[Patient restraint in the emergency department: a daily challenge]

The context of the emergency department particularly exposes professionals to situations where the question of restraint arises. This article describes the indications and modalities of physical restraint. Physical restraint should be considered as a last resort, and requires systematic ethical questioning.

Effect of a Diagnostic Strategy Using an Elevated and Age-Adjusted D-Dimer Threshold on Thromboembolic Events in Emergency Department Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Uncontrolled studies suggest that pulmonary embolism (PE) can be safely ruled out using the YEARS rule, a diagnostic strategy that uses varying D-dimer thresholds.

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively validate the safety of a strategy that combines the YEARS rule with the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) rule and an age-adjusted D-dimer threshold.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cluster-randomized, crossover, noninferiority trial in 18 emergency departments (EDs) in France and Spain. Patients (N = 1414) who had a low clinical risk of PE not excluded by the PERC rule or a subjective clinical intermediate risk of PE were included from October 2019 to June 2020, and followed up until October 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Each center was randomized for the sequence of intervention periods. In the intervention period (726 patients), PE was excluded without chest imaging in patients with no YEARS criteria and a D-dimer level less than 1000 ng/mL and in patients with 1 or more YEARS criteria and a D-dimer level less than the age-adjusted threshold (500 ng/mL if age <50 years or age in years × 10 in patients ≥50 years). In the control period (688 patients), PE was excluded without chest imaging if the D-dimer level was less than the age-adjusted threshold.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was venous thromboembolism (VTE) at 3 months. The noninferiority margin was set at 1.35%. There were 8 secondary end points, including chest imaging, ED length of stay, hospital admission, nonindicated anticoagulation treatment, all-cause death, and all-cause readmission at 3 months.

RESULTS

Of the 1414 included patients (mean age, 55 years; 58% female), 1217 (86%) were analyzed in the per-protocol analysis. PE was diagnosed in the ED in 100 patients (7.1%). At 3 months, VTE was diagnosed in 1 patient in the intervention group (0.15% [95% CI, 0.0% to 0.86%]) vs 5 patients in the control group (0.80% [95% CI, 0.26% to 1.86%]) (adjusted difference, -0.64% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 0.21%], within the noninferiority margin). Of the 6 analyzed secondary end points, only 2 showed a statistically significant difference in the intervention group compared with the control group: chest imaging (30.4% vs 40.0%; adjusted difference, -8.7% [95% CI, -13.8% to -3.5%]) and ED median length of stay (6 hours [IQR, 4 to 8 hours] vs 6 hours [IQR, 5 to 9 hours]; adjusted difference, -1.6 hours [95% CI, -2.3 to -0.9]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among ED patients with suspected PE, the use of the YEARS rule combined with the age-adjusted D-dimer threshold in PERC-positive patients, compared with a conventional diagnostic strategy, did not result in an inferior rate of thromboembolic events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04032769.

Acute icteric hepatitis as the first isolated symptom of COVID-19

Patients with COVID-19 may be asymptomatic or present with extrarespiratory symptoms, such as liver injury. It has been reported that 22.5%–46.2% of patients have moderate elevation of liver enzymes. To our knowledge, acute hepatitis has never been described as an isolated symptom of COVID-19 in a previously healthy patient. We report the case of a 53-year-old patient with COVID-19 whose first clinical presentation was acute icteric hepatitis, several days before the development of others symptoms. During the pandemic, we suggest that patients with acute hepatitis be considered as COVID-19 suspects, tested and isolated.

Guideline-Based Clinical Assessment Versus Procalcitonin-Guided Antibiotic Use in Pneumonia: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Efforts to reduce unnecessary and unnecessarily long antibiotic treatment for community-acquired pneumonia have been attempted through use of procalcitonin and through guidelines based on serial clinical assessment. Our aim is to compare guideline-based clinical assessment- and procalcitonin algorithm-guided antibiotic use among patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

METHODS

We performed a pragmatic, randomized, multicenter trial from November 2012 to April 2015 at 12 French hospitals. We included emergency department (ED) patients older than 18 years with community-acquired pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned to either the procalcitonin-guided or clinical assessment group. In accordance with past studies, we hypothesized that serial clinical assessment would be superior to procalcitonin-guided care. The primary outcome was antibiotic duration, and secondary outcomes included rates of antibiotic duration less than or equal to 5 days, and clinical success and combined serious adverse outcomes at 30 days in the intention-to-treat population.

