10 research outputs found
Resistant Hypertension and Cardiorenovascular Risk
No full textAbstract
Studies have documented independent contribution of sympathetic activation to the cardiovascular disease continuum. Hypertension is one of the leading modifiable factors. Most if not all the benefit of antihypertensive treatment depends on blood pressure lowering, regardless how it is obtained. Resistant hypertension is defined as blood pressure that remains uncontrolled in spite of the concurrent use of three antihypertensive drugs of different classes. Ideally, one of the three drugs should be a diuretic, and all drugs should be prescribed at optimal dose amounts. Poor adherence to antihypertensive therapy, undiscovered secondary causes (e.g. obstructive sleep apnea, primary aldosteronism, renal artery stenosis), and lifestyle factors (e.g. obesity, excessive sodium intake, heavy alcohol intake, various drug interactions) are the most common causes of resistant hypertension. Cardio(reno)vascular morbidity and mortality are significantly higher in resistant hypertensive than in general hypertensive population, as such patients are typically presented with a long-standing history of poorly controlled hypertension. Early diagnosis and treatment is needed to avoid further end-organ damage to prevent cardiorenovascular remodeling. Treatment strategy includes lifestyle changes, adding a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, treatment adherence in cardiovascular prevention and, in case of failure to control blood pressure, renal sympathetic denervation or baroreceptor activation therapy. The comparative outcomes in resistant hypertension deserve better understanding. In this review, the most current approaches to resistant hypertension and cardiovascular risk based on the available literature evidence will be discussed.</jats:p
Clinical Characteristics and Management of Patients with a Suspected COVID-19 Infection in Emergency Departments: A European Retrospective Multicenter Study
No full textBackground: Our aim is to describe and compare the profile and outcome of patients attending the ED with a confirmed COVID-19 infection with patients with a suspected COVID-19 infection. Methods: We conducted a multicentric retrospective study including adults who were seen in 21 European emergency departments (ED) with suspected COVID-19 between 9 March and 8 April 2020. Patients with either a clinical suspicion of COVID-19 or confirmed COVID-19, detected using either a RT-PCR or a chest CT scan, formed the C+ group. Patients with non-confirmed COVID-19 (C− group) were defined as patients with a clinical presentation in the ED suggestive of COVID-19, but if tests were performed, they showed a negative RT-PCR and/or a negative chest CT scan. Results: A total of 7432 patients were included in the analysis: 1764 (23.7%) in the C+ group and 5668 (76.3%) in the C− group. The population was older (63.8 y.o. ±17.5 vs. 51.8 y.o. +/− 21.1, p < 0.01), with more males (54.6% vs. 46.1%, p < 0.01) in the C+ group. Patients in the C+ group had more chronic diseases. Half of the patients (n = 998, 56.6%) in the C+ group needed oxygen, compared to only 15% in the C− group (n = 877). Two-thirds of patients from the C+ group were hospitalized in ward (n = 1128, 63.9%), whereas two-thirds of patients in the C− group were discharged after their ED visit (n = 3883, 68.5%). Conclusion: Our study was the first in Europe to examine the emergency department’s perspective on the management of patients with a suspected COVID-19 infection. We showed an overall more critical clinical situation group of patients with a confirmed COVID-19 infection
Development of an Emergency Department Safety Checklist through a global consensus process
No full textpeer reviewedEmergency departments (EDs) are at high risk for medical errors. Checklist implementation programs have been associated with improved patient outcomes in other high-risk clinical settings and when used to address specific aspects of ED care. The aim of this study was to develop an ED Safety Checklist with broad applicability across different international ED settings. A three-round modified Delphi consensus process was conducted with a multidisciplinary and multinational panel of experts in emergency medicine and patient safety. Initial checklist items were identified through a systematic review of the literature. Each item was evaluated for inclusion in the final checklist during two rounds of web-based surveys and an online consensus meeting. Agreement for inclusion was defined a priori with a threshold of 80% combined agreement. Eighty panel members from 34 countries across all seven world regions participated in the study, with comparable representation from low- and middle-income and high-income countries. The final checklist contains 86 items divided into: (1) a general ED Safety Checklist focused on diagnostic evaluation, patient reassessment, and disposition and (2) five domain-specific ED Safety Checklists focused on handoff, invasive procedures, triage, treatment prescription, and treatment administration. The checklist includes key clinical tasks to prevent medical errors, as well as items to improve communication among ED team members and with patients and their families. This novel ED Safety Checklist defines the essential elements of high-quality ED care and has the potential to ensure their consistent implementation worldwide. © The Author(s) 2024
Epidemiology of Older Patients Presenting to Irish Emergency Departments: A Subgroup Analysis of the EGERS Dataset
No full textIntroduction
Within Emergency Medicine, older adults represent a distinct population with unique needs and challenges. There is a scarcity of epidemiologic data on the requirements of Ireland’s older population for, and their utilisation of, emergency care networks. We sought to assess this deficit utilising data from the recently published European Geriatric Emergency Departments Registry Study (EGERS) dataset.
