MDedge Emergency Medicine

PHOENIX — Thrombectomy is generally beneficial for patients from a low-income population who have a large vessel occlusion stroke presenting in the later time window and who can be identified as suitable for treatment without the need for advanced and costly imaging, a new Brazilian trial has shown.

“The RESILIENT-Extend trial is the first major study of thrombectomy in the late time window (8-24 h) conducted outside first-world countries and shows the procedure also has benefit in a lower socioeconomic status population without the need for costly imaging equipment,” said lead investigator Raul G. Nogueira, MD. 

“The trial expands the treatment window for thrombectomy globally with simplified selection criteria based on non-contrast CT, potentially altering current guidelines,” Dr. Nogueira said.

However, there were some caveats that need to be considered; in particular, a lack of benefit with thrombectomy in older patients (over 68 years of age), which Dr. Nogueira believes is a reflection of the particular population enrolled in this study. Specifically, he suggested that older age in this low socioeconomic status population is a surrogate for frailty, and the study may have identified frailty as a factor that correlates with reduced or lack of benefit of thrombectomy.

Dr. Nogueira, who is a professor of neurology and neurosurgery at the University of Pittsburgh, and Sheila Martins, MD, a professor of neurology at Hospital de Clinicas Porto Alegre in Brazil, presented the RESILIENT-Extend results at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Nogueira explained that the lack of available advanced imaging techniques is a major challenge for implementing endovascular therapy in an extended time window, especially in lower-income countries.

“Our main objective was to see if we could remove the need for advanced imaging to select patients with large vessel occlusion stroke in the late time window (8-24 h) for thrombectomy,” he said. “In this way, our trial overlaps somewhat with the MR CLEAN-LATE Trial conducted in the Netherlands, although the two trials were conducted in very different socioeconomic populations.”

The RESILIENT-Extend trial was conducted in the public health service of Brazil and involved a different population of people than have been included in other thrombectomy trials, which have mostly been conducted in first-world countries.

“The public health system in Brazil is not well-resourced and tends to care for patients at lower socioeconomic levels. These patients are fundamentally different from the average patients in the first-world recruited into most other thrombectomy trials,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

The trial enrolled 245 patients with a large vessel occlusion stroke within 8-24 hours of last known well. Patients were included who had a mismatch between the clinical severity as shown by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score and the stroke burden on imaging as measured by ASPECTS scores.

They had to have relatively high NIHSS scores (8 or more) showing more severe strokes but also a high ASPECTS score (5-10) excluding patients with large areas of ischemic brain. There was also a sliding scale that adjusted for age to avoid enrolling elderly patients with large strokes.

These patients were identified exclusively using non-contrast CT and CT angiography imaging.

The median age of patients included was 62-63 years. Dr. Nogueira pointed out that patients were slightly younger than seen in other thrombectomy trials, perhaps because in lower-middle-income countries strokes occur at a younger age. They also have a higher case fatality rate.

The median baseline NIHSS score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 7-8.

The median time to treatment was 12.5 hours, which is similar to other late window thrombectomy trials.
 

Conflicting Results on Shift Analysis

The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) disability score at 90 days.

This showed a bidirectional result, with thrombectomy increasing the chances of a good or excellent outcome (mRS, 0-3), but there was also a nonsignificant increased risk for a bad outcome (mRS, 5-6).

“This bidirectional result prevents a common odds ratio from being calculated, so the primary endpoint is not applicable,” Dr. Nogueira reported.

The researchers therefore used the secondary outcomes as the main results of the study.

These showed that the number of patients achieving a good outcome (mRS, 0-2) was significantly increased with thrombectomy (25% vs. 14%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.56; P = .012).

The number of patients achieving an excellent outcome (mRS, 0-1) was also significantly increased.

But these increases in good outcomes came at the cost of some patients having an increased risk for severe disability or death (mRS, 5-6).

The odds ratio for an mRS of 0-4 versus 5-6 was 0.71, and for an mRS of 0-5 versus 6, the odds ratio was 0.58. Both these results were nonsignificant.

Another anomaly in the RESILIENT-Extend trial was the observation of no benefit of thrombectomy seen in older patients.

“In general, trials of thrombectomy in the first world have shown a greater treatment effect in older patients, but this was not seen in our trial, where older patients (over 68 years) did not derive any benefit from the procedure,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

A similar observation was also seen in the first RESILIENT trial in patients treated within 8 hours of stroke onset, which was also conducted in Brazil, leading to the suggestion that it is related to the patient population included.

“In the Brazilian public health service, older patients are very vulnerable and frail. They are different to older patients in first world countries. It appears they may be too fragile to withstand the thrombectomy process,” Dr. Nogueira said.
 

Frailty: A Ceiling Effect?

Results from the two RESILIENT trials give a word of caution to the thrombectomy field, Dr. Nogueira said.

“This procedure was initially thought suitable only for patients with small core strokes, but we now have a series of trials showing benefit of thrombectomy in large core strokes as well,” Dr. Nogueira said. “We have started to believe that this intervention will benefit almost all patients with large vessel occlusion stroke everywhere around the world, but our data suggest that we have to consider the specific populations that we are serving and that factors such as socioeconomic status and frailty have to be taken into account.

“Both the RESILIENT trials have shown that thrombectomy does not appear to be suitable for older patients, over 68-70 years of age, in the public health service in Brazil,” he noted. “In this population, a patient aged 70 can be quite different to a patient of the same age in a first-world country. I think in our population, an age of over 68-70 is a surrogate for frailty, which will not be the case in first-world countries. In this regard, I think we have found a ceiling effect for benefit of thrombectomy, which is frailty.”

Dr. Nogueira speculated that the bidirectional effect on the mRS shift analysis may also have been caused by the frailty of some of the patients.

“What the results may be showing is that for most of the population, there is a benefit of thrombectomy, but for some patients, possibly the most frail, then the procedure can be too overwhelming for them. But the suggestion of harm was not significant, so this observation could have also just been the play of chance,” he added.
 

Interpreting the Findings

Commenting on the RESILIENT-Extend study results, Michael Hill, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Calgary, Canada, pointed out that there was an absolute benefit of 11.1% on the mRS of 0-2 outcome but a similar signal of harm, with a 10.2% increase in mortality in the thrombectomy group, although that was not statistically significant.

“This signal of harm appears not to be due to an increase in intracranial hemorrhage or procedural mishap,” he said. “It is unclear why there were more deaths; the overall trial numbers are small enough that this could be a chance finding.”

Dr. Hill also noted that the absolute proportion of patients achieving an independent functional outcome was 50% less than in the DAWN trial of thrombectomy in the extended window. “This tells us that the patients selected for inclusion into RESILIENT-Extend were physiologically different from those in DAWN,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Amrou Sarraj, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center–Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said: “The RESILIENT-Extend investigators should be congratulated for the successful conduct of the trial and providing evidence of benefit of thrombectomy procedure with simplified neuroimaging protocol using CT and CTA in resource-limited settings. These findings will help support extending the access to thrombectomy in areas without availability of advanced imaging.”

He said the bidirectional effect on the primary endpoint and the positive interaction between age and thrombectomy treatment effect warranted further investigation.

The RESILIENT-Extend trial was sponsored by the Brazilian Ministry of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Thrombectomy is generally beneficial for patients from a low-income population who have a large vessel occlusion stroke presenting in the later time window and who can be identified as suitable for treatment without the need for advanced and costly imaging, a new Brazilian trial has shown.

“The RESILIENT-Extend trial is the first major study of thrombectomy in the late time window (8-24 h) conducted outside first-world countries and shows the procedure also has benefit in a lower socioeconomic status population without the need for costly imaging equipment,” said lead investigator Raul G. Nogueira, MD. 

“The trial expands the treatment window for thrombectomy globally with simplified selection criteria based on non-contrast CT, potentially altering current guidelines,” Dr. Nogueira said.

However, there were some caveats that need to be considered; in particular, a lack of benefit with thrombectomy in older patients (over 68 years of age), which Dr. Nogueira believes is a reflection of the particular population enrolled in this study. Specifically, he suggested that older age in this low socioeconomic status population is a surrogate for frailty, and the study may have identified frailty as a factor that correlates with reduced or lack of benefit of thrombectomy.

Dr. Nogueira, who is a professor of neurology and neurosurgery at the University of Pittsburgh, and Sheila Martins, MD, a professor of neurology at Hospital de Clinicas Porto Alegre in Brazil, presented the RESILIENT-Extend results at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Nogueira explained that the lack of available advanced imaging techniques is a major challenge for implementing endovascular therapy in an extended time window, especially in lower-income countries.

“Our main objective was to see if we could remove the need for advanced imaging to select patients with large vessel occlusion stroke in the late time window (8-24 h) for thrombectomy,” he said. “In this way, our trial overlaps somewhat with the MR CLEAN-LATE Trial conducted in the Netherlands, although the two trials were conducted in very different socioeconomic populations.”

The RESILIENT-Extend trial was conducted in the public health service of Brazil and involved a different population of people than have been included in other thrombectomy trials, which have mostly been conducted in first-world countries.

“The public health system in Brazil is not well-resourced and tends to care for patients at lower socioeconomic levels. These patients are fundamentally different from the average patients in the first-world recruited into most other thrombectomy trials,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

The trial enrolled 245 patients with a large vessel occlusion stroke within 8-24 hours of last known well. Patients were included who had a mismatch between the clinical severity as shown by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score and the stroke burden on imaging as measured by ASPECTS scores.

They had to have relatively high NIHSS scores (8 or more) showing more severe strokes but also a high ASPECTS score (5-10) excluding patients with large areas of ischemic brain. There was also a sliding scale that adjusted for age to avoid enrolling elderly patients with large strokes.

These patients were identified exclusively using non-contrast CT and CT angiography imaging.

The median age of patients included was 62-63 years. Dr. Nogueira pointed out that patients were slightly younger than seen in other thrombectomy trials, perhaps because in lower-middle-income countries strokes occur at a younger age. They also have a higher case fatality rate.

The median baseline NIHSS score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 7-8.

The median time to treatment was 12.5 hours, which is similar to other late window thrombectomy trials.
 

Conflicting Results on Shift Analysis

The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) disability score at 90 days.

This showed a bidirectional result, with thrombectomy increasing the chances of a good or excellent outcome (mRS, 0-3), but there was also a nonsignificant increased risk for a bad outcome (mRS, 5-6).

“This bidirectional result prevents a common odds ratio from being calculated, so the primary endpoint is not applicable,” Dr. Nogueira reported.

The researchers therefore used the secondary outcomes as the main results of the study.

These showed that the number of patients achieving a good outcome (mRS, 0-2) was significantly increased with thrombectomy (25% vs. 14%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.56; P = .012).

The number of patients achieving an excellent outcome (mRS, 0-1) was also significantly increased.

But these increases in good outcomes came at the cost of some patients having an increased risk for severe disability or death (mRS, 5-6).

The odds ratio for an mRS of 0-4 versus 5-6 was 0.71, and for an mRS of 0-5 versus 6, the odds ratio was 0.58. Both these results were nonsignificant.

Another anomaly in the RESILIENT-Extend trial was the observation of no benefit of thrombectomy seen in older patients.

“In general, trials of thrombectomy in the first world have shown a greater treatment effect in older patients, but this was not seen in our trial, where older patients (over 68 years) did not derive any benefit from the procedure,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

A similar observation was also seen in the first RESILIENT trial in patients treated within 8 hours of stroke onset, which was also conducted in Brazil, leading to the suggestion that it is related to the patient population included.

“In the Brazilian public health service, older patients are very vulnerable and frail. They are different to older patients in first world countries. It appears they may be too fragile to withstand the thrombectomy process,” Dr. Nogueira said.
 

Frailty: A Ceiling Effect?

Results from the two RESILIENT trials give a word of caution to the thrombectomy field, Dr. Nogueira said.

“This procedure was initially thought suitable only for patients with small core strokes, but we now have a series of trials showing benefit of thrombectomy in large core strokes as well,” Dr. Nogueira said. “We have started to believe that this intervention will benefit almost all patients with large vessel occlusion stroke everywhere around the world, but our data suggest that we have to consider the specific populations that we are serving and that factors such as socioeconomic status and frailty have to be taken into account.

“Both the RESILIENT trials have shown that thrombectomy does not appear to be suitable for older patients, over 68-70 years of age, in the public health service in Brazil,” he noted. “In this population, a patient aged 70 can be quite different to a patient of the same age in a first-world country. I think in our population, an age of over 68-70 is a surrogate for frailty, which will not be the case in first-world countries. In this regard, I think we have found a ceiling effect for benefit of thrombectomy, which is frailty.”

Dr. Nogueira speculated that the bidirectional effect on the mRS shift analysis may also have been caused by the frailty of some of the patients.

“What the results may be showing is that for most of the population, there is a benefit of thrombectomy, but for some patients, possibly the most frail, then the procedure can be too overwhelming for them. But the suggestion of harm was not significant, so this observation could have also just been the play of chance,” he added.
 

Interpreting the Findings

Commenting on the RESILIENT-Extend study results, Michael Hill, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Calgary, Canada, pointed out that there was an absolute benefit of 11.1% on the mRS of 0-2 outcome but a similar signal of harm, with a 10.2% increase in mortality in the thrombectomy group, although that was not statistically significant.

“This signal of harm appears not to be due to an increase in intracranial hemorrhage or procedural mishap,” he said. “It is unclear why there were more deaths; the overall trial numbers are small enough that this could be a chance finding.”

Dr. Hill also noted that the absolute proportion of patients achieving an independent functional outcome was 50% less than in the DAWN trial of thrombectomy in the extended window. “This tells us that the patients selected for inclusion into RESILIENT-Extend were physiologically different from those in DAWN,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Amrou Sarraj, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center–Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said: “The RESILIENT-Extend investigators should be congratulated for the successful conduct of the trial and providing evidence of benefit of thrombectomy procedure with simplified neuroimaging protocol using CT and CTA in resource-limited settings. These findings will help support extending the access to thrombectomy in areas without availability of advanced imaging.”

He said the bidirectional effect on the primary endpoint and the positive interaction between age and thrombectomy treatment effect warranted further investigation.

The RESILIENT-Extend trial was sponsored by the Brazilian Ministry of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Thrombectomy is generally beneficial for patients from a low-income population who have a large vessel occlusion stroke presenting in the later time window and who can be identified as suitable for treatment without the need for advanced and costly imaging, a new Brazilian trial has shown.

“The RESILIENT-Extend trial is the first major study of thrombectomy in the late time window (8-24 h) conducted outside first-world countries and shows the procedure also has benefit in a lower socioeconomic status population without the need for costly imaging equipment,” said lead investigator Raul G. Nogueira, MD. 

“The trial expands the treatment window for thrombectomy globally with simplified selection criteria based on non-contrast CT, potentially altering current guidelines,” Dr. Nogueira said.

However, there were some caveats that need to be considered; in particular, a lack of benefit with thrombectomy in older patients (over 68 years of age), which Dr. Nogueira believes is a reflection of the particular population enrolled in this study. Specifically, he suggested that older age in this low socioeconomic status population is a surrogate for frailty, and the study may have identified frailty as a factor that correlates with reduced or lack of benefit of thrombectomy.

