Search

Health care professionals and researchers can implement technology to improve older adults' acceptability of providing health information and to better include older adults in sharing information with health providers. However, older adults' engagement with technology remains low. This study focused on 60 Black older men (mean age = 70 years, SD = 6 years) with low back pain who completed the 13-item Computer Acceptability Scale after using the PAINReportIt ® software on an Apple iPad ® . On average, the sample found it acceptable to use PAINReportIt ® software to share their pain or discomfort but that this was no replacement for oral dialogue with their health care provider. These findings contribute valuable information about the acceptability of using technology and indicate potential opportunities to improve PAINReportIt ® software. Community interventions with acceptable tablet devices can offer new insight into collecting pain or discomfort data in populations with low presence in clinical research studies. [ Research in Gerontological Nursing, 16 (3), 108–114.]

BackgroundBaricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.MethodsIn this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168.FindingsBetween Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012).InterpretationIn hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered.FundingNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care interventions in the ED capture high-risk patients at a time of crisis and can dramatically improve patient-centered outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To understand the facilitators that contributed to the success of the Primary Palliative Care for Emergency Medicine (PRIM-ER) quality improvement pilot intervention. DESIGN: Effectiveness was evaluated through semi-structured interviews. Reach outcomes were measured by percent of all full-time emergency providers (physicians, physician assistants, nurses) who completed the intervention education components and baseline survey assessing attitudes and knowledge on end-of-life care. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency medicine providers affiliated with two medical centers (N = 197). Interviews conducted with six key informants at both institutions. APPROACH: Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using deductive and inductive approaches. Descriptive statistics include reach outcomes and baseline survey results. KEY RESULTS: Both sites successfully implemented all components of the intervention and achieved a high level (> 75%) of intervention reach. Two themes emerged as facilitators to successful effectiveness facilitators of PRIM-ER: (1) institutional leadership support and (2) leveraging established quality improvement (QI) processes. Institutional support included leveraging leadership with authority to (a) mandate trainings; (b) substitute PRIM-ER education for normally scheduled education; and (c) provide protected time to implement intervention components. Effectiveness was also enhanced by capitalizing on existing QI processes which included (a) leveraging interdisciplinary partnerships and communication plans and (b) monitoring performance improvement data. CONCLUSIONS: Capitalizing on strong institutional leadership support and established QI processes enhanced the reach and effectiveness of the PRIM-ER pilot. These findings will guide the PRIM-ER researchers in scaling up the intervention in the remaining 33 sites, as well as enhance the planning of other complex quality improvement interventions in clinical settings. REGISTRATION DETAILS: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03424109; Grant Number: AT009844-01 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-020-06302-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Summary Background Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Methods We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 μg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04492475 . Findings Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87–1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3–7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2–6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69–2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Interpretation Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo. Funding The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA).

Objectives: To assess ultra-early neuroprognostic significance of GFAP, NF-L, UCH-L1, tau, and S100B concentrations, change trajectory, and combination profile after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA). Methods: Prospective enrollment of 22 OHCA and 10 control patients at an academic tertiary care center between May 1, 2017 and January 28, 2020. Blood was collected within one hour of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (H0), at hours 6 (H6), 12, 18, 24, and daily or until discharge or death. Biomarker concentrations, multifactor score, and trajectory change were assessed and compared to final neurologic status (good vs poor Cerebral Performance Category; CPC 1–2 vs CPC 3–5, respectively). Results: 10 patients had good and 12 had poor neurologic outcomes. Poor outcome patients had higher biomarker concentrations and combined biomarker scores at early time points. The earliest significant difference between good and poor outcome patients’ serum biomarkers were at H12 for GFAP (good median: 425 pg/mL [IQR:370−630] vs poor: 5954[1712–65,055] pg/mL; p

