Dataset Information

Availability of suPAR in emergency departments may improve risk stratification: a secondary analysis of the TRIAGE III trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) is a prognostic and nonspecific biomarker associated with short-term mortality in emergency department (ED) patients. Therefore, the blood level of suPAR might be usable for identification of patients at high- and low risk, shortly after arrival at the ED. Here, we investigate the value of adding suPAR to triage and how this may impact on risk stratification regarding mortality.

Methods

The analyses were performed on the TRIAGE III cohort. Patients were triaged in four groups: Red, Orange, Yellow, and Green. Outcome was all-cause mortality within seven days. Discriminative abilities of triage and suPAR on mortality were assessed using the area under the curve (AUC) for receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. A suPAR cut-off value was generated using the Youden's index. Patients were subsequently reclassified one triage level up if the suPAR level was above this cut-off and one level down if the suPAR level was below that value.

Results

The study included 4420 patients with an available triage category and suPAR measurement. suPAR was significantly better in predicting mortality than triage; AUC (95% confidence interval): 0.85 (0.80-0.89) vs. 0.71 (0.64-0.78), P < 0.001. Combining suPAR and triage yielded an AUC of 0.87 (0.82-0-93). The Youden's cut-off of suPAR was 5.9 ng/mL and reclassified triage using this value resulted in a more accurate risk stratification regarding hospital admission and mortality.

Conclusion

Addition of suPAR to triage potentially improves prediction of short-term mortality. Measurement of suPAR in relation to the triage process may allow a more accurate identification of ED patients at risk.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02643459. Registered 31 December 2015. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02643459?cond=NCT02643459&rank=1 .

SUBMITTER: Schultz M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6458624 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Availability of suPAR in emergency departments may improve risk stratification: a secondary analysis of the TRIAGE III trial.

Schultz Martin M Rasmussen Line J H LJH Kallemose Thomas T Kjøller Erik E Lind Morten N MN Ravn Lisbet L Lange Theis T Køber Lars L Rasmussen Lars S LS Eugen-Olsen Jesper J Iversen Kasper K

Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine 20190411 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) is a prognostic and nonspecific biomarker associated with short-term mortality in emergency department (ED) patients. Therefore, the blood level of suPAR might be usable for identification of patients at high- and low risk, shortly after arrival at the ED. Here, we investigate the value of adding suPAR to triage and how this may impact on risk stratification regarding mortality.<h4>Methods</h4>The analyses were perform ...[more]

PMID: 30975178

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRisk stratification of patients in the emergency department can be strengthened using prognostic biomarkers, but the impact on patient prognosis is unknown. The aim of the TRIAGE III trial was to investigate whether the introduction of the prognostic and nonspecific biomarker: soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) for risk stratification in the emergency department reduces mortality in acutely admitted patients.MethodsThe TRIAGE III trial was a cluster-randomized interventional trial conducted at emergency departments in the Capitol Region of Denmark. Eligible hospitals were required to have an emergency department with an intake of acute medical and surgical patients and no previous access to suPAR measurement. Three emergency departments were randomized; one withdrew shortly after the trial began. The inclusion period was from January through June of 2016 consisting of twelve cluster-periods of 3-weeks alternating between intervention and control and a subsequent follow-up of ten months. Patients were allocated to the intervention if they arrived in interventional periods, where suPAR measurement was routinely analysed at arrival. In the control periods suPAR measurement was not performed. The main outcome was all-cause mortality 10 months after arrival of the last patient in the inclusion period. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality.ResultsThe trial enrolled a consecutive cohort of 16,801 acutely admitted patients; all were included in the analyses. The intervention group consisted of 6 cluster periods with 8900 patients and the control group consisted of 6 cluster periods with 7901 patients. After a median follow-up of 362 days, death occurred in 1241 patients (13.9%) in the intervention group and in 1126 patients (14.3%) in the control group. The weighted Cox model found a hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.07; p = 0.57). Analysis of all subgroups and of 30-day all-cause mortality showed similar results.ConclusionsThe TRIAGE III trial found no effect of introducing the nonspecific and prognostic biomarker suPAR in emergency departments on short- or long-term all-cause mortality among acutely admitted patients. Further research is required to evaluate how prognostic biomarkers can be implemented in routine clinical practice.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov, NCT02643459 . Registered 31 December 2015.

