Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Crit Care Res Pract ; 2022: 6171598, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35912041

ABSTRACT

Background: The 6-bed critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU) is a unique and specialized intensive care unit (ICU) that streamlines the interhospital transfer (IHT-transfer between different hospitals) process for a wide range of patients with critical illness or time-sensitive disease. Previous studies showed the unit successfully increased the number of ICU admissions while reducing the time of transfer in the first year of its establishment. However, its sustainability is unknown. Methods: This was a descriptive retrospective analysis of adult, non-trauma patients who were transferred to an 800-bed quaternary medical center. Patients transferred to our medical center between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018 were eligible. We used interrupted time series (ITS) and descriptive analyses to describe the trend and compare the transfer process between patients who were transferred to the CCRU versus those transferred to other adult inpatient units. Results: From 2014 to 2018, 50,599 patients were transferred to our medical center; 31,582 (62%) were non-trauma adults. Compared with the year prior to the opening of the CCRU, ITS showed a significant increase in IHT after the establishment of the CCRU. The CCRU received a total of 7,788 (25%) IHTs during this period or approximately 20% of total transfers per year. Most transfers (41%) occurred via ground. Median and interquartile range [IQR] of transfer times to other ICUs (156 [65-1027] minutes) were longer than the CCRU (46 [22-139] minutes, P < 0.001). For the CCRU, the most common accepting services were cardiac surgery (16%), neurosurgery (11%), and emergency general surgery (10%). Conclusions: The CCRU increases the overall number of transfers to our institution, improves patient access to specialty care while decreasing transfer time, and continues to be a sustainable model over time. Additional research is needed to determine if transferring patients to the CCRU would continue to improve patients' outcomes and hospital revenue.

2.
Cureus ; 14(2): e21929, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35273870

ABSTRACT

Background Timely intervention is essential for the successful removal of ingested foreign bodies. Emergent endoscopy (EGD) is usually performed in the emergency department (ED), operating room (OR), intensive care unit (ICU), or endoscopy suite. However, because the endoscopy suite is not always available, this study investigated the impact of location outside of the endoscopy suite on the successful removal of ingested foreign bodies and other patient outcomes. Methodology We reviewed charts of patients who underwent EGD for foreign body removal at an academic quaternary center between January 01, 2012, and December 31, 2020. We defined successful EGD as retrieval of the foreign body at the first attempt and not requiring subsequent endoscopy or surgical intervention. We performed descriptive and inferential statistical analyses and conducted classification and regression trees to compare endoscopy procedure length (EPL) and hospital length of stay (HLOS) between different locations. Results We analyzed 77 patients, of whom 13 (17%) underwent endoscopy in the ICU, 46 (60%) in the OR, and 18 (23%) in the ED. Endoscopic removal failed in four (5%) patients. Endoscopy length was significantly shorter in the OR (67 (48-122) minutes) versus the ICU (158 (95-166) minutes, P = 0.004) and the ED (111 (92-155) minutes, P = 0.009). Time to procedure was similar if the procedure was performed in the ED (278 minutes), the ICU (331 minutes), or the OR (378 minutes). The median (interquartile range) of HLOS for the OR group (0.87 (0.54-2.03) days) was significantly shorter than the ICU group (2.26 (1.47-6.91) days, P = 0.007). Conclusions While performing endoscopy for esophageal foreign body removal in the OR may be associated with a shorter EPL and HLOS, no location was inferior for overall outcomes. Further prospective and randomized studies are needed to confirm our findings.

3.
Am J Emerg Med ; 53: 154-160, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35063886

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and intracranial hypertension are associated with poor outcomes. Blood pressure variability (BPV) and neurological deterioration (ND) are known factors associated with sICH outcomes, but the relationship between BPV and ND in the hyperacute phase remains poorly described. We hypothesized that BPV is associated with ND during patients' initial emergency department (ED) stay and during interhospital transport (IHT) to a tertiary care center. METHODS: A retrospective study of adult patients with sICH was performed. Patients who were transferred from an ED to a tertiary care center between 01/01/2011 and 09/30/2015 and underwent external ventricular drainage were eligible. The outcome was ND at any time before arrival at a tertiary care center. Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis, a machine learning algorithm, was used to assign "relative variable importance" (RVI) for important predictive clinical factors. RESULTS: 153 eligible patients were analyzed. Sixty-five (42%) patients developed ND. Maximum ED systolic blood pressure (ED SBPMax) was most predictive of sICH patients developing ND (RVI = 100%). Other important factors for ND included standard deviation in SBP (SBPSD) during ED stay and IHT, with RVI of 43% and 20%, respectively. CONCLUSION: ED SBPMax was the strongest predictive factor of ND, while other BPV components were also significant. Our study found evidence that BPV should be prioritized as it may also increase the risk of ND among patients with sICH who required external ventricular drain placement. Future studies should examine whether fluctuations in BP in an ED or IHT setting are associated with increased risk of worsening outcomes.