Dr. Nogueira, who is a professor of neurology and neurosurgery at the University of Pittsburgh, and Sheila Martins, MD, a professor of neurology at Hospital de Clinicas Porto Alegre in Brazil, presented the RESILIENT-Extend results at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Nogueira explained that the lack of available advanced imaging techniques is a major challenge for implementing endovascular therapy in an extended time window, especially in lower-income countries.

“Our main objective was to see if we could remove the need for advanced imaging to select patients with large vessel occlusion stroke in the late time window (8-24 h) for thrombectomy,” he said. “In this way, our trial overlaps somewhat with the MR CLEAN-LATE Trial conducted in the Netherlands, although the two trials were conducted in very different socioeconomic populations.”

The RESILIENT-Extend trial was conducted in the public health service of Brazil and involved a different population of people than have been included in other thrombectomy trials, which have mostly been conducted in first-world countries.

“The public health system in Brazil is not well-resourced and tends to care for patients at lower socioeconomic levels. These patients are fundamentally different from the average patients in the first-world recruited into most other thrombectomy trials,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

The trial enrolled 245 patients with a large vessel occlusion stroke within 8-24 hours of last known well. Patients were included who had a mismatch between the clinical severity as shown by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score and the stroke burden on imaging as measured by ASPECTS scores.

They had to have relatively high NIHSS scores (8 or more) showing more severe strokes but also a high ASPECTS score (5-10) excluding patients with large areas of ischemic brain. There was also a sliding scale that adjusted for age to avoid enrolling elderly patients with large strokes.

These patients were identified exclusively using non-contrast CT and CT angiography imaging.

The median age of patients included was 62-63 years. Dr. Nogueira pointed out that patients were slightly younger than seen in other thrombectomy trials, perhaps because in lower-middle-income countries strokes occur at a younger age. They also have a higher case fatality rate.

The median baseline NIHSS score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 7-8.

The median time to treatment was 12.5 hours, which is similar to other late window thrombectomy trials.
 

Conflicting Results on Shift Analysis

The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) disability score at 90 days.

This showed a bidirectional result, with thrombectomy increasing the chances of a good or excellent outcome (mRS, 0-3), but there was also a nonsignificant increased risk for a bad outcome (mRS, 5-6).

“This bidirectional result prevents a common odds ratio from being calculated, so the primary endpoint is not applicable,” Dr. Nogueira reported.

The researchers therefore used the secondary outcomes as the main results of the study.

These showed that the number of patients achieving a good outcome (mRS, 0-2) was significantly increased with thrombectomy (25% vs. 14%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.56; P = .012).

The number of patients achieving an excellent outcome (mRS, 0-1) was also significantly increased.

But these increases in good outcomes came at the cost of some patients having an increased risk for severe disability or death (mRS, 5-6).

The odds ratio for an mRS of 0-4 versus 5-6 was 0.71, and for an mRS of 0-5 versus 6, the odds ratio was 0.58. Both these results were nonsignificant.

Another anomaly in the RESILIENT-Extend trial was the observation of no benefit of thrombectomy seen in older patients.

“In general, trials of thrombectomy in the first world have shown a greater treatment effect in older patients, but this was not seen in our trial, where older patients (over 68 years) did not derive any benefit from the procedure,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

A similar observation was also seen in the first RESILIENT trial in patients treated within 8 hours of stroke onset, which was also conducted in Brazil, leading to the suggestion that it is related to the patient population included.

“In the Brazilian public health service, older patients are very vulnerable and frail. They are different to older patients in first world countries. It appears they may be too fragile to withstand the thrombectomy process,” Dr. Nogueira said.
 

Frailty: A Ceiling Effect?

Results from the two RESILIENT trials give a word of caution to the thrombectomy field, Dr. Nogueira said.

“This procedure was initially thought suitable only for patients with small core strokes, but we now have a series of trials showing benefit of thrombectomy in large core strokes as well,” Dr. Nogueira said. “We have started to believe that this intervention will benefit almost all patients with large vessel occlusion stroke everywhere around the world, but our data suggest that we have to consider the specific populations that we are serving and that factors such as socioeconomic status and frailty have to be taken into account.

“Both the RESILIENT trials have shown that thrombectomy does not appear to be suitable for older patients, over 68-70 years of age, in the public health service in Brazil,” he noted. “In this population, a patient aged 70 can be quite different to a patient of the same age in a first-world country. I think in our population, an age of over 68-70 is a surrogate for frailty, which will not be the case in first-world countries. In this regard, I think we have found a ceiling effect for benefit of thrombectomy, which is frailty.”

Dr. Nogueira speculated that the bidirectional effect on the mRS shift analysis may also have been caused by the frailty of some of the patients.

“What the results may be showing is that for most of the population, there is a benefit of thrombectomy, but for some patients, possibly the most frail, then the procedure can be too overwhelming for them. But the suggestion of harm was not significant, so this observation could have also just been the play of chance,” he added.
 

Interpreting the Findings

Commenting on the RESILIENT-Extend study results, Michael Hill, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Calgary, Canada, pointed out that there was an absolute benefit of 11.1% on the mRS of 0-2 outcome but a similar signal of harm, with a 10.2% increase in mortality in the thrombectomy group, although that was not statistically significant.

“This signal of harm appears not to be due to an increase in intracranial hemorrhage or procedural mishap,” he said. “It is unclear why there were more deaths; the overall trial numbers are small enough that this could be a chance finding.”

Dr. Hill also noted that the absolute proportion of patients achieving an independent functional outcome was 50% less than in the DAWN trial of thrombectomy in the extended window. “This tells us that the patients selected for inclusion into RESILIENT-Extend were physiologically different from those in DAWN,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Amrou Sarraj, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center–Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said: “The RESILIENT-Extend investigators should be congratulated for the successful conduct of the trial and providing evidence of benefit of thrombectomy procedure with simplified neuroimaging protocol using CT and CTA in resource-limited settings. These findings will help support extending the access to thrombectomy in areas without availability of advanced imaging.”

He said the bidirectional effect on the primary endpoint and the positive interaction between age and thrombectomy treatment effect warranted further investigation.

The RESILIENT-Extend trial was sponsored by the Brazilian Ministry of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Picture your marriage proposal fantasy. Do you see a beautiful beach at sunset? The place where you first met your partner? Maybe a dream vacation — Paris, anyone? And perhaps most popular of all ... the ER?

Why not? For some couples who share medical careers, the hospital is home, and they turn the moment into something just as romantic as any Eiffel Tower backdrop. (And admittedly, sometimes they don’t.)

Since we’re approaching Valentine’s Day— often the #1 day of the year for engagements — lovestruck healthcare professionals take note. There are good ways to do it and, well, ill-advised ways. We spoke with three couples whose medical-themed proposals ended in the word “yes!” 

Heaven on the Helipad

When emergency medicine physician Anna Darby, MD, heard a trauma patient was arriving and urgently needed to be intubated, she raced up to the rooftop helipad. As soon as the elevator doors opened, she was met with quite a different scene than expected. There were rose petals ... lots and lots of rose petals.

With her best friends and colleagues lining a red carpet, the roof had been turned into a scene from The Bachelor. Each person gave her a rose. A friend even touched up her makeup and handed over her favorite hoop earrings, transforming her from busy doctor to soon-to-be fiancée. Her boyfriend, cardiologist Merije Chukumerije, MD, stood waiting. You can guess what happened next.

Dr. Chukumerije later wrote in an Instagram post, “We met at this hospital. So, it was only right that I bring her to its highest place as we’ve reached the peak of our union.” The couple actually met in the hospital cafeteria “like all the clichés,” Dr. Darby jokes. For them, the helipad experience was just as Insta-worthy as any braggable, grandiose proposal at a fancy restaurant or on a mountaintop.

“Seeing that scene was totally not what I expected,” Dr. Darby says. “I can’t even describe it. It’s like the second biggest hormonal shift, [second only to] having a baby.” She and Dr. Chukumerije now have two babies of their own, aged 2 months and 2 years old.

Good Morning, Doctor

It was February 2021, the height of the pandemic, and Raaga Vemula, MD, now in her palliative care/hospice care fellowship, was “selected” for a local news interview on COVID-19. Except the interview was really with Good Morning America. And the topic was really a proposal. 

Dr. Vemula met Steven Bean, MD, now doing a sleep medicine fellowship, in 2015. “I first saw her, and thought she was one of the prettiest women I’d ever seen. ... We ended up being in the same study group,” he says. “Let’s be honest, I applied to every med school she applied to.” 

Six years later, Dr. Bean connected with GMA through The Knot, a wedding planning website and registry. The made-up interview request for Dr. Vemula came from the residency program director, who was in on the surprise. Dr. Vemula’s family also knew what was up when she called with the “news.” 

The live broadcast took place at the hospital. Dr. Bean had an earpiece for the producers to give him directions. But “I was so nervous, I walked out immediately,” he says. He ended up standing behind Dr. Vemula. The mistake worked well for viewers though, building anticipation while she answered a COVID-19 question. “We got everybody excited,” says Dr. Bean. “So, when they said ’Raaga, turn around’ it worked out perfectly. She was confused as hell.”

Luckily, Dr. Vemula loves a good surprise. “He knows me very well,” she says. 

For her, the proposal was even more meaningful given their background together. “Medicine means so much to both of us and was such a big part of our lives,” she says. “That’s what shaped us to do this. ... I think in our hearts it was meant to be this way.” 

Who Says Masks Don’t Work?

Masks conjure up feelings for anyone living through the pandemic, especially medical personnel. But for Rhett Franklin and wife Lauren Gray, they will always symbolize of one of the biggest days of their lives.

Mr. Franklin worked in registration, often following Ms. Gray, an emergency room nurse, around with a wheeled computer station to gather patient information (what’s known as a “creeper,” which isn’t as creepy as it sounds). Eventually, she offered to grab a coffee with him, and when he suggested another coffee, she said it was time for him to buy her a drink. 

Mr. Franklin, now a manager of business operations for nursing administration, originally planned to propose to Ms. Gray on a trip to England. But the pandemic prevented their vacation with its potential castle backdrop. 

Mr. Franklin often picked up shifts making masks for frontline workers, and an alternate proposal idea started brewing. He schemed to have two very special masks made. “Mine was a black tuxedo that said, ‘Will you marry me?’ and hers resembled a white dress that said, ‘I said yes!’ ” Mr. Franklin says. 

But a text almost ruined the surprise. When Mr. Franklin messaged family members about his proposal plan the day before, one relative responded in a group chat that included Ms. Gray. This was when the busy ER came to the rescue — no time to read texts. Family members also started calling Ms. Gray on the hospital’s phoneline as a distraction. Unfazed, Mr. Franklin simply moved up the proposal to that night. 

At their favorite dog beach, as the sunset gleamed on the water, Mr. Franklin pulled his mask out and took a knee. He can’t recall what he said behind that mask. “It was kind of one of those blackout moments.” But Ms. Gray remembers for him — “You said ‘Let’s do this.’ ”

Warning Label

Everyone has different tastes. Some healthcare professionals have taken the medical theme further than these couples — maybe too far. A few have even faked life-threatening emergencies, showing up in the ER on a gurney with a made-up peanut allergy reaction or a severe injury and then pulling out a ring.

But who’s to judge? For some, thinking your partner is “dying” and then learning you’ve been tricked might not conjure up the warmest feelings. For others, apparently, it’s a virtual bouquet of roses. 

A Few Proposal Pointers

If you’re planning to pop the question, this group says, “go for the medical setting!” But according to them, there are other must-haves to get that “yes” and the lifetime of wedded bliss, of course:

• Make it a hospital-wide morale-booster. “Everyone loves surprises,” Dr. Bean maintains. So, why not bring your colleagues in on the conspiracy? “Involving coworkers will strengthen relationships with their work family by leaving lasting memories for everyone,” he says. “In a busy medical setting, it’s usually unexpected, so it makes it extra special.” 
• Have a backup plan. As healthcare professionals, you know that schedules get in the way of everything. So, practice that flexibility you will need as a marriage skill. When Mr. Franklin’s first two engagement locations fell though, he says, it was important to adapt and not panic when things went awry.
• Seize the moment. Think you can’t get engaged during residency? “Planning a proposal during intern year of residency is totally manageable,” Dr. Vemula says. “That way as residency progresses and you have more time, there is more time to focus on the wedding planning.” But she cautions that, “wedding planning during the intern year would be quite difficult.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Picture your marriage proposal fantasy. Do you see a beautiful beach at sunset? The place where you first met your partner? Maybe a dream vacation — Paris, anyone? And perhaps most popular of all ... the ER?

Why not? For some couples who share medical careers, the hospital is home, and they turn the moment into something just as romantic as any Eiffel Tower backdrop. (And admittedly, sometimes they don’t.)

Since we’re approaching Valentine’s Day— often the #1 day of the year for engagements — lovestruck healthcare professionals take note. There are good ways to do it and, well, ill-advised ways. We spoke with three couples whose medical-themed proposals ended in the word “yes!” 

Heaven on the Helipad

When emergency medicine physician Anna Darby, MD, heard a trauma patient was arriving and urgently needed to be intubated, she raced up to the rooftop helipad. As soon as the elevator doors opened, she was met with quite a different scene than expected. There were rose petals ... lots and lots of rose petals.

With her best friends and colleagues lining a red carpet, the roof had been turned into a scene from The Bachelor. Each person gave her a rose. A friend even touched up her makeup and handed over her favorite hoop earrings, transforming her from busy doctor to soon-to-be fiancée. Her boyfriend, cardiologist Merije Chukumerije, MD, stood waiting. You can guess what happened next.

Dr. Chukumerije later wrote in an Instagram post, “We met at this hospital. So, it was only right that I bring her to its highest place as we’ve reached the peak of our union.” The couple actually met in the hospital cafeteria “like all the clichés,” Dr. Darby jokes. For them, the helipad experience was just as Insta-worthy as any braggable, grandiose proposal at a fancy restaurant or on a mountaintop.

“Seeing that scene was totally not what I expected,” Dr. Darby says. “I can’t even describe it. It’s like the second biggest hormonal shift, [second only to] having a baby.” She and Dr. Chukumerije now have two babies of their own, aged 2 months and 2 years old.

Good Morning, Doctor

It was February 2021, the height of the pandemic, and Raaga Vemula, MD, now in her palliative care/hospice care fellowship, was “selected” for a local news interview on COVID-19. Except the interview was really with Good Morning America. And the topic was really a proposal. 

Dr. Vemula met Steven Bean, MD, now doing a sleep medicine fellowship, in 2015. “I first saw her, and thought she was one of the prettiest women I’d ever seen. ... We ended up being in the same study group,” he says. “Let’s be honest, I applied to every med school she applied to.” 

Six years later, Dr. Bean connected with GMA through The Knot, a wedding planning website and registry. The made-up interview request for Dr. Vemula came from the residency program director, who was in on the surprise. Dr. Vemula’s family also knew what was up when she called with the “news.” 

The live broadcast took place at the hospital. Dr. Bean had an earpiece for the producers to give him directions. But “I was so nervous, I walked out immediately,” he says. He ended up standing behind Dr. Vemula. The mistake worked well for viewers though, building anticipation while she answered a COVID-19 question. “We got everybody excited,” says Dr. Bean. “So, when they said ’Raaga, turn around’ it worked out perfectly. She was confused as hell.”

Luckily, Dr. Vemula loves a good surprise. “He knows me very well,” she says. 