RESULTS

Of 370 eligible patients, 285 (77%) were randomly assigned to either clinical assessment- (n=143) or procalcitonin-guided care (n=142). Median age was 67 years (range 18 to 93 years) and 40% of patients were deemed to have Pneumonia Severity Index class IV or V. Procalcitonin algorithm adherence was 76%. Antibiotic duration was not significantly different between clinical assessment- and procalcitonin-guided groups (median 9 versus 10 days, respectively). Clinical success rate was 92% in each group and serious adverse outcome rates were similar (15% versus 20%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Guideline-based serial clinical assessment did not reduce antibiotic exposure compared with procalcitonin-guided care among ED patients with community-acquired pneumonia. The strategies were similar in terms of duration of antibiotic use and clinical outcomes.

Effect of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria on Subsequent Thromboembolic Events Among Low-Risk Emergency Department Patients: The PROPER Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The safety of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC), an 8-item block of clinical criteria aimed at ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE), has not been assessed in a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively validate the safety of a PERC-based strategy to rule out PE.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

A crossover cluster-randomized clinical noninferiority trial in 14 emergency departments in France. Patients with a low gestalt clinical probability of PE were included from August 2015 to September 2016, and followed up until December 2016.

INTERVENTIONS

Each center was randomized for the sequence of intervention periods. In the PERC period, the diagnosis of PE was excluded with no further testing if all 8 items of the PERC rule were negative.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was the occurrence of a thromboembolic event during the 3-month follow-up period that was not initially diagnosed. The noninferiority margin was set at 1.5%. Secondary end points included the rate of computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA), median length of stay in the emergency department, and rate of hospital admission.

RESULTS

Among 1916 patients who were cluster-randomized (mean age 44 years, 980 [51%] women), 962 were assigned to the PERC group and 954 were assigned to the control group. A total of 1749 patients completed the trial. A PE was diagnosed at initial presentation in 26 patients in the control group (2.7%) vs 14 (1.5%) in the PERC group (difference, 1.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.7%]; P = .052). One PE (0.1%) was diagnosed during follow-up in the PERC group vs none in the control group (difference, 0.1% [95% CI, -∞ to 0.8%]). The proportion of patients undergoing CTPA in the PERC group vs control group was 13% vs 23% (difference, -10% [95% CI, -13% to -6%]; P < .001). In the PERC group, rates were significantly reduced for the median length of emergency department stay (mean reduction, 36 minutes [95% CI, 4 to 68]) and hospital admission (difference, 3.3% [95% CI, 0.1% to 6.6%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among very low-risk patients with suspected PE, randomization to a PERC strategy vs conventional strategy did not result in an inferior rate of thromboembolic events over 3 months. These findings support the safety of PERC for very low-risk patients presenting to the emergency department.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02375919.

Emergency Care for Homeless Patients: A French Multicenter Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether homeless patients experience suboptimal care in the emergency department (ED) by the provision of fewer health care resources.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective multicenter cohort study in 30 EDs in France. During 72 hours in March 2015, all homeless patients that visited the participating EDs were included in the study. The primary health care service measure was the order by the physician of a diagnostic investigation or provision of a treatment in the ED. Secondary measures of health care services included ED waiting time, number and type of investigations per patient, treatment in the ED, and discharge disposition.

RESULTS

A total of 254 homeless patients and 254 nonhomeless patients were included. After excluding homeless patients that attended the ED for the sole purpose of housing, we analyzed 214 homeless and 214 nonhomeless. We found no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of health care resource consumption, and for our secondary endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find significant differences in the level of medical care delivered in French EDs to homeless patients compared with matched nonhomeless patients.