matching. The secondary objective was to determine if SAE identification with hospitalization varied by the Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) risk-category. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of two large prospective cohort studies that enrolled adults (age ≥ 16 years) with syncope at 11 Canadian EDs. Patients with a serious condition identified during index ED evaluation were excluded. Outcome was a 30-day SAE identified either in-hospital for hospitalized patients or after ED disposition for discharged patients and included death, ventricular arrhythmia, non-lethal arrhythmia and non-arrhythmic SAE (myocardial infarction, structural heart disease, pulmonary embolism, hemorrhage). Patients were propensity matched using age, sex, blood pressure, prodrome, presumed ED diagnosis, ECG abnormalities, troponin, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, arrival by ambulance and hospital site. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the interaction between CSRS and SAE detection and we report odds ratios (OR). Results: Of the 8183 patients enrolled, 743 (9.0%) patients were hospitalized and 658 (88.6%) were PS matched. The OR for SAE detection for hospitalized patients in comparison to those discharged from the ED was 5.0 (95%CI 3.3, 7.4), non-lethal arrhythmia 5.4 (95%CI 3.1, 9.6) and non-arrhythmic SAE 6.3 (95%CI 2.9, 13.5). Overall, the odds of any SAE identification, and specifically non-lethal arrhythmia and non-arrhythmia was significantly higher in-hospital among hospitalized patients than those discharged from the ED (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in 30-day mortality (p = 1.00) or ventricular arrhythmia detection (p = 0.21). The interaction between ED disposition and CSRS was significant (p = 0.04) and the probability of 30-day SAEs while in-hospital was greater for medium and high risk CSRS patients. Conclusion: In this multicenter prospective cohort, 30-day SAE detection was greater for hospitalized compared with discharged patients. CSRS low-risk patients are least likely to have SAEs identified in-hospital; out-patient monitoring for moderate risk patients requires further study.
MP07: Identification of barriers and facilitators for implementation of the Canadian Syncope Risk Score
- N. Hudek, B. Rowe, J. Brehaut, B. Ghaedi, P. Nguyen, J. Presseau, A. McRae, J. Yan, R. Ohle, C. Fabian, N. Le Sage, E. Mercier, M. Hegdekar, P. Archambault, M. Sivilotti, V. Thiruganasambandamoorthy
-
- Journal:
- Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine / Volume 22 / Issue S1 / May 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 13 May 2020, pp. S44-S45
- Print publication:
- May 2020
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction: Wide variability exists in emergency department (ED) syncope management. The Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) was derived and validated to predict the probability of 30-day serious outcomes after ED disposition. The objective was to identify barriers and facilitators among physicians for CSRS use to stratify risk and guide disposition decisions Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with physicians involved in ED syncope care at 8 Canadian sites. We used purposive sampling, contacting ED physicians, cardiologists, internists, and hospitalists until theme saturation was reached. Interview questions were designed to understand whether the CSRS recommendations are consistent with current practice, barriers and facilitators for application into practice, and intention for future CSRS use. Interviews were conducted via telephone or videoconference. Two independent raters coded interviews using an inductive approach to identify themes, with discrepancies resolved through consensus. Our methods were consistent with the Knowledge to Action Framework, which highlights the need to assess barriers and facilitators for knowledge use and for adapting new interventions into local contexts. Results: We interviewed 14 ED physicians, 7 cardiologists, and 10 hospitalists/internists across 8 sites. All physicians reported the use of electrocardiograms for patients with syncope, a key component in the CSRS criteria. Almost all physicians reported that the low risk recommendation (discharge without specific follow-up) was consistent with current practice, while less consistency was seen for moderate (15 days outpatient monitoring) and high risk recommendations (outpatient monitoring and/or admission). Key barriers to following the CSRS included a lack of access to outpatient monitoring and uncertainty over timely follow-up care. Other barriers included patient/family concerns, social factors, and necessary bloodwork. Facilitators included assisting with patient education, reassurance of their clinical gestalt, and optimal patient factors (e.g. reliability to return, support at home, few comorbidities). Conclusion: Physicians are receptive to using the CSRS tool for risk stratification and decision support. Implementation should address identified barriers, and adaptation to local settings may involve modifying the recommended clinical actions based on local resources and feasibility.