For her, the proposal was even more meaningful given their background together. “Medicine means so much to both of us and was such a big part of our lives,” she says. “That’s what shaped us to do this. ... I think in our hearts it was meant to be this way.” 

Who Says Masks Don’t Work?

Masks conjure up feelings for anyone living through the pandemic, especially medical personnel. But for Rhett Franklin and wife Lauren Gray, they will always symbolize of one of the biggest days of their lives.

Mr. Franklin worked in registration, often following Ms. Gray, an emergency room nurse, around with a wheeled computer station to gather patient information (what’s known as a “creeper,” which isn’t as creepy as it sounds). Eventually, she offered to grab a coffee with him, and when he suggested another coffee, she said it was time for him to buy her a drink. 

Mr. Franklin, now a manager of business operations for nursing administration, originally planned to propose to Ms. Gray on a trip to England. But the pandemic prevented their vacation with its potential castle backdrop. 

Mr. Franklin often picked up shifts making masks for frontline workers, and an alternate proposal idea started brewing. He schemed to have two very special masks made. “Mine was a black tuxedo that said, ‘Will you marry me?’ and hers resembled a white dress that said, ‘I said yes!’ ” Mr. Franklin says. 

But a text almost ruined the surprise. When Mr. Franklin messaged family members about his proposal plan the day before, one relative responded in a group chat that included Ms. Gray. This was when the busy ER came to the rescue — no time to read texts. Family members also started calling Ms. Gray on the hospital’s phoneline as a distraction. Unfazed, Mr. Franklin simply moved up the proposal to that night. 

At their favorite dog beach, as the sunset gleamed on the water, Mr. Franklin pulled his mask out and took a knee. He can’t recall what he said behind that mask. “It was kind of one of those blackout moments.” But Ms. Gray remembers for him — “You said ‘Let’s do this.’ ”

Warning Label

Everyone has different tastes. Some healthcare professionals have taken the medical theme further than these couples — maybe too far. A few have even faked life-threatening emergencies, showing up in the ER on a gurney with a made-up peanut allergy reaction or a severe injury and then pulling out a ring.

But who’s to judge? For some, thinking your partner is “dying” and then learning you’ve been tricked might not conjure up the warmest feelings. For others, apparently, it’s a virtual bouquet of roses. 

A Few Proposal Pointers

If you’re planning to pop the question, this group says, “go for the medical setting!” But according to them, there are other must-haves to get that “yes” and the lifetime of wedded bliss, of course:

• Make it a hospital-wide morale-booster. “Everyone loves surprises,” Dr. Bean maintains. So, why not bring your colleagues in on the conspiracy? “Involving coworkers will strengthen relationships with their work family by leaving lasting memories for everyone,” he says. “In a busy medical setting, it’s usually unexpected, so it makes it extra special.” 
• Have a backup plan. As healthcare professionals, you know that schedules get in the way of everything. So, practice that flexibility you will need as a marriage skill. When Mr. Franklin’s first two engagement locations fell though, he says, it was important to adapt and not panic when things went awry.
• Seize the moment. Think you can’t get engaged during residency? “Planning a proposal during intern year of residency is totally manageable,” Dr. Vemula says. “That way as residency progresses and you have more time, there is more time to focus on the wedding planning.” But she cautions that, “wedding planning during the intern year would be quite difficult.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Picture your marriage proposal fantasy. Do you see a beautiful beach at sunset? The place where you first met your partner? Maybe a dream vacation — Paris, anyone? And perhaps most popular of all ... the ER?

Why not? For some couples who share medical careers, the hospital is home, and they turn the moment into something just as romantic as any Eiffel Tower backdrop. (And admittedly, sometimes they don’t.)

Since we’re approaching Valentine’s Day— often the #1 day of the year for engagements — lovestruck healthcare professionals take note. There are good ways to do it and, well, ill-advised ways. We spoke with three couples whose medical-themed proposals ended in the word “yes!” 

Heaven on the Helipad

When emergency medicine physician Anna Darby, MD, heard a trauma patient was arriving and urgently needed to be intubated, she raced up to the rooftop helipad. As soon as the elevator doors opened, she was met with quite a different scene than expected. There were rose petals ... lots and lots of rose petals.

With her best friends and colleagues lining a red carpet, the roof had been turned into a scene from The Bachelor. Each person gave her a rose. A friend even touched up her makeup and handed over her favorite hoop earrings, transforming her from busy doctor to soon-to-be fiancée. Her boyfriend, cardiologist Merije Chukumerije, MD, stood waiting. You can guess what happened next.

Dr. Chukumerije later wrote in an Instagram post, “We met at this hospital. So, it was only right that I bring her to its highest place as we’ve reached the peak of our union.” The couple actually met in the hospital cafeteria “like all the clichés,” Dr. Darby jokes. For them, the helipad experience was just as Insta-worthy as any braggable, grandiose proposal at a fancy restaurant or on a mountaintop.

“Seeing that scene was totally not what I expected,” Dr. Darby says. “I can’t even describe it. It’s like the second biggest hormonal shift, [second only to] having a baby.” She and Dr. Chukumerije now have two babies of their own, aged 2 months and 2 years old.

Good Morning, Doctor

It was February 2021, the height of the pandemic, and Raaga Vemula, MD, now in her palliative care/hospice care fellowship, was “selected” for a local news interview on COVID-19. Except the interview was really with Good Morning America. And the topic was really a proposal. 

Dr. Vemula met Steven Bean, MD, now doing a sleep medicine fellowship, in 2015. “I first saw her, and thought she was one of the prettiest women I’d ever seen. ... We ended up being in the same study group,” he says. “Let’s be honest, I applied to every med school she applied to.” 

Six years later, Dr. Bean connected with GMA through The Knot, a wedding planning website and registry. The made-up interview request for Dr. Vemula came from the residency program director, who was in on the surprise. Dr. Vemula’s family also knew what was up when she called with the “news.” 

The live broadcast took place at the hospital. Dr. Bean had an earpiece for the producers to give him directions. But “I was so nervous, I walked out immediately,” he says. He ended up standing behind Dr. Vemula. The mistake worked well for viewers though, building anticipation while she answered a COVID-19 question. “We got everybody excited,” says Dr. Bean. “So, when they said ’Raaga, turn around’ it worked out perfectly. She was confused as hell.”

Luckily, Dr. Vemula loves a good surprise. “He knows me very well,” she says. 

For her, the proposal was even more meaningful given their background together. “Medicine means so much to both of us and was such a big part of our lives,” she says. “That’s what shaped us to do this. ... I think in our hearts it was meant to be this way.” 

Who Says Masks Don’t Work?

Masks conjure up feelings for anyone living through the pandemic, especially medical personnel. But for Rhett Franklin and wife Lauren Gray, they will always symbolize of one of the biggest days of their lives.

Mr. Franklin worked in registration, often following Ms. Gray, an emergency room nurse, around with a wheeled computer station to gather patient information (what’s known as a “creeper,” which isn’t as creepy as it sounds). Eventually, she offered to grab a coffee with him, and when he suggested another coffee, she said it was time for him to buy her a drink. 

Mr. Franklin, now a manager of business operations for nursing administration, originally planned to propose to Ms. Gray on a trip to England. But the pandemic prevented their vacation with its potential castle backdrop. 

Mr. Franklin often picked up shifts making masks for frontline workers, and an alternate proposal idea started brewing. He schemed to have two very special masks made. “Mine was a black tuxedo that said, ‘Will you marry me?’ and hers resembled a white dress that said, ‘I said yes!’ ” Mr. Franklin says. 

But a text almost ruined the surprise. When Mr. Franklin messaged family members about his proposal plan the day before, one relative responded in a group chat that included Ms. Gray. This was when the busy ER came to the rescue — no time to read texts. Family members also started calling Ms. Gray on the hospital’s phoneline as a distraction. Unfazed, Mr. Franklin simply moved up the proposal to that night. 

At their favorite dog beach, as the sunset gleamed on the water, Mr. Franklin pulled his mask out and took a knee. He can’t recall what he said behind that mask. “It was kind of one of those blackout moments.” But Ms. Gray remembers for him — “You said ‘Let’s do this.’ ”

Warning Label

Everyone has different tastes. Some healthcare professionals have taken the medical theme further than these couples — maybe too far. A few have even faked life-threatening emergencies, showing up in the ER on a gurney with a made-up peanut allergy reaction or a severe injury and then pulling out a ring.

But who’s to judge? For some, thinking your partner is “dying” and then learning you’ve been tricked might not conjure up the warmest feelings. For others, apparently, it’s a virtual bouquet of roses. 

A Few Proposal Pointers

If you’re planning to pop the question, this group says, “go for the medical setting!” But according to them, there are other must-haves to get that “yes” and the lifetime of wedded bliss, of course:

• Make it a hospital-wide morale-booster. “Everyone loves surprises,” Dr. Bean maintains. So, why not bring your colleagues in on the conspiracy? “Involving coworkers will strengthen relationships with their work family by leaving lasting memories for everyone,” he says. “In a busy medical setting, it’s usually unexpected, so it makes it extra special.” 
• Have a backup plan. As healthcare professionals, you know that schedules get in the way of everything. So, practice that flexibility you will need as a marriage skill. When Mr. Franklin’s first two engagement locations fell though, he says, it was important to adapt and not panic when things went awry.
• Seize the moment. Think you can’t get engaged during residency? “Planning a proposal during intern year of residency is totally manageable,” Dr. Vemula says. “That way as residency progresses and you have more time, there is more time to focus on the wedding planning.” But she cautions that, “wedding planning during the intern year would be quite difficult.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many infants have experienced an episode of apnea, defined as a pause in respiration of 20 seconds or more. Most episodes remain unexplained, and no underlying cause can be found. Historically, these were referred to as “near-miss SIDS,” episodes, but that label suggested that all of these events would have ended in death had someone not intervened. New descriptive terminology was needed.

In the mid-1980s, the term “apparent life-threatening event” (ALTE) was adopted. But that term, too, was an overstatement, because although scary for parents, these brief apnea episodes were not, in most cases, truly life-threatening.

In 2013, authors of a systematic review coined the term “brief resolved unexplained event” (BRUE). This review also addressed the history and physical exam features associated with risk for a subsequent episode. It was felt that hospitalization and testing might be warranted if certain infants could be identified as high risk for recurrence.

What Is Considered a BRUE?

In the current working definition of BRUE, the child must be < 1 year old. The episode must be a sudden, brief, and resolved, with one or more of these characteristics:

• Cyanosis or pallor (but not turning red)
• A change in breathing (absent, decreased, or irregular)
• A change in tone (hypertonia or hypotonia)
• A change in responsiveness.

Furthermore, to qualify as a BRUE, no explanation can be found for the event based on the history and physical examination but before any laboratory testing is done. The definition also excludes children with known potential explanatory diagnoses (such as gastroesophageal reflux or bronchiolitis) and those who are otherwise symptomatically ill at the time of the event.
 

Decision to Admit and Recurrence Risk

An apnea event in an otherwise healthy infant, regardless of what it’s called, puts providers and parents in a difficult position. Should the infant be hospitalized for further monitoring and potentially more invasive testing to determine the cause of the episode? And what are the chances that the episode will be repeated?

A clinical practice guideline (CPG) for BRUE, widely adopted in 2016, resulted in significant reductions in healthcare utilization. The CPG attempted to identify low-risk infants who could safely be discharged from the emergency department. Although the CPG improved outcomes, experts acknowledged that an underlying problem was not likely to be identified even among infants deemed high risk, and these infants would be hospitalized unnecessarily.

Available data were simply insufficient to support this decision. So, with the goal of identifying factors that could help predict recurrent BRUE risk, a 15-hospital collaborative study was undertaken, followed by the development and validation of a clinical decision rule for predicting the risk for a serious underlying diagnosis or event recurrence among infants presenting with BRUE.

Here’s what we learned from more than 3000 cases of BRUE.

First, it turns out that it’s not easy to determine whether an infant is at low or high risk for recurrence of BRUE. Initially, 91.5% of patients enrolled in the study would have been labeled high risk.

Furthermore, a BRUE recurred in 14.3% of the cohort, and 4.8% of high-risk infants were found to have a serious undiagnosed condition. Seizures, airway anomalies, and gastroesophageal reflux were the top three causes of BRUE, but the spectrum of underlying pathology was quite considerable.

The problem was that 4.6% of the entire cohort were found to have a serious underlying condition, nearly identical to the proportion of high-risk infants with these conditions. This prompted the question of whether simply labeling infants “high risk” was really appropriate any longer. 
 

Revised BRUE Management

Although it hasn’t been possible to group infants neatly in low and high-risk categories, the data from that large cohort led to the development of the BRUE 2.0 criteria, which enabled more focused risk assessment of an infant who experienced a BRUE. With an app on MDCalc, these criteria allow providers to ascertain, and show families, a visual representation of their infant’s individualized risk for a subsequent BRUE and of having a serious underlying condition.

The cohort study also identified red flags from the history or physical exam of infants who experienced a BRUE: weight loss, failure to thrive, or a history of feeding problems. Exam findings such as a bulging fontanelle, forceful or bilious emesis, and evidence of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding suggest a medical diagnosis rather than a BRUE. If GI-related causes are high on the differential, a feeding evaluation can be helpful. A feeding evaluation can be done in the outpatient setting and does not require hospitalization.

For suspicion of an underlying neurological condition (such as seizures), experts recommend obtaining a short EEG, which is highly sensitive for detecting infantile spasms and encephalopathy. They recommend reserving MRI for infants with abnormalities on EEG or physical exam. Metabolic or genetic testing should be done only if the infant looks ill, because most patients with genetic or inborn errors of metabolism will continue to have symptoms as they become older.

The approach to BRUE has moved into the realm of shared decision-making with families. The likelihood of identifying a serious diagnosis is low for most of these children. And unfortunately, no single test can diagnose the full spectrum of potential explanatory diagnoses. For example, data from 2023 demonstrate that only 1.1% of lab tests following a BRUE contributed to a diagnosis, and most of the time that was a positive viral test. Similarly, imaging was helpful in only 1.5% of cases. So, explaining the evidence and deciding along with parents what is reasonable to do (or not do) is the current state of affairs.
 

My Take

As I reflect back on two and a half decades of caring for these patients, I believe that recent data have helped us a great deal. We do less testing and admit fewer infants to the hospital than we did 20 years ago, and that’s a good thing. Nevertheless, looking for a few red flags, having a high index of suspicion when the clinical exam is abnormal, and engaging in shared decision-making with families can help make the caring for these challenging patients more bearable and lead to better outcomes for all involved.

Dr. Basco is Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC); Director, Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, MUSC Children’s Hospital, Charleston, South Carolina. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many infants have experienced an episode of apnea, defined as a pause in respiration of 20 seconds or more. Most episodes remain unexplained, and no underlying cause can be found. Historically, these were referred to as “near-miss SIDS,” episodes, but that label suggested that all of these events would have ended in death had someone not intervened. New descriptive terminology was needed.

In the mid-1980s, the term “apparent life-threatening event” (ALTE) was adopted. But that term, too, was an overstatement, because although scary for parents, these brief apnea episodes were not, in most cases, truly life-threatening.

