Shamai A. Grossman

Implications of the mechanical (PCI) vs thrombolytic controversy for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction on the organization of emergency medical services: the Boston EMS experience.

With the many advances in rapid reperfusion therapy for management of acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), there is a need to revisit the current plan for prehospital triage (point of entry). Until recently in Boston, and nationwide, there has been a policy that patients with suspected acute MI were brought to the nearest hospital. Then, if ST segment elevation was present, patients were treated with either thrombolytic therapy or primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent data, however, have shown that with advances in interventional devices, techniques and institutional experience, primary PCI is associated with improved outcomes compared with thrombolytic therapy for all patients with STEMI when provided at expert centers with high institutional volumes, with experienced interventional cardiologists as the operators, and with relatively short time to treatment. We describe the rationale for and the implementation of the Boston EMS STEMI Triage Plan and Treatment Registry. Many of the issues that prompted the implementation of the Boston STEMI plan are relevant to all EMS systems. Among these issues are the accuracy of prehospital identification of STEMI patients, the availability of mechanical reperfusion therapy, the appropriate triage of patients with complicated myocardial infarction or shock, as well as the local consensus regarding strength of the evidence favoring mechanical reperfusion. This article describes the history of the Boston EMS STEMI Triage Plan and Treatment Registry and suggests the need for other EMS systems to develop a systematic approach to patients with STEMI.

Syncope risk stratification tools vs clinical judgment: An individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND There have been several attempts to derive syncope prediction tools to guide clinician decision-making. However, they have not been largely adopted, possibly because of their lack of sensitivity and specificity. We sought to externally validate the existing tools and to compare them with clinical judgment, using an individual patient data meta-analysis approach. METHODS Electronic databases, bibliographies, and experts in the field were screened to find all prospective studies enrolling consecutive subjects presenting with syncope to the emergency department. Prediction tools and clinical judgment were applied to all patients in each dataset. Serious outcomes and death were considered separately during emergency department stay and at 10 and 30 days after presenting syncope. Pooled sensitivities, specificities, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios, with 95% confidence intervals, were calculated. RESULTS Thirteen potentially relevant papers were retrieved (11 authors). Six authors agreed to share individual patient data. In total, 3681 patients were included. Three prediction tools (Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope del Lazio [OESIL], San Francisco Syncope Rule [SFSR], Evaluation of Guidelines in Syncope Study [EGSYS]) could be assessed by the available datasets. None of the evaluated prediction tools performed better than clinical judgment in identifying serious outcomes during emergency department stay, and at 10 and 30 days after syncope. CONCLUSIONS Despite the use of an individual patient data approach to reduce heterogeneity among studies, a large variability was still present. Current prediction tools did not show better sensitivity, specificity, or prognostic yield compared with clinical judgment in predicting short-term serious outcome after syncope. Our systematic review strengthens the evidence that current prediction tools should not be strictly used in clinical practice.

Predictors of delay in presentation to the ED in patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes

Delays in seeking medical attention for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) preclude early application of life-saving treatment and diminish efficacy. Previous studies suggest 3-hour delays between onset of symptoms and ED arrival in patients with typical presentations of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). A prospective observational study was conducted in an urban ED measuring lag time (LT) among adults presenting within 48 hours of onset of symptoms suggestive of ACS. Univariate and multiple regression analyses were performed on 5 predictors: age, sex, symptoms at presentation, and 2 different outcomes (AMI and ACS). Three hundred seventy-four patients were enrolled. Mean age was 63 years with 38% 70 years or older. Seventy-three percent of all patients with suspected ACS presented with chest pain, 27% with atypical symptoms. Overall mean LT was 8.7 hours (standard deviation 11). In subgroup analysis, patients aged >/=70 years were more likely to have LTs >12 hours (29% vs. 19% P =.043) and patients without chest pain had longer mean LTs (11.6 vs. 7.6 hours, P =.01). Delay in ED presentation is group specific. Advanced age and patients with atypical symptoms are predictive of longer LTs. Contrary to previously published data, patients with symptoms suspicious for ACS can delay an average of 9 hours, which might alter current thinking in the prevention and care of these patients.

