Virtual Coaching and the Reduction of Radial Head Subluxation: A Case Series.

OBJECTIVES: After the establishment of the virtual pediatric emergency medicine clinic at our institution, we noted that several physicians independently began to instruct caregivers virtually on reducing a radial head subluxation. We thus conducted a case series to investigate the number, success, and follow-ups for the virtual reduction of radial head subluxation. METHODS: The electronic medical records at our institution were searched from the inception of the virtual clinic in May 2020 until August 2022 (inclusive), for visits and discharge diagnosis containing the word "elbow" or "arm." RESULTS: Fourteen charts were retrieved; however, 2 were excluded because they were not a suspected radial head subluxation. A virtual reduction was attempted for eight (66.7%) of the 12 patients. In 6 of 8 patients (75.0%), the reduction was deemed successful, and for 2 patients (25.0%), it was deemed unsuccessful. Of the latter, one was found to have a nondisplaced radial neck fracture. All 4 patients (33.3%) for whom a virtual reduction was not attempted were referred to the emergency department. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual video coaching of pulled elbow reduction was completed at our institution with overall good success rate. All the physicians involved noted the essential need and benefits of video conferencing for successfully reducing radial head subluxation. We note that a pediatric population may be more amenable to video-based appointments than other populations due to their caregivers' familiarity with digital technology. Finally, as nonphysician models of healthcare delivery for virtual urgent care visits expand, we propose a checklist based on our experience to ensure patient safety.

Prospective Validation of the Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade for Acute Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Improved risk stratification of acute heart failure in the emergency department may inform physicians' decisions regarding patient admission or early discharge disposition. We aimed to validate the previously-derived Emergency Heart failure Mortality Risk Grade for 7-day (EHMRG7) and 30-day (EHMRG30-ST) mortality. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective validation study of patients with acute heart failure at 9 hospitals. We surveyed physicians for their estimates of 7-day mortality risk, obtained for each patient before knowledge of the model predictions, and compared these with EHMRG7 for discrimination and net reclassification improvement. We also prospectively examined discrimination of the EHMRG30-ST model, which incorporates all components of EHMRG7 as well as the presence of ST-depression on the 12-lead ECG. RESULTS: We recruited 1983 patients seeking emergency department care for acute heart failure. Mortality rates at 7 days in the 5 risk groups (very low, low, intermediate, high, and very high risk) were 0%, 0%, 0.6%, 1.9%, and 3.9%, respectively. At 30 days, the corresponding mortality rates were 0%, 1.9%, 3.9%, 5.9%, and 14.3%. Compared with physician-estimated risk of 7-day mortality (PER7; c-statistic, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.78) there was improved discrimination with EHMRG7 (c-statistic, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.87; P=0.022 versus PER7) and with EHMRG7 combined with physicians' estimates (c-statistic, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76-0.88; P=0.003 versus PER7). Model discrimination increased nonsignificantly by 0.014 (95% CI, -0.009-0.037) when physicians' estimates combined with EHMRG7 were compared with EHMRG7 alone ( P=0.242). The c-statistic for EHMRG30-ST alone was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81) and 30-day model discrimination increased nonsignificantly by addition of physician-estimated risk to 0.78 (95% CI, 0.73-0.82; P=0.187). Net reclassification improvement with EHMRG7 was 0.763 (95% CI, 0.465-1.062) when assessed continuously and 0.820 (0.560-1.080) using risk categories compared with PER7. CONCLUSIONS: A clinical model allowing simultaneous prediction of mortality at both 7 and 30 days identified acute heart failure patients with a low risk of events. Compared with physicians' estimates, our multivariable model was better able to predict 7-day mortality and may guide clinical decisions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02634762.

Acute management and outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus presenting to Canadian emergency departments with hypoglycemia.

