RESUMEN
Background: Previous research suggests that patients from rural areas who are critically ill with complex medical needs or require time-sensitive subspecialty interventions face worse healthcare outcomes and delays in care when compared to those from urban areas. The critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU) at our quaternary care center was established to expedite the transfer of critically ill patients or those who need time-sensitive intervention. This study investigates if disparities exist in treatments and outcomes among patients transferred to the CCRU from rural versus urban hospitals. Methods: This is a retrospective study of adult, nontrauma patients admitted to the CCRU via interhospital transfer from outside facilities from January 1 to December 31, 2018. Patients transferred from within our institution or with missing clinical data were excluded. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to measure the association between patients' demographic and clinical factors with in-hospital mortality. Results: We analyzed 1381 nontrauma patients, and 484 (35%) were from rural areas. Median age was 59 [47-69], and 629 (46%) were female. Median sequential organ failure assessment was 3 ([1-6], p=0.062) for both patients transferred from urban and rural hospitals. There was no significant difference between groups with respect to most demographic and clinical factors, as well as types of interventions after CCRU arrival, including emergent surgical interventions within 12 hours of arrival at the CCRU. Rural patients were more likely to be transferred for care by the acute care emergency surgery service than were patients from urban areas and were transferred over a significantly greater distance (difference of 53 kilometers (km), 95% CI: -58.9-51.7 km, P < 0.001). Transfer from rural areas was not associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.60, 1.36; P=0.63). Conclusion: Thirty-five percent of patients transferred to the CCRU came from rural areas, which house 25% of the state population of Maryland. Patients transferred from rural counties to the CCRU faced greater transport distances, but they received the same level of care upon arrival at the CCRU and had the same odds of in-hospital mortality as patients transferred from urban hospitals.
RESUMEN
Emergency and critical care physicians frequently encounter patients presenting with dyspnea and normal left ventricular systolic function who may benefit from early diastolic evaluation to determine acute patient management. The current American Society of Echocardiography Guidelines approach to diastolic evaluation is often impractical for point of care ultrasound (POCUS) evaluation, and few studies have evaluated the potential use of a simplified approach. This article reviews the literature on the use of a simplified diastolic evaluation to assist in determining acute patient management.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Massive pulmonary embolism (MPE) is a rare but highly fatal condition. Our study's objective was to evaluate the association between advanced interventions and survival among patients with MPE treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). METHODS: This is a retrospective review of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) registry data. We included adult patients with MPE who were treated with VA-ECMO during 2010-2020. Our Primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge; secondary outcomes were ECMO duration among survivors and rates of ECMO-related complications. Clinical variables were compared using the Pearson chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis H tests. RESULTS: We included 802 patients; 80 (10%) received SPE and 18 (2%) received CDT. Overall, 426 (53%) survived to discharge; survival was not significantly different among those treated with SPE or CDT on VA-ECMO (70%) versus VA-ECMO alone (52%) or SPE or CDT before VA-ECMO (52%). Multivariable regression found a trend towards increased survival among those treated with SPE or CDT while on ECMO (AOR 1.8, 95% CI 0.9-3.6), but no significant correlation. There was no association between advanced interventions and ECMO duration among survivors, or rates of ECMO-related complications. CONCLUSION: Our study found no difference in survival in patients with MPE who received advanced interventions prior to ECMO, and a slight non-significant benefit in those who received advanced interventions while on ECMO.