LO06: Development of practice recommendations for ED management of syncope by mixed methods
- V. Thiruganasambandamoorthy, M. Taljaard, N. Hudek, J. Brehaut, B. Ghaedi, P. Nguyen, M. Sivilotti, A. McRae, J. Yan, R. Ohle, C. Fabian, N. Le Sage, E. Mercier, M. Hegdekar, P. Huang, M. Nemnom, A. Krahn, P. Archambault, J. Presseau, I. Graham, B. Rowe
-
- Journal:
- Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine / Volume 22 / Issue S1 / May 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 13 May 2020, pp. S8-S9
- Print publication:
- May 2020
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction: Emergency department (ED) syncope management is extremely variable. We developed practice recommendations based on the validated Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) and outpatient cardiac monitoring strategy with physician input. Methods: We used a 2-step approach. Step-1: We pooled data from the derivation and validation prospective cohort studies (with adequate sample size) conducted at 11 Canadian sites (Sep 2010 to Apr 2018). Adults with syncope were enrolled excluding those with serious outcome identified during index ED evaluation. 30-day adjudicated serious outcomes were arrhythmic (arrhythmias, unknown cause of death) and non-arrhythmic (MI, structural heart disease, pulmonary embolism, hemorrhage)]. We compared the serious outcome proportion among risk categories using Cochran-Armitage test. Step-2: We conducted semi-structured interviews using observed risk to develop and refine the recommendations. We used purposive sampling of physicians involved in syncope care at 8 sites from Jun-Dec 2019 until theme saturation was reached. Two independent raters coded interviews using an inductive approach to identify themes; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Results: Of the 8176 patients (mean age 54, 55% female), 293 (3.6%; 95%CI 3.2-4.0%) experienced 30-day serious outcomes; 0.4% deaths, 2.5% arrhythmic, 1.1% non-arrhythmic outcomes. The serious outcome proportion significantly increased from low to high-risk categories (p < 0.001; overall 0.6% to 27.7%; arrhythmic 0.2% to 17.3%; non-arrhythmic 0.4% to 5.9% respectively). C-statistic was 0.88 (95%CI0.86–0.90). Non-arrhythmia risk per day for the first 2 days was 0.5% for medium-risk, 2% for high-risk and very low thereafter. We recruited 31 physicians (14 ED, 7 cardiologists, 10 hospitalists/internists). 80% of physicians agreed that low risk patients can be discharged without specific follow-up with inconsistencies around length of ED observation. For cardiac monitoring of medium and high-risk, 64% indicated that they don't have access; 56% currently admit high-risk patients and an additional 20% agreed to this recommendation. A deeper exploration led to following refinement: discharge without specific follow-up for low-risk, a shared decision approach for medium-risk and short course of hospitalization for high-risk patients. Conclusion: The recommendations were developed (with online calculator) based on in-depth feedback from key stakeholders to improve uptake during implementation.
LO46: Prognostic value of single serum progesterone in the evaluation of symptomatic pregnant patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- B. Ghaedi, S. Ameri, K. Abdulkarim, V. Thiruganasambandamoorthy
-
- Journal:
- Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine / Volume 22 / Issue S1 / May 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 13 May 2020, pp. S23-S24
- Print publication:
- May 2020
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction: Pain and bleeding complicate 30% of pregnancies threatening viability. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the role of a single progesterone level in predicting viability. Methods: We comprehensively searched MEDLINE, Embase (OVID), CINAHL and Cochrane databases from inception to July 2019. We included English language studies that enrolled symptomatic first trimester pregnant patients, measured progesterone and reported viability (miscarriage, ectopic or viable). We excluded studies with patients who had progesterone treatment, or conception after induced ovulation/invitro fertilization. We extracted patient characteristics, study setting, mean progesterone, the cut off value and outcome (viability). The quality of the included studies was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. We extracted data for 2X2 tables and report mean, standard deviation (SD), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV). Results: Of the 689 studies screened, 51 studies with 15783 patients were included (1 randomized control trial, 36 prospective, 9 retrospective, 5 prospective case control studies) and 7553 were viable pregnancies. Of the 31 studies (n = 10998) that reported ectopic, 1661 patients were diagnosed with ectopic pregnancy. In 35 studies (n = 6003) that reported mean and SD, the levels were higher in viable (26.7 ± 11.2ng/ml) than non-viable (9.5 ± 5.9ng/ml; p < 0.001) or ectopic pregnancy 9.5 ± 6.8ng/ml (p < 0.001). The pooled diagnostic characteristics at different cut-off values were: <6.3ng/mL (9 studies; N = 6033) sensitivity 65.0% (95%CI 63.5,66.5), specificity 97.3% (95%CI 95.5, 98.5), PPV 99.4% (95%CI 99.1,99.7) and NPV 27.4 (95%CI 26.6,28.4); <10 ng/mL (12 studies with 5743 participants) sensitivity 65.0% (95% CI 63.5, 66.5), specificity of 97.3% (95%CI 95.5, 98.5), PPV 99.4% (95% CI 99.1, 99.7) and NPV 27.4% [95% CI 26.5, 29.4); 11-20 ng/mL (24 studies with 7141 participants) sensitivity 77.3% (95% CI 76.2,78.4), specificity 64.6% (95% CI 63.2, 65.9), PPV 73.2% [95% CI 72.3, 73.9) and NPV 69.5% (95% CI 70.7, 72.5). There was low risk of bias for patient selection, index test and low concern regarding applicability. The highest risk (82% of studies) was due to outcome ascertainment bias due to non-blinding of index and additional tests. Conclusion: A single progesterone value is useful in predicting viability of pregnancy among symptomatic patients.