The yield of head CT in syncope: a pilot study

Although head CT is often routinely performed in emergency department (ED) patients with syncope, few studies have assessed its value.Objectives:To determine the yield of routine head CT in ED patients with syncope and analyse the factors associated with a positive CT.Methods:Prospective, observational, cohort study of consecutive patients presenting with syncope to an urban tertiary-care ED (48 000 annual visits). Inclusion criteria: age >8 and loss of consciousness (LOC). Exclusion criteria included persistent altered mental status, drug-related or post-trauma LOC, seizure or hypoglycaemia. Primary outcome was abnormal head CT including subarachnoid, subdural or parenchymal haemorrhage, infarction, signs of acute stroke and newly diagnosed brain mass.Results:Of 293 eligible patients, 113 (39%) underwent head CT and comprise the study cohort. Ninety-five patients (84%) were admitted to the hospital. Five patients, 5% (95% CI=0.8%–8%), had an abnormal head CT: 2 subarachnoid haemorrhage, 2 cerebral haemorrhage and 1 stroke. Post hoc examination of patients with an abnormal head CT revealed focal neurologic findings in 2 and a new headache in 1. The remaining 2 patients had no new neurologic findings but physical findings of trauma (head lacerations with periorbital ecchymoses suggestive of orbital fractures). All patients with positive findings on CT were >65 years of age. Of the 108 remaining patients who had head CT, 45 (32%–51%) had signs or symptoms of neurologic disease including headache, trauma above the clavicles or took coumadin. Limiting head CT to this population would potentially reduce scans by 56% (47%–65%). If age >60 were an additional criteria, scans would be reduced by 24% (16%–32%). Of the patients who did not have head CT, none were found to have new neurologic disease during hospitalisation or 30-day follow-up.Conclusions:Our data suggest that the derivation of a prospectively derived decision rule has the potential to decrease the routine use of head CT in patients presenting to the ED with syncope.

Are Echocardiography, Telemetry, Ambulatory Electrocardiography Monitoring, and Cardiac Enzymes in Emergency Department Patients Presenting with Syncope Useful Tests? A Preliminary Investigation

BACKGROUND Prior studies of admitted geriatric syncope patients suggest that diagnostic tests affect management < 5% of the time; whether this is true among all emergency department (ED) patients with syncope remains unclear. OBJECTIVES To determine the diagnostic yield of routine testing in the hospital or after ED discharge among patients presenting to an ED with syncope. METHODS A prospective, observational, cohort study of consecutive ED patients aged ≥ 18 years presenting with syncope was conducted. The four most commonly utilized tests (echocardiography, telemetry, ambulatory electrocardiography monitoring, and troponin) were studied. Interobserver agreement as to whether test results determined the etiology of the syncope was measured using kappa (κ) values. RESULTS Of 570 patients with syncope, 73 patients (8%; 95% confidence interval 7-10%) had studies that were diagnostic. One hundred fifty (26%) had echocardiography, with 33 (22%) demonstrating a likely etiology of the syncopal event, such as critical valvular disease or significantly depressed left ventricular function (κ = 0.75). On hospitalization, 330 (58%) patients were placed on telemetry, and 19 (3%) had worrisome dysrhythmias (κ = 0.66). There were 317 (55%) patients who had troponin levels drawn, of whom 19 (3%) had positive results (κ = 1); 56 (10%) patients were discharged with monitoring, with significant findings in only 2 (0.4%) patients (κ = 0.65). CONCLUSION Although routine testing is prevalent in ED patients with syncope, the diagnostic yield is relatively low. Nevertheless, some testing, particularly echocardiography, may yield critical findings. Current efforts to reduce the cost of medical care by eliminating nondiagnostic medical testing and increasing emphasis on practicing evidence-based medicine argue for more discriminate testing when evaluating syncope.

