RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Although largely used, the place of oxygen therapy and its devices in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ARF) deserves to be clarified. The French Intensive Care Society (Société de Réanimation de Langue Française, SRLF) and the French Emergency Medicine Society (Société Française de Médecine d'Urgence, SFMU) organized a consensus conference on oxygen therapy in ARF (excluding acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema and hypercapnic exacerbation of chronic obstructive diseases) in December 2023. METHODS: A committee without any conflict of interest (CoI) with the subject defined 7 generic questions and drew up a list of sub questions according to the population, intervention, comparison and outcomes (PICO) model. An independent work group reviewed the literature using predefined keywords. The quality of the data was assessed using the GRADE methodology. Fifteen experts in the field from both societies proposed their own answers in a public session and answered questions from the jury (a panel of 16 critical-care and emergency medicine physicians, nurses and physiotherapists without any CoI) and the public. The jury then met alone for 48 h to write its recommendations. RESULTS: The jury provided 22 statements answering 11 questions: in patients with ARF (1) What are the criteria for initiating oxygen therapy? (2) What are the targets of oxygen saturation? (3) What is the role of blood gas analysis? (4) When should an arterial catheter be inserted? (5) Should standard oxygen therapy, high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) be preferred? (6) What are the indications for non-invasive ventilation (NIV)? (7) What are the indications for invasive mechanical ventilation? (8) Should awake prone position be used? (9) What is the role of physiotherapy? (10) Which criteria necessarily lead to ICU admission? (11) Which oxygenation device should be preferred for patients for whom a do-not-intubate decision has been made? CONCLUSION: These recommendations should optimize the use of oxygen during ARF.
RESUMEN
The optimal diagnosis strategy for pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED) remains complex. This review summarizes PE diagnosis with clinical presentation, decision rules and investigations for acute PE. This review was performed using studies published between January 1, 2010, and September 1, 2023. PE should be considered in ED in patients with chest pain, shortness of breath, syncope or signs of deep veinous thrombosis. Definitive diagnosis of PE relies on thoracic imaging, with the use of chest tomographic pulmonary angiogram or ventilation-perfusion lung scintigraphy. To limit the continuous increased use of chest imaging, the clinical probability should be the first step for PE workup. The pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) can rule out PE at this stage. If not, for low or intermediate probability, several clinical decision rules have been validated, either by ruling out PE on clinical signs, or by raising D-dimer thresholds (YEARS or PEGeD [Pulmonary Embolism Graduated D-Dimer] criteria) or by combination of these different rules. It is recommended that patients with a high clinical probability of PE should undergo chest imaging without the need for D-dimer testing. The PE diagnostic approach can be tailored in specific populations such as pregnant, younger, COVID-19, or cancer patients. PE diagnosis workup illustrates the complexity of modern probabilistic-based approaches of decision-making in medicine. It is recommended to use a Bayesian approach with the evaluation of clinical probability, then order D-dimer if the PERC rule is positive, then adapt the D-dimer threshold for ordering chest imaging using clinical decision rules.
RESUMEN
Objetivos: Evaluar la capacidad de la regla PERC (Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria) y la regla modificada por edad (PERC-35) para descartar tromboembolia pulmonar (TEP) en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) en pacientes # 35 años. El objetivo secundario fue analizar otras reglas de decisión clínica. Método: Análisis post-hoc de 3 estudios de cohorte europeos (PROPER, PERCEPIC y MODIGLIANI). Se incluyeron pacientes # 35 años con sospecha de TEP en SUH y con seguimiento a 3 meses. La seguridad y eficacia de PERC yPERC-35 se evaluaron con su tasa de error -no detectar TEP- y la proporción de pacientes con diagnóstico de TEP descartado. Se evaluó la seguridad y eficacia de las reglas YEARS y PEGeD. Resultados: Se analizaron 1.235 pacientes # 35 años. Hubo 22 (1,8%, IC 95%: 1,2-2,7) TEP diagnosticados a los 3 meses. Hubo 6 (1,0%, IC 95%: 0,5-2,2) y 5 (0,9%, IC 95%: 0,4-2,1) TEP no diagnosticados con las reglas PERC y PERC-35 respectivamente. Estas reglas permitieron descartar TEP en 591 (48,2%, IC 95%: 45,4- 51,0) y 554 (46,2%, IC 95%: 43,4- 49,0) respectivamente. La tasa de error de YEARS y PEGeD fue del 0,4% (IC 95%: 0,1- 1,1) y 0,5% (IC 95%: 0,2-1,2), con una eficacia similar. Conclusiones: En pacientes # 35 años, las reglas PERC y PERC-35 mostraron perfiles de seguridad y eficacia similares. Sin embargo, el amplio intervalo de confianza comunicado en este estudio no permite confirmar su seguridad. (AU)
Objectives: To assess the performance of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) and the age-modified PERC-35 tool in hospital emergency departments (EDs) for evaluating patients aged 35 years or younger. A secondary aim was to assess other decision-making criteria. Method: Post-hoc analysis of 3 European cohort studies. We included data for patients aged 35 years or younger suspected of PE who were followed for 3 months. The safety and efficacy of applying the PERC and PERC-35 were assessed with the diagnostic error rate (failure to detect PE) and the proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis of PE was ruled out. We also assessed the safety and efficacy of applying the YEARS and PEGeD criteria. Results: Data for 1235 patients aged 35 years or younger were analyzed. Twenty-two (1.8%; 95% CI, 1.2%-2.7%) PE cases were diagnosed at 3 months. Six (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.5%-2.2%) and 5 (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.4%-2.1%) PE cases were not diagnosed by the PERC and PERC-35 tools, respectively. These tools allowed PE to be ruled out in 591 (48.2%; 95% CI, 45.4%-51.0%) and 554 (46.2%; 95% CI, 43.4%-49.0%) cases, respectively. The error rates of the YEARS and PEGeD criteria, respectively, were 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.1%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.2%); their efficacy was similar. Conclusions: The safety and efficacy profiles of the PERC and PERC-35 algorithms were similar in patients aged 35 years or younger. However, the large confidence intervals we report do not allow us to confirm the safety of using the tools in patients in this age group. (AU)