OBJECTIVES: This retrospective chart audit examined the demographics, investigations, management and outcomes of adult patients with diabetes mellitus presenting to Canadian emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: All sites conducted a search of their electronic medical records using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes to identify ED visits for hypoglycemia between 2008 and 2010. Patient characteristics, demographics, ED management, ED resources and outcome are reported. RESULTS: A total of 1039 patients over the age of 17 years were included in the study; 347 (33.4%) were classified as type 1 diabetes and 692 (66.6%) were classified as type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes patients were significantly older (73 vs. 49 years; p<0.0001) and had more chronic conditions recorded on their chart (all p<0.001). Most subjects arrived by ambulance, and triage scores revealed severe presentations in 39% of cases. Treatments for hypoglycemia were common (75.7%) during prehospital transport; 38.5% received intravenous glucose and 40.1% received glucagon. Hypoglycemia treatments in the ED included oral (76.8%), intravenous (29.6%) and continuous infusion (27.7%) of glucose. Diagnostic testing (81.9%) commonly included electrocardiograms (51.9%), chest radiography (37.5%) and head computed tomography scans (14.5%). Most patients (73.5%) were discharged; however, more subjects with type 2 diabetes required admission (30.3 vs. 8.8%). Discharge instructions were documented in only 55.5% of patients, and referral to diabetes services occurred in fewer than 20% of cases. Considerable variation existed in the management of hypoglycemia across EDs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with diabetes presenting to an ED with hypoglycemia consume considerable healthcare resources, and practice variation exists. Emergency departments should develop protocols for the management of hypoglycemia, with attention to discharge planning to reduce recurrence.

Risk Factors Associated with Urologic Intervention in Emergency Department Patients with Suspected Renal Colic.

BACKGROUND: Whereas most patients with urolithiasis pass their stones spontaneously and require only symptomatic management, a minority will require urologic intervention. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to confirm previously reported risk factors and to identify additional predictors of urologic intervention within 90 days, for emergency department (ED) patients with suspected renal colic. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of adult patients presenting to one of two tertiary care EDs with suspected renal colic over a 20-month period. Multivariate logistic regression models determined predictor variables independently associated with urologic intervention. RESULTS: Of the 565 patients included in the analysis, 220 (38.9%) patients had a ureteric stone visualized on diagnostic imaging. Eighty-four patients (14.9%) had urologic intervention within 90 days of their initial ED visit. Urinary nitrites (odds ratio [OR] 4.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-13.6), stone size ≥ 5 mm (OR 4.2, 95% CI 2.4-7.4), proximal ureteric stone (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.5-6.4), age ≥ 50 years (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.5-5.0), tachycardia at triage (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.1-5.4), urinary leukocyte esterase (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2-4.5), abnormal serum white blood cells (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2-3.3), and history of renal colic (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-3.1) were factors independently associated with urologic intervention within 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reports eight risk factors associated with urologic intervention within 90 days in patients presenting to the ED with renal colic. These risk factors should be considered when making management, prognostic, and disposition decisions for patients with suspected urolithiasis.

Normal renal sonogram identifies renal colic patients at low risk for urologic intervention: a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Determining which patients with ureterolithiasis are likely to require urologic intervention is a common challenge in the emergency department (ED). The objective was to determine if normal renal sonogram could identify low-risk renal colic patients, who were defined as not requiring urologic intervention within 90 days of their initial ED visit and can be managed conservatively. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study involving adult patients presenting to the EDs of a tertiary care centre with suspected renal colic over a 20-month period. Renal ultrasonography (US) was performed in the diagnostic imaging department by trained ultrasonographers, and the results were categorized into four mutually exclusive groups: normal, suggestive of ureterolithiasis, visualized ureteric stone, or findings unrelated to urolithiasis. Electronic medical records were reviewed to determine if patients received urologic intervention within 90 days of their ED visit. RESULTS: Of 610 patients enrolled, 341 (55.9%) had US for suspected renal colic. Of those, 105 (30.8%) were classified as normal; none of these patients underwent urologic intervention within 90 days of their ED visit. Ninety (26.4%) US results were classified as suggestive, and nine (10%) patients received urologic intervention. A total of 139 (40.8%) US results were classified as visualized ureteric stone, and 34 (24.5%) patients had urologic intervention. Seven (2.1%) US results were classified as findings unrelated to urolithiasis, and none of these patients required urologic intervention. The rate of urologic intervention was significantly lower in those with normal US results (p<0.001) than in those with abnormal findings. CONCLUSION: A normal renal sonogram predicts a low likelihood for urologic intervention within 90 days for adult ED patients with suspected renal colic.