Summary Background Infection with influenza virus causes substantial morbidity and mortality globally, although antiviral treatments are available. Previous studies have suggested that anti-influenza immune plasma could be beneficial as treatment, but they were not designed as randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trials. Therefore, we aimed to prospectively evaluate the clinical efficacy of high-titre immune plasma compared with standard low-titre plasma to improve outcomes in patients with severe influenza A infection. Methods We did this randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial at 41 US medical centres to assess the efficacy of high-titre anti-influenza plasma (haemagglutination inhibition antibody titre ≥1:80) compared with low-titre plasma (≤1:10). Children and adults with PCR-confirmed influenza A infection, a National Early Warning score of 3 or greater, and onset of illness within 6 days before randomisation were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using an interactive web response system to receive either two units (or paediatric equivalent) of high-titre plasma (high-titre group) or low-titre plasma (low-titre group), and were followed up for 28 days from randomisation. High-titre and low-titre plasma had the same appearance. Randomisation was stratified by severity (in intensive care unit, not in intensive care but requiring supplemental oxygen, or not in intensive care and not requiring supplemental oxygen) and age ( 1 indicates improvement in clinical status across all categories for the high-titre vs the low-titre group). The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population, excluding two participants who did not receive plasma. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02572817 . Findings Participants were recruited between Jan 26, 2016, and April 19, 2018. Of 200 participants enrolled (177 adults and 23 children), 140 met the criteria for randomisation and were assigned to the high-titre group (n=92) or to the control low-titre group (n=48). One participant from each group did not receive plasma. At baseline, 60 (43%) of 138 participants were in intensive care and 55 (71%) of 78 participants who were not in intensive care required oxygen. 93% of planned plasma infusions were completed. The study was terminated in July, 2018, when independent efficacy analysis showed low conditional power to detect an effect of high-titre plasma even if full accrual (150 participants) was achieved. The proportional OR for improved clinical status on day 7 was 1·22 (95% CI 0·65–2·29, p=0·54). 47 (34%) of 138 participants experienced 88 serious adverse events: 32 (35%) with 60 events in the high-titre group and 15 (32%) with 28 events in the low-titre group. The most common serious adverse events were acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS; four [4%] vs two [4%]), allergic transfusion reactions (two [2%] vs two [4%]), and respiratory distress (three [3%] vs none). 65 (47%) participants experienced 183 adverse events: 42 (46%) with 126 events in the high-titre group and 23 (49%) with 57 events in the low-titre group. The most common adverse events were anaemia (four [3%] vs two [4%]) and ARDS (four [3%] vs three [5%]). Ten patients died during the study (six [7%] in the high-titre group vs four [9%] in the low-titre group, p=0·73). The most common cause of death was worsening of acute respiratory distress syndrome (two [2%] vs two [4%] patients). Interpretation High-titre anti-influenza plasma conferred no significant benefit over non-immune plasma. Although our study did not have the precision to rule out a small, clinically relevant effect, the benefit is insufficient to justify the use of immune plasma for treating patients with severe influenza A. Funding National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, MD, USA).

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Objectives: Emergency department boarding is the practice of caring for admitted patients in the emergency department after hospital admission, and boarding has been a growing problem in the United States. Boarding of the critically ill has achieved specific attention because of its association with poor clinical outcomes. Accordingly, the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American College of Emergency Physicians convened a Task Force to understand the implications of emergency department boarding of the critically ill. The objective of this article is to review the U.S. literature on (1) the frequency of emergency department boarding among the critically ill, (2) the outcomes associated with critical care patient boarding, and (3) local strategies developed to mitigate the impact of emergency department critical care boarding on patient outcomes. Data Sources and Study Selection: Review article. Data Extraction and Data Synthesis: Emergency department–based boarding of the critically ill patient is common, but no nationally representative frequency estimates has been reported. Boarding literature is limited by variation in the definitions used for boarding and variation in the facilities studied (boarding ranges from 2% to 88% of ICU admissions). Prolonged boarding in the emergency department has been associated with longer duration of mechanical ventilation, longer ICU and hospital length of stay, and higher mortality. Health systems have developed multiple mitigation strategies to address emergency department boarding of critically ill patients, including emergency department-based interventions, hospital-based interventions, and emergency department–based resuscitation care units. Conclusions: Emergency department boarding of critically ill patients was common and was associated with worse clinical outcomes. Health systems have generated a number of strategies to mitigate these effects. A definition for emergency department boarding is proposed. Future work should establish formal criteria for analysis and benchmarking of emergency department–based boarding overall, with subsequent efforts focused on developing and reporting innovative strategies that improve clinical outcomes of critically ill patients boarded in the emergency department.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., OBJECTIVES: We aimed at utilizing ocular ultrasound to determine its utility in predicting outcomes among stroke patients. DESIGN: Single-center prospective observational study. SETTING: Emergency department and ICUs. PATIENTS: Patients suspected of stroke. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASURES AND MAIN RESULTS: Bilateral optic nerve sheath diameter was measured on arrival and within the first 2 days of admission. Outcomes were inpatient survival, Cerebral Performance Category, and modified Rankin Scale at 3 and 6 months. Analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics, paired t test, chi-square test. Eighty-six patients were enrolled with ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Mean age was 67.2 years (± 15 yr), and 54.7% of patients were male. There was no difference between left and right eye measurements (p = 0.467 and p = 0.903, respectively) or between longitudinal and transverse measurements (transverse p = 0.163 and longitudinal p = 0.270). Mean optic nerve sheath diameter differed in patients who survived versus died prior to discharge in both ischemic (0.53 vs 0.58 cm; p = 0.009) or hemorrhagic stroke (0.57 vs 0.62 cm; p = 0.019). For every 0.1 cm increase in optic nerve sheath diameter, odds ratio for death were 4.2 among ischemic stroke (95% CI, 1.32–13.64; p = 0.015), and odds ratio 6.2 among ischemic or hemorrhagic patients (95% CI, 1.160–33.382; p = 0.033). Increased optic nerve sheath diameter correlated (r = 0.44; p < 0.0001) with poor functional outcomes measured as modified Rankin Scale scores of 3–6 at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Elevations in optic nerve sheath diameter were associated with increased inhospital mortality and poor functional outcome at 6 months. Optic nerve sheath diameter may serve as a noninvasive marker of inhospital mortality and functional outcome. Further multicenter prospective trials for evaluating and treating optic nerve sheath diameter in ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes are warranted.

