Unplanned transfer from the telemetry unit to the intensive care unit in hospitalized patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Most patients presenting with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are admitted to telemetry units. While telemetry is an appropriate level of care, acute complications requiring a higher level of care in the intensive care unit (ICU) occur. PURPOSE: Among patients admitted to telemetry for suspected ACS, we determine the frequency of unplanned ICU transfer, and examine whether ECG changes indicative of myocardial ischemia, and/or symptoms preceded unplanned transfer. METHOD: This was a secondary analysis from a study assessing occurrence rates for transient myocardial ischemia (TMI) using a 12-lead Holter. Clinicians were blinded to Holter data as it was used in the context research; off-line analysis was performed post discharge. Hospital telemetry monitoring was maintained as per hospital protocol. TMI was defined as >1mm ST-segment ↑ or ↓, in >1 ECG lead, >1minute. Symptoms were assessed by chart review. RESULTS: In 409 patients (64±13years), most were men (60%), Caucasian (93%), and had a history of coronary artery disease (47%). Unplanned transfer to the ICU occurred in 9 (2.2%), was equivalent by gender, and age (no transfer 64±13years vs transfer 67±11years). Four patients were transferred following unsuccessful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) attempt, four due to recurrent angina, and one due to renal and hepatic failure. Mean time from admission to transfer was 13±6hours, mean time to ECG detected ischemia was 6±5hours, and 8.8±5hours for symptoms prompting transfer. In two patients ECG detected ischemia and acute symptoms prompting transfer were simultaneous. In five patients, ECG detected ischemia was clinically silent. All patients eventually had symptoms that prompted transfer to the ICU. In all nine patients, there was no documentation or nursing notes regarding bedside ECG monitor changes prior to unplanned transfer. Hospital length of stay was longer in the unplanned transfer group (2days ± 2 versus 6days ± 4; p=0.018). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected ACS, while unplanned transfer from telemetry to ICU is uncommon, it is associated with prolonged hospitalization. Two primary scenarios were identified; (1) following unsuccessful PCI, and (2) recurrent angina. Symptoms prompting unplanned transfer occurred, but happened on average 8.8 hours after hospital admission; whereas ECG detected ischemia preceding unplanned transfer occurred on average 6 hours after hospital admission.

Inicio urgente a diálisis peritoneal / Urgent-start on peritoneal dialysis

Introducción: la diálisis peritoneal es subutilizada en muchos países. Convencionalmente el ingreso de los pacientes agudos a terapia de reemplazo renal se hace a HD. El inicio urgente a diálisis peritoneal ofrece una opción segura y eficaz para evitar el uso de catéteres venosos centrales e incrementar el uso de Diálisis Peritoneal. Material y métodos: Es un estudio retrospectivo, observacional que comparan los pacientes que iniciaron diálisis peritoneal en forma urgente con los que iniciaron en forma convencional luego de 4 semanas. Resultados: Se analizaron 12 pacientes(n=12) ingresados a DP. Seis pacientes iniciaron en forma urgente y seis ingresaron en forma convencional. El tiempo de seguimiento fue menor para los pacientes de inicio urgente. No hubo diferencias significativas entre ambos grupos para: edad, sexo, volumen de inicio, KT/V, albúmina, urea, calcio, fósforo, ferritina, PCR y tipo de catéter. La PTH fue significativamente menor en los pacientes que iniciaron DP en forma urgente (P< 0,047). En cuanto a las complicaciones: dos pacientes presentaron fuga de líquido peritoneal y uno un hematoma de pared en el grupo de inicio urgente. Las complicaciones se resolvieron con tratamientos adecuados y no fueron causa de cambio de modalidad. Conclusiones: El inicio urgente a diálisis peritoneal es seguro y no conlleva a mayores complicaciones. Es una estrategia para disminuir el uso de catéteres de hemodiálisis e incrementar el número de pacientes en el programa de diálisis peritoneal.

Introduction: peritoneal dialysis is under-used in many countries. Usually the admission of acute patients to renal replacement therapy are directed to HD. Urgent start of peritoneal dialysis offers a safe and efficient option to avoid the use of central venous catheters and to increase peritoneal dialysis use. Material and methods: It is a retrospective, observational study comparing patients who started urgent peritoneal dialysis with those that started dialysis in the conventional way, after 4 weeks. Results: 12 peritoneal dialysis patients were analyzed. Six of them under urgent start and the other six received the conventional procedure, follow-up period was shorter for patients receiving urgent start. There were not significant differences between both groups concerning: age, sex, initial volume, KT/V, albumin, urea, calcium, phosphorus, ferritin, PCR and type of catheter. PTH was significantly lower in patients who received urgent start PD (P<0.047). Regarding complications: two patients presented leakage of peritoneal fluid and one patient had wall bruising, in the urgent start group. Complications were solved with adequate treatments and did not cause change of methods. Discussion: Urgent start to peritoneal dialysis is a safe method and does not involve major complications. It is a strategy to decrease the use of hemodialysis catheters and to increase number of patients on dialysis peritoneal programs.