Contemporary approaches to Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis - a clinical review.

Introduction: The optimal diagnosis strategy for pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED) remains complex. This review summarizes PE diagnosis with clinical presentation, decision rules and investigations for acute PE. Methods: This review was performed using studies published between January 1, 2010, and September 1, 2023. Results: PE should be considered in ED in patients with chest pain, shortness of breath, syncope or signs of deep veinous thrombosis. Definitive diagnosis of PE relies on thoracic imaging, with the use of CTPA or ventilation/perfusion lung scintigraphy. To limit the continuous increased use of chest imaging, the clinical probability should be the first step for PE work out. The Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC rule) can rule out PE at this stage. If not, for low or intermediate probability, several clinical decision rules (CDR) have been validated, either by ruling out PE on clinical signs, or by raising D-Dimer thresholds (YEARS or PEGeD) or by combination of these different rules. It is recommended that patients with a high clinical probability of PE should undergo chest imaging without the need for D-dimer testing. The PE diagnostic approach can be tailored in specific populations such as pregnant, younger, COVID-19, or cancer patients. Conclusion: PE diagnosis workout illustrates the complexity of modern probabilistic-based approaches of decision-making in medicine. It is recommended to use a Bayesian approach with the evaluation of clinical probability, then order D-Dimer if the PERC rule is positive, then adapt the D-Dimer threshold for ordering chest imaging using CDR.

Capacidad de diferentes reglas de decisión clínica para descartar tromboembolismo pulmonar en pacientes de 35 o menos años atendidos en servicios de urgencias: análisis post-hoc de tres cohortes prospectivas / Pulmonary embolism rule-out decision-making tools for patients aged 35 years or younger in hospital emergency departments: a post-hoc analysis of performance in 3 prospective cohorts

Objetivos: Evaluar la capacidad de la regla PERC (Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria) y la regla modificada por edad (PERC-35) para descartar tromboembolia pulmonar (TEP) en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) en pacientes # 35 años. El objetivo secundario fue analizar otras reglas de decisión clínica. Método: Análisis post-hoc de 3 estudios de cohorte europeos (PROPER, PERCEPIC y MODIGLIANI). Se incluyeron pacientes # 35 años con sospecha de TEP en SUH y con seguimiento a 3 meses. La seguridad y eficacia de PERC yPERC-35 se evaluaron con su tasa de error -no detectar TEP- y la proporción de pacientes con diagnóstico de TEP descartado. Se evaluó la seguridad y eficacia de las reglas YEARS y PEGeD. Resultados: Se analizaron 1.235 pacientes # 35 años. Hubo 22 (1,8%, IC 95%: 1,2-2,7) TEP diagnosticados a los 3 meses. Hubo 6 (1,0%, IC 95%: 0,5-2,2) y 5 (0,9%, IC 95%: 0,4-2,1) TEP no diagnosticados con las reglas PERC y PERC-35 respectivamente. Estas reglas permitieron descartar TEP en 591 (48,2%, IC 95%: 45,4- 51,0) y 554 (46,2%, IC 95%: 43,4- 49,0) respectivamente. La tasa de error de YEARS y PEGeD fue del 0,4% (IC 95%: 0,1- 1,1) y 0,5% (IC 95%: 0,2-1,2), con una eficacia similar. Conclusiones: En pacientes # 35 años, las reglas PERC y PERC-35 mostraron perfiles de seguridad y eficacia similares. Sin embargo, el amplio intervalo de confianza comunicado en este estudio no permite confirmar su seguridad. (AU)

Objectives: To assess the performance of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) and the age-modified PERC-35 tool in hospital emergency departments (EDs) for evaluating patients aged 35 years or younger. A secondary aim was to assess other decision-making criteria. Method: Post-hoc analysis of 3 European cohort studies. We included data for patients aged 35 years or younger suspected of PE who were followed for 3 months. The safety and efficacy of applying the PERC and PERC-35 were assessed with the diagnostic error rate (failure to detect PE) and the proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis of PE was ruled out. We also assessed the safety and efficacy of applying the YEARS and PEGeD criteria. Results: Data for 1235 patients aged 35 years or younger were analyzed. Twenty-two (1.8%; 95% CI, 1.2%-2.7%) PE cases were diagnosed at 3 months. Six (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.5%-2.2%) and 5 (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.4%-2.1%) PE cases were not diagnosed by the PERC and PERC-35 tools, respectively. These tools allowed PE to be ruled out in 591 (48.2%; 95% CI, 45.4%-51.0%) and 554 (46.2%; 95% CI, 43.4%-49.0%) cases, respectively. The error rates of the YEARS and PEGeD criteria, respectively, were 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.1%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.2%); their efficacy was similar. Conclusions: The safety and efficacy profiles of the PERC and PERC-35 algorithms were similar in patients aged 35 years or younger. However, the large confidence intervals we report do not allow us to confirm the safety of using the tools in patients in this age group. (AU)