Preferences for Resuscitation and Intubation Among Patients With Do-Not-Resuscitate/Do-Not-Intubate Orders

OBJECTIVE To determine the accuracy of do-not-resuscitate/do-not-intubate (DNR/DNI) orders in representing patient preferences regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and intubation. PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted a prospective survey study of patients with documented DNR/DNI code status at an urban academic tertiary care center that serves approximately 250,000 patients per year. From October 1, 2010, to October 1, 2011, research staff enrolled a convenience sample of patients from the inpatient medical service, providing them with a series of emergency scenarios for which they related their treatment preference. We used the Kendall τ rank correlation coefficient to examine correlation between degree of illness reversibility and willingness to be resuscitated. Using bivariate statistical analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis, we examined predictors of discrepancies between code status and patient preferences. Our main outcome measure was the percentage of patients with DNR/DNI orders wanting CPR and/or intubation in each scenario. We hypothesized that patients with DNR/DNI orders would frequently want CPR and/or intubation. RESULTS We enrolled 100 patients (mean ± SD age, 78 ± 13.7 years). A total of 58% (95% CI, 48%-67%) wanted intubation for angioedema, 28% (95% CI, 20%-3.07%) wanted intubation for severe pneumonia, and 20% (95% CI, 13%-29%) wanted a trial resuscitation for cardiac arrest. The desire for intubation decreased as potential reversibility of the acute disease process decreased (Kendall τ correlation coefficient, 0.45; P<.0002). CONCLUSION Most patients with DNR/DNI orders want CPR and/or intubation in hypothetical clinical scenarios, directly conflicting with their documented DNR/DNI status. Further research is needed to better understand the discrepancy and limitations of DNR/DNI orders.

Can elderly patients without risk factors be discharged home when presenting to the emergency department with syncope

Age is often a predictor for morbidity and mortality. Although we previously proposed risk factors for adverse outcome in syncope, after accounting for the presence of these risk factors, it is unclear whether age is an independent risk factor for adverse outcomes in syncope. Our objective was to determine whether age is an independent risk factor for adverse outcome following a syncopal episode. We conducted a prospective, observational study enrolling consecutive patients with syncope. Adverse outcome/critical intervention included hemorrhage, myocardial infarction/percutaneous coronary intervention, dysrhythmia, antidysrhythmic alteration, pacemaker/defibrillator placement, sepsis, stroke, death, pulmonary embolus or carotid stenosis. Outcomes were identified by chart review and 30-day follow-up. We found that of 575 patients, adverse events occurred in 24%. Overall, 35% with risk factors had adverse outcomes compared to 1.6% without risks. Age ≥ 65 were more likely to have adverse outcomes: 34.5% versus 9.3%, p<0.001. Similarly, among patients with risk factors, elderly patients had more adverse outcomes: 43%; 36-50% versus 22%; 16-30%, p<0.001. However, among patients with no predefined risks, there were no statistical differences: 3.6%; 0.28-13% versus 1%; 0.04-3.8%. This was confirmed in a regression model accounting for the interaction between age>65 and risk factors. Although the elderly with syncope are at greater risk for adverse outcomes overall and in patients with risk factors, age ≥ 65 alone was not a predictor of adverse outcome in syncopal patients without risk factors. Based on this data, it may be safe to discharge home from the ED patients with syncope, but without risk factors, regardless of age.

Applying the Boston Syncope Criteria to Near Syncope

BACKGROUND We recently demonstrated that near-syncope patients are as likely as syncope patients to experience adverse outcomes. The Boston Syncope Criteria (BSC) identify patients with syncope unlikely to have adverse outcomes and reduce hospitalizations. It is unclear whether these guidelines could reduce hospitalization in near syncope as well. OBJECTIVE To determine if BSC accurately predict which near-syncope patients require hospitalization. METHODS A prospective observational study enrolled from August 2007 to October 2008 consecutive emergency department (ED) patients (aged > 18 years) with near syncope. BSC were first employed assuming that any patient with risk factors for adverse outcomes should be admitted, and then utilized using a modified rule: if the etiology of near syncope is dehydration or vasovagal, and ED work-up is normal, patients may be discharged even with risk factors. Outcomes were identified by chart review and 30-day follow-up calls. RESULTS Of 244 patients with near syncope, 111 were admitted, with 49 adverse outcomes. No adverse outcomes occurred among discharged patients. If BSC had been followed strictly, another 41 patients with risk factors would have been admitted and 34 discharged, a 3% increase in admission rate. However, using the modified criteria, only 68 patients would have required admission, a 38% reduction in admission, with no missed adverse outcomes on follow-up. CONCLUSION Although near-syncope patients may have risk factors for adverse outcomes similar to those with syncope, if the etiology of near syncope is dehydration or vasovagal, and ED work-up is normal, these patients may be discharged even with risk factors.

