Risk assessment models for potential use in the emergency department have lower predictive ability in older patients compared to the middle-aged for short-term mortality - a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Older patients is a complex group at increased risk of adverse outcomes compared to younger patients, which should be considered in the risk assessment performed in emergency departments. We evaluated whether the predictive ability of different risk assessment models for acutely admitted patients is affected by age. METHODS: Cohort study of middle-aged and older patients. We investigated the accuracy in discriminating between survivors and non-survivors within 7 days of different risk assessment models; a traditional triage algorithm, a triage algorithm with clinical assessment, vital signs, routine biomarkers, and the prognostic biomarker soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR). RESULTS: The cohort included 22,653 (53.2%) middle-aged patients (age 40-69 years), and 19,889 (46.8%) older patients (aged 70+ years). Death within 7 days occurred in 139 patients (0.6%) in middle-aged patients and 596 (3.0%) of the older patients. The models based on vital signs and routine biomarkers had the highest area under the curve (AUC), and both were significantly better at discriminating 7-day mortality in middle-aged patients compared to older patients; AUC (95% CI): 0.88 (0.84-0.91), 0.75 (0.72-0.78), P < 0.01, and 0.86 (0.82-0.90), 0.76 (0.73-0.78), P < 0.001. In a subgroup of the total cohort (6.400 patients, 15.0%), the suPAR level was available. suPAR had the highest AUC of all individual predictors with no significant difference between the age groups, but further research in this biomarker is required before it can be used. CONCLUSION: The predictive value was lower in older patients compared to middle-aged patients for all investigated models. Vital signs or routine biomarkers constituted the best models for predicting 7-day mortality and were better than the traditional triage model. Hence, the current risk assessment for short-term mortality can be strengthened, but modifications for age should be considered when constructing new risk assessment models in the emergency department.

The Copenhagen Triage Algorithm is non-inferior to a traditional triage algorithm: A cluster-randomized study.

INTRODUCTION: Triage systems with limited room for clinical judgment are used by emergency departments (EDs) worldwide. The Copenhagen Triage Algorithm (CTA) is a simplified triage system with a clinical assessment. METHODS: The trial was a non-inferiority, two-center cluster-randomized crossover study where CTA was compared to a local adaptation of Adaptive Process Triage (ADAPT). CTA involves initial categorization based on vital signs with a final modification based on clinical assessment by an ED nurse. We used 30-day mortality with a non-inferiority margin at 0.5%. Predictive performance was compared using Receiver Operator Characteristics. RESULTS: We included 45,347 patient visits, 23,158 (51%) and 22,189 (49%) were triaged with CTA and ADAPT respectively with a 30-day mortality of 3.42% and 3.43% (P = 0.996) a difference of 0.01% (95% CI: -0.34 to 0.33), which met the non-inferiority criteria. Mortality at 48 hours was 0.62% vs. 0.71%, (P = 0.26) and 6.38% vs. 6.61%, (P = 0.32) at 90 days for CTA and ADAPT. CTA triaged at significantly lower urgency level (P<0.001) and was superior in predicting 30-day mortality, Area under the curve: 0.67 (95% CI 0.65-0.69) compared to 0.64 for ADAPT (95% CI 0.62-0.66) (P = 0.03). There were no significant differences in rate of admission to the intensive care unit, length of stay, waiting time nor rate of readmission within 30 or 90 days. CONCLUSION: A novel triage system based on vital signs and a clinical assessment by an ED nurse was non-inferior to a traditional triage algorithm by short term mortality, and superior in predicting 30-day mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02698319.

Use of the prognostic biomarker suPAR in the emergency department improves risk stratification but has no effect on mortality: a cluster-randomized clinical trial (TRIAGE III).

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification of patients in the emergency department can be strengthened using prognostic biomarkers, but the impact on patient prognosis is unknown. The aim of the TRIAGE III trial was to investigate whether the introduction of the prognostic and nonspecific biomarker: soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) for risk stratification in the emergency department reduces mortality in acutely admitted patients. METHODS: The TRIAGE III trial was a cluster-randomized interventional trial conducted at emergency departments in the Capitol Region of Denmark. Eligible hospitals were required to have an emergency department with an intake of acute medical and surgical patients and no previous access to suPAR measurement. Three emergency departments were randomized; one withdrew shortly after the trial began. The inclusion period was from January through June of 2016 consisting of twelve cluster-periods of 3-weeks alternating between intervention and control and a subsequent follow-up of ten months. Patients were allocated to the intervention if they arrived in interventional periods, where suPAR measurement was routinely analysed at arrival. In the control periods suPAR measurement was not performed. The main outcome was all-cause mortality 10 months after arrival of the last patient in the inclusion period. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The trial enrolled a consecutive cohort of 16,801 acutely admitted patients; all were included in the analyses. The intervention group consisted of 6 cluster periods with 8900 patients and the control group consisted of 6 cluster periods with 7901 patients. After a median follow-up of 362 days, death occurred in 1241 patients (13.9%) in the intervention group and in 1126 patients (14.3%) in the control group. The weighted Cox model found a hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.07; p = 0.57). Analysis of all subgroups and of 30-day all-cause mortality showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: The TRIAGE III trial found no effect of introducing the nonspecific and prognostic biomarker suPAR in emergency departments on short- or long-term all-cause mortality among acutely admitted patients. Further research is required to evaluate how prognostic biomarkers can be implemented in routine clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02643459 . Registered 31 December 2015.

Important Aspects of Pharmacist-led Medication Reviews in an Acute Medical Ward.