Summary Background Influenza causes substantial morbidity and mortality despite available treatments. Anecdotal reports suggest that plasma with high antibody titres to influenza might be of benefit in the treatment of severe influenza. Methods In this randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial, 29 academic medical centres in the USA assessed the safety and efficacy of anti-influenza plasma with haemagglutination inhibition antibody titres of 1:80 or more to the infecting strain. Hospitalised children and adults (including pregnant women) with severe influenza A or B (defined as the presence of hypoxia or tachypnoea) were randomly assigned to receive either two units (or paediatric equivalent) of anti-influenza plasma plus standard care, versus standard care alone, and were followed up for 28 days. The primary endpoint was time to normalisation of patients' respiratory status (respiratory rate of ≤20 breaths per min for adults or age-defined thresholds of 20–38 breaths per min for children) and a room air oxygen saturation of 93% or more. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01052480. Findings Between Jan 13, 2011, and March 2, 2015, 113 participants were screened for eligibility and 98 were randomly assigned from 20 out of 29 participating sites. Of the participants with confirmed influenza (by PCR), 28 (67%) of 42 in the plasma plus standard care group normalised their respiratory status by day 28 compared with 24 (53%) of 45 participants on standard care alone (p=0·069). The hazard ratio (HR) comparing plasma plus standard care with standard care alone was 1·71 (95% CI 0·96–3·06). Six participants died, one (2%) from the plasma plus standard care group and five (10%) from the standard care group (HR 0·19 [95% CI 0·02–1·65], p=0·093). Participants in the plasma plus standard care group had non-significant reductions in days in hospital (median 6 days [IQR 4–16] vs 11 days [5–25], p=0·13) and days on mechanical ventilation (median 0 days [IQR 0–6] vs 3 days [0–14], p=0·14). Fewer plasma plus standard care participants had serious adverse events compared with standard care alone recipients (nine [20%] of 46 vs 20 [38%] of 52, p=0·041), the most frequent of which were acute respiratory distress syndrome (one [2%] vs two [4%] patients) and stroke (one [2%] vs two [4%] patients). Interpretation Although there was no significant effect of plasma treatment on the primary endpoint, the treatment seemed safe and well tolerated. A phase 3 randomised trial is now underway to further assess this intervention. Funding National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, US National Institutes of Health.

Background Pneumonia is the leading cause of sepsis. In 2016, the 3rd International Consensus Conference for Sepsis released the Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) to identify risk for poor outcomes in sepsis. Objective We sought to externally validate qSOFA in emergency department (ED) patients with pneumonia and compare the accuracy of qSOFA to systemic inflammatory response syndrome score (SIRS), Confusion, Respiratory Rate and Blood Pressure (CRB), Confusion, Respiratory Rate, Blood Pressure and Age (CRB-65), and DS CRB-65, which is based on the CRB-65 score and includes two additional items-presence of underlying comorbid disease and blood oxygen saturation. Methods A subgroup analysis of U.S. Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group (USCIITG-Lung Injury Prevention Study [LIPS]; ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00889772) prospective cohort. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were measures of intensive care unit (ICU) utilization. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were reported. Results From March to August 2009, 5584 patients were enrolled; 713 met inclusion criteria. Median age was 61 years (interquartile range 49-75 years). SIRS criteria had the highest sensitivity for death (89%) and lowest specificity (25%), while CRB had the highest specificity (88%) and lowest sensitivity (31%), followed by qSOFA (80% and 53%, respectively). This trend was maintained for the secondary outcomes. There was no significant difference in the AUC for death using qSOFA (AUC 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.84), SIRS (AUC 0.70; 95% CI 0.61-0.78), CRB (AUC 0.71; 95% CI 0.62-0.80), CRB-65 (AUC 0.71; 95% CI 0.63-0.80), and DS CRB-65 (AUC 0.73; 95% CI 0.64-0.82). Conclusions In this multicenter observational study of ED patients hospitalized with pneumonia, we found no significant differences between qSOFA and SIRS for predicting in-hospital death. In addition, several popular pneumonia-specific severity scores performed nearly identically to qSOFA score in predicting death and ICU utilization. Validation is needed in a larger sample.

