Inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter variability with respiration measured by ultrasound was found to be useful for the diagnosis of heart failure (HF) in ED patients with acute dyspnea. Its value in ...identifying HF in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation (AECOPD) was not specifically demonstrated.
To determine the value of ΔIVC in the diagnosis of HF patients with AECOPD.
This is a prospective study conducted in the ED of three Tunisian university hospitals including patients with AECOPD. During this period, 401 patients met the inclusion criteria. The final diagnosis of HF is based on the opinion of two emergency experts after consulting the data from clinical examination, cardiac echocardiography, and BNP level. The ΔIVC was calculated by two experienced emergency physicians who were blinded from the patient's clinical and laboratory data. A cut off of 15% was used to define the presence (< 15%) or absence of HF (≥ 15%). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was also measured. The area under the ROC curve, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated to determine the diagnostic and predictive accuracy of the ΔIVC in predicting HF.
The study population included 401 patients with AECOPD, mean age 67.2 years with male (68.9%) predominance. HF was diagnosed in 165 (41.1%) patients (HF group) and in 236 patients (58.9%) HF was excluded (non HF group). The assessment of the performance of the ΔIVC in the diagnosis of HF showed a sensitivity of 37.4% and a specificity of 89.7% using the threshold of 15%. The positive predictive value was 70.9% and the negative predictive value was 66.7%. The area under the ROC curve was 0.71(95%, CI 0.65-0.76). ΔIVC values were not different between HF patients with reduced LVEF and those with preserved LVEF.
Our results showed that ΔIVC has a good value for ruling out HF in ED patients consulting for AECOPD.
We wished to determine whether the addition of magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) or lidocaine to diclofenac could improve the analgesic efficacy in emergency department (ED) patients with acute renal colic.
...In this prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial of patients aged 18 to 65 years with suspected acute renal colic, we randomized them to receive 75 mg intramuscular (IM) diclofenac and then intravenous (IV) MgSO4, lidocaine, or saline solution control. Subjects reported their pain using a numerical rating scale (NRS) before drug administration and then 5, 10, 20, 30, 60, and 90 minutes afterwards. Our primary outcome was the proportion of participants achieving at least a 50% reduction in the NRS score 30 minutes after drug administration.
We enrolled 280 patients in each group. A 50% or greater reduction in the NRS score at 30 minutes occurred in 227 (81.7%) patients in the MgSO4 group, 204 (72.9%) in the lidocaine group, and 201 (71.8%) in the control group, with significant differences between MgSO4 and lidocaine (8.8%, 95% confidence interval CI 1.89 to 15.7, P=.013) and between MgSO4 and control (9.9%, 95% CI 2.95 to 16.84, P=.004). Despite this, differences between all groups at every time point were below the accepted 1.3 threshold for clinical importance. There were no observed differences between groups in the frequency of rescue analgesics and return visits to the ED for renal colic. There were more adverse events, although minor, in the MgSO4 group.
Adding intravenous MgSO4, but not lidocaine, to IM diclofenac offered superior pain relief but at levels below accepted thresholds for clinical importance.
Renal colic (RC) is a common urologic emergency often leading to significant pain and recurrent hospital visits. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of piroxicam versus paracetamol in ...preventing pain recurrence and hospital readmission in patients treated for RC and discharged from the emergency department (ED).OBJECTIVERenal colic (RC) is a common urologic emergency often leading to significant pain and recurrent hospital visits. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of piroxicam versus paracetamol in preventing pain recurrence and hospital readmission in patients treated for RC and discharged from the emergency department (ED).A prospective, randomized, single-blind trial was conducted in four EDs. Eligible adults with RC were randomized to receive oral piroxicam, paracetamol, or placebo for 5 days post-ED discharge. Primary outcomes included pain recurrence and ED readmission within 7 days. Secondary outcomes included time to recurrence and treatment-related side effects.METHODSA prospective, randomized, single-blind trial was conducted in four EDs. Eligible adults with RC were randomized to receive oral piroxicam, paracetamol, or placebo for 5 days post-ED discharge. Primary outcomes included pain recurrence and ED readmission within 7 days. Secondary outcomes included time to recurrence and treatment-related side effects.Of 1383 enrolled patients, no significant differences were observed among the groups regarding baseline characteristics. Pain recurrence rates within 7 days were 29% (95% confidence interval CI 24.9%-33.2%) for piroxicam, 30.3% (95% CI 26.1%-34.5%) for paracetamol, and 30.8% (95% CI 26.6%-35.0%) for placebo, with no significant between-group differences (p = 0.84). Among patients experiencing recurrence, the majority encounter it within the initial 2 days following their discharge (86% in the piroxicam group, 84.1% in the paracetamol group, and 86% in the placebo group, respectively). ED readmission rates were similar across groups: 20.8% (95% CI 17.1%-24.5%) in the piroxicam group, 23.8% (95% CI 19.9%-27.7%) in the paracetamol group, and 22.9% (95% CI 19.1%-26.8%) in the placebo group (p = 0.52). The piroxicam group reported significantly higher adverse effects compared to others.RESULTSOf 1383 enrolled patients, no significant differences were observed among the groups regarding baseline characteristics. Pain recurrence rates within 7 days were 29% (95% confidence interval CI 24.9%-33.2%) for piroxicam, 30.3% (95% CI 26.1%-34.5%) for paracetamol, and 30.8% (95% CI 26.6%-35.0%) for placebo, with no significant between-group differences (p = 0.84). Among patients experiencing recurrence, the majority encounter it within the initial 2 days following their discharge (86% in the piroxicam group, 84.1% in the paracetamol group, and 86% in the placebo group, respectively). ED readmission rates were similar across groups: 20.8% (95% CI 17.1%-24.5%) in the piroxicam group, 23.8% (95% CI 19.9%-27.7%) in the paracetamol group, and 22.9% (95% CI 19.1%-26.8%) in the placebo group (p = 0.52). The piroxicam group reported significantly higher adverse effects compared to others.Piroxicam and paracetamol did not demonstrate efficacy in preventing pain recurrence or ED readmission within the first week following RC treatment.CONCLUSIONSPiroxicam and paracetamol did not demonstrate efficacy in preventing pain recurrence or ED readmission within the first week following RC treatment.