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Recién Nacido , Lactante , Preescolar , Niño , Adolescente , Adulto Joven , Adulto , Embolia Pulmonar , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Estudios de Cohortes , Estudios Prospectivos , Europa (Continente)RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) and the age-modified PERC-35 tool in hospital emergency departments (EDs) for evaluating patients aged 35 years or younger. A secondary aim was to assess other decision-making criteria. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of 3 European cohort studies. We included data for patients aged 35 years or younger suspected of PE who were followed for 3 months. The safety and efficacy of applying the PERC and PERC-35 were assessed with the diagnostic error rate (failure to detect PE) and the proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis of PE was ruled out. We also assessed the safety and efficacy of applying the YEARS and PEGeD criteria. RESULTS: Data for 1235 patients aged 35 years or younger were analyzed. Twenty-two (1.8%; 95% CI, 1.2%-2.7%) PE cases were diagnosed at 3 months. Six (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.5%-2.2%) and 5 (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.4%-2.1%) PE cases were not diagnosed by the PERC and PERC-35 tools, respectively. These tools allowed PE to be ruled out in 591 (48.2%; 95% CI, 45.4%-51.0%) and 554 (46.2%; 95% CI, 43.4%-49.0%) cases, respectively. The error rates of the YEARS and PEGeD criteria, respectively, were 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.1%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.2%); their efficacy was similar. CONCLUSION: The safety and efficacy profiles of the PERC and PERC-35 algorithms were similar in patients aged 35 years or younger. However, the large confidence intervals we report do not allow us to confirm the safety of using the tools in patients in this age group.
OBJETIVO: Evaluar la capacidad de la regla PERC (Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria) y la regla modificada por edad (PERC-35) para descartar tromboembolia pulmonar (TEP) en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) en pacientes 35 años. El objetivo secundario fue analizar otras reglas de decisión clínica. METODO: Análisis post-hoc de 3 estudios de cohorte europeos (PROPER, PERCEPIC y MODIGLIANI). Se incluyeron pacientes 35 años con sospecha de TEP en SUH y con seguimiento a 3 meses. La seguridad y eficacia de PERC y PERC-35 se evaluaron con su tasa de error -no detectar TEP- y la proporción de pacientes con diagnóstico de TEP descartado. Se evaluó la seguridad y eficacia de las reglas YEARS y PEGeD. RESULTADOS: Se analizaron 1.235 pacientes 35 años. Hubo 22 (1,8%, IC 95%: 1,2-2,7) TEP diagnosticados a los 3 meses. Hubo 6 (1,0%, IC 95%: 0,5-2,2) y 5 (0,9%, IC 95%: 0,4-2,1) TEP no diagnosticados con las reglas PERC y PERC-35 respectivamente. Estas reglas permitieron descartar TEP en 591 (48,2%, IC 95%: 45,4- 51,0) y 554 (46,2%, IC 95%: 43,4- 49,0) respectivamente. La tasa de error de YEARS y PEGeD fue del 0,4% (IC 95%: 0,1- 1,1) y 0,5% (IC 95%: 0,2-1,2), con una eficacia similar. CONCLUSIONES: En pacientes 35 años, las reglas PERC y PERC-35 mostraron perfiles de seguridad y eficacia similares. Sin embargo, el amplio intervalo de confianza comunicado en este estudio no permite confirmar su seguridad.
Asunto(s)
Embolia Pulmonar , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Embolia Pulmonar/diagnóstico , Estudios de Cohortes , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , HospitalesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Hemoptysis is not common in pulmonary embolism (PE) and lacks specificity for its diagnosis. However, this item is present in different validated scores that estimate the clinical probability of PE. The relevance of this item in clinical decision rules (CDRs) is not clearly established. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of removing the "hemoptysis" item from the PERC, YEARS, and PEGeD CDR in patients with low clinical probability of PE. DESIGN: This was a post hoc analysis of two European prospective cohorts, which included 2968 patients presenting to the ED with a low clinical probability of PE (PROPER and PERCEPIC) and a 3-month follow-up. The primary endpoint was the false-negative rate of a CDR score without the hemoptysis item. Secondary endpoints included the potential reduction of chest imaging if the item hemoptysis was to be removed and risk stratification of the Geneva and Wells scores without the hemoptysis item. RESULTS: Of 2968 patients included (mean ± SD age 46 ± 18 years, 53% female), 87 patients (3%) had a PE diagnosed at 3 months. A total of 2908 were followed-up at 3 months and analyzed. Using the PERC rule with and without the hemoptysis item, there were 13 and 14 missed cases of PE, respectively (failure rate 0.45% [95% CI 0.25%-0.78%] and 0.48% [95% CI 0.27%-0.82%]). Using the YEARS strategy, there were 11 missed PE cases with or without the hemoptysis item (false-negative rate 0.57% [95% CI 0.30%-1.05%]). With the PERC and YEARS rule, removing the hemoptysis item would have led to a 1% reduction in chest imaging. The PEGeD strategy was not modified by the removal of the hemoptysis item. CONCLUSIONS: The hemoptysis item could be safely removed from the PERC, YEARS, and PEGeD CDRs. However, there was no subsequent clinically relevant reduction of chest imaging.