Can Benign Etiologies Predict Benign Outcomes in High-Risk Syncope Patients?

BACKGROUND We previously studied and validated risk factors for adverse outcomes or need for critical intervention in syncope. OBJECTIVE To determine whether high-risk patients, diagnosed with benign etiologies of syncope after a normal emergency department (ED) work-up, sustain favorable outcomes. METHODS Prospective, observational cohort of consecutive ED patients aged ≥ 18 years with syncope. Benign etiology was defined as vasovagal syncope or dehydration. Patients were followed up to 30 days to identify adverse outcomes including death, myocardial infarction, dysrhythmia, alterations in antidysrhythmics, percutaneous intervention, pulmonary embolus, stroke, metabolic catastrophe, or significant hemorrhage. RESULTS Patients presented with benign etiologies in 164/293, 56% (95% confidence interval [CI] 50-62%) of cases. Of these, pathologic conditions were identified during ED evaluation in 11/164, 7% (95% CI 3-11%) of cases. This includes ED findings/treatments of blood transfusion, severe electrolyte disturbance, incarcerated hernia, rhabdomyolysis, subarachnoid hemorrhage, bowel obstruction, dysrhythmia, and transient ischemic attack. The remaining 153 with benign presentations had no adverse outcomes at 30 days, while 57/129 (44%) patients with non-benign etiologies had adverse outcomes in the hospital or within 30 days. Previously, we demonstrated a 48% reduction in admission rate if only patients with risk factors for adverse outcome were admitted. If patients with both benign etiologies and a negative ED work-up were sent home, even if they had risk factors for an adverse outcome, an additional 19% (95% CI 14-25%) reduction in hospital admissions would have occurred. CONCLUSIONS In patients with presentations consistent with a benign etiology of syncope (vasovagal or dehydration) where the ED work-up was normal, we found no patients who would benefit from hospitalization based on risk factors alone.

Assessing the rates of error and adverse events in the ED

BACKGROUND The incidence of errors and adverse events in emergency medicine is poorly characterized. OBJECTIVE The objective was to systematically determine the rates and types of errors and adverse events in an academic, tertiary care emergency department (ED). METHODS Prospective data were collected on all patients presenting to a tertiary-care academic medical center ED with an annual census of 55,000 patients between January 2009 and November 2012. Cases of patients meeting predetermined criteria were systematically identified by an electronic medical record system. Criteria for review included patients who (1) returned to the ED within 72 hours and were admitted on their second visit, (2) were admitted from the ED to the floor and then transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) within 24 hours, (3) expired within 24 hours of ED arrival, (4) required airway management, or (5) were referred to the QA committee as the result of complaints. Cases were randomly assigned to individual physicians not involved with the care. All cases were reviewed using a structured electronic tool that assessed the occurrence of error and adverse events. Institutional review board jurisdiction was waived by the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center IRB. RESULTS During the study period, 152,214 cases were screened and 2131 cases (1.4%) met prespecified criteria for review. The incidence of error in these cases was 9.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.3%-10.8%), representing an overall incidence of 0.13% among all ED patients. In cases that involved error, 50.5% occurred among patients who returned to the ED within 72 hours; 17.3% occurred among floor-to-ICU transfers; 5.4% occurred among mortality cases; 2.0% occurred among airway cases; and 24.8% occurred among cases referred as the result of complaints. The incidence of adverse events in the reviewed cohort was 8.3% (CI, 7.2%-9.6%), representing an overall incidence of 0.11% among all ED patients. In cases that involved adverse events, 48.6% occurred among patients who returned to the ED within 72 hours; 16.4% occurred among floor-to-ICU transfers; 9.0% occurred among mortality cases; 1.1% occurred among airway cases; and 24.9% occurred among cases referred as the result of complaints. CONCLUSION Although the overall incidence of error and adverse events in EDs is low, the likelihood of such events is markedly increased among patients who return to the ED within 72 hours, among patients who require floor-to-ICU transfer within 24 hours, and among those whose cases come to attention as the result of complaints.