Pulmonary embolism rule-out decision-making tools for patients aged 35 years or younger in hospital emergency departments: a post-hoc analysis of performance in 3 prospective cohorts. / Capacidad de diferentes reglas de decisión clínica para descartar tromboembolismo pulmonar en pacientes de 35 o menos años atendidos en servicios de urgencias: análisis post-hoc de tres cohortes prospectivas.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) and the age-modified PERC-35 tool in hospital emergency departments (EDs) for evaluating patients aged 35 years or younger. A secondary aim was to assess other decision-making criteria. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of 3 European cohort studies. We included data for patients aged 35 years or younger suspected of PE who were followed for 3 months. The safety and efficacy of applying the PERC and PERC-35 were assessed with the diagnostic error rate (failure to detect PE) and the proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis of PE was ruled out. We also assessed the safety and efficacy of applying the YEARS and PEGeD criteria. RESULTS: Data for 1235 patients aged 35 years or younger were analyzed. Twenty-two (1.8%; 95% CI, 1.2%-2.7%) PE cases were diagnosed at 3 months. Six (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.5%-2.2%) and 5 (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.4%-2.1%) PE cases were not diagnosed by the PERC and PERC-35 tools, respectively. These tools allowed PE to be ruled out in 591 (48.2%; 95% CI, 45.4%-51.0%) and 554 (46.2%; 95% CI, 43.4%-49.0%) cases, respectively. The error rates of the YEARS and PEGeD criteria, respectively, were 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.1%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.2%); their efficacy was similar. CONCLUSION: The safety and efficacy profiles of the PERC and PERC-35 algorithms were similar in patients aged 35 years or younger. However, the large confidence intervals we report do not allow us to confirm the safety of using the tools in patients in this age group.

OBJETIVO: Evaluar la capacidad de la regla PERC (Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria) y la regla modificada por edad (PERC-35) para descartar tromboembolia pulmonar (TEP) en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) en pacientes 35 años. El objetivo secundario fue analizar otras reglas de decisión clínica. METODO: Análisis post-hoc de 3 estudios de cohorte europeos (PROPER, PERCEPIC y MODIGLIANI). Se incluyeron pacientes 35 años con sospecha de TEP en SUH y con seguimiento a 3 meses. La seguridad y eficacia de PERC y PERC-35 se evaluaron con su tasa de error -no detectar TEP- y la proporción de pacientes con diagnóstico de TEP descartado. Se evaluó la seguridad y eficacia de las reglas YEARS y PEGeD. RESULTADOS: Se analizaron 1.235 pacientes 35 años. Hubo 22 (1,8%, IC 95%: 1,2-2,7) TEP diagnosticados a los 3 meses. Hubo 6 (1,0%, IC 95%: 0,5-2,2) y 5 (0,9%, IC 95%: 0,4-2,1) TEP no diagnosticados con las reglas PERC y PERC-35 respectivamente. Estas reglas permitieron descartar TEP en 591 (48,2%, IC 95%: 45,4- 51,0) y 554 (46,2%, IC 95%: 43,4- 49,0) respectivamente. La tasa de error de YEARS y PEGeD fue del 0,4% (IC 95%: 0,1- 1,1) y 0,5% (IC 95%: 0,2-1,2), con una eficacia similar. CONCLUSIONES: En pacientes 35 años, las reglas PERC y PERC-35 mostraron perfiles de seguridad y eficacia similares. Sin embargo, el amplio intervalo de confianza comunicado en este estudio no permite confirmar su seguridad.

Overnight Stay in the Emergency Department and Mortality in Older Patients.

Importance: Patients in the emergency department (ED) who are waiting for hospital admission on a wheeled cot may be subject to harm. However, mortality and morbidity among older patients who spend the night in the ED while waiting for a bed in a medical ward are unknown. Objective: To assess whether older adults who spend a night in the ED waiting for admission to a hospital ward are at increased risk of in-hospital mortality. Design, Settings, and Participants: This was a prospective cohort study of older patients (≥75 years) who visited the ED and were admitted to the hospital on December 12 to 14, 2022, at 97 EDs across France. Two groups were defined and compared: those who stayed in the ED from midnight until 8:00 am (ED group) and those who were admitted to a ward before midnight (ward group). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was in-hospital mortality, truncated at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital adverse events (ie, falls, infection, bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, thrombosis, bedsores, and dysnatremia) and hospital length of stay. A generalized linear-regression mixed model was used to compare end points between groups. Results: The total sample comprised 1598 patients (median [IQR] age, 86 [80-90] years; 880 [55%] female and 718 [45%] male), with 707 (44%) in the ED group and 891 (56%) in the ward group. Patients who spent the night in the ED had a higher in-hospital mortality rate of 15.7% vs 11.1% (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.07-1.81). They also had a higher risk of adverse events compared with the ward group (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.04-1.49) and increased median length of stay (9 vs 8 days; rate ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.11-1.31). In a prespecified subgroup analysis of patients who required assistance with the activities of daily living, spending the night in the ED was associated with a higher in-hospital mortality rate (aRR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.25-2.61). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this prospective cohort study indicate that for older patients, waiting overnight in the ED for admission to a ward was associated with increased in-hospital mortality and morbidity, particularly in patients with limited autonomy. Older adults should be prioritized for admission to a ward.