Identifying heart failure (HF) in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) can be challenging. Lung ultrasound sonography (LUS) B-lines quantification has recently gained ...a large place in the diagnosis of HF, but its diagnostic performance in AECOPD remains poorly studied.IntroductionIdentifying heart failure (HF) in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) can be challenging. Lung ultrasound sonography (LUS) B-lines quantification has recently gained a large place in the diagnosis of HF, but its diagnostic performance in AECOPD remains poorly studied.This study aimed to assess the contribution of LUS B-lines score (LUS score) in the diagnosis of HF in AECOPD patients.PurposeThis study aimed to assess the contribution of LUS B-lines score (LUS score) in the diagnosis of HF in AECOPD patients.This is a prospective cross-sectional multicenter cohort study including patients admitted to the emergency department for AECOPD. All included patients underwent LUS. A lung ultrasound score (LUS score) based on B-lines calculation was assessed. A cardiac origin of dyspnea was retained for a LUS score greater than 15. HF diagnosis was based on clinical examination, pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels, and echocardiographic findings. The LUS score diagnostic performance was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio at the best cutoffs.Patients and methodsThis is a prospective cross-sectional multicenter cohort study including patients admitted to the emergency department for AECOPD. All included patients underwent LUS. A lung ultrasound score (LUS score) based on B-lines calculation was assessed. A cardiac origin of dyspnea was retained for a LUS score greater than 15. HF diagnosis was based on clinical examination, pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels, and echocardiographic findings. The LUS score diagnostic performance was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio at the best cutoffs.We included 380 patients, mean age was 68±11.6 years, sex ratio (M/F) 1.96. Patients were divided into two groups: the HF group n=157 (41.4%) and the non-HF group n=223 (58.6%). Mean LUS score was higher in the HF group (26.8±8.4 vs 15.3±7.1; p<0.001). The mean LUS score in the HF patients with reduced LVEF was 29.2±8.7, and was 24.5±7.6 in the HF patients with preserved LVEF. LUS score area under ROC curve for the diagnosis of HF was 0.71 0.65-0.76. The best sensitivity (89% 85.9-92,1) was observed at the threshold of 5; the best specificity (85% 81.4-88.6) was observed at the threshold of 30. Correlation between LUS score and E/E' ratio was good (R=0.46, p=0.0001).ResultsWe included 380 patients, mean age was 68±11.6 years, sex ratio (M/F) 1.96. Patients were divided into two groups: the HF group n=157 (41.4%) and the non-HF group n=223 (58.6%). Mean LUS score was higher in the HF group (26.8±8.4 vs 15.3±7.1; p<0.001). The mean LUS score in the HF patients with reduced LVEF was 29.2±8.7, and was 24.5±7.6 in the HF patients with preserved LVEF. LUS score area under ROC curve for the diagnosis of HF was 0.71 0.65-0.76. The best sensitivity (89% 85.9-92,1) was observed at the threshold of 5; the best specificity (85% 81.4-88.6) was observed at the threshold of 30. Correlation between LUS score and E/E' ratio was good (R=0.46, p=0.0001).Our results suggest that LUS score could be helpful and should be considered in the diagnostic approach of HF in AECOPD patients, at least as a ruling in test.ConclusionOur results suggest that LUS score could be helpful and should be considered in the diagnostic approach of HF in AECOPD patients, at least as a ruling in test.
Objectives
Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen (also called paracetamol) are the most frequent analgesics used to relieve posttrauma pain in the emergency department (ED). ...However, the utility of combining both treatments is still controversial. We sought to explore the benefits of combining an NSAID with acetaminophen compared to acetaminophen alone, or NSAID alone, in the treatment of posttraumatic pain of the extremity after discharge from the ED.
Methods
This is a prospective, randomized controlled trial, carried out in a single ED from March 2017 to November 2018. The included patients were randomly assigned to receive paracetamol alone, high‐dose NSAID (piroxicam) alone, or a combination of paracetamol and high‐dose NSAID for 7 days after ED discharge. The primary outcome was need for additional oral analgesics. Secondary outcomes included the change of the visual numeric scale (VNS) between ED discharge (VNS D0) and 7 days later (VNS D7), ED revisits for residual pain, side effects, and patient satisfaction as assessed by a Likert satisfaction scale.
Results
The need for additional oral analgesics was comparable between the paracetamol–NSAID combination group (9.8%) and the paracetamol group (11.4%; p = 0.43). ED readmission rate was also comparable between the two groups at 5.6 and 5.8%, respectively (p = 0.86). In contrast, need for new analgesics and ED revisit rates were both more frequent in the high‐dose NSAID group. Mean VNS decreases on day 7 compared to day 0 were 66, 63, and 67%, respectively, in the paracetamol, NSAID, and paracetamol–NSAID combination groups (p = 0.32). Frequency of dissatisfaction was higher in the NSAID group. Side effects were more frequent in the NSAID and paracetamol–NSAID combination groups.
Conclusion
This study found that the combination of a high‐dose NSAID with paracetamol does not increase the analgesic effect compared to paracetamol alone. We also found that paracetamol alone is superior to high‐dose NSAID alone for posttraumatic extremity pain.