Subject(s)
Intracranial Hemorrhages , Intracranial Hypertension , Adult , Blood Pressure/physiology , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Intracranial Hypertension/complications , Retrospective Studies
4.
Seizure ; 87: 46-55, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33713891

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) is associated with high mortality and high morbidity, including seizures. Seizure prophylaxis is "not recommended" by the American Stroke Association, but practice variation still exists due to inconclusive data. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the current relevant literature to determine the efficacy of seizure prophylaxis following ICH. METHODS: We performed searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase up to September 15, 2020. We included observational and randomized controlled studies reporting seizure prophylaxis and occurrence in adults with ICH. Outcomes were seizures, as defined by the authors, within 14 days of ICH and at the longest point of follow-up. We used random-effects models to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) for seizure prophylaxis and outcomes. The PROSPERO registration was CRD42019140493. RESULTS: We included 8 studies (2852 patients) in our analysis. The mean (± standard deviation) age of the pooled patients was 65 (±4) years; 39 % (± 5%) were female. Seizure prophylaxis did not prevent seizures at the longest follow-up time (OR 0.708, 95 % CI 0.438-1.143, p = 0.158, I2 = 34 %). This result was confirmed in subgroup analyses using categorical variables and in meta-regressions using continuous variables. Additionally, seizure prophylaxis was not associated with preventing early seizures, defined as < 14 days of ICH (OR 0.66, 95 % CI 0.21-2.08, p = 0.48, I2 = 35 %). CONCLUSION: Seizure prophylaxis following ICH was not associated with seizure prevention in adults. Most included studies were observational. Further randomized controlled trials examining the efficacy of seizure prophylaxis in high-risk patients and different types of antiepileptic drugs are needed.


Subject(s)
Phenytoin , Piracetam , Aged , Anticonvulsants/therapeutic use , Cerebral Hemorrhage/complications , Cerebral Hemorrhage/drug therapy , Female , Humans , Levetiracetam/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Phenytoin/therapeutic use , Piracetam/therapeutic use , Seizures/drug therapy , Seizures/etiology , Seizures/prevention & control
5.
Cureus ; 13(2): e13303, 2021 Feb 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33738154

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:  The presence of band cells > 10% of the total white blood cell (WBC) count ("bandemia") is often used as an indicator of serious bacterial illness (SBI). Results from studies of bandemia as a predictor of SBI were conflicting and little is known about the relationship between severe bandemia (SB) and clinical outcomes from SBI in children. We hypothesized that SB (band level > 20%) is not associated with adverse outcomes in an emergency department (ED) pediatric population. METHODS: Medical records from children between the ages of two months and 18 years with SB who presented to a tertiary referral regional hospital were studied. Outcomes were categorized as severe adverse events (SAEs) or moderate adverse events (MAEs). Multivariate logistic regressions were used to assess the association between SB and outcomes. RESULTS:  We analyzed 102 patients. Mean age (standard deviation, SD) was 5.25 (0.5) years, 18 (18%) had MAE, 21 (21%) had SAE, and no patients died. Mean band levels were similar between groups: no adverse events 28 (10) vs. SAE 31 (9) vs. MAE 27 (8), p=0.64. Multivariate logistic regressions showed SB was not associated with any adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9-1.1, p=0.27). Non-normal X-ray (XR) (OR 17, 95% CI 3.3-90, p<0.001) was associated with MAE, while non-normal computerized tomography (CT) scan (OR 15.4, 95% CI 2.2-100+, p=0.002) was associated with SAE. CONCLUSION:  SB was not associated with higher odds of adverse events among the general ED pediatric population. Clinicians should base their clinical judgment on the overall context of history, physical examinations, and other laboratory and imaging data.

6.
Am J Emerg Med ; 38(11): 2434-2443, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33039229

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Vasopressors are mainstay treatment for patients in shock and are usually infused through central venous catheters (CVCs). However, CVCs are associated with risk of infection or delay from the needs of confirmation of placement. Infusing vasopressor through peripheral venous catheter (PIVs) could be an alternative in the Emergency Departments (ED) but data regarding complications is inconclusive. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to assess literature involving prevalence of complications from infusing vasopressors via PIVs. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus databases from beginnings to 02/02/2020 to identify relevant randomized control trials, cohort, case-control studies. We excluded case reports. Authors assessed studies' quality with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Kappa score was used to assess interrater agreement. Outcome was complications as direct results from infusing vasopressors through PIVs. RESULTS: We identified 325 articles and included 9 studies after reviewing 16 full text articles. Our analysis included 1835 patients whose mean age was 63 (Standard Deviation 12) years and 48% was female. There were 122 (7%) complications, of which 117 (96%) were minor. The meta-analysis with random effects showed the pooled prevalence of complications as 0.086 (95%CI 0.031-0.21). Studies reporting infusion safety guidelines had significantly lower prevalence of complications (0.029, 95%CI 0.018-0.045), compared to those not reporting a safety guideline (0.12, 95%CI 0.038-0.30, p = 0.024). CONCLUSION: There was low prevalence of complications as a direct result from infusing vasopressors through PIVs. Studies with safety guidelines were associated with significantly lower prevalence of complications. Further studies are needed to confirm our observations.


Subject(s)
Catheterization, Peripheral , Erythema/etiology , Extravasation of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Materials/etiology , Infusions, Intravenous/adverse effects , Shock/drug therapy , Vasoconstrictor Agents/administration & dosage , Venous Thrombosis/etiology , Catheterization, Central Venous , Central Venous Catheters , Emergency Service, Hospital , Erythema/epidemiology , Extravasation of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Materials/epidemiology , Humans , Infusions, Intravenous/methods , Intensive Care Units , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Time-to-Treatment , Venous Thrombosis/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...