In 2013, authors of a systematic review coined the term “brief resolved unexplained event” (BRUE). This review also addressed the history and physical exam features associated with risk for a subsequent episode. It was felt that hospitalization and testing might be warranted if certain infants could be identified as high risk for recurrence.

What Is Considered a BRUE?

In the current working definition of BRUE, the child must be < 1 year old. The episode must be a sudden, brief, and resolved, with one or more of these characteristics:

• Cyanosis or pallor (but not turning red)
• A change in breathing (absent, decreased, or irregular)
• A change in tone (hypertonia or hypotonia)
• A change in responsiveness.

Furthermore, to qualify as a BRUE, no explanation can be found for the event based on the history and physical examination but before any laboratory testing is done. The definition also excludes children with known potential explanatory diagnoses (such as gastroesophageal reflux or bronchiolitis) and those who are otherwise symptomatically ill at the time of the event.
 

Decision to Admit and Recurrence Risk

An apnea event in an otherwise healthy infant, regardless of what it’s called, puts providers and parents in a difficult position. Should the infant be hospitalized for further monitoring and potentially more invasive testing to determine the cause of the episode? And what are the chances that the episode will be repeated?

A clinical practice guideline (CPG) for BRUE, widely adopted in 2016, resulted in significant reductions in healthcare utilization. The CPG attempted to identify low-risk infants who could safely be discharged from the emergency department. Although the CPG improved outcomes, experts acknowledged that an underlying problem was not likely to be identified even among infants deemed high risk, and these infants would be hospitalized unnecessarily.

Available data were simply insufficient to support this decision. So, with the goal of identifying factors that could help predict recurrent BRUE risk, a 15-hospital collaborative study was undertaken, followed by the development and validation of a clinical decision rule for predicting the risk for a serious underlying diagnosis or event recurrence among infants presenting with BRUE.

Here’s what we learned from more than 3000 cases of BRUE.

First, it turns out that it’s not easy to determine whether an infant is at low or high risk for recurrence of BRUE. Initially, 91.5% of patients enrolled in the study would have been labeled high risk.

Furthermore, a BRUE recurred in 14.3% of the cohort, and 4.8% of high-risk infants were found to have a serious undiagnosed condition. Seizures, airway anomalies, and gastroesophageal reflux were the top three causes of BRUE, but the spectrum of underlying pathology was quite considerable.

The problem was that 4.6% of the entire cohort were found to have a serious underlying condition, nearly identical to the proportion of high-risk infants with these conditions. This prompted the question of whether simply labeling infants “high risk” was really appropriate any longer. 
 

Revised BRUE Management

Although it hasn’t been possible to group infants neatly in low and high-risk categories, the data from that large cohort led to the development of the BRUE 2.0 criteria, which enabled more focused risk assessment of an infant who experienced a BRUE. With an app on MDCalc, these criteria allow providers to ascertain, and show families, a visual representation of their infant’s individualized risk for a subsequent BRUE and of having a serious underlying condition.

The cohort study also identified red flags from the history or physical exam of infants who experienced a BRUE: weight loss, failure to thrive, or a history of feeding problems. Exam findings such as a bulging fontanelle, forceful or bilious emesis, and evidence of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding suggest a medical diagnosis rather than a BRUE. If GI-related causes are high on the differential, a feeding evaluation can be helpful. A feeding evaluation can be done in the outpatient setting and does not require hospitalization.

For suspicion of an underlying neurological condition (such as seizures), experts recommend obtaining a short EEG, which is highly sensitive for detecting infantile spasms and encephalopathy. They recommend reserving MRI for infants with abnormalities on EEG or physical exam. Metabolic or genetic testing should be done only if the infant looks ill, because most patients with genetic or inborn errors of metabolism will continue to have symptoms as they become older.

The approach to BRUE has moved into the realm of shared decision-making with families. The likelihood of identifying a serious diagnosis is low for most of these children. And unfortunately, no single test can diagnose the full spectrum of potential explanatory diagnoses. For example, data from 2023 demonstrate that only 1.1% of lab tests following a BRUE contributed to a diagnosis, and most of the time that was a positive viral test. Similarly, imaging was helpful in only 1.5% of cases. So, explaining the evidence and deciding along with parents what is reasonable to do (or not do) is the current state of affairs.
 

My Take

As I reflect back on two and a half decades of caring for these patients, I believe that recent data have helped us a great deal. We do less testing and admit fewer infants to the hospital than we did 20 years ago, and that’s a good thing. Nevertheless, looking for a few red flags, having a high index of suspicion when the clinical exam is abnormal, and engaging in shared decision-making with families can help make the caring for these challenging patients more bearable and lead to better outcomes for all involved.

Dr. Basco is Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC); Director, Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, MUSC Children’s Hospital, Charleston, South Carolina. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many infants have experienced an episode of apnea, defined as a pause in respiration of 20 seconds or more. Most episodes remain unexplained, and no underlying cause can be found. Historically, these were referred to as “near-miss SIDS,” episodes, but that label suggested that all of these events would have ended in death had someone not intervened. New descriptive terminology was needed.

In the mid-1980s, the term “apparent life-threatening event” (ALTE) was adopted. But that term, too, was an overstatement, because although scary for parents, these brief apnea episodes were not, in most cases, truly life-threatening.

In 2013, authors of a systematic review coined the term “brief resolved unexplained event” (BRUE). This review also addressed the history and physical exam features associated with risk for a subsequent episode. It was felt that hospitalization and testing might be warranted if certain infants could be identified as high risk for recurrence.

What Is Considered a BRUE?

In the current working definition of BRUE, the child must be < 1 year old. The episode must be a sudden, brief, and resolved, with one or more of these characteristics:

• Cyanosis or pallor (but not turning red)
• A change in breathing (absent, decreased, or irregular)
• A change in tone (hypertonia or hypotonia)
• A change in responsiveness.

Furthermore, to qualify as a BRUE, no explanation can be found for the event based on the history and physical examination but before any laboratory testing is done. The definition also excludes children with known potential explanatory diagnoses (such as gastroesophageal reflux or bronchiolitis) and those who are otherwise symptomatically ill at the time of the event.
 

Decision to Admit and Recurrence Risk

An apnea event in an otherwise healthy infant, regardless of what it’s called, puts providers and parents in a difficult position. Should the infant be hospitalized for further monitoring and potentially more invasive testing to determine the cause of the episode? And what are the chances that the episode will be repeated?

A clinical practice guideline (CPG) for BRUE, widely adopted in 2016, resulted in significant reductions in healthcare utilization. The CPG attempted to identify low-risk infants who could safely be discharged from the emergency department. Although the CPG improved outcomes, experts acknowledged that an underlying problem was not likely to be identified even among infants deemed high risk, and these infants would be hospitalized unnecessarily.

Available data were simply insufficient to support this decision. So, with the goal of identifying factors that could help predict recurrent BRUE risk, a 15-hospital collaborative study was undertaken, followed by the development and validation of a clinical decision rule for predicting the risk for a serious underlying diagnosis or event recurrence among infants presenting with BRUE.

Here’s what we learned from more than 3000 cases of BRUE.

First, it turns out that it’s not easy to determine whether an infant is at low or high risk for recurrence of BRUE. Initially, 91.5% of patients enrolled in the study would have been labeled high risk.

Furthermore, a BRUE recurred in 14.3% of the cohort, and 4.8% of high-risk infants were found to have a serious undiagnosed condition. Seizures, airway anomalies, and gastroesophageal reflux were the top three causes of BRUE, but the spectrum of underlying pathology was quite considerable.

The problem was that 4.6% of the entire cohort were found to have a serious underlying condition, nearly identical to the proportion of high-risk infants with these conditions. This prompted the question of whether simply labeling infants “high risk” was really appropriate any longer. 
 

Revised BRUE Management

Although it hasn’t been possible to group infants neatly in low and high-risk categories, the data from that large cohort led to the development of the BRUE 2.0 criteria, which enabled more focused risk assessment of an infant who experienced a BRUE. With an app on MDCalc, these criteria allow providers to ascertain, and show families, a visual representation of their infant’s individualized risk for a subsequent BRUE and of having a serious underlying condition.

The cohort study also identified red flags from the history or physical exam of infants who experienced a BRUE: weight loss, failure to thrive, or a history of feeding problems. Exam findings such as a bulging fontanelle, forceful or bilious emesis, and evidence of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding suggest a medical diagnosis rather than a BRUE. If GI-related causes are high on the differential, a feeding evaluation can be helpful. A feeding evaluation can be done in the outpatient setting and does not require hospitalization.

For suspicion of an underlying neurological condition (such as seizures), experts recommend obtaining a short EEG, which is highly sensitive for detecting infantile spasms and encephalopathy. They recommend reserving MRI for infants with abnormalities on EEG or physical exam. Metabolic or genetic testing should be done only if the infant looks ill, because most patients with genetic or inborn errors of metabolism will continue to have symptoms as they become older.

The approach to BRUE has moved into the realm of shared decision-making with families. The likelihood of identifying a serious diagnosis is low for most of these children. And unfortunately, no single test can diagnose the full spectrum of potential explanatory diagnoses. For example, data from 2023 demonstrate that only 1.1% of lab tests following a BRUE contributed to a diagnosis, and most of the time that was a positive viral test. Similarly, imaging was helpful in only 1.5% of cases. So, explaining the evidence and deciding along with parents what is reasonable to do (or not do) is the current state of affairs.
 

My Take

As I reflect back on two and a half decades of caring for these patients, I believe that recent data have helped us a great deal. We do less testing and admit fewer infants to the hospital than we did 20 years ago, and that’s a good thing. Nevertheless, looking for a few red flags, having a high index of suspicion when the clinical exam is abnormal, and engaging in shared decision-making with families can help make the caring for these challenging patients more bearable and lead to better outcomes for all involved.

Dr. Basco is Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC); Director, Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, MUSC Children’s Hospital, Charleston, South Carolina. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere and anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. 'Is There a Doctor in the House?' is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

Bill Madden, MD: It was a Saturday in October of 1996. I had gone to my favorite plant nursery in Tucson with my wife, Beth, and two of my kids, Zach and Katya, who were 9 years old. I went to the back of the nursery to use the bathroom, and I heard two of the workers yelling at each other. The tone was angry. 

I went back up to the front, and Zach said that he was bored. He asked if he could go to the car and get a book, so I gave him my car keys and told him to be careful crossing the street. 

Ron Quintia, DDS: It was late in the afternoon, probably close to 4 PM. I was also at the nursery picking up some plants. 

The noise came out of nowhere. Boom! Boom! Boom! I thought, Wow, that sounds like a gun. But no, it can’t be a gun. This is a plant nursery. 

BM: When I heard the rounds being fired, I knew what that sound meant. I was in the Army for 20 years doing critical care for kids. 

I turned and a young man came running toward me out of the sun. It was hard to see, but I realized a second guy was running about 10 feet behind him. Both men were screaming. 

My wife was about 10 feet away behind a raised planter with Katya. I yelled for them to get down as I dove for the ground.

The first guy, a young Hispanic man, tried to escape through some bushes. But the shooter was catching up. I recognized him. He was from Ethiopia and worked at the nursery. I had talked to him a week earlier about his life; he used to be a farmer.

Now, he was holding a 9-mm automatic — silver, very shiny. He shot the Hispanic man twice in the chest. Then he ran toward the back of the nursery. 

RQ: When I realized what was happening, I crouched down, so I couldn’t see very much. But I heard someone screaming, “He has a gun! He has a gun!” And then I heard more shots. 

BM: I yelled at my wife, “Get out!” Then I ran for the phone at the kiosk desk to call 911. This was before most people had cell phones. But the phone was hooked up to the paging system for the nursery, and I couldn’t get it to work. I turned and ran for the wounded man.

RQ: I got to the victim first. Both lungs had been hit, and I could hear he had sucking chest wounds. He was bleeding out of his mouth, saying, “I’m going to die. I’m going to die.” I told him, “You’re not going to die,” while thinking to myself, He’s going to die. 

BM: I had never met Ron before, but we started working on the patient together. Both of his lungs were collapsing. With sucking chest wounds, the critical issue is to seal up the holes. So normally, you slap a Vaseline dressing on and tape it up real good. But obviously, we didn’t have anything. 

Ron and I took off our shirts and used them to bandage the man’s chest. He wasn’t looking good, starting to turn blue. He was dying. We were yelling for someone to call an ambulance. 

And then suddenly, the shooter was back. He was standing there yelling at us to leave so he could kill the man we were helping. The 9-mil was in his hand, ready to fire. He kept screaming, “I’m not a monkey! I’m not a monkey!”

RQ: The guy was less than 10 feet from us, and we were facing down this gun that looked like a cannon. I thought, This is it. It’s curtains. I’m going to die. We’re all going to die. 

BM: I had decided I would die too. I wasn’t frightened though. It’s hard to explain. Dying was okay because I’d gotten my family away. I just had to stay alive as long as I could in order to provide for the victim. 

It’s what I signed up for when I chose to be a doc — to do whatever was needed. And if I got killed in the process, that was just part of the story. So we started talking to the shooter.

I said, “No, you’re not a monkey. You’re a man, a human being. It’s okay.” We pleaded with him to put the weapon down and not to shoot. We did not leave the patient. Finally, the shooter ran off toward the back of the nursery.

RQ: About 30 seconds after that, we heard two more shots from that direction. 

Then there were sirens, and the place was suddenly crawling with police. The paramedics came and took over. I got up and got out of the way.

BM: A young woman ran up, her mouth covered with blood. She said that there was another victim in the back. I asked a police officer to go with us to check. We started for the back when suddenly, we heard yelling and many rounds being fired. The officer ran in the direction of the shooting. 

The woman and I kept walking through rows of plants and trees. It was like moving through a jungle. Finally, we reached the other victim, an American Indian man, lying on his back. He had a chest wound and a head wound. No respirations. No radial pulse. No carotid pulse. I pronounced him dead.

Then I heard a voice calling for help. There were two women hiding nearby in the bushes. I led them to where the police cars were.

Another officer came over and told me that they had the shooter. The police had shot him in the leg and arrested him.

RQ: The police kept us there for quite some time. Meanwhile, the TV crews arrived. I had a black Toyota 4Runner at the time. My family was home watching the news, and a bulletin came on about a shooting in Midtown. The camera panned around the area, and my wife saw our car on the street! They were all worried until I could call and let them know that I was okay.

BM: As we waited, the sun went down, and I was getting cold. My shirt was a bloody mess. Ron and I just sat there quietly, not saying a whole heck of a lot. 

Finally, an officer took our statements, a detective interviewed us, and they let us leave. I called Beth, and she and the kids came and got me. 

At home, we talked to the kids, letting them express their fears. We put them to bed. I didn’t sleep that night. 

RQ: I can’t describe how weird it was going home with this guy’s blood on my body. Needing to take a bath. Trying to get rid of the stench of what could have been a brutal killing. But it wasn’t. At least, not for our patient. 

Thankfully, there are three hospitals within a stone’s throw of the nursery. The paramedics got the man we helped to Tucson Medical Center and into the OR immediately. Then the general surgeons could get chest tubes in him to reinflate his lungs.

BM: The doctor who treated him called me later. He said that when they put the chest tubes in, they got a liter and a half of blood out of him. If it had taken another 10 minutes or so to get there, he very likely would’ve been dead on arrival in the emergency room. 