Methodology
A prospective, cohort study of older adult patients (≥65) presenting to Irish Emergency Departments over a 7-day period. The dataset was originally collected as part of the EGERS study. The Irish subpopulation was extracted, analysed in further detail, and compared to the remaining non-Irish population. Data on demographics, presenting complaint, vital signs, chronic medication and co-morbidities were compared. Outcome data including emergency department and hospital length of stay, ICU admission and mortality rate were also assessed.
Results
A total of 361 Irish patients were identified. Median (IQR) age was 77(71-82) and 193(53.5%) were male. The proportion of patients aged \u3e85 was higher in the non-Irish population (24.0% vs 13.9%, RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08-1.18).
The most common presenting complaints were falls (N=65, 18%), shortness of breath (N=51, 13.5%), chest pain (N=44, 11.7%) and abdominal pain (N=37, 9.8%). Multiple presenting complaints occurred in 69(19.1%) patients. Traumatic presenting complaints occurred in 67(18.6%) with 9(2.5%) patients reporting mixed traumatic and non-traumatic presentations.
The median (IQR) number of co-morbidities in the Irish population was 3 (2-5). Co-morbidities were more common in the Irish population (96.1% vs 89.5%, RR 1.07 95% CI 1.05-1.10), with dyslipidaemia, coronary artery disease, heart failure and asthma/COPD being significantly more frequent. Median (IQR) number of regular medications was 4 (2-6) and chronic medication usage was higher in the Irish population (92% vs 84%, RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06-1.14). Disability and need for support services was high with 96 (27.8%) patients utilising home help services, while 85 (24.6%) reported previous falls.
Admission rates were high (N=186, 52.0%), with no differences between populations. There was no mortality difference between the groups. Irish patients were less likely to be admitted to ICU (2.2% vs 8.7%, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.92-0.97).
Conclusions
Irish older adults attending emergency departments present in complex manner and demonstrated higher comorbidity than their European counterparts
Recommended from our members
Protective intraoperative ventilation with higher versus lower levels of positive end-expiratory pressure in obese patients (PROBESE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
No full textBackground: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) increase the morbidity and mortality of surgery in obese patients. High levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with lung recruitment maneuvers may improve intraoperative respiratory function, but they can also compromise hemodynamics, and the effects on PPCs are uncertain. We hypothesized that intraoperative mechanical ventilation using high PEEP with periodic recruitment maneuvers, as compared with low PEEP without recruitment maneuvers, prevents PPCs in obese patients. Methods/design The PRotective Ventilation with Higher versus Lower PEEP during General Anesthesia for Surgery in OBESE Patients (PROBESE) study is a multicenter, two-arm, international randomized controlled trial. In total, 2013 obese patients with body mass index ≥35 kg/m2 scheduled for at least 2 h of surgery under general anesthesia and at intermediate to high risk for PPCs will be included. Patients are ventilated intraoperatively with a low tidal volume of 7 ml/kg (predicted body weight) and randomly assigned to PEEP of 12 cmH2O with lung recruitment maneuvers (high PEEP) or PEEP of 4 cmH2O without recruitment maneuvers (low PEEP). The occurrence of PPCs will be recorded as collapsed composite of single adverse pulmonary events and represents the primary endpoint. Discussion To our knowledge, the PROBESE trial is the first multicenter, international randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of two different levels of intraoperative PEEP during protective low tidal volume ventilation on PPCs in obese patients. The results of the PROBESE trial will support anesthesiologists in their decision to choose a certain PEEP level during general anesthesia for surgery in obese patients in an attempt to prevent PPCs. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02148692. Registered on 23 May 2014; last updated 7 June 2016. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1929-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.Version of Recor
Erratum to Protective intraoperative ventilation with higher versus lower levels of positive end-expiratory pressure in obese patients (PROBESE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
No full textEffect of intraoperative high Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) with recruitment maneuvers vs low PEEP on postoperative pulmonary complications in obese patients : a randomized clinical trial
No full textIMPORTANCE An intraoperative higher level of positive end-expiratory positive pressure (PEEP) with alveolar recruitment maneuvers improves respiratory function in obese patients undergoing surgery, but the effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain.
