Early high flow nasal cannula therapy in bronchiolitis, a prospective randomised control trial (protocol): A Paediatric Acute Respiratory Intervention Study (PARIS)

Background Bronchiolitis imposes the largest health care burden on non-elective paediatric hospital admissions worldwide, with up to 15 % of cases requiring admission to intensive care. A number of previous studies have failed to show benefit of pharmaceutical treatment in respect to length of stay, reduction in PICU admission rates or intubation frequency. The early use of non-invasive respiratory support devices in less intensive scenarios to facilitate earlier respiratory support may have an impact on outcome by avoiding progression of the disease process. High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) therapy has emerged as a new method to provide humidified air flow to deliver a non-invasive form of positive pressure support with titratable oxygen fraction. There is a lack of high-grade evidence on use of HFNC therapy in bronchiolitis. Methods/Design Prospective multi-centre randomised trial comparing standard treatment (standard subnasal oxygen) and High Flow Nasal Cannula therapy in infants with bronchiolitis admitted to 17 hospitals emergency departments and wards in Australia and New Zealand, including 12 non-tertiary regional/metropolitan and 5 tertiary centres. The primary outcome is treatment failure; defined as meeting three out of four pre-specified failure criteria requiring escalation of treatment or higher level of care; i) heart rate remains unchanged or increased compared to admission/enrolment observations, ii) respiratory rate remains unchanged or increased compared to admission/enrolment observations, iii) oxygen requirement in HFNC therapy arm exceeds FiO2 ≥ 40 % to maintain SpO2 ≥ 92 % (or ≥94 %) or oxygen requirement in standard subnasal oxygen therapy arm exceeds >2L/min to maintain SpO2 ≥ 92 % (or ≥94 %), and iv) hospital internal Early Warning Tool calls for medical review and escalation of care. Secondary outcomes include transfer to tertiary institution, admission to intensive care, length of stay, length of oxygen treatment, need for non-invasive/invasive ventilation, intubation, adverse events, and cost. Discussion This large multicenter randomised trial will allow the definitive assessment of the efficacy of HFNC therapy as compared to standard subnasal oxygen in the treatment of bronchiolitis

A multicentre randomised controlled trial of levetiracetam versus phenytoin for convulsive status epilepticus in children (protocol): Convulsive Status Epilepticus Paediatric Trial (ConSEPT) - a PREDICT study

Background: Convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) is the most common life-threatening childhood neurological emergency. Despite this, there is a lack of high quality evidence supporting medication use after first line benzodiazepines, with current treatment protocols based solely on non-experimental evidence and expert opinion. The current standard of care, phenytoin, is only 60% effective, and associated with considerable adverse effects. A newer anti-convulsant, levetiracetam, can be given faster, is potentially more efficacious, with a more tolerable side effect profile. The primary aim of the study presented in this protocol is to determine whether intravenous (IV) levetiracetam or IV phenytoin is the better second line treatment for the emergency management of CSE in children. Methods/Design: 200 children aged between 3 months and 16 years presenting to 13 emergency departments in Australia and New Zealand with CSE, that has failed to stop with first line benzodiazepines, will be enrolled into this multicentre open randomised controlled trial. Participants will be randomised to 40 mg/kg IV levetiracetam infusion over 5 min or 20 mg/kg IV phenytoin infusion over 20 min. The primary outcome for the study is clinical cessation of seizure activity five minutes following the completion of the infusion of the study medication. Blinded confirmation of the primary outcome will occur with the primary outcome assessment being video recorded and assessed by a primary outcome assessment team blinded to treatment allocation. Secondary outcomes include: Clinical cessation of seizure activity at two hours; Time to clinical seizure cessation; Need for rapid sequence induction; Intensive care unit (ICU) admission; Serious adverse events; Length of Hospital/ICU stay; Health care costs; Seizure status/death at one-month post discharge. Discussion: This paper presents the background, rationale, and design for a randomised controlled trial comparing levetiracetam to phenytoin in children presenting with CSE in whom benzodiazepines have failed. This study will provide the first high quality evidence for management of paediatric CSE post first-line benzodiazepines. Trial registration: Prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12615000129583(11/2/2015). UTN U1111-1144-5272. ConSEPT protocol version 4 (12/12/2014).The study is funded by grants from the Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC 12/525), Auckland, New Zealand; A+ Trust (Auckland District Health Board), Auckland, New Zealand; Queensland Emergency Medicine Research Foundation, Milton, Queensland, Australia (EMPJ-105R21–2014- FURYK); Private Practice Research and Education Trust Fund, The Townsville Hospital and Health Service, Douglas, Queensland, Australia; Eric Ormond Baker Charitable Fund, Equity Trustees, Clayton, Victoria, Australia; and Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. The PREDICT network is supported as a Centre of Research Excellence for Paediatric Emergency Medicine by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia (NHMRC GNT1058560). The Victorian sites were supported by the Victorian Government’s Infrastructure Support Program, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. FEB’s time was part funded by a grant from the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute and the Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. SRD’s time was part funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC13/556). The study sponsor is Starship Children’s Health, Private Bag 92,024, Auckland 1142, New Zealan