RQ: I checked on him at the hospital the next day, and he was doing okay. That was the last time I saw him. 

I only saw the shooter again in court. Dr. Madden and I were both called as witnesses at his trial. He was tried for capital murder and 12 charges of aggravated assault for every person who was at the nursery. He was found guilty on all of them and sentenced to 35 years to life in prison. 

BM: I don’t think the shooter was very well represented in court. It’s not that he didn’t kill one person and critically wound another. He did, and he deserves to be punished for that. But his story wasn’t told.

I knew that during the civil war in Ethiopia, his family had been killed by Cuban soldiers sent there to help the pro-communist government. In a way, I thought of him as two different people: the shooter and the farmer. They are both in prison, but only one of them deserves to be there.

After it happened, I wanted to visit the farmer in the hospital and tell him that, despite what he had done, he was not alone. Our family cared about him. The police wouldn’t let me see him, so I asked the Catholic chaplain of the hospital to go. He gave him my message: that despite all the sorrow and pain, in some distant way, I understood. I respected him as a human being. And I was praying for him.

RQ: It’s safe to say that the experience will affect me forever. For months, even years afterward, if somebody would ask me about what happened, I would start to cry. I would sit in the parking lot of my favorite running trail and worry about the people driving in. If I heard a car backfire, I thought about gunshots. 

It was terrifying. And thank God I’ve never found myself in that position again. But I suspect I’d probably react the same way. This is our calling. It’s what we do — protecting other people and taking care of them.

BM: I’d always wondered what I would do in a situation like this. I knew I could function in a critical care situation, a child in a hospital or in the back of an ambulance. But could I do it when my own life was threatened? I found out that I could, and that was really important to me. 

RQ: It was one of those great lessons in life. You realize how lucky you are and that your life can be snatched away from you in a millisecond. I went to a nursery to buy plants for my yard, and instead I ended up helping to save a life.Bill Madden, MD, is a retired US Army colonel and pediatrician, formerly an associate professor of Clinical Pediatrics at the College of Medicine of the University of Arizona, Tucson. 

Ron Quintia, DDS, is an oral and maxillofacial surgeon at Southern Arizona Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery in Tucson, Arizona. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Emergencies happen anywhere and anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. 'Is There a Doctor in the House?' is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

Bill Madden, MD: It was a Saturday in October of 1996. I had gone to my favorite plant nursery in Tucson with my wife, Beth, and two of my kids, Zach and Katya, who were 9 years old. I went to the back of the nursery to use the bathroom, and I heard two of the workers yelling at each other. The tone was angry. 

I went back up to the front, and Zach said that he was bored. He asked if he could go to the car and get a book, so I gave him my car keys and told him to be careful crossing the street. 

Ron Quintia, DDS: It was late in the afternoon, probably close to 4 PM. I was also at the nursery picking up some plants. 

The noise came out of nowhere. Boom! Boom! Boom! I thought, Wow, that sounds like a gun. But no, it can’t be a gun. This is a plant nursery. 

BM: When I heard the rounds being fired, I knew what that sound meant. I was in the Army for 20 years doing critical care for kids. 

I turned and a young man came running toward me out of the sun. It was hard to see, but I realized a second guy was running about 10 feet behind him. Both men were screaming. 

My wife was about 10 feet away behind a raised planter with Katya. I yelled for them to get down as I dove for the ground.

The first guy, a young Hispanic man, tried to escape through some bushes. But the shooter was catching up. I recognized him. He was from Ethiopia and worked at the nursery. I had talked to him a week earlier about his life; he used to be a farmer.

Now, he was holding a 9-mm automatic — silver, very shiny. He shot the Hispanic man twice in the chest. Then he ran toward the back of the nursery. 

RQ: When I realized what was happening, I crouched down, so I couldn’t see very much. But I heard someone screaming, “He has a gun! He has a gun!” And then I heard more shots. 

BM: I yelled at my wife, “Get out!” Then I ran for the phone at the kiosk desk to call 911. This was before most people had cell phones. But the phone was hooked up to the paging system for the nursery, and I couldn’t get it to work. I turned and ran for the wounded man.

RQ: I got to the victim first. Both lungs had been hit, and I could hear he had sucking chest wounds. He was bleeding out of his mouth, saying, “I’m going to die. I’m going to die.” I told him, “You’re not going to die,” while thinking to myself, He’s going to die. 

BM: I had never met Ron before, but we started working on the patient together. Both of his lungs were collapsing. With sucking chest wounds, the critical issue is to seal up the holes. So normally, you slap a Vaseline dressing on and tape it up real good. But obviously, we didn’t have anything. 

Ron and I took off our shirts and used them to bandage the man’s chest. He wasn’t looking good, starting to turn blue. He was dying. We were yelling for someone to call an ambulance. 

And then suddenly, the shooter was back. He was standing there yelling at us to leave so he could kill the man we were helping. The 9-mil was in his hand, ready to fire. He kept screaming, “I’m not a monkey! I’m not a monkey!”

RQ: The guy was less than 10 feet from us, and we were facing down this gun that looked like a cannon. I thought, This is it. It’s curtains. I’m going to die. We’re all going to die. 

BM: I had decided I would die too. I wasn’t frightened though. It’s hard to explain. Dying was okay because I’d gotten my family away. I just had to stay alive as long as I could in order to provide for the victim. 

It’s what I signed up for when I chose to be a doc — to do whatever was needed. And if I got killed in the process, that was just part of the story. So we started talking to the shooter.

I said, “No, you’re not a monkey. You’re a man, a human being. It’s okay.” We pleaded with him to put the weapon down and not to shoot. We did not leave the patient. Finally, the shooter ran off toward the back of the nursery.

RQ: About 30 seconds after that, we heard two more shots from that direction. 

Then there were sirens, and the place was suddenly crawling with police. The paramedics came and took over. I got up and got out of the way.

BM: A young woman ran up, her mouth covered with blood. She said that there was another victim in the back. I asked a police officer to go with us to check. We started for the back when suddenly, we heard yelling and many rounds being fired. The officer ran in the direction of the shooting. 

The woman and I kept walking through rows of plants and trees. It was like moving through a jungle. Finally, we reached the other victim, an American Indian man, lying on his back. He had a chest wound and a head wound. No respirations. No radial pulse. No carotid pulse. I pronounced him dead.

Then I heard a voice calling for help. There were two women hiding nearby in the bushes. I led them to where the police cars were.

Another officer came over and told me that they had the shooter. The police had shot him in the leg and arrested him.

RQ: The police kept us there for quite some time. Meanwhile, the TV crews arrived. I had a black Toyota 4Runner at the time. My family was home watching the news, and a bulletin came on about a shooting in Midtown. The camera panned around the area, and my wife saw our car on the street! They were all worried until I could call and let them know that I was okay.

BM: As we waited, the sun went down, and I was getting cold. My shirt was a bloody mess. Ron and I just sat there quietly, not saying a whole heck of a lot. 

Finally, an officer took our statements, a detective interviewed us, and they let us leave. I called Beth, and she and the kids came and got me. 

At home, we talked to the kids, letting them express their fears. We put them to bed. I didn’t sleep that night. 

RQ: I can’t describe how weird it was going home with this guy’s blood on my body. Needing to take a bath. Trying to get rid of the stench of what could have been a brutal killing. But it wasn’t. At least, not for our patient. 

Thankfully, there are three hospitals within a stone’s throw of the nursery. The paramedics got the man we helped to Tucson Medical Center and into the OR immediately. Then the general surgeons could get chest tubes in him to reinflate his lungs.

BM: The doctor who treated him called me later. He said that when they put the chest tubes in, they got a liter and a half of blood out of him. If it had taken another 10 minutes or so to get there, he very likely would’ve been dead on arrival in the emergency room. 

RQ: I checked on him at the hospital the next day, and he was doing okay. That was the last time I saw him. 

I only saw the shooter again in court. Dr. Madden and I were both called as witnesses at his trial. He was tried for capital murder and 12 charges of aggravated assault for every person who was at the nursery. He was found guilty on all of them and sentenced to 35 years to life in prison. 

BM: I don’t think the shooter was very well represented in court. It’s not that he didn’t kill one person and critically wound another. He did, and he deserves to be punished for that. But his story wasn’t told.

I knew that during the civil war in Ethiopia, his family had been killed by Cuban soldiers sent there to help the pro-communist government. In a way, I thought of him as two different people: the shooter and the farmer. They are both in prison, but only one of them deserves to be there.

After it happened, I wanted to visit the farmer in the hospital and tell him that, despite what he had done, he was not alone. Our family cared about him. The police wouldn’t let me see him, so I asked the Catholic chaplain of the hospital to go. He gave him my message: that despite all the sorrow and pain, in some distant way, I understood. I respected him as a human being. And I was praying for him.

RQ: It’s safe to say that the experience will affect me forever. For months, even years afterward, if somebody would ask me about what happened, I would start to cry. I would sit in the parking lot of my favorite running trail and worry about the people driving in. If I heard a car backfire, I thought about gunshots. 

It was terrifying. And thank God I’ve never found myself in that position again. But I suspect I’d probably react the same way. This is our calling. It’s what we do — protecting other people and taking care of them.

BM: I’d always wondered what I would do in a situation like this. I knew I could function in a critical care situation, a child in a hospital or in the back of an ambulance. But could I do it when my own life was threatened? I found out that I could, and that was really important to me. 

RQ: It was one of those great lessons in life. You realize how lucky you are and that your life can be snatched away from you in a millisecond. I went to a nursery to buy plants for my yard, and instead I ended up helping to save a life.Bill Madden, MD, is a retired US Army colonel and pediatrician, formerly an associate professor of Clinical Pediatrics at the College of Medicine of the University of Arizona, Tucson. 

Ron Quintia, DDS, is an oral and maxillofacial surgeon at Southern Arizona Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery in Tucson, Arizona. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Emergencies happen anywhere and anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. 'Is There a Doctor in the House?' is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

Bill Madden, MD: It was a Saturday in October of 1996. I had gone to my favorite plant nursery in Tucson with my wife, Beth, and two of my kids, Zach and Katya, who were 9 years old. I went to the back of the nursery to use the bathroom, and I heard two of the workers yelling at each other. The tone was angry. 

I went back up to the front, and Zach said that he was bored. He asked if he could go to the car and get a book, so I gave him my car keys and told him to be careful crossing the street. 

Ron Quintia, DDS: It was late in the afternoon, probably close to 4 PM. I was also at the nursery picking up some plants. 

The noise came out of nowhere. Boom! Boom! Boom! I thought, Wow, that sounds like a gun. But no, it can’t be a gun. This is a plant nursery. 

BM: When I heard the rounds being fired, I knew what that sound meant. I was in the Army for 20 years doing critical care for kids. 

I turned and a young man came running toward me out of the sun. It was hard to see, but I realized a second guy was running about 10 feet behind him. Both men were screaming. 

My wife was about 10 feet away behind a raised planter with Katya. I yelled for them to get down as I dove for the ground.

The first guy, a young Hispanic man, tried to escape through some bushes. But the shooter was catching up. I recognized him. He was from Ethiopia and worked at the nursery. I had talked to him a week earlier about his life; he used to be a farmer.

Now, he was holding a 9-mm automatic — silver, very shiny. He shot the Hispanic man twice in the chest. Then he ran toward the back of the nursery. 

RQ: When I realized what was happening, I crouched down, so I couldn’t see very much. But I heard someone screaming, “He has a gun! He has a gun!” And then I heard more shots. 

BM: I yelled at my wife, “Get out!” Then I ran for the phone at the kiosk desk to call 911. This was before most people had cell phones. But the phone was hooked up to the paging system for the nursery, and I couldn’t get it to work. I turned and ran for the wounded man.

RQ: I got to the victim first. Both lungs had been hit, and I could hear he had sucking chest wounds. He was bleeding out of his mouth, saying, “I’m going to die. I’m going to die.” I told him, “You’re not going to die,” while thinking to myself, He’s going to die. 

BM: I had never met Ron before, but we started working on the patient together. Both of his lungs were collapsing. With sucking chest wounds, the critical issue is to seal up the holes. So normally, you slap a Vaseline dressing on and tape it up real good. But obviously, we didn’t have anything. 

Ron and I took off our shirts and used them to bandage the man’s chest. He wasn’t looking good, starting to turn blue. He was dying. We were yelling for someone to call an ambulance. 

And then suddenly, the shooter was back. He was standing there yelling at us to leave so he could kill the man we were helping. The 9-mil was in his hand, ready to fire. He kept screaming, “I’m not a monkey! I’m not a monkey!”

RQ: The guy was less than 10 feet from us, and we were facing down this gun that looked like a cannon. I thought, This is it. It’s curtains. I’m going to die. We’re all going to die. 

BM: I had decided I would die too. I wasn’t frightened though. It’s hard to explain. Dying was okay because I’d gotten my family away. I just had to stay alive as long as I could in order to provide for the victim. 

It’s what I signed up for when I chose to be a doc — to do whatever was needed. And if I got killed in the process, that was just part of the story. So we started talking to the shooter.

I said, “No, you’re not a monkey. You’re a man, a human being. It’s okay.” We pleaded with him to put the weapon down and not to shoot. We did not leave the patient. Finally, the shooter ran off toward the back of the nursery.

RQ: About 30 seconds after that, we heard two more shots from that direction. 

Then there were sirens, and the place was suddenly crawling with police. The paramedics came and took over. I got up and got out of the way.

BM: A young woman ran up, her mouth covered with blood. She said that there was another victim in the back. I asked a police officer to go with us to check. We started for the back when suddenly, we heard yelling and many rounds being fired. The officer ran in the direction of the shooting. 

The woman and I kept walking through rows of plants and trees. It was like moving through a jungle. Finally, we reached the other victim, an American Indian man, lying on his back. He had a chest wound and a head wound. No respirations. No radial pulse. No carotid pulse. I pronounced him dead.

Then I heard a voice calling for help. There were two women hiding nearby in the bushes. I led them to where the police cars were.

Another officer came over and told me that they had the shooter. The police had shot him in the leg and arrested him.

RQ: The police kept us there for quite some time. Meanwhile, the TV crews arrived. I had a black Toyota 4Runner at the time. My family was home watching the news, and a bulletin came on about a shooting in Midtown. The camera panned around the area, and my wife saw our car on the street! They were all worried until I could call and let them know that I was okay.

BM: As we waited, the sun went down, and I was getting cold. My shirt was a bloody mess. Ron and I just sat there quietly, not saying a whole heck of a lot. 

Finally, an officer took our statements, a detective interviewed us, and they let us leave. I called Beth, and she and the kids came and got me. 

At home, we talked to the kids, letting them express their fears. We put them to bed. I didn’t sleep that night. 

RQ: I can’t describe how weird it was going home with this guy’s blood on my body. Needing to take a bath. Trying to get rid of the stench of what could have been a brutal killing. But it wasn’t. At least, not for our patient. 

Thankfully, there are three hospitals within a stone’s throw of the nursery. The paramedics got the man we helped to Tucson Medical Center and into the OR immediately. Then the general surgeons could get chest tubes in him to reinflate his lungs.

BM: The doctor who treated him called me later. He said that when they put the chest tubes in, they got a liter and a half of blood out of him. If it had taken another 10 minutes or so to get there, he very likely would’ve been dead on arrival in the emergency room. 