Management of patients suffering from mild traumatic brain injury 2023.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a multidisciplinary French reference that addresses initial pre- and in-hospital management of a mild traumatic brain injury patient. DESIGN: A panel of 22 experts was formed on request from the French Society of Emergency Medicine (SFMU) and the French Society of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine (SFAR). A policy of declaration and monitoring of links of interest was applied and respected throughout the process of producing the guidelines. Similarly, no funding was received from any company marketing a health product (drug or medical device). The expert panel had to respect and follow the Grade® (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology to evaluate the quality of the evidence on which the recommendations were based. Given the impossibility of obtaining a high level of evidence for most of the recommendations, it was decided to adopt a "Recommendations for Professional Practice" (RPP) format, rather than a Formalized Expert Recommendation (FER) format, and to formulate the recommendations using the terminology of the SFMU and SFAR Guidelines. METHODS: Three fields were defined: 1) pre-hospital assessment, 2) emergency room management, and 3) emergency room discharge modalities. The group assessed 11 questions related to mild traumatic brain injury. Each question was formulated using a PICO (Patients Intervention Comparison Outcome) format. RESULTS: The experts' synthesis work and the application of the GRADE® method resulted in the formulation of 14 recommendations. After two rounds of rating, strong agreement was obtained for all recommendations. For one question, no recommendation could be made. CONCLUSION: There was strong agreement among the experts on important, transdisciplinary recommendations, the purpose of which is to improve management practices for patients with mild head injury.

Risk factors for failed first intubation attempt in an out-of-hospital setting: a multicenter prospective study.

This study was performed to identify variables potentially associated with failure of the first intubation attempt in an out-of-hospital emergency setting, considering all aspects of tracheal intubation. This observational prospective multicenter study was performed over 17 months and involved 10 prehospital emergency medical units. After each tracheal intubation, the operator was required to provide information concerning operator and patient characteristics, as well as the environmental conditions during intubation, by completing a data collection form. The primary endpoint was failure of the first intubation attempt. During the study period, 1546 patients were analyzed, of whom 59% were in cardiac arrest; 486 intubations failed on the first attempt (31.4% [95% confidence interval = 30.2-32.6]). Multivariate analysis revealed that the following 7 of 28 factors were associated with an increased risk of a failed first intubation attempt: operator with fewer than 50 prior intubations (odds ratio [OR] = 1.8 [1.4-2.4]), small inter-incisor space (OR = 2.3 [1.7-3.2]), limited extension of the head (OR = 1.6 [1.1-2.1]), macroglossia (OR = 2.3 [1.6-3.2]), ear/nose/throat (ENT) tumor (OR = 4.4 [1.4-13.4]), cardiac arrest (OR = 1.8 [1.3-2.6]), and vomiting (OR = 1.7 [1.3-2.3]). The frequency of adverse events among non-cardiac arrest patients was 17.6%; it increased with each additional intubation attempt. The first intubation attempt failed in more than 30% of cases, and seven variables were associated with increased risk of failure. Most of these factors could not be predicted.

Assessment of the SpO2/FiO2 ratio as a tool for hypoxemia screening in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the performance of the ratio of peripheral arterial oxygen saturation to the inspired fraction of oxygen (SpO2/FiO2) to predict the ratio of partial pressure arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) among patients admitted to our emergency department (ED) during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. METHODS: We retrospectively studied patients admitted to an academic-level ED in France who were undergoing a joint measurement of SpO2 and arterial blood gas. We compared SpO2 with SaO2 and evaluated performance of the SpO2/FiO2 ratio for the prediction of 300 and 400 mmHg PaO2/FiO2 cut-off values in COVID-19 positive and negative subgroups using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: During the study period from February to April 2020, a total of 430 arterial samples were analyzed and collected from 395 patients. The area under the ROC curves of the SpO2/FiO2 ratio was 0.918 (CI 95% 0.885-0.950) and 0.901 (CI 95% 0.872-0.930) for PaO2/FiO2 thresholds of 300 and 400 mmHg, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) of an SpO2/FiO2 threshold of 350 for PaO2/FiO2 inferior to 300 mmHg was 0.88 (CI95% 0.84-0.91), whereas the negative predictive value (NPV) of the SpO2/FiO2 threshold of 470 for PaO2/FiO2 inferior to 400 mmHg was 0.89 (CI95% 0.75-0.96). No significant differences were found between the subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The SpO2/FiO2 ratio may be a reliable tool for hypoxemia screening among patients admitted to the ED, particularly during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.