ArticleCJEM2023
Outcomes of acute heart failure patients managed in the emergency department.
Article in CJEM, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute heart failure is a serious condition commonly seen in the emergency department (ED). The HEARTRISK6 Scale has been recently developed to identify the risk of poor outcomes but has not been tested. We sought to describe the management and outcomes of ED patients with acute heart failure and to evaluate the potential impact of the HEARTRISK6 Scale.
methodsWe conducted a health records review of 300 consecutive acute heart failure patients presenting to two tertiary care EDs. Two evaluators abstracted clinical variables, ED management and treatment details, and patient outcomes using the electronic health records platform (EPIC) and attending physicians verified the data. The primary outcome measure was a short-term serious outcome, as shown in Results. In addition, the HEARTRISK6 score was calculated retrospectively.
resultsWe included 300 patients with mean age of 78.5 years, 51.0% male, 56.3% arrival by ambulance, and 67.0% admitted to hospital. 25.3% experienced a short-term serious outcome 1) after admission (N = 201): non-invasive ventilation 14.9%, intubation 1.5%, major cardiac procedure 5.0%, myocardial infarction 2.0%, death 8.5%; 2) after ED discharge (N = 99): return to ED 21.2%, death 4.0%. Those initially admitted experienced a much higher proportion of serious outcomes compared to those discharged (29.9% vs. 16.2%). A HEARTRISK6 Scale cut-point score of ≥ 1 would have had a sensitivity of 91.0%, specificity 24.5%, and negative likelihood ratio 0.37 for short-term serious outcomes and suggested hospital admission for 80.7% of cases.
conclusionThere was a large range of severity of illness of acute heart failure patients and a wide variety of treatments were administered in the ED. Both admitted and discharged patients experienced a high proportion of poor outcomes. The HEARTRISK6 Scale showed a high sensitivity for short-term serious outcomes but with the potential to increase hospital admissions. Further validation of the HEARTRISK6 Scale is required before routine clinical use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37537320What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.