Acute Pancreatitis in the Emergency Department

Introduction: Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common emergency department (ED) presentation with a variety of outcomes. Stratifying AP severity with scoring systems can allow physicians to effectively manage patient disposition. Objective: To identify ED pancreatitis patients who will likely be admitted to the ICU or be discharged within 48 hours, and to validate existing pancreatitis severity scores. Methods: Patients with a final ED diagnosis of AP and/or lipase ≥ 3 times the upper limit of normal were enrolled in a prospective, observational chart review study. Parametric and non-parametric descriptive statistics were used to describe the patient population. Area under receiver operating curve (AUC) was used to determine the predictive accuracy of existing pancreatitis scores. Results: Ranson criteria, Glasgow-Imrie (GI) criteria, Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis (BISAP), and Harmless Acute Pancreatitis Score (HAPS) were assessed. GI criteria (AUC = 0.77) had the highest predictive accuracy for ICU admission, while Ranson criteria (AUC = 0.62) had the highest predictive accuracy for early discharge. Mean scores of ICU patients were significantly (p \u3c 0.05) higher than those of non-ICU patients in all four scoring systems; however, mean scores in ICU patients failed to meet the severe case threshold for all four scoring systems. Discussion: Existing pancreatitis scoring systems cannot consistently predict AP severity in ED patients. The small difference in mean ICU and non-ICU patient scores illustrates the difficulty of using scoring systems to stratify AP severity in the ED. Further efforts to develop an ED-specific scoring system could allow physicians to more efficiently admit patients

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Case Volume and Revisits in Children Undergoing Gastrostomy Tube Placement.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) visits and hospital readmissions are common after gastrostomy tube (GT) placement in children. We sought to characterize interhospital variation in revisit rates and explore the association between this outcome and hospital-specific GT case volume. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study from 38 hospitals using the Pediatric Health Information System database. Patients younger than 18 years who had a GT placed in 2010 to 2012 were assessed for a GT-related (mechanical or infectious) ED visit or inpatient readmission at 30 and 90 days after discharge from GT placement. Risk-adjusted rates were calculated using generalized linear mixed-effects models accounting for hospital clustering and relevant demographic and clinical attributes, then compared across hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 15,642 patients were included. A median of 468 GTs were placed in all the 38 hospitals during 3 years (range: 83-891), with a median of 11.4 GT placed per 1000 discharges (range: 2.4-16.7). Median ED visit for each hospital at 30 days after discharge was 8.2% (range: 3.7%-17.2%) and 14.8% at 90 days (range: 6.3%-26.1%). Median inpatient readmissions for each hospital at 30 days after discharge was 3.5% (range: 0.5%-10.5%) and 5.9% at 90 days (range: 1.0%-18.5%). Hospital-specific GT placement per 1000 discharges (rate of GT placement) was inversely correlated with ED visit rates at 30 (P = 0.007) and 90 days (P = 0.020). The adjusted 30- and 90-day readmission rate and the adjusted 30- and 90-day ED return rates decreased with increasing GT insertion rate (P \u3c 0.001). CONCLUSION: Higher hospital GT insertion rates are associated with lower ED revisit rates but not inpatient readmissions

Emergency Department Visits and Readmissions among Children after Gastrostomy Tube Placement.

OBJECTIVES: To define the incidence of 30-day postdischarge emergency department (ED) visits and hospital readmissions following pediatric gastrostomy tube (GT) placement across all procedural services (Surgery, Interventional-Radiology, Gastroenterology) in 38 freestanding Children\u27s Hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study evaluated patientscourse. RESULTS: Of 15 642 identified patients, 8.6% had an ED visit within 30 days of hospital discharge, and 3.9% were readmitted through the ED with a GT-related issue. GT-related events associated with these visits included infection (27%), mechanical complication (22%), and replacement (19%). In multivariable analysis, Hispanic ethnicity, non-Hispanic black race, and the presence of ≥3 chronic conditions were independently associated with ED revisits; gastroesophageal reflux and not having a concomitant fundoplication at time of GT placement were independently associated with hospital readmission. Timing of GT placement (scheduled vs late) was not associated with either ED revisits or hospital readmission. CONCLUSIONS: GT placement is associated with high rates of ED revisits and hospital readmissions in the first 30 days after hospital discharge. The association of nonmodifiable risk factors such as race/ethnicity and medical complexity is an initial step toward understanding this population so that interventions can be developed to decrease these potentially preventable occurrences given their importance among accountable care organizations

Influences and conflicts of federal policies in academic–industrial scientific collaboration

Collaboration, Academic scientific collaboration, Academic–industrial collaboration, Federal research funding, H52, O31, O38, I23,