Objectives

We aimed to determine publication trends in leading clinical research journals (impact factor >20) during the rise of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to check for an increase in publication times of non-COVID-19 original research articles.

Methods

We collected publication data from five print-based medical journals and one online journal--JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet (Lancet), The New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, The BMJ (BMJ), and BMC Medicine (BMC Med)--for the December 2019 through May 2020 period. We categorized each article as either "COVID-19-related" or "non-COVID-19-related". When available, we further extracted data on submission-to-acceptance dates and acceptance-to-publication dates for original research articles for the January through July 2019 and January through July 2020 periods. We compared the time from submission to publication for non-COVID-19 original research articles during the two periods and tested for statistical significance with a one-tailed Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

Results

We found that non-COVID-19-related articles began decreasing in volume as COVID-19-related articles increased. In BMJ and Lancet, the COVID-19-related articles began overtaking the non-COVID-19-related articles in number during April and May 2020. However, COVID-19-related primary research articles only began consistently appearing in journal issues during May 2020. Only BMJ and BMC Med publicly recorded complete data regarding their publication timelines. After removing outliers, we found that the mean time from submission to publication for articles published in BMJ from January through July 2019 was 204 days (median: 194 days; IQR: 163-236), and from January through July 2020 was 223 days (median: 218 days; IQR: 177-261) (p=0.04). In BMC Med, the mean time from submission to publication from February through July 2019 was 153 days (median: 150 days; IQR: 123-181), and from February through July 2020 was 163 days (median: 157 days; IQR: 132-191) (p=0.06).  Conclusion: We discovered a steadily increasing trend in the percentage of COVID-19-related articles and a concomitant decreasing trend in the percentage of non-COVID-19-related articles published in high-impact print journals during the period from December 2019 through May 2020. For non-COVID-19-related articles published in BMJ, we found a statistically significant increase upon comparing the submission-to-publication times for the period from January through July 2020 with the submission-to-publication times for the period from January through July 2019.

Serpentine supravenous hyperpigmentation (SSH) describes increased skin pigmentation that develops in the area immediately overlying the vessels through which chemotherapeutic drugs are administered. While SSH can be cosmetically distressing and there are no definitive management options, the literature is severely limited and the variations in clinical presentation, risk factors, and histopathology of SSH across patients are not well understood. We aimed to systematically summarize characteristics from current available data, and thus improve SSH awareness and management. A literature search was conducted in PubMed using specific eligibility criteria through the end of December 2022. Included articles focused on patients who experienced SSH after chemotherapy infusion. Study quality was assessed using a modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine quality rating scheme. Of the 41 articles identified by literature search, 24 met eligibility criteria. Two additional articles were identified through the reference sections of retrieved articles, for 26 articles total. All articles were case reports, representing 28 patients total. Locations of SSH were mostly in the forearm near the site of injection (85%), and the most common associated symptom was erythema. Histopathologic analysis was available for half of cases, the majority of which were inflammatory in nature. The most common inflammatory pattern observed was a vacuolar/lichenoid interface dermatitis. Duration of SSH ranged from days to > 1 year after the chemotherapy was stopped. Six (21%) patients were managed with topical steroids and oral vasodilators, six (21%) patients switched to central venous infusion rather than peripheral infusion, five (18%) patients received only supportive care, three (11%) patients received venous washing with chemotherapy, three (11%) patients stopped chemotherapy, and one (4%) patient reduced the chemotherapy dosage. Ten (36%) patients attained complete resolution, seven (25%) had SSH that was near resolution/fading, and three (11%) had persistent hyperpigmentation. Although SSH often spontaneously resolves once the chemotherapeutic agent is stopped, it can persist in some patients and cause significant distress. As the literature is severely limited and there are no definitive treatments, additional research using more standardized definitions and methods of assessments is necessary to improve characterization of SSH and evaluate potential interventions.

Purpose

The evidence for the effectiveness of outpatient treatment of low-risk patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) continues to mount. However, lack of definitional clarity may hinder understanding of this emerging management strategy and impede translation into clinical practice. We describe the range of definitions provided in the primary outpatient PE literature.

Methods

We undertook a narrative review of the English-language medical literature indexed in PubMed and Embase through the end of 2019. We identified studies of outpatient treatment of patients with acute PE.

Results

Fifty-one studies met our criteria. All studies provided some degree of definition of "outpatient," even if implicit or broad. Forty-six studies (90%) reported 1 or 2 sites of patient discharge (or departure) to home: emergency department (ED)/ambulatory care unit (n = 31), inpatient ward (n = 13), and secondary care clinic (n = 8). Of the 31 ED-based studies, 9 (29%) delimited duration of care (from < 24 to < 48 hours). All inpatient studies placed an outer boundary on the time to discharge within their definition of outpatient care.

Conclusion

Definitions of outpatient care in the PE literature vary considerably. The sites, duration, and intensity of care involved in outpatient PE management prior to home discharge range from comprehensive specialty clinic care to an ED evaluation, sometimes coupled with 1 to 5 days of additional inpatient care. Research on the outpatient management of acute PE would benefit from greater definitional clarity as clinicians, departments, and health systems seek to translate this research into real-world clinical practice.

Introduction

Decreasing unnecessary cranial computed tomography (CT) use in pediatric head trauma patients remains important for emergency departments (EDs) across the US. Our study evaluated CT use in children with minor blunt head trauma in 21 community EDs within an integrated health-care system.

Methods

We studied all children younger than 18 years old presenting to 21 community EDs between 2016 through 2018 with acute minor blunt head trauma, defined by an algorithm of ED chief complaints and diagnoses. We excluded patients with traumatic brain injuries diagnosed in the prior year, a CT within 24 hours prior to the ED visit, or an ED Glasgow Coma Scale score of less than 14.

Results

Among 39,792 pediatric minor head trauma ED visits, the aggregate CT use proportion across all EDs was 12.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 12.6-13.3%; facility-level range, 5.4-21.6%]. The 7 facilities that had previously received a clinical decision support system intervention implementing the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network rules during 2013 through 2014 had an aggregate mean CT ordering rate of 11.2% (95% CI, 10.7-11.7%; facility-level range, 5.4-14.3%) compared to 14.1% (95% CI, 13.6-14.5%; facility-level range, 7.3-21.6%) for the nonintervention facilities.

Conclusion

CT use for children with minor blunt head trauma in the community EDs of an integrated health-care system was low and stable across facilities from 2016 through 2018. This may be indicative of the safe stewardship of resources in the system, including the absence of financial or medicolegal incentives to scan very low-risk patients as well the availability of resources for close patient follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The management and outcomes of patients diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism in primary care have not been characterized. OBJECTIVE: To describe 30-day outcomes stratified by initial site-of-care decisions DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: Adults diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism in primary care in a large, diverse community-based US health system (2013-2019) MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day serious adverse events (recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality). The secondary outcome was 7-day pulmonary embolism-related hospitalization, either initial or delayed. KEY RESULTS: Among 652 patient encounters (from 646 patients), median age was 64 years; 51.5% were male and 70.7% identified as non-Hispanic white. Overall, 134 cases (20.6%) were sent home from primary care and 518 cases (79.4%) were initially referred to the emergency department (ED) or hospital. Among the referred, 196 (37.8%) were discharged home from the ED without events. Eight patients (1.2%; 95% CI 0.5-2.4%) experienced a 30-day serious adverse event: 4 venous thromboemboli (0.6%), 1 major bleed (0.2%), and 3 deaths (0.5%). Seven of these patients were initially hospitalized, and 1 had been sent home from primary care. All 3 deaths occurred in patients with known metastatic cancer initially referred to the ED, hospitalized, then enrolled in hospice following discharge. Overall, 328 patients (50.3%) were hospitalized within 7 days: 322 at the time of the index diagnosis and 6 following initial outpatient management (4 clinic-only and 2 clinic-plus-ED patients). CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism in this primary care setting uncommonly experienced 30-day adverse events, regardless of initial site-of-care decisions. Over 20% were managed comprehensively by primary care. Delayed 7-day pulmonary embolism-related hospitalization was rare among the 51% treated as outpatients. Primary care management of acute pulmonary embolism appears to be safe and could have implications for cost-effectiveness and patient care experience.

Introduction There is considerable variation in the approach to infants presenting to the emergency department (ED) with fever. The authors primary aim was to develop a robust set of algorithms using community ED data to inform modifications of broader clinical guidance. Methods The authors report the development of California Febrile Infant Risk Stratification Tool (CA FIRST) using key components of the Roseville Protocol (ROS) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG). Expanded guidance was derived using a retrospective analysis of a cohort of 3527 febrile infants aged 7-90 days presenting to any Kaiser Permanente Northern California ED between 2010 and 2019 who underwent a core febrile infant evaluation. Results Melding ROS and AAP CPG algorithms in infants 7-60 days old, CA FIRST Algorithms had comparable performance characteristics to ROS and AAP CPG. CA FIRST enhancements included guidance on febrile infants 61-90 days old, high-risk infants, infants with bronchiolitis, and infants who received immunizations within the prior 48 hours. This retrospective analysis revealed that of 235 febrile infants 22-90 days old with respiratory syncytial virus and 221 who had fever in the 48 hours following vaccination, there were no cases of invasive bacterial infection. Discussion CA FIRST is a set of 13 algorithms providing a thoughtful and flexible approach to the febrile infant while minimizing unnecessary interventions. Conclusions CA FIRST Algorithms empower clinicians to manage most febrile infants. Algorithms are being modified as new data become available, imparting useful and ever-current educational information within a learning health care system.

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has extracted devastating tolls. Despite its pervasiveness, robust information on disease characteristics in the emergency department (ED) and how that information predicts clinical course remain limited.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the first ED visit from SARS-CoV-2-positive patients in our health system, from February 21, 2020 to April 5, 2020. We reviewed each patient's ED visit(s) and included the first visit with symptoms consistent with COVID-19. We collected demographic, clinical, and treatment variables from electronic health records and structured manual chart review. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between patient characteristics and 2 primary outcomes: a critical outcome and hospitalization from index visit. Our critical outcome was defined as death or advanced respiratory support (high flow nasal cannula or greater) within 21 days.

Results

Of the first 1030 encounters, 801 met our inclusion criteria: 15% were over age 75 years, 47% were female, and 24% were non-Hispanic white. We found 161 (20%) had a critical outcome and 393 (49%) were hospitalized. Independent predictors of a critical outcome included a history of hypertension, abnormal chest x-ray, elevated neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, elevated blood urea nitrogen (BUN), measured fever, and abnormal respiratory vital signs (respiratory rate, oxygen saturation). Independent predictors of hospitalization included abnormal pulmonary auscultation, elevated BUN, measured fever, and abnormal respiratory vital signs.

Conclusions

In this large, diverse study of ED patients with COVID-19, we have identified numerous clinical characteristics that have independent associations with critical illness and hospitalization.

Background Coronary risk stratification is recommended for emergency department patients with chest pain. Many protocols are designed as "rule-out" binary classification strategies, while others use graded-risk stratification. The comparative performance of competing approaches at varying levels of risk tolerance has not been widely reported. Methods and Results This is a prospective cohort study of adult patients with chest pain presenting between January 2018 and December 2019 to 13 medical center emergency departments within an integrated healthcare delivery system. Using an electronic clinical decision support interface, we externally validated and assessed the net benefit (at varying risk thresholds) of several coronary risk scores (History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin [HEART] score, HEART pathway, Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol), troponin-only strategies (fourth-generation assay), unstructured physician gestalt, and a novel risk algorithm (RISTRA-ACS). The primary outcome was 60-day major adverse cardiac event defined as myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, coronary revascularization, or all-cause mortality. There were 13 192 patient encounters included with a 60-day major adverse cardiac event incidence of 3.7%. RISTRA-ACS and HEART pathway had the lowest negative likelihood ratios (0.06, 95% CI, 0.03-0.10 and 0.07, 95% CI, 0.04-0.11, respectively) and the greatest net benefit across a range of low-risk thresholds. RISTRA-ACS demonstrated the highest discrimination for 60-day major adverse cardiac event (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.92, 95% CI, 0.91-0.94, P<0.0001). Conclusions RISTRA-ACS and HEART pathway were the optimal rule-out approaches, while RISTRA-ACS was the best-performing graded-risk approach. RISTRA-ACS offers promise as a versatile single approach to emergency department coronary risk stratification. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03286179.

Background

Management of adults with atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter in the emergency department (ED) includes rate reduction, cardioversion, and stroke prevention. Different approaches to these components of care may lead to variation in frequency of hospitalization and stroke prevention actions, with significant implications for patient experience, cost of care, and risk of complications. Standardization using evidence-based recommendations could reduce variation in management, preventable hospitalizations, and stroke risk.

Methods

We describe the rationale for our ED-based AF treatment recommendations. We also describe the development of an electronic clinical decision support system (CDSS) to deliver these recommendations to emergency physicians at the point of care. We implemented the CDSS at three pilot sites to assess feasibility and solicit user feedback. We will evaluate the impact of the CDSS on hospitalization and stroke prevention actions using a stepped-wedge cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial across 13 community EDs in Northern California.

Discussion

We hypothesize that the CDSS intervention will reduce hospitalization of adults with isolated AF or atrial flutter presenting to the ED and increase anticoagulation prescription in eligible patients at the time of ED discharge and within 30 days. If our hypotheses are confirmed, the treatment protocol and CDSS could be recommended to other EDs to improve management of adults with AF or atrial flutter.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05009225 .  Registered on 17 August 2021.

Background Resource utilization among emergency department (ED) patients with possible coronary chest pain is highly variable. Methods and Results Controlled cohort study amongst 21 EDs of an integrated healthcare system examining the implementation of a graded coronary risk stratification algorithm (RISTRA-ACS [risk stratification for acute coronary syndrome]). Thirteen EDs had access to RISTRA-ACS within the electronic health record (RISTRA sites) beginning in month 24 of a 48-month study period (January 2016 to December 2019); the remaining 8 EDs served as contemporaneous controls. Study participants had a chief complaint of chest pain and serum troponin measurement in the ED. The primary outcome was index visit resource utilization (observation unit or hospital admission, or 7-day objective cardiac testing). Secondary outcomes were 30-day objective cardiac testing, 60-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and 60-day MACE-CR (MACE excluding coronary revascularization). Difference-in-differences analyses controlled for secular trends with stratification by estimated risk and adjustment for risk factors, ED physician and facility. A total of 154 914 encounters were included. Relative to control sites, 30-day objective cardiac testing decreased at RISTRA sites among patients with low (≤2%) estimated 60-day MACE risk (-2.5%, 95% CI -3.7 to -1.2%, P<0.001) and increased among patients with non-low (>2%) estimated risk (+2.8%, 95% CI +0.6 to +4.9%, P=0.014), without significant overall change (-1.0%, 95% CI -2.1 to 0.1%, P=0.079). There were no statistically significant differences in index visit resource utilization, 60-day MACE or 60-day MACE-CR. Conclusions Implementation of RISTRA-ACS was associated with better allocation of 30-day objective cardiac testing and no change in index visit resource utilization or 60-day MACE. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03286179.