Search

Background: Currently there is a paucity of information about biomarkers that can predict hospitalization for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). There is limited data on the consistency of ED management of AECOPD with local COPD guidelines. The aim of this study was to identify biomarkers associated with hospitalization in AECOPD patients and to determine if the ED management was concordant with local COPD guidelines. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective audit of consecutive AECOPD patients presenting to the Gold Coast Hospital ED over a 6-month period. Results: During the study period, 122 AECOPD patients (51% male, mean age (SE) 71 (±11) years) presented to the ED. Ninety-eight (80%) patients were hospitalized. Univariate analysis identified certain factors associated with hospitalization: Older age, former smokers, home oxygen therapy, weekday presentation, SpO 2 < 92%, and raised inflammatory markers (white cell count (WCC) and C-reactive protein (CRP)). After adjustment for multiple variable, increased age was significantly associated with hospitalization (odds ratio (OR) 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00-1.18; P = 0.05). Radiology assessment and pharmacological management was in accordance with COPD guidelines. However, spirometry was performed in 17% of patients and 28% of patients with hypercapneic respiratory failure received noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Conclusion: We identified several factors on univariate analysis that were associated with hospitalization. Further research is required to determine the utility of these biomarkers in clinical practice. Also, while overall adherence to local COPD guidelines was good, there is scope for improvement in performing spirometry and provision of NIV to eligible patients.

Context: Hospitalized patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) may be managed by either respiratory specialists (RS) or general medicine physicians (GMP). While previous studies have audited the hospital AECOPD management of RS, only a small number of studies have evaluated the management of GMP. Aims: The aims of this study were to firstly examine the differences in AECOPD management of GMP and RS and secondly compare their care to national COPD guidelines. Methods: A retrospective review was undertaken of consecutive AECOPD patients admitted to two hospitals (one hospital where all AECOPD patients were managed by RS and another where all AECOPD patients were managed by GMP) over a 3-month period. Electronic medical records, medical case notes, pathology and radiology data for the admission were reviewed. Results: There were 201 COPD exacerbations in 169 patients (49.7% male, mean age 72.3). GMP managed 84 (41.7%) exacerbations. In comparison to RS, GMP performed fewer spirometry tests, blood gas analysis and less frequently treated patients with guideline-recommended medications. Referral to pulmonary rehabilitation was poor for both groups of clinicians. Median length of stay was shorter in GMP patients versus RS patients (3 days vs. 5 days, P = 0.001). There were no differences in the 12-month re-admission (41.7% vs. 38.5%, P = 0.664) and mortality rates (10.7% vs. 6%, P = 0.292) between both groups of patients. Conclusion: Our study found differences in the hospital AECOPD management of GMP and RS, but these did not translate into different clinical outcomes between their patients. We also found suboptimal adherence to national COPD guidelines, suggesting that there is scope for improvement in the AECOPD management of both groups of clinicians.