Acute management and outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus presenting to Canadian emergency departments with hypoglycemia.

OBJECTIVES: This retrospective chart audit examined the demographics, investigations, management and outcomes of adult patients with diabetes mellitus presenting to Canadian emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: All sites conducted a search of their electronic medical records using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes to identify ED visits for hypoglycemia between 2008 and 2010. Patient characteristics, demographics, ED management, ED resources and outcome are reported. RESULTS: A total of 1039 patients over the age of 17 years were included in the study; 347 (33.4%) were classified as type 1 diabetes and 692 (66.6%) were classified as type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes patients were significantly older (73 vs. 49 years; p<0.0001) and had more chronic conditions recorded on their chart (all p<0.001). Most subjects arrived by ambulance, and triage scores revealed severe presentations in 39% of cases. Treatments for hypoglycemia were common (75.7%) during prehospital transport; 38.5% received intravenous glucose and 40.1% received glucagon. Hypoglycemia treatments in the ED included oral (76.8%), intravenous (29.6%) and continuous infusion (27.7%) of glucose. Diagnostic testing (81.9%) commonly included electrocardiograms (51.9%), chest radiography (37.5%) and head computed tomography scans (14.5%). Most patients (73.5%) were discharged; however, more subjects with type 2 diabetes required admission (30.3 vs. 8.8%). Discharge instructions were documented in only 55.5% of patients, and referral to diabetes services occurred in fewer than 20% of cases. Considerable variation existed in the management of hypoglycemia across EDs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with diabetes presenting to an ED with hypoglycemia consume considerable healthcare resources, and practice variation exists. Emergency departments should develop protocols for the management of hypoglycemia, with attention to discharge planning to reduce recurrence.

Familiarity with radiation exposure dose from diagnostic imaging for acute pulmonary embolism and current patterns of practice.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the current level of knowledge and practice patterns of emergency physicians regarding radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging modalities for investigating acute pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: An online survey was sent to adult emergency physicians working at two academic tertiary care adult emergency departments (EDs) to determine imaging choices for investigating PE in various patient populations and to assess their current knowledge of radiation doses and risks. A retrospective chart review was performed for all adult patients who underwent computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) and/or ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scanning in the same EDs. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 72.1% (31 of 43 physicians). For patients < 30 years old, 83.9% of physicians chose V/Q scanning as their test of choice, regardless of gender. Although only a third of respondents knew the estimated radiation dose of a V/Q scan (37.5%) and a CTPA (32%), the majority were aware that V/Q scans involved less ionizing radiation than CTPAs. In the retrospective review, 663 charts were reviewed, including 201 CTPAs and 462 V/Q scans. V/Q scanning was the preferred modality in female patients (75.9% v. CTPA 24.1% [OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.5-2.9]) and in patients < 30 years old (87.9% v. CTPA 12.1% [OR 4.8; 95% CI 2.4-9.4]). CONCLUSIONS: Although surveyed physicians possessed limited knowledge of radiation doses of CTPA and V/Q scans, they preferentially used the lower radiation V/Q scans in younger patients, particularly females, in both the survey vignettes and in clinical practice. This may reflect efforts to reduce radiation exposures at our institution.

