a. Clinical Question: Does admitting patients to hospital convey benefit?
b. Methods & Results: Chart review. All patients admitted with trop at time 0 and time 60-420 minutes. Looked for outcome CRACE: Life Threatening arrhythmia, Inpatient STEMI, Cardiac/Respiratory arrest, death during hospitalization.
c. Author Conclusions: Found either 0.18% rate or 0.06% rate (NNT 562 or 1817). Vs NNKill 164 with medical error.
d. Limitations & Controversies: Chart review. Excluded patients with SBP < 100, HR > 100, SpO2 <95%, ECG with ischemia, LBBB (even baseline), or paced rhythm.
e. My Take Home Point: They looked for CRACE not MACE (which includes stenting, nSTEMIs, etc). I often dc pts with SpO2 at 94% or with paced rhythms or baseline LBBBB that appears unchanged. None the less, this data suggests admission likely isn’t life protecting, what seems much more important is securing clear & reliable follow up. Sometimes this requires admitting the patient.
a. Clinical Question: How much does SIRS matter? Does it predict SEPSIS?
b. Methods & Results: Australia/New Zealand ICU database from 1st 24 hours. Pts with organ failure & infection. 12.1% of all these patients never met SIRS. Also each sequential SIRS criteria increased mortality by 13% with no specific change at 2/4.
c. Author Conclusions: Authors “challenge the sensitivity, face validity, and construct validity of the rule regarding two or more SIRS criteria…”
d. Limitations & Controversies: Data base from ICU so pts already treated, not ED patients. Also mortality dropped 36.1% 18.3% for 2+ SIRS & 27.1% 8.5% for SIRS – patients during this study.
e. My Take Home Point: SIRS happen for lots of reasons and also 1/8 Septic patients don’t have SIRS. But aggressive care clearly benefits patients decreasing mortality.
a. Clinical Question: How does ketamine perform when rolled out in an ED as a general pain medication?
b. Methods & Results: 530 patients. 3.5% frequency of psychomimetic effects. Only 1.9% severe enough to prevent further use. Only 0.7% requiring treatment. 1.5% Hypoxia (vs 5% with hydromorphone) and 1% with emesis (vs 7% with hydromorphone). Severe side effects never occurred: Cardiac arrest, apnea, HTN emergency, laryngospasm.
c. Author Conclusions: This is a safe and effective drug.
d. Limitations & Controversies: Many hospitals, EDs, and nurses will still consider any ketamine use to be sedation until further education occurs.
e. My Take Home Point: This is the biggest study, but there are > 1000 patients reported in LDK studies for ED use. So I wrote a policy for our ED; please contact me for a copy of it.
a. Clinical Question: Can the Novel Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs) be reversed?
b. Methods & Results: Idarucizumab in a phase III trial reverse anticoagulation in patients with life threatening bleeding or needing emergent surgery. Andexanet Alfa in a phase II trial reversed markers of bleeding in healthy volunteers taking either apixaban or rivaroxaban. But only worked until 2 hours after stopping bolus or drip.
c. Author Conclusions: Idarucizumab study was stopped early due to finding benefit and is FDA approved as Praxbind. Andexanet has gone to phase III trial.
d. Limitations & Controversies: Idarucizumab was a fairly small trial with 22/90 patients who were later revealed to be sub-therapeutic on dabigitran.
e. My Take Home Point: Idarucizumab is now FDA approved and you will use it. Andexanet Alfa is coming soon to a pharmacy near you.
a. Clinical Question: Which is better 1:1:1 or 1:1:2 ratio? Platelets:Plasma:PRBCs
b. Methods & Results: Powered for a 10% mortality difference. Found only 4%, this was not statistically significant.
c. Author Conclusions: Suspected benefit. Also all mortality benefit found in the first 3 hours which would fit with helping achieve hemostasis. Subgroup analysis showed that hemostasis was achieved faster with 1:1:1 and also that the 1:1:2 group was postintervention given extra platelets & plasma and eventually caught up in blood product ratios.
d. Limitations & Controversies: There was no statistically significant mortality difference. The 1:1:1 group got platelets before anything whereas the 1:1:2 group got 9 units of blood product before platelets were given. So were we testing platelets or ratios?
e. My Take Home Point: 1:1:1 does look better, but the literature would clearly & strongly support either practice.
Written by Garreth Debiegun, MD
Edited and Posted by Jeffrey A Holmes, MD
Tired of reading? Watch Dr. Debiegun discuss these articles
Downeast Emergency Medicine
We are committed to providing high quality education to improve the care of the emergency patient in Maine, northern New England and beyond. We are a non-commercial website and have no financial conflicts of interest. We do not receive funding from, or host, advertisements.