Epidemiology, prehospital care and outcomes of patients arriving by ambulance with dyspnoea: An observational study

Background: This study aimed to determine epidemiology and outcome for patients presenting to emergency departments (ED) with shortness of breath who were transported by ambulance. Methods: This was a planned sub-study of a prospective, interrupted time series cohort study conducted at three time points in 2014 and which included consecutive adult patients presenting to the ED with dyspnoea as a main symptom. For this sub-study, additional inclusion criteria were presentation to an ED in Australia or New Zealand and transport by ambulance. The primary outcomes of interest are the epidemiology and outcome of these patients. Analysis was by descriptive statistics and comparisons of proportions. Results: One thousand seven patients met inclusion criteria. Median age was 74 years (IQR 61-68) and 46.1 % were male. There was a high rate of co-morbidity and chronic medication use. The most common ED diagnoses were lower respiratory tract infection (including pneumonia, 22.7 %), cardiac failure (20.5%) and exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (19.7 %). ED disposition was hospital admission (including ICU) for 76.4 %, ICU admission for 5.6 % and death in ED in 0.9 %. Overall in-hospital mortality among admitted patients was 6.5 %. Discussion: Patients transported by ambulance with shortness of breath make up a significant proportion of ambulance caseload and have high comorbidity and high hospital admission rate. In this study, >60 % were accounted for by patients with heart failure, lower respiratory tract infection or COPD, but there were a wide range of diagnoses. This has implications for service planning, models of care and paramedic training. Conclusion: This study shows that patients transported to hospital by ambulance with shortness of breath are a complex and seriously ill group with a broad range of diagnoses. Understanding the characteristics of these patients, the range of diagnoses and their outcome can help inform training and planning of services

Treatment patterns and frequency of key outcomes in acute severe asthma in children: a Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT) multicentre cohort study

Rationale Severe acute paediatric asthma may require treatment escalation beyond systemic corticosteroids, inhaled bronchodilators and low-flow oxygen. Current large asthma datasets report parenteral therapy only. Objectives To identify the use and type of escalation of treatment in children presenting to hospital with acute severe asthma. Methods Retrospective cohort study of children with an emergency department diagnosis of asthma or wheeze at 18 Australian and New Zealand hospitals. The main outcomes were use and type of escalation treatment (defined as any of intensive care unit admission, nebulised magnesium, respiratory support or parenteral bronchodilator treatment) and hospital length of stay (LOS). Measurements and main results Of 14 029 children (median age 3 (IQR 1–3) years; 62.9% male), 1020 (7.3%, 95% CI 6.9% to 7.7%) had treatment escalation. Children with treatment escalation had a longer LOS (44.2 hours, IQR 27.3–63.2 hours) than children without escalation 6.7 hours, IQR 3.5–16.3 hours; p<0.001). The most common treatment escalations were respiratory support alone (400; 2.9%, 95% CI 2.6% to 3.1%), parenteral bronchodilator treatment alone (380; 2.7%, 95% CI 2.5% to 3.0%) and both respiratory support and parenteral bronchodilator treatment (209; 1.5%, 95% CI 1.3% to 1.7%). Respiratory support was predominantly nasal high-flow therapy (99.0%). The most common intravenous medication regimens were: magnesium alone (50.4%), magnesium and aminophylline (24.6%) and magnesium and salbutamol (10.0%). Conclusions Overall, 7.3% children with acute severe asthma received some form of escalated treatment, with 4.2% receiving parenteral bronchodilators and 4.3% respiratory support. There is wide variation treatment escalation

Drug treatment of adults with nausea and vomiting in primary care

[Extract] A usually healthy 25 year old man presents to you as his general practitioner at 9 am. He has had fluctuating nausea with four vomits and one loose stool overnight, associated with colicky central abdominal pain. No blood was present in the vomit or stool, and he reports that his girlfriend was recently diagnosed as having "viral gastro." He is afebrile, intermittently uncomfortable, but otherwise well, with mild epigastric tenderness but no guarding or rebound. Clinically, you believe viral gastroenteritis is the most likely cause of his symptoms, and you consider his request for treatment that will help to stop his vomiting so that he can get to his evening shift at a factory

Drug treatment of adults with nausea and vomiting in primary care

Drug treatment of adults with nausea and vomiting in primary car

Fast versus slow bandaid removal: a randomised trial

Objective: To determine whether slow or fast bandaid removal is less painful. \ud \ud Design, setting and participants: A prospective, randomised, crossover trial was carried out at James Cook University, Townsville. Participants were healthy volunteers\ud from Years 2 and 3 of the James Cook University medical school program.\ud \ud Interventions: Medium-sized bandaids were applied bilaterally in three standard body locations and removed using slow and fast techniques.\ud \ud Main outcome measures: Pain scores were assessed using an 11-point verbal numeric pain scale.\ud \ud Results: 65 participants were included in the study. The overall mean pain score for fast bandaid removal was 0.92 and for slow bandaid removal was 1.58. This represents a\ud highly significant difference of 0.66 (P < 0.001).\ud \ud Conclusion: In young healthy volunteers, fast bandaid removal caused less pain than slow bandaid removal