Clinical utility of routine investigations and risk factors of end-organ damage in asymptomatic severe hypertension.

Asymptomatic severe hypertension is defined as systolic blood pressure of ≥ 180 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure of ≥ 120 mmHg without signs and symptoms of end-organ damage or dysfunction. Literature shows that around 5% of the patients with severe asymptomatic hypertension had acute hypertension-related end-organ damage. This study aimed to determine the clinical utility of routine investigations and risk factors of end-organ damage in patients presented to the emergency department with  asymptomatic severe hypertension. This single-center, cross-sectional study was conducted at the emergency department of the Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan, from January 2018 to December 2020. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) presented to the emergency department with a systolic blood pressure of ≥ 180 or diastolic blood pressure of ≥ 120 mmHg without any signs and symptoms of end-organ damage (e.g., chest pain, unilateral limb or facial weakness, or hemiplegia, altered mental status, shortness of breath, decreased urine output, and sudden-onset of severe headache) were included. Routine investigations were analyzed to detect end-organ damage, including complete blood count, basic metabolic panel, urine detailed report, electrocardiogram, and troponin-I. Multivariable binary logistic regression was applied to identify the risk factors of end-organ damage considering the significant p value of ≤ 0.05. A total of 180 patients were presented to the emergency department with asymptomatic severe hypertension during the study period. Among the total patients, 60 patients (33.3%) had abnormal investigation findings; out of them, new-onset end-organ damage was diagnosed in 15 patients (8.3%). The most common end-organ damage was the kidney (73.3%) followed by the heart (26.6%). The multivariable binary logistic regression showed that age of more than 60 years, past medical history of diabetes, ischemic heart disease, and cerebrovascular accident were significantly associated with a higher risk of end-organ damage (p < 0.05). The study identified a higher prevalence of abnormal routine investigations and acute end-organ damage in emergency department patients with asymptomatic severe hypertension compared to high-income countries and suggested a lower threshold for end-organ damage screening in these patients. The current recommendations of foregoing further workup in patients with asymptomatic severe hypertension may need modification for emergency departments in low-middle-income countries if similar associations are replicated in other settings.

Knowledge, attitudes, practices and perceived barriers of emergency health care providers regarding sepsis and septic shock in a tertiary care centre: A cross-sectional study.

This study aimed to assess knowledge, attitudes, practices, and perceived barriers of emergency healthcare providers regarding the management of sepsis and septic shock. This cross-sectional study was conducted in the Emergency Department of Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan from August to October 2017. A total of 53 healthcare providers participated in the study. Overall, 42(79%) of the participants demonstrated correct knowledge of the sepsis bundle. The most common barrier reported in the compliance of the sepsis bundle was a shortage of staff (62%), followed by delayed presentation of patients (58%) and overcrowding (42%). Furthermore, better staffing was perceived by the participants (60%) to improve the care of septic patients, followed by sepsis awareness sessions (23%) and reduction in ED crowding (11%). Staff shortage, delayed presentation of patients, and ED overcrowding were considered the most common barriers in the management of sepsis in this setting.

Clinical Decision Unit, an extension of emergency department: An experience and advantage in a tertiary care centre.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical decision unit of a tertiary care health facility and to see the disease pattern. . METHODOLOGY: The cross-sectional retrospective study was conducted at the Department of Emergency Medicine, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, from September to October 2011, and comprised data of patients admitted to the clinical decision unit from January to December 2010. The protocols were developed for 7 diseases: acute coronary syndrome, ureteric colic, abdominal pain, bronchial asthma, gastroenteritis with dehydration, headache, and minor head injury. Data-collection proforma recorded demographics, dates of admission, presenting complaints at triage, diagnosis at admission, final disposition and bounce back of the patients. Data was analysed using Microsoft Excel 2007. RESULTS: Of the 1515 patients whose data was analysed, 824(54%) were males. The overall age ranged from newborns to 93 years. Further, 904(60%) patients had presented to the triage counter as P3 category. Acute gastroenteritis was the most common complaint 240(15.84%). Of the total, 1311(87%) were sent home from the clinical decision unit; 39(2.8%) of them bounced back with the same complaint. Overall, 2(0.2%) adult patients expired. CONCLUSIONS: The unit evaluated had a productive initial year. Acute gastroenteritis was the most common protocol in use, but other protocols should also be developed to address local needs.

Near missed diagnosis of extensive aortic dissection in a young patient presenting with non-specific symptoms.

Acute aortic dissection is a frequently fatal condition that rarely involves young individuals. It has an estimated worldwide prevalence of 0.5-2.95 per 100,000 persons per year, with a mean incidence at around age 60. Of all the aortic dissections, less than 10% involve patients younger than 40 years of age. We present the case of a forty-yearold male who presented in the emergency department with non-specific complaints of nausea and lightheadedness. The patient being hemodynamically and clinically stable was discharged after supportive treatment. However after 5 hours the patient presented again in the emergency department with a neck pain, hypotension and sweating. CT angiography revealed a massive aortic dissection involving ascending, arch and descending aorta up to the bifurcation of iliac arteries. The patient was immediately taken for surgery for the replacement of ascending aorta and resuspension of aortic valve. The patient tolerated surgery well and was discharged after being clinically and haemodynamically stable.

Impact of delay in admission on the outcome of critically ill patients presenting to the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital from low income country.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of admission delay on the outcome of critical patients. METHODS: The retrospective chart review was done at Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, and comprised adult patients visiting the Emergency Department during 2010. Outcome measures assessed were total hospital length of stay, total cost of the visit and in-hospital mortality. Patients admitted within 6 hours of presentation at Emergency Department were defined as non-delayed. Data was analysed using SPSS 19. RESULTS: Of the 49,532 patients reporting at the Emergency Department during the study period, 17,968 (36.3%) were admitted. Of them 2356(13%) were admitted to special or intensive care units, 1595(67.7%) of this sub-group stayed in the Emergency Department for >6 hours before being shifted to intensive care. The study focussed on 325(0.65%) of the total patients; 164(50.5%) in the non-delayed group and 161(49.5%) in the delayed group. The admitting diagnosis of myocardial infarction (p=0.00) and acute coronary syndrome (p=0.01) was significantly more common in the non-delayed group compared to other diagnoses like cerebrovascular attacks (p=0.03) which was significantly more common in the delayed group. There was no significant difference in the hospital length of stay between the two groups (p>0.05). The Emergency Department cost was significantly increased in the delayed group (p<0.05), but there was no difference in the overall hospital cost between the groups (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the delayed and non-delayed groups, but long Emergency Department stays are distressing for both physicians and patients.