In some hospitals, clinical pharmacists review the medication to find drug-related problems (DRPs) in acutely admitted patients. We aimed to identify the nature of identified DRPs and investigate factors of potential importance for the clinical implementation of pharmacist suggestions. In 100 randomly selected medication review (MR) notes, we retrospectively evaluated the clinical implementation and classified (1) timing and communication of the review; (2) DRPs and related suggestions for the physician; and (3) DRPs' potential clinical relevance to patients as 'beneficial', 'somewhat beneficial', 'no relevance' or 'other relevance'. Of 327 DRPs (0-13 DRPs per patient), 42% were implemented. The clinical implementation was higher if the MR note was made prior to (instead of after) the physician's admission, and even higher if the suggestions were communicated verbally (instead of only in writing) to the physicians (44% versus 79%, p < 0.05). The clinical relevance of the DRPs was either 'beneficial' (16%), 'somewhat beneficial' (43%), 'no relevance' (22%) or 'other relevance' (19%). The 'beneficial' DRPs had a higher clinical implementation (53%) than 'no relevance' (34%) (p < 0.05). The most frequently implemented suggestions were based on DRPs concerning 'indication for drug treatment not noticed', 'inappropriate drug form' and 'drug dose too low', with implementation rates of 83%, 67% and 63%, respectively. In our sample, the pharmacist's MR suggestions were only implemented by physicians in 42% of the cases, but review prior to physician contact and verbal communication of the suggestions, higher clinical relevance and specific types of DRPs were associated with a higher implementation rate.

The Copenhagen Triage Algorithm: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Crowding in the emergency department (ED) is a well-known problem resulting in an increased risk of adverse outcomes. Effective triage might counteract this problem by identifying the sickest patients and ensuring early treatment. In the last two decades, systematic triage has become the standard in ED's worldwide. However, triage models are also time consuming, supported by limited evidence and could potentially be of more harm than benefit. The aim of this study is to develop a quicker triage model using data from a large cohort of unselected ED patients and evaluate if this new model is non-inferior to an existing triage model in a prospective randomized trial. METHODS: The Copenhagen Triage Algorithm (CTA) study is a prospective two-center, cluster-randomized, cross-over, non-inferiority trial comparing CTA to the Danish Emergency Process Triage (DEPT). We include patients ≥16 years (n = 50.000) admitted to the ED in two large acute hospitals. Centers are randomly assigned to perform either CTA or DEPT triage first and then use the other triage model in the last time period. The CTA stratifies patients into 5 acuity levels in two steps. First, a scoring chart based on vital values is used to classify patients in an immediate category. Second, a clinical assessment by the ED nurse can alter the result suggested by the score up to two categories up or one down. The primary end-point is 30-day mortality and secondary end-points are length of stay, time to treatment, admission to intensive care unit, and readmission within 30 days. DISCUSSION: If proven non-inferior to standard DEPT triage, CTA will be a faster and simpler triage model that is still able to detect the critically ill. Simplifying triage will lessen the burden for the ED staff and possibly allow faster treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02698319 , registered 24. of February 2016, retrospectively registered.

Introduction of a prognostic biomarker to strengthen risk stratification of acutely admitted patients: rationale and design of the TRIAGE III cluster randomized interventional trial.

BACKGROUND: Several biomarkers have shown to carry prognostic value beyond current triage algorithms and may aid in initial risk stratification of patients in the emergency department (ED). It has yet to be established if information provided by biomarkers can be used to prevent serious complications or deaths. Our aim is to determine whether measurement of the blood level of the biomarker soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) can enhance early risk stratification leading to reduced mortality, lower rate of complications, and improved patient flow in acutely admitted adult patients at the ED. The main hypothesis is that the availability of suPAR can reduce all-cause mortality, assessed at least 10 months after admission, by drawing attention towards patients with an unrecognized high risk, leading to improved diagnostics and treatment. METHODS: The study is designed as a cross-over cluster randomized interventional trial. SuPAR is measured within 2 h after admission and immediately reported to the treating physicians in the ED. All ED physicians are educated in the prognostic capabilities of suPAR prior to the inclusion period. The inclusion period began January 11(th) 2016 and ends June 6(th) 2016. The study aims to include 10.000 patients in both the interventional and control arm. The results will be presented in 2017. DISCUSSION: The present article aims to describe the design and rationale of the TRIAGE III study that will investigate whether the availability of prognostic information can improve outcome in acutely admitted patients. This might have an impact on health care organization and decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ID NCT02643459 , November 13, 2015) and at the Danish Data Protection agency (ID HGH-2015-042 I-Suite no. 04087).

Point-of-care procalcitonin test to reduce antibiotic exposure in patients hospitalized with acute exacerbation of COPD.

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to investigate whether point-of-care (POC) procalcitonin (PCT) measurement can reduce redundant antibiotic treatment in patients hospitalized with acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD). METHODS: One-hundred and twenty adult patients admitted with AECOPD were enrolled in this open-label randomized trial. Patients were allocated to either the POC PCT-guided intervention arm (n=62) or the control arm, in which antibiotic therapy followed local guidelines (n=58). RESULTS: The median duration of antibiotic exposure was 3.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 0-10) days in the PCT-arm vs 8.5 (IQR 1-11) days in the control arm (P=0.0169, Wilcoxon) for the intention-to-treat population. The proportion of patients using antibiotics for ≥5 days within the 28-day follow-up was 41.9% (PCT-arm) vs 67.2% (P=0.006, Fisher's exact) in the intention-to-treat population. For the per-protocol population, the proportions were 21.1% (PCT-arm) vs 73.9% (P<0.00001, Fisher's exact). Within 28-day follow-up, one patient died in the PCT-arm and two died in the control arm. A composite harm end point consisting of death, rehospitalization, or intensive care unit admission, all within 28 days, showed no apparent difference. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that the implementation of a POC PCT-guided algorithm can be used to substantially reduce antibiotic exposure in patients hospitalized with AECOPD, with no apparent harm.