Early use of inhaled corticosteroids in the emergency department treatment of acute asthma.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroid therapy is central to the management of acute asthma. The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may also be beneficial in this setting. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefit of ICS for the treatment of patients with acute asthma managed in the emergency department (ED). SEARCH METHODS: We identified controlled clinical trials from the Cochrane Airways Group specialised register of controlled trials. Bibliographies from included studies, known reviews, and texts also were searched. The latest search was September 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. Studies were included if patients presented to the ED or its equivalent with acute asthma, and were treated with ICS or placebo, in addition to standard therapy. Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant articles, and then independently selected articles for inclusion. Methodological quality was independently assessed by two review authors. There were three different types of studies that were included in this review: 1) studies comparing ICS vs. placebo, with no systemic corticosteroids given to either treatment group, 2) studies comparing ICS vs. placebo, with systemic corticosteroids given to both treatment groups, and 3) studies comparing ICS alone versus systemic corticosteroids. For the analysis, the first two types of studies were included as separate subgroups in the primary analysis (ICS vs. placebo), while the third type of study was included in the secondary analysis (ICS vs. systemic corticosteroid). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted independently by two review authors if the authors were unable to verify the validity of extracted information. Missing data were obtained from the authors or calculated from other data presented in the paper. Where appropriate, individual and pooled dichotomous outcomes were reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where appropriate, individual and pooled continuous outcomes were reported as mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. The primary analysis employed a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model was used for sensitivity analysis. Heterogeneity is reported using I-squared (I(2)) statistics. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty trials were selected for inclusion in the primary analysis (13 paediatric, seven adult), with a total number of 1403 patients. Patients treated with ICS were less likely to be admitted to hospital (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.62; 12 studies; 960 patients) and heterogeneity (I(2) = 27%) was modest. This represents a reduction from 32 to 17 hospital admissions per 100 patients treated with ICS in comparison with placebo. Subgroup analysis of hospital admissions based on concomitant systemic corticosteroid use revealed that both subgroups indicated benefit from ICS in reducing hospital admissions (ICS and systemic corticosteroid versus systemic corticosteroid: OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.81; 5 studies; N = 433; ICS versus placebo: OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.52; 7 studies; N = 527). However, there was moderate heterogeneity in the subgroup using ICS in addition to systemic steroids (I(2) = 52%). Patients receiving ICS demonstrated small, significant improvements in peak expiratory flow (PEF: MD 7%; 95% CI 3% to 11%) and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1): MD 6%; 95% CI 2% to 10%) at three to four hours post treatment). Only a small number of studies reported these outcomes such that they could be included in the meta-analysis and most of the studies in this comparison did not administer systemic corticosteroids to either treatment group. There was no evidence of significant adverse effects from ICS treatment with regard to tremor or nausea and vomiting. In the secondary analysis of studies comparing ICS alone versus systemic corticosteroid alone, heterogeneity among the studies complicated pooling of data or drawing reliable conclusions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ICS therapy reduces hospital admissions in patients with acute asthma who are not treated with oral or intravenous corticosteroids. They may also reduce admissions when they are used in addition to systemic corticosteroids; however, the most recent evidence is conflicting. There is insufficient evidence that ICS therapy results in clinically important changes in pulmonary function or clinical scores when used in acute asthma in addition to systemic corticosteroids. Also, there is insufficient evidence that ICS therapy can be used in place of systemic corticosteroid therapy when treating acute asthma. Further research is needed to clarify the most appropriate drug dosage and delivery device, and to define which patients are most likely to benefit from ICS therapy. Use of similar measures and reporting methods of lung function, and a common, validated, clinical score would be helpful in future versions of this meta-analysis.