RQ: I checked on him at the hospital the next day, and he was doing okay. That was the last time I saw him. 

I only saw the shooter again in court. Dr. Madden and I were both called as witnesses at his trial. He was tried for capital murder and 12 charges of aggravated assault for every person who was at the nursery. He was found guilty on all of them and sentenced to 35 years to life in prison. 

BM: I don’t think the shooter was very well represented in court. It’s not that he didn’t kill one person and critically wound another. He did, and he deserves to be punished for that. But his story wasn’t told.

I knew that during the civil war in Ethiopia, his family had been killed by Cuban soldiers sent there to help the pro-communist government. In a way, I thought of him as two different people: the shooter and the farmer. They are both in prison, but only one of them deserves to be there.

After it happened, I wanted to visit the farmer in the hospital and tell him that, despite what he had done, he was not alone. Our family cared about him. The police wouldn’t let me see him, so I asked the Catholic chaplain of the hospital to go. He gave him my message: that despite all the sorrow and pain, in some distant way, I understood. I respected him as a human being. And I was praying for him.

RQ: It’s safe to say that the experience will affect me forever. For months, even years afterward, if somebody would ask me about what happened, I would start to cry. I would sit in the parking lot of my favorite running trail and worry about the people driving in. If I heard a car backfire, I thought about gunshots. 

It was terrifying. And thank God I’ve never found myself in that position again. But I suspect I’d probably react the same way. This is our calling. It’s what we do — protecting other people and taking care of them.

BM: I’d always wondered what I would do in a situation like this. I knew I could function in a critical care situation, a child in a hospital or in the back of an ambulance. But could I do it when my own life was threatened? I found out that I could, and that was really important to me. 

RQ: It was one of those great lessons in life. You realize how lucky you are and that your life can be snatched away from you in a millisecond. I went to a nursery to buy plants for my yard, and instead I ended up helping to save a life.Bill Madden, MD, is a retired US Army colonel and pediatrician, formerly an associate professor of Clinical Pediatrics at the College of Medicine of the University of Arizona, Tucson. 

Ron Quintia, DDS, is an oral and maxillofacial surgeon at Southern Arizona Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery in Tucson, Arizona. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

If someone has been in cardiac arrest for 10 minutes, the brain is permanently damaged and there’s nothing to do, right?

Not so according to emerging evidence that suggests that the brain shows signs of electrical recovery for as long as an hour into ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This time between cardiac arrest and awakening can be a period of vivid experiences for the dying patient before they return to life — a phenomenon known as “recalled death.”

This should be an impetus to increase the use of devices that measure the quality of CPR and to find new treatments to restart the heart or prevent brain injury, experts advised. Cardiologists and critical care clinicians are among those who will need to manage patients in the aftermath.

“If people who go into cardiac arrest receive good quality chest compressions that restore blood flow to the brain, then consciousness is restored, as well, said Jasmeet Soar, MD, consultant in Anesthetics & Intensive Care Medicine, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, England, and an editor of the journal Resuscitation.

“We know that because if chest compressions are stopped, the person becomes unconscious again,” he said. “This CPR-induced consciousness has become more common when professionals do the CPR because resuscitation guidelines now place a much bigger focus on high-quality CPR — ‘push hard, push fast.’ ” 

“People are giving up too soon on trying to revive individuals, and they should be trying more modern strategies, such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation,” said Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone Health and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, New York City.

Brain Activity, Heightened Experiences

Two types of brain activity may occur when CPR works. The first, called CPR-induced consciousness, is when an individual recovers consciousness while in cardiac arrest. Signs of consciousness include combativeness, groaning, and eye-opening, Soar explained.

The second type is a perception of lucidity with recall of events, he said. “Patients who experience this may form memories that they can recall. We’re not sure whether that happens during CPR or while the patient is waking up during intensive care, or how the brain creates these memories, or if they’re real memories or coincidental, but it’s clear the brain does form them during the dying and recovery process.”

This latter phenomenon was explored in detail in a recent study led by Dr. Parnia.

In that study of 567 in-hospital patients with cardiac arrest from 25 centers in the United States and United Kingdom, 53 survived, 28 of those survivors were interviewed, and 11 reported memories or perceptions suggestive of consciousness.

Four types of experiences occurred:

• Recalled experiences of death: “I thought I heard my grandma [who had passed] saying ‘you need to go back.’”
• Emergence from coma during CPR/CPR-induced consciousness: “I remember when I came back and they were putting those two electrodes to my chest, and I remember the shock.”
• Emergence from coma in the post-resuscitation period: “I heard my partner saying [patient’s name] and my son saying ‘mom.’”
• Dreams and dream-like experiences: “[I] felt as though someone was holding my hand. It was very black; I couldn’t see anything.”

In a complementary cross-sectional study, 126 community cardiac arrest survivors reported similar experiences plus a fifth type, “delusions,” or “misattribution of medical events,” for example, “I heard my name, over and over again. All around me were things like demons and monsters. It felt like they were trying to tear off my body parts.”

“Many people label recalled experiences of death as ‘near-death’ experiences, but they’re not,” Dr. Parnia said. “Medically speaking, being near to death means your heart is about to stop. But the whole point is that these people are not near death. They actually died and came back from it.”

One of the big implications of the study, he said, is that “a lot of physicians are taught that somehow after, say, 3-5 minutes of oxygen deprivation, the brain dies. Our study showed this is not true. It showed that the brain may not be functioning, which is why they flatline. But if you’re able to resuscitate them appropriately, you can restore activity up to an hour later.”

Because some clinicians questioned or dismissed previous work in this area by Dr. Parnia and others, the latest study used EEG monitoring in a subset of 53 patients. Among those with evaluable EEG data, brain activity returned to normal or near-normal after flatlining in about 40% of images; spikes were seen in the delta (22%), theta (12%), alpha (6%), and beta (1%) waves associated with higher mental function.

“The team recorded what was happening in the brain during real-time CPR using various tests of consciousness, including EEG measurements and tests of visual and auditory awareness using a tablet with a special app and a Bluetooth headphone.”

“Incredibly, we found that even though the brain flatlines, which is what we expect when the heart stops, with professionally given CPR even up to about an hour after this, the brainwaves changed into normal to near-normal patterns,” Dr. Parnia said. “We were able to identify these brain waves in patients while they were being resuscitated, which confirms the fact that people can have lucid consciousness even though they appear to be unconscious.”

Asked what implications, if any, his work has for current definitions of brain death and cardiac death, Dr. Parnia said that the problem is that these are based on the concept of “a permanent irreversible loss of function,” but “that’s only relative to what medical treatments are developed at a given time.”

Potential Mechanism

Dr. Parnia and his team proposed a potential mechanism for recalled experiences of death. Essentially, when the brain flatlines, the dying brain removes natural inhibitory (braking) systems that are needed to support daily functioning. This disinhibition may open access to “new dimensions of reality, including lucid recall of stored memories from early childhood to death,” he said.

From a clinical perspective, he noted, “although the brain stops working when it flatlines, it does not die within 5 or 10 minutes of oxygen deprivation.”

This is contrary to what many doctors believe, and because of that, he said, “nobody has tried to find treatments or new ways to restart the heart or prevent brain injury. They think it’s futile. So, with this work, we’ve opened up the window to developing cocktails of drugs that could be given to patients who have technically gone through death to bring them back to life again.”

Probe Patients or Leave Well Enough Alone?

The findings have ramifications for clinicians who may be caring for patients who survive cardiac arrest, said Lance B. Becker, MD, professor and chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, Donald & Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, New York, and chair, Department of Emergency Medicine at North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, and Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Queens, New York.

“I’ve talked with a lot of patients who have had some kind of recalled experience around cardiac arrest and some who have had zero recall, as well, like in the paper,” he told this news organization. “The ones who do have an experience are sometimes mystified by it and have questions. And very often, clinicians don’t want to listen, don’t think it’s important, and downplay it.”

“I think it is important, and when people have important things happen to them, it’s really imperative that doctors listen, learn, and respond,” he said. “When I started in this field a long time ago, there were so few survivors that there wasn’t even a concept of survivorship,” he said.

Dr. Becker noted that it’s not uncommon for cardiac arrest survivors to have depression, problems with executive function, or a small brain injury they need to recover from. “Now survivorship organizations are springing up that these people can turn to, but clinicians still need to become more aware and sensitive to this.”

Not all are. “I had a number of patients who said I was the only doctor who ever asked them about what they experienced,” he recalled. “I was a young doctor at the time and didn’t exactly know what to say to them, but they were just happy to have a doctor who would listen to them and not be afraid to hear what they had to say.”

Recognizing that support is an issue, the American Heart Association released a scientific statement in 2020 on sudden cardiac arrest survivorship, which “expands the cardiac arrest resuscitation system of care to include patients, caregivers, and rehabilitative healthcare partnerships, which are central to cardiac survivorship.”

Soar has a more nuanced view of survivorship support, however. “I suspect some people are very glad to be alive, and that trying to dig deep and bring things out may actually be harmful,” he said. “It’s not as clear cut as everybody thinks.”

He noted that follow-up and rehabilitation should be an option for people who specifically need it who would need to be identified. “But human beings are resilient, and while some people will require help, not everybody will,” he said.

Better CPR, New Treatments

Experts in emergency and intensive care medicine studying survival after cardiac arrest hope to find ways to save patients before too much damage is done to the brain and other organs from loss of oxygen, Dr. Parnia said. He is the lead author in a recent multidisciplinary consensus statement on guidelines and standards for the study of death and recalled experiences of death.

“One of my bugbears is that our survival outcomes from cardiac arrest resuscitation have not changed very much for 60 years because we haven’t developed new treatments and innovative methods,” he said. “Unlike the rest of medicine, we’re living in the past.”

Currently, his team is developing cocktails of treatments. These include hypothermic circulatory arrest — cooling the body to stop blood circulation and brain function for up to 40 minutes — and giving magnesium, a brain-protective treatment, to people whose hearts stop.

Dr. Becker would like to see optimal care of patients with cardiac arrest. “The first step is to increase blood flow with good CPR and then measure whether CPR is working,” he said. Adding that despite the availability of devices that provide feedback on the quality of CPR, they’re rarely used. He cited ultrasound devices that measure the blood flow generated during CPR, compression meter devices that go between the patient’s chest and the rescuer’s hands that gauge the rate and depth of compression, and invasive devices that measure blood pressure during CPR.

His group is trying to design even better devices, he said. “An example would be a little probe that you could pop on the neck that would study blood flow to the brain with ultrasound, so that while you were pumping on the person, you could see if you’re making them better or not.”

“We also have some preliminary data showing that the American Heart Association recommended position on the chest for doing CPR is not the perfect place for everybody,” he said. The 2020 AHA guidelines recommended the center of the lower half of the sternum. At the 2023 American College of Emergency Physicians meeting, Dr. Becker›s team at Hofstra/Northwell presented data on 175 video-recorded adult cardiac arrests in their emergency department over more than 2 years, 22 of which involved at least one change of compression location (for a total of 29 location changes). They found that 41% of compression location changes were associated with return of spontaneous circulation.

For about a third of people, the hands need to be repositioned slightly. “This is not anything that is taught to the public because you can only figure it out if you have some kind of sensor that will let you know how you’re doing. That’s very achievable. We could have that in the future on every ambulance and even in people’s homes.”

When the person arrives at the hospital, he said, “we can make it easier and more likely that they can be put on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We do that on selected patients in our hospital, even though it’s very difficult to do, because we know that when it’s done properly, it can change survival rates dramatically, from maybe 10%-50%.”

Dr. Dr. Becker, like Dr. Parnia, also favors the development of drug cocktails, and his team has been experimenting with various combinations in animal models. “We think those two things together — ECMO and a drug cocktail — would be a very powerful one to two knock out for cardiac arrest,” he said. “We have a long way to go — 10 or 20 years. But most people around the world working in this area believe that will be the future.”

Dr. Parnia’s study on recalled death was supported by The John Templeton Foundation, Resuscitation Council (UK), and New York University Grossman School of Medicine, with research support staff provided by the UK’s National Institutes for Health Research. Soar is the editor of the journal Resuscitation and receives payment from the publisher Elsevier. Dr. Becker’s institute has received grants from Philips Medical Systems, NIH, Zoll Medical Corp, Nihon Kohden, PCORI, BrainCool, and United Therapeutics. He has received advisory/consultancy honoraria from NIH, Nihon Kohden, HP, and Philips, and he holds several patents in hypothermia induction and reperfusion therapies and several pending patents involving the use of medical slurries as human coolant devices to create reperfusion cocktails and measurement of respiratory quotient.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If someone has been in cardiac arrest for 10 minutes, the brain is permanently damaged and there’s nothing to do, right?

Not so according to emerging evidence that suggests that the brain shows signs of electrical recovery for as long as an hour into ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This time between cardiac arrest and awakening can be a period of vivid experiences for the dying patient before they return to life — a phenomenon known as “recalled death.”

This should be an impetus to increase the use of devices that measure the quality of CPR and to find new treatments to restart the heart or prevent brain injury, experts advised. Cardiologists and critical care clinicians are among those who will need to manage patients in the aftermath.

“If people who go into cardiac arrest receive good quality chest compressions that restore blood flow to the brain, then consciousness is restored, as well, said Jasmeet Soar, MD, consultant in Anesthetics & Intensive Care Medicine, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, England, and an editor of the journal Resuscitation.

“We know that because if chest compressions are stopped, the person becomes unconscious again,” he said. “This CPR-induced consciousness has become more common when professionals do the CPR because resuscitation guidelines now place a much bigger focus on high-quality CPR — ‘push hard, push fast.’ ” 

“People are giving up too soon on trying to revive individuals, and they should be trying more modern strategies, such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation,” said Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone Health and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, New York City.

Brain Activity, Heightened Experiences

Two types of brain activity may occur when CPR works. The first, called CPR-induced consciousness, is when an individual recovers consciousness while in cardiac arrest. Signs of consciousness include combativeness, groaning, and eye-opening, Soar explained.

The second type is a perception of lucidity with recall of events, he said. “Patients who experience this may form memories that they can recall. We’re not sure whether that happens during CPR or while the patient is waking up during intensive care, or how the brain creates these memories, or if they’re real memories or coincidental, but it’s clear the brain does form them during the dying and recovery process.”

This latter phenomenon was explored in detail in a recent study led by Dr. Parnia.

In that study of 567 in-hospital patients with cardiac arrest from 25 centers in the United States and United Kingdom, 53 survived, 28 of those survivors were interviewed, and 11 reported memories or perceptions suggestive of consciousness.

Four types of experiences occurred:

• Recalled experiences of death: “I thought I heard my grandma [who had passed] saying ‘you need to go back.’”
• Emergence from coma during CPR/CPR-induced consciousness: “I remember when I came back and they were putting those two electrodes to my chest, and I remember the shock.”
• Emergence from coma in the post-resuscitation period: “I heard my partner saying [patient’s name] and my son saying ‘mom.’”
• Dreams and dream-like experiences: “[I] felt as though someone was holding my hand. It was very black; I couldn’t see anything.”

In a complementary cross-sectional study, 126 community cardiac arrest survivors reported similar experiences plus a fifth type, “delusions,” or “misattribution of medical events,” for example, “I heard my name, over and over again. All around me were things like demons and monsters. It felt like they were trying to tear off my body parts.”

“Many people label recalled experiences of death as ‘near-death’ experiences, but they’re not,” Dr. Parnia said. “Medically speaking, being near to death means your heart is about to stop. But the whole point is that these people are not near death. They actually died and came back from it.”

One of the big implications of the study, he said, is that “a lot of physicians are taught that somehow after, say, 3-5 minutes of oxygen deprivation, the brain dies. Our study showed this is not true. It showed that the brain may not be functioning, which is why they flatline. But if you’re able to resuscitate them appropriately, you can restore activity up to an hour later.”

Because some clinicians questioned or dismissed previous work in this area by Dr. Parnia and others, the latest study used EEG monitoring in a subset of 53 patients. Among those with evaluable EEG data, brain activity returned to normal or near-normal after flatlining in about 40% of images; spikes were seen in the delta (22%), theta (12%), alpha (6%), and beta (1%) waves associated with higher mental function.

“The team recorded what was happening in the brain during real-time CPR using various tests of consciousness, including EEG measurements and tests of visual and auditory awareness using a tablet with a special app and a Bluetooth headphone.”

“Incredibly, we found that even though the brain flatlines, which is what we expect when the heart stops, with professionally given CPR even up to about an hour after this, the brainwaves changed into normal to near-normal patterns,” Dr. Parnia said. “We were able to identify these brain waves in patients while they were being resuscitated, which confirms the fact that people can have lucid consciousness even though they appear to be unconscious.”

Asked what implications, if any, his work has for current definitions of brain death and cardiac death, Dr. Parnia said that the problem is that these are based on the concept of “a permanent irreversible loss of function,” but “that’s only relative to what medical treatments are developed at a given time.”

Potential Mechanism

Dr. Parnia and his team proposed a potential mechanism for recalled experiences of death. Essentially, when the brain flatlines, the dying brain removes natural inhibitory (braking) systems that are needed to support daily functioning. This disinhibition may open access to “new dimensions of reality, including lucid recall of stored memories from early childhood to death,” he said.

From a clinical perspective, he noted, “although the brain stops working when it flatlines, it does not die within 5 or 10 minutes of oxygen deprivation.”

This is contrary to what many doctors believe, and because of that, he said, “nobody has tried to find treatments or new ways to restart the heart or prevent brain injury. They think it’s futile. So, with this work, we’ve opened up the window to developing cocktails of drugs that could be given to patients who have technically gone through death to bring them back to life again.”

Probe Patients or Leave Well Enough Alone?

The findings have ramifications for clinicians who may be caring for patients who survive cardiac arrest, said Lance B. Becker, MD, professor and chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, Donald & Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, New York, and chair, Department of Emergency Medicine at North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, and Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Queens, New York.

“I’ve talked with a lot of patients who have had some kind of recalled experience around cardiac arrest and some who have had zero recall, as well, like in the paper,” he told this news organization. “The ones who do have an experience are sometimes mystified by it and have questions. And very often, clinicians don’t want to listen, don’t think it’s important, and downplay it.”

“I think it is important, and when people have important things happen to them, it’s really imperative that doctors listen, learn, and respond,” he said. “When I started in this field a long time ago, there were so few survivors that there wasn’t even a concept of survivorship,” he said.

Dr. Becker noted that it’s not uncommon for cardiac arrest survivors to have depression, problems with executive function, or a small brain injury they need to recover from. “Now survivorship organizations are springing up that these people can turn to, but clinicians still need to become more aware and sensitive to this.”

Not all are. “I had a number of patients who said I was the only doctor who ever asked them about what they experienced,” he recalled. “I was a young doctor at the time and didn’t exactly know what to say to them, but they were just happy to have a doctor who would listen to them and not be afraid to hear what they had to say.”

Recognizing that support is an issue, the American Heart Association released a scientific statement in 2020 on sudden cardiac arrest survivorship, which “expands the cardiac arrest resuscitation system of care to include patients, caregivers, and rehabilitative healthcare partnerships, which are central to cardiac survivorship.”

Soar has a more nuanced view of survivorship support, however. “I suspect some people are very glad to be alive, and that trying to dig deep and bring things out may actually be harmful,” he said. “It’s not as clear cut as everybody thinks.”

He noted that follow-up and rehabilitation should be an option for people who specifically need it who would need to be identified. “But human beings are resilient, and while some people will require help, not everybody will,” he said.

Better CPR, New Treatments

Experts in emergency and intensive care medicine studying survival after cardiac arrest hope to find ways to save patients before too much damage is done to the brain and other organs from loss of oxygen, Dr. Parnia said. He is the lead author in a recent multidisciplinary consensus statement on guidelines and standards for the study of death and recalled experiences of death.

“One of my bugbears is that our survival outcomes from cardiac arrest resuscitation have not changed very much for 60 years because we haven’t developed new treatments and innovative methods,” he said. “Unlike the rest of medicine, we’re living in the past.”

Currently, his team is developing cocktails of treatments. These include hypothermic circulatory arrest — cooling the body to stop blood circulation and brain function for up to 40 minutes — and giving magnesium, a brain-protective treatment, to people whose hearts stop.

Dr. Becker would like to see optimal care of patients with cardiac arrest. “The first step is to increase blood flow with good CPR and then measure whether CPR is working,” he said. Adding that despite the availability of devices that provide feedback on the quality of CPR, they’re rarely used. He cited ultrasound devices that measure the blood flow generated during CPR, compression meter devices that go between the patient’s chest and the rescuer’s hands that gauge the rate and depth of compression, and invasive devices that measure blood pressure during CPR.

His group is trying to design even better devices, he said. “An example would be a little probe that you could pop on the neck that would study blood flow to the brain with ultrasound, so that while you were pumping on the person, you could see if you’re making them better or not.”

“We also have some preliminary data showing that the American Heart Association recommended position on the chest for doing CPR is not the perfect place for everybody,” he said. The 2020 AHA guidelines recommended the center of the lower half of the sternum. At the 2023 American College of Emergency Physicians meeting, Dr. Becker›s team at Hofstra/Northwell presented data on 175 video-recorded adult cardiac arrests in their emergency department over more than 2 years, 22 of which involved at least one change of compression location (for a total of 29 location changes). They found that 41% of compression location changes were associated with return of spontaneous circulation.

For about a third of people, the hands need to be repositioned slightly. “This is not anything that is taught to the public because you can only figure it out if you have some kind of sensor that will let you know how you’re doing. That’s very achievable. We could have that in the future on every ambulance and even in people’s homes.”

When the person arrives at the hospital, he said, “we can make it easier and more likely that they can be put on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We do that on selected patients in our hospital, even though it’s very difficult to do, because we know that when it’s done properly, it can change survival rates dramatically, from maybe 10%-50%.”

Dr. Dr. Becker, like Dr. Parnia, also favors the development of drug cocktails, and his team has been experimenting with various combinations in animal models. “We think those two things together — ECMO and a drug cocktail — would be a very powerful one to two knock out for cardiac arrest,” he said. “We have a long way to go — 10 or 20 years. But most people around the world working in this area believe that will be the future.”

Dr. Parnia’s study on recalled death was supported by The John Templeton Foundation, Resuscitation Council (UK), and New York University Grossman School of Medicine, with research support staff provided by the UK’s National Institutes for Health Research. Soar is the editor of the journal Resuscitation and receives payment from the publisher Elsevier. Dr. Becker’s institute has received grants from Philips Medical Systems, NIH, Zoll Medical Corp, Nihon Kohden, PCORI, BrainCool, and United Therapeutics. He has received advisory/consultancy honoraria from NIH, Nihon Kohden, HP, and Philips, and he holds several patents in hypothermia induction and reperfusion therapies and several pending patents involving the use of medical slurries as human coolant devices to create reperfusion cocktails and measurement of respiratory quotient.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If someone has been in cardiac arrest for 10 minutes, the brain is permanently damaged and there’s nothing to do, right?

Not so according to emerging evidence that suggests that the brain shows signs of electrical recovery for as long as an hour into ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This time between cardiac arrest and awakening can be a period of vivid experiences for the dying patient before they return to life — a phenomenon known as “recalled death.”

This should be an impetus to increase the use of devices that measure the quality of CPR and to find new treatments to restart the heart or prevent brain injury, experts advised. Cardiologists and critical care clinicians are among those who will need to manage patients in the aftermath.

“If people who go into cardiac arrest receive good quality chest compressions that restore blood flow to the brain, then consciousness is restored, as well, said Jasmeet Soar, MD, consultant in Anesthetics & Intensive Care Medicine, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, England, and an editor of the journal Resuscitation.

“We know that because if chest compressions are stopped, the person becomes unconscious again,” he said. “This CPR-induced consciousness has become more common when professionals do the CPR because resuscitation guidelines now place a much bigger focus on high-quality CPR — ‘push hard, push fast.’ ” 

“People are giving up too soon on trying to revive individuals, and they should be trying more modern strategies, such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation,” said Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone Health and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, New York City.

Brain Activity, Heightened Experiences

Two types of brain activity may occur when CPR works. The first, called CPR-induced consciousness, is when an individual recovers consciousness while in cardiac arrest. Signs of consciousness include combativeness, groaning, and eye-opening, Soar explained.

The second type is a perception of lucidity with recall of events, he said. “Patients who experience this may form memories that they can recall. We’re not sure whether that happens during CPR or while the patient is waking up during intensive care, or how the brain creates these memories, or if they’re real memories or coincidental, but it’s clear the brain does form them during the dying and recovery process.”

This latter phenomenon was explored in detail in a recent study led by Dr. Parnia.

In that study of 567 in-hospital patients with cardiac arrest from 25 centers in the United States and United Kingdom, 53 survived, 28 of those survivors were interviewed, and 11 reported memories or perceptions suggestive of consciousness.

Four types of experiences occurred:

• Recalled experiences of death: “I thought I heard my grandma [who had passed] saying ‘you need to go back.’”
• Emergence from coma during CPR/CPR-induced consciousness: “I remember when I came back and they were putting those two electrodes to my chest, and I remember the shock.”
• Emergence from coma in the post-resuscitation period: “I heard my partner saying [patient’s name] and my son saying ‘mom.’”
• Dreams and dream-like experiences: “[I] felt as though someone was holding my hand. It was very black; I couldn’t see anything.”

In a complementary cross-sectional study, 126 community cardiac arrest survivors reported similar experiences plus a fifth type, “delusions,” or “misattribution of medical events,” for example, “I heard my name, over and over again. All around me were things like demons and monsters. It felt like they were trying to tear off my body parts.”

“Many people label recalled experiences of death as ‘near-death’ experiences, but they’re not,” Dr. Parnia said. “Medically speaking, being near to death means your heart is about to stop. But the whole point is that these people are not near death. They actually died and came back from it.”

One of the big implications of the study, he said, is that “a lot of physicians are taught that somehow after, say, 3-5 minutes of oxygen deprivation, the brain dies. Our study showed this is not true. It showed that the brain may not be functioning, which is why they flatline. But if you’re able to resuscitate them appropriately, you can restore activity up to an hour later.”

Because some clinicians questioned or dismissed previous work in this area by Dr. Parnia and others, the latest study used EEG monitoring in a subset of 53 patients. Among those with evaluable EEG data, brain activity returned to normal or near-normal after flatlining in about 40% of images; spikes were seen in the delta (22%), theta (12%), alpha (6%), and beta (1%) waves associated with higher mental function.

“The team recorded what was happening in the brain during real-time CPR using various tests of consciousness, including EEG measurements and tests of visual and auditory awareness using a tablet with a special app and a Bluetooth headphone.”

“Incredibly, we found that even though the brain flatlines, which is what we expect when the heart stops, with professionally given CPR even up to about an hour after this, the brainwaves changed into normal to near-normal patterns,” Dr. Parnia said. “We were able to identify these brain waves in patients while they were being resuscitated, which confirms the fact that people can have lucid consciousness even though they appear to be unconscious.”

Asked what implications, if any, his work has for current definitions of brain death and cardiac death, Dr. Parnia said that the problem is that these are based on the concept of “a permanent irreversible loss of function,” but “that’s only relative to what medical treatments are developed at a given time.”

Potential Mechanism

Dr. Parnia and his team proposed a potential mechanism for recalled experiences of death. Essentially, when the brain flatlines, the dying brain removes natural inhibitory (braking) systems that are needed to support daily functioning. This disinhibition may open access to “new dimensions of reality, including lucid recall of stored memories from early childhood to death,” he said.

From a clinical perspective, he noted, “although the brain stops working when it flatlines, it does not die within 5 or 10 minutes of oxygen deprivation.”

This is contrary to what many doctors believe, and because of that, he said, “nobody has tried to find treatments or new ways to restart the heart or prevent brain injury. They think it’s futile. So, with this work, we’ve opened up the window to developing cocktails of drugs that could be given to patients who have technically gone through death to bring them back to life again.”

Probe Patients or Leave Well Enough Alone?

The findings have ramifications for clinicians who may be caring for patients who survive cardiac arrest, said Lance B. Becker, MD, professor and chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, Donald & Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, New York, and chair, Department of Emergency Medicine at North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, and Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Queens, New York.

“I’ve talked with a lot of patients who have had some kind of recalled experience around cardiac arrest and some who have had zero recall, as well, like in the paper,” he told this news organization. “The ones who do have an experience are sometimes mystified by it and have questions. And very often, clinicians don’t want to listen, don’t think it’s important, and downplay it.”

“I think it is important, and when people have important things happen to them, it’s really imperative that doctors listen, learn, and respond,” he said. “When I started in this field a long time ago, there were so few survivors that there wasn’t even a concept of survivorship,” he said.

Dr. Becker noted that it’s not uncommon for cardiac arrest survivors to have depression, problems with executive function, or a small brain injury they need to recover from. “Now survivorship organizations are springing up that these people can turn to, but clinicians still need to become more aware and sensitive to this.”

Not all are. “I had a number of patients who said I was the only doctor who ever asked them about what they experienced,” he recalled. “I was a young doctor at the time and didn’t exactly know what to say to them, but they were just happy to have a doctor who would listen to them and not be afraid to hear what they had to say.”

Recognizing that support is an issue, the American Heart Association released a scientific statement in 2020 on sudden cardiac arrest survivorship, which “expands the cardiac arrest resuscitation system of care to include patients, caregivers, and rehabilitative healthcare partnerships, which are central to cardiac survivorship.”

Soar has a more nuanced view of survivorship support, however. “I suspect some people are very glad to be alive, and that trying to dig deep and bring things out may actually be harmful,” he said. “It’s not as clear cut as everybody thinks.”

He noted that follow-up and rehabilitation should be an option for people who specifically need it who would need to be identified. “But human beings are resilient, and while some people will require help, not everybody will,” he said.

Better CPR, New Treatments

Experts in emergency and intensive care medicine studying survival after cardiac arrest hope to find ways to save patients before too much damage is done to the brain and other organs from loss of oxygen, Dr. Parnia said. He is the lead author in a recent multidisciplinary consensus statement on guidelines and standards for the study of death and recalled experiences of death.

“One of my bugbears is that our survival outcomes from cardiac arrest resuscitation have not changed very much for 60 years because we haven’t developed new treatments and innovative methods,” he said. “Unlike the rest of medicine, we’re living in the past.”