OBJECTIVE To determine whether a higher level of PEEP with alveolar recruitment maneuvers decreases postoperative pulmonary complications in obese patients undergoing surgery compared with a lower level of PEEP.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial of 2013 adults with body mass indices of 35 or greater and substantial risk for postoperative pulmonary complications who were undergoing noncardiac, nonneurological surgery under general anesthesia. The trial was conducted at 77 sites in 23 countries from July 2014-February 2018; final follow-up: May 2018.
INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to the high level of PEEP group (n = 989), consisting of a PEEP level of 12 cm H2O with alveolar recruitment maneuvers (a stepwise increase of tidal volume and eventually PEEP) or to the low level of PEEP group (n = 987), consisting of a PEEP level of 4 cm H2O. All patients received volume-controlled ventilation with a tidal volume of 7 mL/kg of predicted body weight.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcomewas a composite of pulmonary complications within the first 5 postoperative days, including respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, bronchospasm, new pulmonary infiltrates, pulmonary infection, aspiration pneumonitis, pleural effusion, atelectasis, cardiopulmonary edema, and pneumothorax. Among the 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 3 were intraoperative complications, including hypoxemia (oxygen desaturation with SpO(2) 1 minute).
RESULTS Among 2013 adults who were randomized, 1976 (98.2%) completed the trial (mean age, 48.8 years; 1381 [69.9%] women; 1778 [90.1%] underwent abdominal operations). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome occurred in 211 of 989 patients (21.3%) in the high level of PEEP group compared with 233 of 987 patients (23.6%) in the low level of PEEP group (difference, -2.3%[95% CI, -5.9% to 1.4%]; risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.04]; P =.23). Among the 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 were not significantly different between the high and low level of PEEP groups, and 3 were significantly different, including fewer patients with hypoxemia (5.0% in the high level of PEEP group vs 13.6% in the low level of PEEP group; difference, -8.6%[95% CI, -11.1% to 6.1%]; P <.001).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among obese patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia, an intraoperative mechanical ventilation strategy with a higher level of PEEP and alveolar recruitment maneuvers, compared with a strategy with a lower level of PEEP, did not reduce postoperative pulmonary complications
Post-anaesthesia pulmonary complications after use of muscle relaxants (POPULAR): a multicentre, prospective observational study
No full textBackground Results from retrospective studies suggest that use of neuromuscular blocking agents during general
anaesthesia might be linked to postoperative pulmonary complications. We therefore aimed to assess whether the use
of neuromuscular blocking agents is associated with postoperative pulmonary complications.
Methods We did a multicentre, prospective observational cohort study. Patients were recruited from 211 hospitals in
28 European countries. We included patients (aged ≥18 years) who received general anaesthesia for any in-hospital
procedure except cardiac surgery. Patient characteristics, surgical and anaesthetic details, and chart review at discharge
were prospectively collected over 2 weeks. Additionally, each patient underwent postoperative physical examination
within 3 days of surgery to check for adverse pulmonary events. The study outcome was the incidence of postoperative
pulmonary complications from the end of surgery up to postoperative day 28. Logistic regression analyses were
adjusted for surgical factors and patients’ preoperative physical status, providing adjusted odds ratios (ORadj) and
adjusted absolute risk reduction (ARRadj). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01865513.
Findings Between June 16, 2014, and April 29, 2015, data from 22803 patients were collected. The use of neuromuscular
blocking agents was associated with an increased incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications in patients who
had undergone general anaesthesia (1658 [7·6%] of 21694); ORadj 1·86, 95% CI 1·53–2·26; ARRadj –4·4%, 95% CI
–5·5 to –3·2). Only 2·3% of high-risk surgical patients and those with adverse respiratory profiles were anaesthetised
without neuromuscular blocking agents. The use of neuromuscular monitoring (ORadj 1·31, 95% CI 1·15–1·49;
ARRadj –2·6%, 95% CI –3·9 to –1·4) and the administration of reversal agents (1·23, 1·07–1·41; –1·9%, –3·2 to –0·7)
were not associated with a decreased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Neither the choice of sugammadex
instead of neostigmine for reversal (ORadj 1·03, 95% CI 0·85–1·25; ARRadj –0·3%, 95% CI –2·4 to 1·5) nor extubation at
a train-of-four ratio of 0·9 or more (1·03, 0·82–1·31; –0·4%, –3·5 to 2·2) was associated with better pulmonary outcomes.
Interpretation We showed that the use of neuromuscular blocking drugs in general anaesthesia is associated with an
increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Anaesthetists must balance the potential benefits of
neuromuscular blockade against the increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications
Effect of Intraoperative High Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) With Recruitment Maneuvers vs Low PEEP on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Obese Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
No full textIMPORTANCE An intraoperative higher level of positive end-expiratory positive pressure (PEEP) with alveolar recruitment maneuvers improves respiratory function in obese patients undergoing surgery, but the effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain
