Search

Objectives: Evaluate the associations between patients taking ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and their clinical outcomes after an acute viral respiratory illness (AVRI) due to COVID-19., Design: Retrospective cohort., Setting: The USA; 2017-2018 influenza season, 2018-2019 influenza season, and 2019-2020 influenza/COVID-19 season., Participants: People with hypertension (HTN) taking an ACEi, ARB or other HTN medications, and experiencing AVRI., Main Outcome Measures: Change in hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) or coronary care unit (CCU), acute respiratory distress (ARD), ARD syndrome (ARDS) and all-cause mortality, comparing COVID-19 to pre-COVID-19 influenza seasons., Results: The cohort included 1 059 474 episodes of AVRI (653 797 filled an ACEi or ARB, and 405 677 other HTN medications). 58.6% were women and 72.9% with age ≥65. The ACEi/ARB cohort saw a larger increase in risk in the COVID-19 influenza season than the other HTN medication cohort for four out of five outcomes, with an additional 1.5 percentage point (pp) increase in risk of an inpatient stay (95% CI 1.2 to 1.9 pp) and of ICU/CCU use (95% CI 0.3 to 2.7 pp) as well as a 0.7 pp (0.1 to 1.2 pp) additional increase in risk of ARD and 0.9 pp (0.4 to 1.3 pp) additional increase in risk of ARDS. There was no statistically significant difference in the absolute risk of death (-0.2 pp, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.1 pp). However, the relative risk of death in 2019/2020 versus 2017/2018 for the ACEi/ARB group was larger (1.40 (1.36 to 1.44)) than for the other HTN medication cohort (1.24 (1.21 to 1.28))., Conclusions: People with AVRI using ACEi/ARBs for HTN had a greater increase in poor outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic than those using other medications to treat HTN. The small absolute magnitude of the differences likely does not support changes in clinical practice., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To describe the epidemiology of paediatric pain-related visits to emergency departments (EDs) across the USA., Design: Cross-sectional study., Setting: A representative sample of US ED visits using data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS)., Participants: Paediatric (age ≤18 years) ED visits in the 2017 NHAMCS data set., Data Analysis: Each visit was coded as pain-related or non-pain-related using the 'reason for visit' variable. Weighted proportions were calculated with 95% CIs. Logistic regression was used to compare odds of pain-related visits., Outcome Measures: Prevalence of pain-related visits among paediatric ED visits., Results: There were an estimated 35 million paediatric ED visits in the USA in 2017, 55.6% (CI 53.3% to 57.8%) were pain related, which equates to 19.7 million annual visits. The prevalence of pain-related visits reached more than 50% of visits at age 6-7 and plateaued at relatively high proportions. Children of races other than white or black had lower odds of having a pain-related visit (OR 0.48, CI 0.29 to 0.81) than white children, as did children who were black, though the difference was not statistically significant (OR 0.88, CI 0.73 to 1.06). Relative to children covered by private insurance, children with Medicaid or CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) coverage had lower odds of a pain-related visit (OR 0.75, CI 0.60 to 0.93). Injuries represented 46.5% (CI 42.0% to 51.0%) of pain-related visits. Pain scores were reported in less than 50% of pain-related visits., Conclusion: Pain is the reason for visit in 55.6% of paediatric ED visits across the USA. The prevalence of pain-related visits peak before adolescence and it continues relatively high until the age 18. Injury, racial disparities in pain and poor pain score reporting should remain major topics of study in the paediatric population., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Delirium is commonly missed in older adults presenting to the emergency department (ED). Although current recommendations for active screening of delirium in the ED, this might not be feasible or practical. Identifying patients at high risk for prevalent and incident delirium in the ED will help to improve the screening process and to build interventions. There is currently scattered synthesis of evidence on risk factors associated with delirium in the ED. To address this gap, we are conducting a systematic review to describe the risk factors (patient vulnerability factors and precipitating factors) for delirium in the ED., Methods and Analysis: A literature search was performed from inception to March 2020 in Ovid EBM Reviews, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science. We will include original research studies that report a quantitative relationship between at least one risk factor and delirium in the ED setting. Two investigators will use eligibility criteria from this protocol to independently screen titles and abstracts, and select studies based on full-text review of potentially eligible studies. After arriving at a final set of included studies, two investigators will extract data using a standardised data collection form. If appropriate, data regarding each risk factor will be pooled through a random-effect meta-analysis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be used to evaluate the overall quality of evidence., Ethics and Dissemination: To our knowledge, this will be the first systematic review evaluating risk factors for prevalent and incident delirium specifically related to the ED setting. Results of this study will aid in the identification of older adults at risk for delirium in the ED. We aim to publish the results of this systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal with good visibility for the fields of emergency medicine and geriatrics. PROSPERO registration number CDR42020175261., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)