Project description:BackgroundOvercrowding in emergency departments is a worldwide problem. A systematic literature review was undertaken to scientifically explore which interventions improve patient flow in emergency departments.MethodsA systematic literature search for flow processes in emergency departments was followed by assessment of relevance and methodological quality of each individual study fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Studies were excluded if they did not present data on waiting time, length of stay, patients leaving the emergency department without being seen or other flow parameters based on a nonselected material of patients. Only studies with a control group, either in a randomized controlled trial or in an observational study with historical controls, were included. For each intervention, the level of scientific evidence was rated according to the GRADE system, launched by a WHO-supported working group.ResultsThe interventions were grouped into streaming, fast track, team triage, point-of-care testing (performing laboratory analysis in the emergency department), and nurse-requested x-ray. Thirty-three studies, including over 800,000 patients in total, were included. Scientific evidence on the effect of fast track on waiting time, length of stay, and left without being seen was moderately strong. The effect of team triage on left without being seen was relatively strong, but the evidence for all other interventions was limited or insufficient.ConclusionsIntroducing fast track for patients with less severe symptoms results in shorter waiting time, shorter length of stay, and fewer patients leaving without being seen. Team triage, with a physician in the team, will probably result in shorter waiting time and shorter length of stay and most likely in fewer patients leaving without being seen. There is only limited scientific evidence that streaming of patients into different tracks, performing laboratory analysis in the emergency department or having nurses to request certain x-rays results in shorter waiting time and length of stay.

Project description:ObjectiveUsing biomarkers for early and accurate identification of patients at low risk of serious illness may improve the flow in the emergency department (ED) by classifying these patients as nonurgent or even suitable for discharge. A potential biomarker for this purpose is soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR). We hypothesized that availability of suPAR might lead to a higher proportion of early discharges.DesignA substudy of the interventional TRIAGE III trial, comparing patients with a valid suPAR measurement at admission to those without. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients discharged alive from the ED within 24 hours. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay, readmissions, and mortality within 30 days.SettingEDs at two university hospitals in the Capital Region of Denmark.Participants16,801 acutely admitted patients were included.Measurements and main resultsThe suPAR level was available in 7,905 patients (suPAR group), but not in 8,896 (control group). The proportion of patients who were discharged within 24 hours of admittance was significantly higher in the suPAR group compared to the control group (50.2% (3,966 patients) vs. 48.6% (4,317 patients), P = 0.04). Furthermore, the mean length of hospital stay in the suPAR group was significantly shorter compared to that in the control group (4.3 days (SD 7.4) vs. 4.6 days (SD 9.4), P = 0.04). In contrast, the readmission rate within 30 days was significantly higher in the suPAR group (10.6% (839 patients) vs. 8.8% (785 patients), P < 0.001). Among patients discharged within 24 hours, there was no significant difference in the readmission rate or mortality within 30 days. Readmission occurred in 8.5% (336 patients) vs. 7.7% (331 patients) (P = 0.18) and mortality in 1.3% (52 patients) vs. 1.8% (77 patients) (P = 0.08) for the suPAR group and control group, respectively.ConclusionThese post hoc analyses demonstrate that the availability of the prognostic biomarker suPAR was associated with a higher proportion of discharge within 24 hours and reduced length of stay, but more readmissions. In patients discharged within 24 hours, there was no difference in readmission or mortality.Trial registration of the main trialThis trial is registered with NCT02643459.

Project description:IntroductionEarly risk stratification in the emergency department (ED) is vital to reduce time to effective treatment in high-risk patients and to improve patient flow. Yet, there is a lack of investigations evaluating the incremental usefulness of multiple biomarkers measured upon admission from distinct biological pathways for predicting fatal outcome and high initial treatment urgency in unselected ED patients in a multicenter and multinational setting.MethodWe included consecutive, adult, medical patients seeking ED care into this observational, cohort study in Switzerland, France and the USA. We recorded initial clinical parameters and batch-measured prognostic biomarkers of inflammation (pro-adrenomedullin [ProADM]), stress (copeptin) and infection (procalcitonin).ResultsDuring a 30-day follow-up, 331 of 7132 (4.6 %) participants reached the primary endpoint of death within 30 days. In logistic regression models adjusted for conventional risk factors available at ED admission, all three biomarkers strongly predicted the risk of death (AUC 0.83, 0.78 and 0.75), ICU admission (AUC 0.67, 0.69 and 0.62) and high initial triage priority (0.67, 0.66 and 0.58). For the prediction of death, ProADM significantly improved regression models including (a) clinical information available at ED admission (AUC increase from 0.79 to 0.84), (b) full clinical information at ED discharge (AUC increase from 0.85 to 0.88), and (c) triage information (AUC increase from 0.67 to 0.83) (p <0.01 for each comparison). Similarly, ProADM also improved clinical models for prediction of ICU admission and high initial treatment urgency. Results were robust in regard to predefined patient subgroups by center, main diagnosis, presenting symptoms, age and gender.ConclusionsCombination of clinical information with results of blood biomarkers measured upon ED admission allows early and more adequate risk stratification in individual unselected medical ED patients. A randomized trial is needed to answer the question whether biomarker-guided initial patient triage reduces time to initial treatment of high-risk patients in the ED and thereby improves patient flow and clinical outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01768494 . Registered January 9, 2013.