Inhaled steroids for acute asthma following emergency department discharge.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute asthma treated in the emergency department (ED) are frequently treated with inhaled beta(2)-agonists and systemic corticosteroids after discharge. The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) following discharge may also be beneficial in improving patient outcomes after acute asthma. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of ICS on outcomes in the treatment of acute asthma following discharge from the ED. To quantify the effectiveness of ICS therapy on acute asthma following ED discharge, when used in addition to, or as a substitute for, systemic corticosteroids. SEARCH METHODS: Controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were identified from the Cochrane Airways Review Group register, which consists of systematic searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE and CINAHL databases supplemented by handsearching of respiratory journals and conference proceedings. In addition, primary authors and pharmaceutical companies were contacted to identify eligible studies. Bibliographies from included studies, known reviews and texts also were searched. The searches have been conducted up to September 2012 SELECTION CRITERIA: We included both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. Studies were included if patients were treated for acute asthma in the ED or its equivalent, and following ED discharge were treated with ICS therapy either in addition to, or as a substitute for, oral corticosteroids. Two review authors independently assessed articles for potential relevance, final inclusion and methodological quality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted independently by two review authors, or confirmed by the study authors. Several authors and pharmaceutical companies provided unpublished data. The data were analysed using the Cochrane Review Manager software. Where appropriate, individual and pooled dichotomous outcomes were reported as odds ratios (OR) or relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where appropriate, individual and pooled continuous outcomes were reported as mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. The primary analysis employed a fixed effect model and heterogeneity is reported using I-squared (I(2)) statistics. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve trials were eligible for inclusion. Three of these trials, involving a total of 909 patients, compared ICS plus systemic corticosteroids versus oral corticosteroid therapy alone. There was no demonstrated benefit of ICS therapy when used in addition to oral corticosteroid therapy in the trials. Relapses were reduced; however, this was not statistically significant with the addition of ICS therapy (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.02; 3 studies; N = 909). In addition, no statistically significant differences were demonstrated between the two groups for relapses requiring admission, quality of life, symptom scores or adverse effects.Nine trials, involving a total of 1296 patients compared high-dose ICS therapy alone versus oral corticosteroid therapy alone after ED discharge. There were no significant differences demonstrated between ICS therapy alone versus oral corticosteroid therapy alone for relapse rates (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52; 4 studies; N = 684), admissions to hospital, or in the secondary outcomes of beta(2)-agonist use, symptoms or adverse events. However, the sample size was not adequate to exclude the possibility of either treatment being significantly inferior and people with severe asthma were excluded from these trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence that ICS therapy provides additional benefit when used in combination with standard systemic corticosteroid therapy upon ED discharge for acute asthma. There is some evidence that high-dose ICS therapy alone may be as effective as oral corticosteroid therapy when used in mild asthmatics upon ED discharge; however, the confidence intervals were too wide to be confident of equal effectiveness. Further research is needed to clarify whether ICS therapy should be employed in acute asthma treatment following ED discharge. The review does not suggest any reason to stop usual treatment with ICS following ED discharge, even if a course of oral corticosteroids are prescribed.

The utility of renal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of renal colic in emergency department patients.

OBJECTIVE: Computed tomography (CT) is an imaging modality used to detect renal stones. However, there is concern about the lifetime cumulative radiation exposure attributed to CT. Ultrasonography (US) has been used to diagnose urolithiasis, thereby avoiding radiation exposure. The objective of this study was to determine the ability of US to identify renal colic patients with a low risk of requiring urologic intervention within 90 days of their initial emergency department (ED) visit. METHODS: We completed a retrospective medical record review for all adult patients who underwent ED-ordered renal US for suspected urolithiasis over a 1-year period. Independent, double data extraction was performed for all imaging reports and US results were categorized as "normal," "suggestive of ureterolithiasis," "ureteric stone seen" or "disease unrelated to urolithiasis." Charts were reviewed to determine how many patients underwent subsequent CT and urologic intervention. RESULTS: Of the 817 renal US procedures ordered for suspected urolithiasis during the study period, the results of 352 (43.2%) were classified as normal, and only 2 (0.6%) of these patients required urologic intervention. The results of 177 (21.7%) renal US procedures were suggestive of ureterolithiasis. Of these, 12 (6.8%) patients required urologic intervention. Of the 241 (29.5%) patients who had a ureteric stone seen on US, 15 (6.2%) required urologic intervention. The rate of urologic intervention was significantly lower in those with normal results on US (p < 0.001) than in those with abnormal results on US. CONCLUSION: A normal result on renal US predicts a low likelihood for urologic intervention within 90 days for adult ED patients with suspected urolithiasis.

Randomized controlled trial of intravenous dexamethasone to prevent relapse in acute migraine headache.