Objective. To study the impact of helmet use on outcomes after recreational vehicle accidents.Methods. This is an observational cohort of adult and pediatric patients who sustained a TBI while riding a recreational vehicle. Recreational vehicles included bicycles, motorcycles, and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), as well as a category for other vehicles such as skateboards and scooters.Results. Lack of helmet use was significantly associated with having a more severe traumatic brain injury and being admitted to the hospital. Similarly, 25% of those who did wearing a helmet were admitted to the ICU versus 36% of those who did not (P=0.0489). The hospital length of stay was significantly greater for patients who did not use helmets.Conclusion. Lack of helmet use is significantly correlated with abnormal neuroimaging and admission to the hospital and ICU; these data support a call for action to implement more widespread injury prevention and helmet safety education and advocacy.

Introduction: Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) leads to morbidity and mortality in patients with brain injury (stroke, head trauma, encephalopathy) and is an important cause of long-term neuro-cognitive deficit and death. While invasive monitoring techniques remain the diagnostic gold standard

Background Early identification of patients at risk of developing acute lung injury (ALI) is critical for potential preventive strategies. We aimed to derive and validate an acute lung injury prediction score (EDLIPS) in a multicenter sample of emergency department (ED) patients. Methods We performed a subgroup analysis of 4,361 ED patients enrolled in the previously reported multicenter observational study. ED risk factors and conditions associated with subsequent ALI development were identified and included in the EDLIPS model. Scores were derived and validated using logistic regression analyses. The model was assessed with the area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC) and compared to the original LIPS model (derived from a population of elective high-risk surgical and ED patients) and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score. Results The incidence of ALI was 7.0% (303/4361). EDLIPS discriminated patients who developed ALI from those who did not with an AUC of 0.78 (95% CI 0.75, 0.82), better than the APACHE II AUC 0.70 (p ≤ 0.001) and similar to the original LIPS score AUC 0.80 (p = 0.07). At an EDLIPS cutoff of 5 (range −0.5, 15) positive and negative likelihood ratios (95% CI) for ALI development were 2.74 (2.43, 3.07) and 0.39 (0.30, 0.49), respectively, with a sensitivity 0.72(0.64, 0.78), specificity 0.74 (0.72, 0.76), and positive and negative predictive value of 0.18 (0.15, 0.21) and 0.97 (0.96, 0.98). Conclusion EDLIPS may help identify patients at risk for ALI development early in the course of their ED presentation. This novel model may detect at-risk patients for treatment optimization and identify potential patients for ALI prevention trials.

Background To characterize the patterns of presentation of adults with head injury to the Emergency Department. Methods This is a cohort study that sought to collect injury and outcome variables with the goal of characterizing the very early natural history of traumatic brain injury in adults. This IRB-approved project was conducted in collaboration with our Institution’s Center for Translational Science Institute. Data were entered in REDCap, a secure database. Statistical analyses were performed using JMP 10.0 pro for Windows. Results The cohort consisted of 2,394 adults, with 40% being women and 79% Caucasian. The most common mechanism was fall (47%) followed by motor vehicle collision (MVC) (36%). Patients sustaining an MVC were significantly younger than those whose head injury was secondary to a fall (P < 0.0001). Ninety-one percent had CT imaging; hemorrhage was significantly more likely with worse severity as measured by the Glasgow Coma Score (chi-square, P < 0.0001). Forty-four percent were admitted to the hospital, with half requiring ICU admission. In-hospital death was observed in 5.4%, while neurosurgical intervention was required in 8%. For all outcomes, worse TBI severity per GCS was significantly associated with worse outcomes (logistic regression, P < 0.0001, adjusted for age). Conclusion These cohort data highlight the burden of TBI in the Emergency Department and provide important demographic trends for further research.