Project description:BackgroundFor several decades, emergency departments (EDs) utilization has increased, inducing ED overcrowding in many countries. This phenomenon is related partly to an excessive number of nonurgent patients. To resolve ED overcrowding and to decrease nonurgent visits, the most common solution has been to triage the ED patients to identify potentially nonurgent patients, i.e. which could have been dealt with by general practitioner. The objective of this study was to measure agreement among ED health professionals on the urgency of an ED visit, and to determine if the level of agreement is consistent among different sub-groups based on following explicit criteria: age, medical status, type of referral to the ED, investigations performed in the ED, and the discharge from the ED.MethodsWe conducted a multicentric cross-sectional study to compare agreement between nurses and physicians on categorization of ED visits into urgent or nonurgent. Subgroups stratified by criteria characterizing the ED visit were analyzed in relation to the outcome of the visit.ResultsOf 1,928 ED patients, 350 were excluded because data were lacking. The overall nurse-physician agreement on categorization was moderate (kappa = 0.43). The levels of agreement within all subgroups were variable and low. The highest agreement concerned three subgroups of complaints: cranial injury (kappa = 0.61), gynaecological (kappa = 0.66) and toxicology complaints (kappa = 1.00). The lowest agreement concerned two subgroups: urinary-nephrology (kappa = 0.09) and hospitalization (kappa = 0.20). When categorization of ED visits into urgent or nonurgent cases was compared to hospitalization, ED physicians had higher sensitivity and specificity than nurses (respectively 94.9% versus 89.5%, and 43.1% versus 30.9%).ConclusionsThe lack of physician-nurse agreement and the inability to predict hospitalization have important implications for patient safety. When urgency screening is used to determine treatment priority, disagreement might not matter because all patients in the ED are seen and treated. But using assessments as the basis for refusal of care to potential nonurgent patients raises legal, ethical, and safety issues. Managed care organizations should be cautious when applying such criteria to restrict access to EDs.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with a syncope constitute a challenge for risk stratification in (prehospital) emergency care. Professionals in EMS and ED need to differentiate the high-risk from the low-risk syncope patient, with limited time and resources. Clinical decision rules (CDRs) are designed to support professionals in risk stratification and clinical decision-making. Current CDRs seem unable to meet the standards to be used in the chain of emergency care. However, the need for a structured approach for syncope patients remains. We aimed to generate a broad overview of the available risk stratification tools and identify key elements, scoring systems and measurement properties of these tools.MethodsWe performed a scoping review with a literature search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science from January 2010 to May 2022. Study selection was done by two researchers independently and was supervised by a third researcher. Data extraction was performed through a data extraction form, and data were summarised through descriptive synthesis. A quality assessment of included studies was performed using a generic quality assessment tool for quantitative research and the AMSTAR-2 for systematic reviews.ResultsThe literature search identified 5385 unique studies; 38 were included in the review. We discovered 19 risk stratification tools, one of which was established in EMS patient care. One-third of risk stratification tools have been validated. Two main approaches for the application of the tools were identified. Elements of the tools were categorised in history taking, physical examination, electrocardiogram, additional examinations and other variables. Evaluation of measurement properties showed that negative and positive predictive value was used in half of the studies to assess the accuracy of tools.ConclusionA total of 19 risk stratification tools for syncope patients were identified. They were primarily established in ED patient care; most are not validated properly. Key elements in the risk stratification related to a potential cardiac problem as cause for the syncope. These insights provide directions for the key elements of a risk stratification tool and for a more advanced process to validate risk stratification tools.

Dataset Information

Availability of suPAR in emergency departments may improve risk stratification: a secondary analysis of the TRIAGE III trial.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Availability of suPAR in emergency departments may improve risk stratification: a secondary analysis of the TRIAGE III trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets