Ogilvie Thom

Distal ureteric stones and tamsulosin: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE We assess the efficacy and safety of tamsulosin compared with placebo as medical expulsive therapy in patients with distal ureteric stones less than or equal to 10 mm in diameter. METHODS This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial of adult participants with calculus on computed tomography (CT). Patients were allocated to 0.4 mg of tamsulosin or placebo daily for 28 days. The primary outcomes were stone expulsion on CT at 28 days and time to stone expulsion. RESULTS There were 403 patients randomized, 81.4% were men, and the median age was 46 years. The median stone size was 4.0 mm in the tamsulosin group and 3.7 mm in the placebo group. Of 316 patients who received CT at 28 days, stone passage occurred in 140 of 161 (87.0%) in the tamsulosin group and 127 of 155 (81.9%) with placebo, a difference of 5.0% (95% confidence interval -3.0% to 13.0%). In a prespecified subgroup analysis of large stones (5 to 10 mm), 30 of 36 (83.3%) tamsulosin participants had stone passage compared with 25 of 41 (61.0%) with placebo, a difference of 22.4% (95% confidence interval 3.1% to 41.6%) and number needed to treat of 4.5. There was no difference in urologic interventions, time to self-reported stone passage, pain, or analgesia requirements. Adverse events were generally mild and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION We found no benefit overall of 0.4 mg of tamsulosin daily for patients with distal ureteric calculi less than or equal to 10 mm in terms of spontaneous passage, time to stone passage, pain, or analgesia requirements. In the subgroup with large stones (5 to 10 mm), tamsulosin did increase passage and should be considered.

Inflammatory Signalling Associated with Brain Dead Organ Donation: From Brain Injury to Brain Stem Death and Posttransplant Ischaemia Reperfusion Injury

Brain death is associated with dramatic and serious pathophysiologic changes that adversely affect both the quantity and quality of organs available for transplant. To fully optimise the donor pool necessitates a more complete understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of organ dysfunction associated with transplantation. These injurious processes are initially triggered by catastrophic brain injury and are further enhanced during both brain death and graft transplantation. The activated inflammatory systems then contribute to graft dysfunction in the recipient. Inflammatory mediators drive this process in concert with the innate and adaptive immune systems. Activation of deleterious immunological pathways in organ grafts occurs, priming them for further inflammation after engraftment. Finally, posttransplantation ischaemia reperfusion injury leads to further generation of inflammatory mediators and consequent activation of the recipients immune system. Ongoing research has identified key mediators that contribute to the inflammatory milieu inherent in brain dead organ donation. This has seen the development of novel therapies that directly target the inflammatory cascade.

Risk factors for sedation-related events during procedural sedation in the emergency department

Objective: To determine the nature, incidence and risk factors for sedation‐related events during ED procedural sedation, with particular focus on the drugs administered.

Review article: Staff perception of the emergency department working environment: Integrative review of the literature

Employees in EDs report increasing role overload because of critical staff shortages, budgetary cuts and increased patient numbers and acuity. Such overload could compromise staff satisfaction with their working environment. This integrative review identifies, synthesises and evaluates current research around staff perceptions of the working conditions in EDs. A systematic search of relevant databases, using MeSH descriptors ED/EDs, Emergency room/s, ER/s, or A&E coupled with (and) working environment, working condition/s, staff perception/s, as well as reference chaining was conducted. We identified 31 key studies that were evaluated using the mixed methods assessment tool (MMAT). These comprised 24 quantitative‐descriptive studies, four mixed descriptive/comparative (non‐randomised controlled trial) studies and three qualitative studies. Studies included varied widely in quality with MMAT scores ranging from 0% to 100%. A key finding was that perceptions of working environment varied across clinical staff and study location, but that high levels of autonomy and teamwork offset stress around high pressure and high volume workloads. The large range of tools used to assess staff perception of working environment limits the comparability of the studies. A dearth of intervention studies around enhancing working environments in EDs limits the capacity to recommend evidence‐based interventions to improve staff morale.

Procedural sedation practices in Australian Emergency Departments

Objective: The aim of the present study was to describe procedural sedation practices undertaken in a spectrum of Australian EDs.

Factors associated with failure to successfully complete a procedure during emergency department sedation

Objective: To determine factors associated with failure to successfully complete a procedure during sedation in the ED.

Clinical research priorities in emergency medicine

To determine the clinical research priorities of Fellows of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) in order to inform the strategic research agenda specific to multicentre clinical research.

Best-practice pain management in the emergency department: A cluster-randomised, controlled, intervention trial

We aimed to provide ‘adequate analgesia’ (which decreases the pain score by ≥2 and to <4 [0–10 scale]) and determine the effect on patient satisfaction.

Securing All intraVenous devices Effectively in hospitalised patients— the SAVE trial: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Introduction Over 70% of all hospital admissions have a peripheral intravenous device (PIV) inserted; however, the failure rate of PIVs is unacceptably high, with up to 69% of these devices failing before treatment is complete. Failure can be due to dislodgement, phlebitis, occlusion/infiltration and/or infection. This results in interrupted medical therapy; painful phlebitis and reinsertions; increased hospital length of stay, morbidity and mortality from infections; and wasted medical/nursing time. Appropriate PIV dressing and securement may prevent many cases of PIV failure, but little comparative data exist regarding the efficacy of various PIV dressing and securement methods. This trial will investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of 4 methods of PIV dressing and securement in preventing PIV failure. Methods and analysis A multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial with 4 arms, 3 experimental groups (tissue adhesive, bordered polyurethane dressing, sutureless securement device) and 1 control (standard polyurethane dressing) is planned. There will be a 3-year recruitment of 1708 adult patients, with allocation concealment until randomisation by a centralised web-based service. The primary outcome is PIV failure which includes any of: dislodgement, occlusion/infiltration, phlebitis and infection. Secondary outcomes include: types of PIV failure, PIV dwell time, costs, device colonisation, skin colonisation, patient and staff satisfaction. Relative incidence rates of device failure per 100 devices and per 1000 device days with 95% CIs will summarise the impact of each dressing, and test differences between groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves (with log-rank Mantel-Cox test) will compare device failure over time. p Values of <0.05 will be considered significant. Secondary end points will be compared between groups using parametric or non-parametric techniques appropriate to level of measurement. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been received from Queensland Health (HREC/11/QRCH/152) and Griffith University (NRS/46/11/HREC). Results will be published according to the CONSORT statement and presented at relevant conferences. Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN); 12611000769987.

Clinical research priorities in emergency medicine: results of a consensus meeting and development of a weighting method for assessment of clinical research priorities.

There is limited evidence regarding clinical research priorities in emergency medicine outside of some special interest groups. The ACEM Clinical Trials Group undertook a consensus meeting with the aim of developing a reproducible weighting matrix for assessing clinical research priorities.