OBJECTIVES: Migraine headache is a common presentation in the emergency department (ED). Inflammation is thought to play a role in the pathophysiology of migraine and there is conflicting evidence regarding the effect of corticosteroids on reducing early recurrences. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to test the hypothesis that dexamethasone (DEX) reduced headaches after discharge and examine the factors associated with relapse. METHODS: Consenting adults (18 and older) presenting with acute migraine at 4 EDs were enrolled. In addition to standard intravenous (IV) abortive therapy, using concealed allocation patients were randomized to receive IV DEX (15 mg) or placebo (PLA) in a double-blind fashion. Relapse was defined as a return to the ED, an urgent clinic visit, or a headache that precluded normal activity reported during follow-up telephone interviews 48-72 hours and 7 days after ED discharge. Intention to treat was used for all final analyses. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients were randomized; 126 patients are included in the analysis (one patient left prior to treatment and 3 enrolled twice); 64 received DEX and 62 received PLA. Mean age was 35 years, 81% was female; most (77%) suffered from headaches at least monthly. On a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS), the median pain scores were 8 at presentation, and 2 at discharge. At 48-72 hours, relapses occurred in 14/64 (22%) in the DEX group and 20/62 (32%) in the PLA groups (OR = 0.6; 95% CI: 0.3-1.3). By day 7, 18/64 (28%) in the DEX group had relapsed, compared with 25/62 (40%) in the PLA group (OR = 0.6; 95% CI: 0.3-1.3). Controlling for treatment assignment, relapse was more common when headache pain was incompletely relieved (VAS > 2) at ED discharge (OR = 2.2; 95% CI: 1.1-5.4). CONCLUSIONS: The overall relapse rate differed from those previously reported; however, DEX failed to reduce headache relapses after ED discharge. Relapse was closely associated with incomplete pain relief at discharge. Further research is needed to determine the factors associated with migraine relapse.

The effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids in the emergency department treatment of acute asthma: a meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are of proven benefit in the treatment of chronic asthma; however, their role in the management of acute asthma is unclear. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials involving children or adults treated in the emergency department for acute asthma with or without the addition of ICSs. Outcome measures included hospital admission, pulmonary function tests, and side effects. RESULTS: Seven trials were selected for inclusion in the primary analyses. ICSs versus placebo were compared; data were not available on 1 of these trials. In the remaining 6 trials, a total of 352 patients were studied (179 ICS-treated and 173 non-ICS-treated patients). Two trials compared ICSs plus systemic corticosteroids versus placebo plus systemic corticosteroids; 4 trials compared ICSs versus placebo. Patients treated with ICSs were less likely to be admitted to the hospital (odds ratio 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16 to 0.57) and showed small improvements in peak expiratory flows (weighted mean difference 8%; 95% CI 3% to 13%) Overall, the treatment was well tolerated, with few reports of adverse side effects. A secondary analysis compared ICSs alone versus systemic corticosteroids alone; in the 4 included trials, significant heterogeneity between the study results for admission rates precluded meaningful pooling of admission data. CONCLUSION: There is evidence of decreased admission rates for patients with acute asthma treated with ICSs. However, there is insufficient evidence that ICS therapy results in clinically important changes in pulmonary function when used in acute asthma, and there is insufficient evidence that ICSs alone are as effective as systemic corticosteroids.

Replacement of oral corticosteroids with inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of acute asthma following emergency department discharge: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Oral corticosteroids (CS) are standard treatment for patients discharged from the emergency department (ED) after treatment for acute asthma. Several recent, relatively small trials have investigated the replacement of CS with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), with varied results and conclusions. This systematic review examined the effect of using ICS in place of CS on outcomes in this setting. METHODS: Only randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. Studies in which patients were treated for acute asthma in the ED or its equivalent, and on discharge compared ICS therapy to standard CS therapy, were eligible for inclusion. Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Review Group register, searching abstracts and bibliographies, and contacting primary authors and pharmaceutical companies. Data were extracted and methodologic quality assessed independently by two reviewers, and missing data were obtained from authors. RESULTS: Seven trials, involving a total of 1,204 patients, compared high-dose ICS therapy vs CS therapy after ED discharge. There were no significant differences demonstrated between the treatments for relapse rates (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.66 to 1.52) or in the secondary outcomes of beta-agonist use, symptoms, or adverse events. However, the sample size was not adequate to prove equivalence between the treatments, and severe asthmatics were excluded from these trials. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that high-dose ICS therapy alone may be as effective as CS therapy when used in mild asthmatics on ED discharge; however, there is a significant possibility of a type II error in drawing this conclusion.