METHODS: This was an observational study conducted among sepsis patients presented to ED of a tertiary university hospital from 18th January 2021 until 28th February 2021. ED overcrowding status was determined using the National Emergency Department Overcrowding Score (NEDOCS) scoring system. Sepsis patients were identified using Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores and their door-to-antibiotic time (DTA) were recorded. Patient outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS) and in-hospital mortality. Statistical analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26. P-value of less than 0.05 for a two-sided test was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Total of 170 patients were recruited. Among them, 33 patients presented with septic shock and only 15% (n = 5) received antibiotics within one hour. Of 137 sepsis patients without shock, 58.4% (n = 80) received antibiotics within three hours. We found no significant association between ED overcrowding with DTA time (p = 0.989) and LOS (p = 0.403). However, in-hospital mortality increased two times during overcrowded ED (95% CI 1-4; p = 0.041).
CONCLUSION: ED overcrowding has no significant impact on DTA and LOS which are crucial indicators of sepsis care quality but it increases overall mortality outcome. Further research is needed to explore other factors such as lack of resources, delay in initiating fluid resuscitation or vasopressor so as to improve sepsis patient care during ED overcrowding.
AIMS: To provide a comprehensive overview of burnout and identify its workplace antecedents and outcomes among Emergency Department staff.
METHODS: The scoping study will follow the methodology outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, APA PsycInfo, and CINAHL databases will be searched using predefined strategies. Two reviewers will screen the title, abstract and full text separately based on the eligibility criteria. Data will be charted, coded, and narratively synthesized based on the job demands-resources model.
CONCLUSION: The results will provide insights into the underlying work-related factors contributing to burnout and its implications for individuals, healthcare organizations, and patient care.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of s.c. tramadol vs. i.v. tramadol in patients with moderate pain due to extremity injury in the ED.
DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: This non-inferiority randomized controlled trial included adult patients presented to an academic, tertiary hospital ED with moderate pain (pain score of 4-6 on the visual analog scale) due to extremity injury. Intervention patients stratified to pain score were randomized to receive 50 mg of i.v. or s.c. tramadol.
OUTCOMES MEASURE AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcome measure was the difference in the pain score reduction at 30 min after tramadol administration between the two groups. The noninferiority null hypothesis was that the therapeutic difference in terms of pain score reduction of more than 0.8 exists between the two treatment groups at the endpoint.
MAIN RESULTS: In total 232 patients were randomized to i.v. ( n = 115) or s.c. ( n = 117). Although 225 were analyzed in the per-protocol population (i.v. = 113; s.c. = 112). The baseline median pain score was 6 (IQR, 5-6). Median pain score reduction at 30 min after administration was 2 (IQR, 1-3) in the IV group vs. 2 (IQR, 1-2) in the s.c. group with a median difference of 0 (IQR, 0-0), which was below the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.8. Adverse events in the i.v. group were higher compared to the s.c. group (33.6% vs. 8.9%, P ≤ 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The s.c. tramadol is noninferior to i.v. tramadol in the treatment of moderate pain from extremity injuries.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study done in Hospital Sg Buloh (HSB), a tertiary referral centre in an urban area located north of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia's capital city, from January until December 2018, involving 289 patients. All cases with CPR and a sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) were included in the study and followed up until discharged or died in the hospital.
RESULTS: Out of 236 patients recruited, 25.8% achieved ROSC, 15.7% survived on admission, and 4.2% of patients were discharged alive. Of 74.1% of witnessed OHCA, only 17.5% received bystander CPR. Factors with favourable outcomes include CA in ED (p<0.001), the initial rhythm of ventricular fibrillation (p=0.003), defibrillation (p=0.024), OHCA witnessed by emergency medical services (EMS) (p=0.024) and intravenous adrenaline administration (p=0.001). When using multivariate regression analysis, positive outcomes were associated with the cardiac and respiratory cause of CA (Adjusted Odd Ratio (AOR) 3.66; 95% Confidence Intervals, 95%CI: 2.52 - 12.61 and AOR 8.76; 95%CI: 5.76- 15.46, respectively) as well as OHCA witnessed by EMS (AOR 10.81; 95%CI: 1.84- 19.52).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite being an upper-middle-income country and having advancements in the healthcare system, a relatively lower STD rate among survivors of CA in the ED was observed in this study. There was underutilization of the EMS among patients with CA. The bystander CPR rate among patients with CA in Malaysia is also worryingly low. Aggressive community participation in cardiac arrest awareness programmes is much required. Additionally, in achieving better outcomes, implementing standardized post-resuscitation care protocols with existing resources will be a challenge for physicians managing cardiac arrest cases.
OBJECTIVE: This narrative review describes the technical aspects and clinical indications of helmet continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). In addition, we explore the advantages and challenges faced using this device at the Emergency Department (ED).
DISCUSSION: Helmet CPAP is tolerable than other NIV interfaces, provides a good seal and has good airway stability. During Covid-19 pandemic, there are evidences it reduced the risk of aerosolization. The potential clinical benefit of helmet CPAP is demonstrated in acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPO), Covid-19 pneumonia, immunocompromised patient, acute chest trauma and palliative patient. Compare to conventional oxygen therapy, helmet CPAP had been shown to reduce intubation rate and decrease mortality.
CONCLUSION: Helmet CPAP is one of the potential NIV interface in patients with acute respiratory failure presenting to the emergency department. It is better tolerated for prolonged usage, reduced intubation rate, improved respiratory parameters, and offers protection against aerosolization in infectious diseases.
METHODS: The authors evaluated a cohort of adult trauma patients transported to emergency departments. The first vital signs were used to calculate the SI, MSI, and rSIG. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves and test results were used to compare the discriminant performance of the indices on short-term mortality and poor functional outcomes. A subgroup analysis of geriatric patients with traumatic brain injury, penetrating injury, and nonpenetrating injury was performed.
RESULTS: A total of 105 641 patients (49±20 years, 62% male) met the inclusion criteria. The rSIG had the highest areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for short-term mortality (0.800, CI: 0.791-0.809) and poor functional outcome (0.596, CI: 0.590-0.602). The cutoff for rSIG was 18 for short-term mortality and poor functional outcomes with sensitivities of 0.668 and 0.371 and specificities of 0.805 and 0.813, respectively. The positive predictive values were 9.57% and 22.31%, and the negative predictive values were 98.74% and 89.97%. rSIG also had better discriminant ability in geriatrics, traumatic brain injury, and nonpenetrating injury.
CONCLUSION: The rSIG with a cutoff of 18 was accurate for short-term mortality in Asian adult trauma patients. Moreover, rSIG discriminates poor functional outcomes better than the commonly used SI and MSI.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed retrospective data of chest pain patients presenting to ED HUSM from 1st June 2020 till 31st January 2021 based on the patient's history, ECG findings, risk factors, age and troponin level. The patients were stratified as low risk (MHS and HEAR score of 0-3), intermediate risk (MHS and HEAR score of 4-6), and high risk (MHS of 7-10 and HEAR score of 7-8). The association of the MHS and HEAR score with MACE at 6 weeks' time was evaluated using simple logistic regression.
RESULTS: This study included 147 patients in the MHS analysis and 71 patients in HEAR score analysis. The incident rate of MACE in low, intermediate and high risk was 0%,16.3%, and 34.7%, in the MHS group, and 0%, 3.22%, and 6.66% in HEAR score group. The mean difference between MACE and non-MACE in MHS and HEAR score groups was -2.29 (CI: -3.13,1.44, p<0.001) and -2.51(CI: -5.23, 0.21, p=0.070), respectively. There was no significant association between the incidence rate of MACE with modified HEART score (MHS) and HEAR score groups (p>0.95).
CONCLUSION: HEAR score is not feasible to be used as a risk stratification tool for chest pain patients presenting to ED HUSM in comparison to MHS. Further studies are required to validate the results.
METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in emergency departments of two tertiary hospitals from June 1 to August 31, 2021. Consecutive patients aged >18 years admitted for COVID-19-related HRF (World Health Organization criteria: confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia with respiratory rate > 30 breaths/min, severe respiratory distress, or peripheral oxygen saturation < 90% on room air) requiring NRB + NC or HFNC were screened for enrollment. Primary outcome was improvement of partial pressure arterial oxygen (PaO2) at two hours. Secondary outcomes were intubation rate, ventilator-free days, hospital length of stay, and 28-day mortality. Data were analyzed using linear regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity score.
RESULTS: Among the 110 patients recruited, 52 (47.3%) were treated with NRB + NC, and 58 (52.7%) with HFNC. There were significant improvements in patients' PaO2, PaO2/FIO2 ratio, and respiratory rate two hours after the initiation of NRB + NC and HFNC. Comparing the two groups, after IPTW adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in PaO2 improvement (adjusted mean ratio [MR] 2.81; 95% CI -5.82 to 11.43; p = .524), intubation rate (adjusted OR 1.76; 95% CI 0.44 to 6.92; p = .423), ventilator-free days (adjusted MR 0.00; 95% CI -8.84 to 8.85; p = .999), hospital length of stay (adjusted MR 3.04; 95% CI -2.62 to 8.69; p = .293), and 28-day mortality (adjusted OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.15 to 2.98; p = .608).
