Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Am J Emerg Med ; 58: 235-244, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1914107

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Acute chest syndrome (ACS) in sickle cell disease (SCD) is a serious condition that carries with it a high rate of morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: This review highlights the pearls and pitfalls of ACS in SCD, including diagnosis and management in the emergency department (ED) based on current evidence. DISCUSSION: ACS is defined by respiratory symptoms and/or fever and a new radiodensity on chest imaging in a patient with SCD. There are a variety of inciting causes, including infectious and non-infectious etiologies. Although ACS is more common in those with homozygous SCD, clinicians should consider ACS in all SCD patients, as ACS is a leading cause of death in SCD. Patients typically present with or develop respiratory symptoms including fever, cough, chest pain, and shortness of breath, which can progress to respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation in 20% of adult patients. However, the initial presentation can vary. While the first line imaging modality is classically chest radiograph, lung ultrasound has demonstrated promise. Further imaging to include computed tomography may be necessary. Management focuses on analgesia, oxygen supplementation, incentive spirometry, bronchodilators, rehydration, antibiotics, consideration for transfusion, and specialist consultation. Empiric antibiotics that cover atypical pathogens are necessary along with measures to increase oxygen-carrying capacity in those with hypoxemia such as simple transfusion or exchange transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: An understanding of ACS can assist emergency clinicians in diagnosing and managing this potentially deadly disease.


Subject(s)
Acute Chest Syndrome , Anemia, Sickle Cell , Acute Chest Syndrome/diagnosis , Acute Chest Syndrome/epidemiology , Acute Chest Syndrome/etiology , Acute Disease , Adult , Anemia, Sickle Cell/complications , Anemia, Sickle Cell/epidemiology , Anti-Bacterial Agents , Chest Pain/etiology , Fever/etiology , Humans , Prevalence
2.
Am J Health Syst Pharm ; 79(19): 1652-1662, 2022 09 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1860807

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Obtaining an accurate medication history is a vital component of medication reconciliation upon admission to the hospital. Despite the importance of this task, medication histories are often inaccurate and/or incomplete. We evaluated the association of a pharmacy-driven medication history initiative on clinical outcomes of patients admitted to the general medicine service of an academic medical center. METHODS: Comparing patients who received a pharmacy-driven medication history to those who did not, a retrospective stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting propensity score analysis was used to estimate the average treatment effect of the intervention on general medical patients. Fifty-two patient baseline characteristics including demographic, operational, and clinical variables were controlled in the propensity score model. Hospital length of stay, 7-day and 30-day unplanned readmissions, and in-hospital mortality were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 11,576 eligible general medical patients, 2,234 (19.30%) received a pharmacy-driven medication history and 9,342 (80.70%) patients did not. The estimated average treatment effect of receiving a pharmacy-driven medication history was a shorter length of stay (mean, 5.88 days vs 6.53 days; P = 0.0002) and a lower in-hospital mortality rate (2.34% vs 3.72%, P = 0.001), after adjustment for differences in patient baseline characteristics. No significant difference was found for 7-day or 30-day all-cause readmission rates. CONCLUSION: Pharmacy-driven medication histories reduced length of stay and in-hospital mortality in patients admitted to the general medical service at an academic medical center but did not change 7-day and 30-day all-cause readmission rates. Further research via a large, multisite randomized controlled trial is needed to confirm our findings.


Subject(s)
Pharmacy Service, Hospital , Pharmacy , Humans , Medication Reconciliation , Patient Readmission , Retrospective Studies
3.
J Emerg Med ; 60(3): 359-364, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-894016

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) poisoning is a life-threatening but treatable toxic ingestion. The scale of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (COVID-19) and the controversial suggestion that HCQ is a treatment option have led to a significant increase in HCQ use. HCQ poisoning should be at the top-of-mind for emergency providers in cases of toxic ingestion. Treatment for HCQ poisoning includes sodium bicarbonate, epinephrine, and aggressive electrolyte repletion. We highlight the use of hypertonic saline and diazepam. CASE REPORT: We describe the case of a 37-year-old man who presented to the emergency department after the ingestion of approximately 16 g of HCQ tablets (initial serum concentration 4270 ng/mL). He was treated with an epinephrine infusion, hypertonic sodium chloride, high-dose diazepam, sodium bicarbonate, and aggressive potassium repletion. Persistent altered mental status necessitated intubation, and he was managed in the medical intensive care unit until his QRS widening and QTc prolongation resolved. After his mental status improved and it was confirmed that his ingestion was not with the intent to self-harm, he was discharged home with outpatient follow-up. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: For patients presenting with HCQ overdose and an unknown initial serum potassium level, high-dose diazepam and hypertonic sodium chloride should be started immediately for the patient with widened QRS. The choice of hypertonic sodium chloride instead of sodium bicarbonate is to avoid exacerbating underlying hypokalemia which may in turn potentiate unstable dysrhythmia. In addition, early intubation should be a priority in vomiting patients because both HCQ toxicity and high-dose diazepam cause profound sedation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Diazepam/therapeutic use , Heart Block/chemically induced , Hydroxychloroquine/poisoning , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Long QT Syndrome/chemically induced , Poisoning/therapy , Saline Solution, Hypertonic/therapeutic use , Adult , Electrocardiography , Emergency Service, Hospital , Heart Block/therapy , Humans , Long QT Syndrome/therapy , Male , SARS-CoV-2
7.
J Med Toxicol ; 16(3): 284-294, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-143806

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus that emerged in 2019 and is causing the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no current standard of care. Clinicians need to be mindful of the toxicity of a wide variety of possibly unfamiliar substances being tested or repurposed to treat COVID-19. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has provided emergency authorization for the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. These two medications may precipitate ventricular dysrhythmias, necessitating cardiac and electrolyte monitoring, and in severe cases, treatment with epinephrine and high-doses of diazepam. Recombinant protein therapeutics may cause serum sickness or immune complex deposition. Nucleic acid vaccines may introduce mutations into the human genome. ACE inhibitors and ibuprofen have been suggested to exacerbate the pathogenesis of COVID-19. Here, we review the use, mechanism of action, and toxicity of proposed COVID-19 therapeutics.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/toxicity , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Chloroquine/toxicity , Chloroquine/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Hydroxychloroquine/toxicity , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Betacoronavirus/drug effects , COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL