CJEM Articles: heart failure
Displaying 1-3 of 3 results
-
March
2012
14
2
Cheryl Symington, Ian G. Stiell, Jamie Brehaut, Jeffrey J. Perry, Monica Taljaard, Reena Goindi, Sandra Schneider
Objective:
There are currently no widely used guidelines to determine which older patients with acute respiratory conditions require hospital admission. This study assessed the need for clinical decision rules to help determine whether hospital admission is required for patients over 50 years for three common respiratory conditions: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure (HF), and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).
Design:
Postal survey.
Setting:
Emergency physicians (EPs) from the United States, Canada, and Australasia.
Participants:
A random sample of EPs from the United States, Canada, and Australasia.
Interventions:
A modified Dillman technique with a prenotification letter and up to three postal surveys.
Main Outcomes:
EP opinions regarding the need for and willingness to use clinical decision rules for emergency department (ED) patients over 50 years with COPD, HF, or CAP to predict hospital admission. We assessed the required sensitivity of each rule for return ED visit or death within 14 days.
Results:
A total of 801 responses from 1,493 surveys were received, with response rates of 55%, 60%, and 46% for Australasia, Canada, and the United States, respectively. Over 90% of EPs reported that they would consider using clinical decision rules for HF, CAP, and COPD. The median required sensitivity for death within 14 days was 97 to 98% for all conditions.
Conclusions:
EPs are likely to adopt highly sensitive clinical decision rules to predict the need for hospital admission for patients over 50 years with COPD, HF, or CAP. -
July
2010
12
4
Alexandre Anawati, I. Ching Yeung, Marc-Andre Roy, Ray Wiss, Ron Robins, Steven J. Socransky
Objective: Determination of jugular venous pressure (JVP) by physical examination (E-JVP) is unreliable. Measurement of JVP with ultrasonography (U-JVP) is easy to perform, but the normal range is unknown. The objective of this study was to determine the normal range for U-JVP.
Methods: We conducted a prospective anatomic study on a con venience sample of emergency department (ED) patients over 35 years of age. We excluded patients who had findings on history or physical examination suggesting an alteration of JVP. With the head of the bed at 45°, we determined the point at which the diameter of the internal jugular vein (IJV) began to decrease on ultrasonography (“the taper”). Research assistants used 2 tech niques to measure U-JVP in all participants: by measuring the vertical height (in centimetres) of the taper above the sternal angle, and adding 5 cm; and by recording the quadrant in the IJV’s path from the clavicle to the angle of the jaw in which the taper was located. To determine interrater reliability, separate examiners measured the U-JVP of 15 participants.
Results: We successfully determined the U-JVP of all 77 participants (38 male and 39 female). The mean U-JVP was 6.35 (95% confidence interval 6.11–6.59) cm. In 76 participants (98.7%), the taper was located in the first quadrant. Determination of interrater reliability found κ values of 1.00 and 0.87 for techniques 1 and 2, respectively.
Conclusion: The normal U-JVP is 6.35 cm, a value that is slightly lower than the published normal E-JVP. Interrater reliability for U-JVP is excellent. The top of the IJV column is located less than 25% of the distance from the clavicle to the angle of the jaw in the majority of healthy adults. Our findings suggest that U-JVP provides the potential to reincorporate reliable JVP measurement into clinical assessment in the ED. However, further research in this area is warranted.
-
July
2006
8
4
Bruce Cload, Christine P. Collier, Heather Murray, Marco L.A. Sivilotti
Objectives: Measurement of the serum B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level and more recently its precursor,N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP), has been advocated to facilitate the diagnosis of heart failure in the emergency department (ED). We sought to determine the potential impact of adding NT-proBNP testing to the routine evaluation of emergency patients with acute dyspnea.
Methods: This prospective cohort study enrolled a convenience sample of acutely dyspneic patients at a tertiary care ED. We excluded trauma patients and those under 30 years of age. Patients underwent standard evaluation, including radiography when indicated. At the point of final diagnosis and blinded to the NT-proBNP result, physicians documented the likelihood that heart failure accounted for the patient's acute dyspnea on a 7-point Likert scale, the data from which was subsequently collapsed to 3 categories for analysis purposes. The primary outcome was the agreement between clinical impression and the NT-proBNP assay classified using manufacturer-recommended, age-specific cut-offs. Newly proposed cut-offs from a recent study were also evaluated.
Results: One hundred and twenty-nine patients making 139 ED visits were enrolled (median age 76 years; 59% admitted). The serum NT-proBNP assay was positive in 119 (86%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 80%–91%) cases, including 75% (43/57, 95% CI 62%–86%) of the cases that the treating physician felt were not caused by heart failure, and 86% (25/29, 95% CI 68%–96%) where the treating physician was unsure. The median NT-proBNP concentration was higher in patients clinically believed to have heart failure rather than pneumonia or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; however, the ranges of these values overlapped extensively (median 4361 pg/mL; interquartile range [IQR] 2386–10877 v. 1651 pg/mL; IQR 370–4745, respectively).
Conclusions: There is high discordance between the clinical impression of treating physicians and NT-proBNP concentrations, notably in patients who are believed not to have heart failure. Although the reference standard of ED diagnosis is imperfect, the broad overlap in NT-proBNP concentrations suggests poor specificity in this target patient population. The introduction of routine ED NT-proBNP testing using the current cut-offs would be expected to result in substantial indirect costs from further diagnostic testing. It remains unclear whether the introduction of this diagnostic test would have a positive impact on clinically relevant patient outcomes.