CONCLUSION: HFNC may be beneficial in COVID-19 HRF. NRB + NC is a viable alternative, especially in resource-limited settings, given similar improvement in oxygenation at two hours, and no significant differences in long-term outcomes. The effectiveness of NRB + NC needs to be investigated by a powered randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: This single-centre retrospective study analysed data on consecutive STEMI patients who received thrombolytic therapy from May 2019 to December 2020 (20 months) in a non-PCI capable tertiary hospital. Total population sampling was used in this study. We compared all patients' characteristics and outcomes ten months before and during the pandemic. Regression models were used to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on door-to-needle time (DNT), mortality, bleeding events, and the number of overnight stays.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We analysed 323 patients with a mean age of 52.9 ± 12.9 years and were predominantly male (n = 280, 88.9%). There was a 12.5% reduction in thrombolysis performed during the pandemic. No significant difference in timing from symptoms onset to thrombolysis and DNT was observed. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher during the pandemic (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.02-4.00, p = 0.044). Bleeding events post thrombolysis remained stable and there was no significant difference in the number of overnight stays during the pandemic.
CONCLUSION: STEMI thrombolysis cases were reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an inverse increase in mortality despite the preserved Emergency Department performance in timely thrombolysis.
METHODS: Non-inferiority randomized, clinical trial involving patients presenting with acute respiratory failure conducted in the ED of a local hospital. Participants were randomly allocated to receive either hCPAP or fCPAP as per the trial protocol. The primary endpoint was respiratory rate reduction. Secondary endpoints included discomfort, improvement in Dyspnea and Likert scales, heart rate reduction, arterial blood oxygenation, partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2), dryness of mucosa and intubation rate.
RESULTS: 224 patients were included and randomized (113 patients to hCPAP, 111 to fCPAP). Both techniques reduced respiratory rate (hCPAP: from 33.56 ± 3.07 to 25.43 ± 3.11 bpm and fCPAP: from 33.46 ± 3.35 to 27.01 ± 3.19 bpm), heart rate (hCPAP: from 114.76 ± 15.5 to 96.17 ± 16.50 bpm and fCPAP: from 115.07 ± 14.13 to 101.19 ± 16.92 bpm), and improved dyspnea measured by both the Visual Analogue Scale (hCPAP: from 16.36 ± 12.13 to 83.72 ± 12.91 and fCPAP: from 16.01 ± 11.76 to 76.62 ± 13.91) and the Likert scale. Both CPAP techniques improved arterial oxygenation (PaO2 from 67.72 ± 8.06 mmHg to 166.38 ± 30.17 mmHg in hCPAP and 68.99 ± 7.68 mmHg to 184.49 ± 36.38 mmHg in fCPAP) and the PaO2:FiO2 (Partial pressure of arterial oxygen: Fraction of inspired oxygen) ratio from 113.6 ± 13.4 to 273.4 ± 49.5 in hCPAP and 115.0 ± 12.9 to 307.7 ± 60.9 in fCPAP. The intubation rate was lower with hCPAP (4.4% for hCPAP versus 18% for fCPAP, absolute difference -13.6%, p = 0.003). Discomfort and dryness of mucosa were also lower with hCPAP.
CONCLUSION: In patients presenting to the ED with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema or decompensated COPD, hCPAP was non-inferior to fCPAP and resulted in greater comfort levels and lower intubation rate.
METHODS: We analysed the total visits and discharge rates during periods of using the nebulizer and current pMDI-VMMS methods. The acceptance of pMDI-VMMS by patients and assistant medical officers (AMOs) were assessed by questionnaire.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We analysed 3184 ED visits and responses from 103 patients and 32 AMOs. The direct discharge rate was similar for both nebulizer (n = 2162, 92.5%) and pMDI-VMMS method (n = 768, 90.7%) (p-value = 0.120). Twenty-eight patients (27.2%) favoured the pMDI-VMMS over the nebulizer, whereas 36 patients (35.0%) had no preference for either method. Sixty-four patients (62.1%) felt that the current pMDI-VMMS method was better or at least as effective in relieving their symptoms as a nebulizer. The current method was favoured over the nebulizer by twenty-seven AMOs (84.4%). Twenty-eight (87.5%) AMOs suggested that the current method was more effective than the nebulizer.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The bronchodilator delivered via pMDI-VMMS appeared to be comparable to nebulizer in treating mild to moderate asthma and COPD exacerbations in the outpatient ED. Most patients and AMOs accepted the use of pMDI-VMMS in the outpatient ED during the current COVID-19 pandemic. The Venturi mask modified spacer can be a cheap and effective alternative to the commercial spacer in a resource-limited situation.