Currently, his team is developing cocktails of treatments. These include hypothermic circulatory arrest — cooling the body to stop blood circulation and brain function for up to 40 minutes — and giving magnesium, a brain-protective treatment, to people whose hearts stop.

Dr. Becker would like to see optimal care of patients with cardiac arrest. “The first step is to increase blood flow with good CPR and then measure whether CPR is working,” he said. Adding that despite the availability of devices that provide feedback on the quality of CPR, they’re rarely used. He cited ultrasound devices that measure the blood flow generated during CPR, compression meter devices that go between the patient’s chest and the rescuer’s hands that gauge the rate and depth of compression, and invasive devices that measure blood pressure during CPR.

His group is trying to design even better devices, he said. “An example would be a little probe that you could pop on the neck that would study blood flow to the brain with ultrasound, so that while you were pumping on the person, you could see if you’re making them better or not.”

“We also have some preliminary data showing that the American Heart Association recommended position on the chest for doing CPR is not the perfect place for everybody,” he said. The 2020 AHA guidelines recommended the center of the lower half of the sternum. At the 2023 American College of Emergency Physicians meeting, Dr. Becker›s team at Hofstra/Northwell presented data on 175 video-recorded adult cardiac arrests in their emergency department over more than 2 years, 22 of which involved at least one change of compression location (for a total of 29 location changes). They found that 41% of compression location changes were associated with return of spontaneous circulation.

For about a third of people, the hands need to be repositioned slightly. “This is not anything that is taught to the public because you can only figure it out if you have some kind of sensor that will let you know how you’re doing. That’s very achievable. We could have that in the future on every ambulance and even in people’s homes.”

When the person arrives at the hospital, he said, “we can make it easier and more likely that they can be put on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We do that on selected patients in our hospital, even though it’s very difficult to do, because we know that when it’s done properly, it can change survival rates dramatically, from maybe 10%-50%.”

Dr. Dr. Becker, like Dr. Parnia, also favors the development of drug cocktails, and his team has been experimenting with various combinations in animal models. “We think those two things together — ECMO and a drug cocktail — would be a very powerful one to two knock out for cardiac arrest,” he said. “We have a long way to go — 10 or 20 years. But most people around the world working in this area believe that will be the future.”

Dr. Parnia’s study on recalled death was supported by The John Templeton Foundation, Resuscitation Council (UK), and New York University Grossman School of Medicine, with research support staff provided by the UK’s National Institutes for Health Research. Soar is the editor of the journal Resuscitation and receives payment from the publisher Elsevier. Dr. Becker’s institute has received grants from Philips Medical Systems, NIH, Zoll Medical Corp, Nihon Kohden, PCORI, BrainCool, and United Therapeutics. He has received advisory/consultancy honoraria from NIH, Nihon Kohden, HP, and Philips, and he holds several patents in hypothermia induction and reperfusion therapies and several pending patents involving the use of medical slurries as human coolant devices to create reperfusion cocktails and measurement of respiratory quotient.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tracheal intubation is recommended for comatose patients, but its use in individuals with altered consciousness due to acute poisoning remains uncertain. A French team conducted a large randomized trial to assess the risk–benefit ratio of a conservative approach in this context.

Patients with altered consciousness are at high risk for respiratory distress and pneumonia. Acute poisoning, whether from alcohol, drugs, or medications, is a nontraumatic cause of altered consciousness that often leads to intubation. In the United States alone, 20,000 patients with acute poisoning are intubated annually. While this practice aims to prevent the inhalation of gastric content and, consequently, pneumonia, intubation itself can cause hemodynamic instability, hypoxia, difficulties during tube insertion, or dental injuries. Until now, no study had attempted to evaluate the risk–benefit ratio of this practice in cases of toxic coma.
 

A Randomized Trial

The randomized trial conducted with a parallel, nonblinded design aimed to determine whether abstaining from intubation was equivalent to standard practice in certain situations. The study took place in 20 French emergency services and one intensive care unit. Participants were at least 18 years old with suspected acute poisoning and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of less than 9. Pregnant women; prisoners; those requiring immediate intubation because of respiratory distress, cerebral edema, or other critical conditions; and those using cardiotoxic drugs or drugs that could be rapidly antagonized, such as opioids or sedatives, were excluded. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio after hospital stratification. In the control group, the decision to intubate was at the discretion of the attending practitioner.

In the nonintubated by default group (the intervention group), a procedure could be performed later in case of respiratory distress, vomiting, or other complications. If abstaining, patients were closely monitored through oximetry, heart rate, GCS, etc. If intubation was required, it was performed under sedation (sedatives or hypnotics) and succinylcholine or rocuronium, after appropriate preoxygenation. In addition, capnography was recommended later to ensure proper endotracheal tube placement.

The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite outcome combining in-hospital death, duration of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), and overall hospital stay (up to the 28th day). Secondary outcomes included, besides the aforementioned individual outcomes, the number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, the proportion of admissions to the ICU, the incidence of pneumonia, and iatrogenic effects related to intubation itself.
 

Noninvasive Strategy’s Advantages

The primary analysis included 225 participants, and 116 were in the intervention arm. The average age was 33 years, and 38% were women. The median GCS at inclusion was 6. Alcohol was the most frequently implicated toxin, accounting for 67% of observations. Fewer intubations were observed in the intervention group: 19 (16.4%) versus 63 (57.8%). Of the 19 patients eventually intubated in the intervention group, 16 had met at least one emergency intubation criterion. No deaths were recorded across the entire cohort.

In the intervention group, the median duration of stay in the ICU was 0 hours compared with 24.0 hours in the control group, resulting in a relative risk of 0.39. Hospitalization duration was 21.5 hours in the intervention group, compared with 37.0 hours, yielding a relative risk of 0.74. The win ratio (a method of analyzing composite parameters that prioritizes the most clinically significant event) for the composite criterion was 1.85 (P < .001). In a prespecified subgroup analysis, this ratio was 1.70 (P = .02) when the GCS was below 7. It was 1.42 when poisoning was caused by alcohol, benzodiazepines, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, or gamma-butyrolactone.

It is essential to note, however, that this trial was not conducted blindly, and the Hawthorne effect may have influenced the physician’s decision to intubate or not. Conversely, the study’s strengths include a substantial cohort (225 patients), consideration of various parameters beyond pneumonia from aspiration, with a relative risk reduction of 53%. In addition, the etiology of toxic coma was not established in all cases. Finally, in cases of intubation, the use of a video laryngoscope or stylets was not specified.

In conclusion, for comatose patients with suspected acute poisoning, a conservative strategy aiming to avoid intubation as much as possible is associated with superior clinical benefits, in terms of the composite outcome of in-hospital mortality, duration of stay in intensive care or the hospital, and a decrease in adverse events.
 

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network.  A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tracheal intubation is recommended for comatose patients, but its use in individuals with altered consciousness due to acute poisoning remains uncertain. A French team conducted a large randomized trial to assess the risk–benefit ratio of a conservative approach in this context.

Patients with altered consciousness are at high risk for respiratory distress and pneumonia. Acute poisoning, whether from alcohol, drugs, or medications, is a nontraumatic cause of altered consciousness that often leads to intubation. In the United States alone, 20,000 patients with acute poisoning are intubated annually. While this practice aims to prevent the inhalation of gastric content and, consequently, pneumonia, intubation itself can cause hemodynamic instability, hypoxia, difficulties during tube insertion, or dental injuries. Until now, no study had attempted to evaluate the risk–benefit ratio of this practice in cases of toxic coma.
 

A Randomized Trial

The randomized trial conducted with a parallel, nonblinded design aimed to determine whether abstaining from intubation was equivalent to standard practice in certain situations. The study took place in 20 French emergency services and one intensive care unit. Participants were at least 18 years old with suspected acute poisoning and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of less than 9. Pregnant women; prisoners; those requiring immediate intubation because of respiratory distress, cerebral edema, or other critical conditions; and those using cardiotoxic drugs or drugs that could be rapidly antagonized, such as opioids or sedatives, were excluded. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio after hospital stratification. In the control group, the decision to intubate was at the discretion of the attending practitioner.

In the nonintubated by default group (the intervention group), a procedure could be performed later in case of respiratory distress, vomiting, or other complications. If abstaining, patients were closely monitored through oximetry, heart rate, GCS, etc. If intubation was required, it was performed under sedation (sedatives or hypnotics) and succinylcholine or rocuronium, after appropriate preoxygenation. In addition, capnography was recommended later to ensure proper endotracheal tube placement.

The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite outcome combining in-hospital death, duration of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), and overall hospital stay (up to the 28th day). Secondary outcomes included, besides the aforementioned individual outcomes, the number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, the proportion of admissions to the ICU, the incidence of pneumonia, and iatrogenic effects related to intubation itself.
 

Noninvasive Strategy’s Advantages

The primary analysis included 225 participants, and 116 were in the intervention arm. The average age was 33 years, and 38% were women. The median GCS at inclusion was 6. Alcohol was the most frequently implicated toxin, accounting for 67% of observations. Fewer intubations were observed in the intervention group: 19 (16.4%) versus 63 (57.8%). Of the 19 patients eventually intubated in the intervention group, 16 had met at least one emergency intubation criterion. No deaths were recorded across the entire cohort.

In the intervention group, the median duration of stay in the ICU was 0 hours compared with 24.0 hours in the control group, resulting in a relative risk of 0.39. Hospitalization duration was 21.5 hours in the intervention group, compared with 37.0 hours, yielding a relative risk of 0.74. The win ratio (a method of analyzing composite parameters that prioritizes the most clinically significant event) for the composite criterion was 1.85 (P < .001). In a prespecified subgroup analysis, this ratio was 1.70 (P = .02) when the GCS was below 7. It was 1.42 when poisoning was caused by alcohol, benzodiazepines, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, or gamma-butyrolactone.

It is essential to note, however, that this trial was not conducted blindly, and the Hawthorne effect may have influenced the physician’s decision to intubate or not. Conversely, the study’s strengths include a substantial cohort (225 patients), consideration of various parameters beyond pneumonia from aspiration, with a relative risk reduction of 53%. In addition, the etiology of toxic coma was not established in all cases. Finally, in cases of intubation, the use of a video laryngoscope or stylets was not specified.

In conclusion, for comatose patients with suspected acute poisoning, a conservative strategy aiming to avoid intubation as much as possible is associated with superior clinical benefits, in terms of the composite outcome of in-hospital mortality, duration of stay in intensive care or the hospital, and a decrease in adverse events.
 

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network.  A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tracheal intubation is recommended for comatose patients, but its use in individuals with altered consciousness due to acute poisoning remains uncertain. A French team conducted a large randomized trial to assess the risk–benefit ratio of a conservative approach in this context.

Patients with altered consciousness are at high risk for respiratory distress and pneumonia. Acute poisoning, whether from alcohol, drugs, or medications, is a nontraumatic cause of altered consciousness that often leads to intubation. In the United States alone, 20,000 patients with acute poisoning are intubated annually. While this practice aims to prevent the inhalation of gastric content and, consequently, pneumonia, intubation itself can cause hemodynamic instability, hypoxia, difficulties during tube insertion, or dental injuries. Until now, no study had attempted to evaluate the risk–benefit ratio of this practice in cases of toxic coma.
 

A Randomized Trial

The randomized trial conducted with a parallel, nonblinded design aimed to determine whether abstaining from intubation was equivalent to standard practice in certain situations. The study took place in 20 French emergency services and one intensive care unit. Participants were at least 18 years old with suspected acute poisoning and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of less than 9. Pregnant women; prisoners; those requiring immediate intubation because of respiratory distress, cerebral edema, or other critical conditions; and those using cardiotoxic drugs or drugs that could be rapidly antagonized, such as opioids or sedatives, were excluded. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio after hospital stratification. In the control group, the decision to intubate was at the discretion of the attending practitioner.

In the nonintubated by default group (the intervention group), a procedure could be performed later in case of respiratory distress, vomiting, or other complications. If abstaining, patients were closely monitored through oximetry, heart rate, GCS, etc. If intubation was required, it was performed under sedation (sedatives or hypnotics) and succinylcholine or rocuronium, after appropriate preoxygenation. In addition, capnography was recommended later to ensure proper endotracheal tube placement.

The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite outcome combining in-hospital death, duration of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), and overall hospital stay (up to the 28th day). Secondary outcomes included, besides the aforementioned individual outcomes, the number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, the proportion of admissions to the ICU, the incidence of pneumonia, and iatrogenic effects related to intubation itself.
 

Noninvasive Strategy’s Advantages

The primary analysis included 225 participants, and 116 were in the intervention arm. The average age was 33 years, and 38% were women. The median GCS at inclusion was 6. Alcohol was the most frequently implicated toxin, accounting for 67% of observations. Fewer intubations were observed in the intervention group: 19 (16.4%) versus 63 (57.8%). Of the 19 patients eventually intubated in the intervention group, 16 had met at least one emergency intubation criterion. No deaths were recorded across the entire cohort.

In the intervention group, the median duration of stay in the ICU was 0 hours compared with 24.0 hours in the control group, resulting in a relative risk of 0.39. Hospitalization duration was 21.5 hours in the intervention group, compared with 37.0 hours, yielding a relative risk of 0.74. The win ratio (a method of analyzing composite parameters that prioritizes the most clinically significant event) for the composite criterion was 1.85 (P < .001). In a prespecified subgroup analysis, this ratio was 1.70 (P = .02) when the GCS was below 7. It was 1.42 when poisoning was caused by alcohol, benzodiazepines, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, or gamma-butyrolactone.

It is essential to note, however, that this trial was not conducted blindly, and the Hawthorne effect may have influenced the physician’s decision to intubate or not. Conversely, the study’s strengths include a substantial cohort (225 patients), consideration of various parameters beyond pneumonia from aspiration, with a relative risk reduction of 53%. In addition, the etiology of toxic coma was not established in all cases. Finally, in cases of intubation, the use of a video laryngoscope or stylets was not specified.

In conclusion, for comatose patients with suspected acute poisoning, a conservative strategy aiming to avoid intubation as much as possible is associated with superior clinical benefits, in terms of the composite outcome of in-hospital mortality, duration of stay in intensive care or the hospital, and a decrease in adverse events.
 

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network.  A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new Senate bill would require Medicare to test two tools routinely used by credit card companies to prevent fraud: Artificial intelligence (AI)-trained algorithms to detect suspicious activity and a system to quickly alert Medicare patients on whose behalf payment is being sought.

Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) recently introduced the Medicare Transaction Fraud Prevention Act, which calls for a 2-year test of this approach.

The experiment, targeted to start in 2025, would focus on durable medical equipment and clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and cover Medicare beneficiaries who receive electronic notices about claims.

The legislation would direct the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to test the use of predictive risk-scoring algorithms in finding fraud. The program would be modeled on the systems that credit card companies already use. Transactions could be scored from 1 (least risky) to 99 (most risky).

CMS would then check directly by email or phone call with selected Medicare enrollees about transactions considered to present a high risk for fraud.

Many consumers have benefited from this approach when used to check for fraud on their credit cards, Braun noted during a November hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Credit card companies often can intervene before a fraudulent transaction is cleared.

“There’s no reason we wouldn’t want to minimally at least mimic that,” Braun said at the hearing.

Asking Medicare enrollees to verify certain purchases could give CMS increased access to vital predictive data, test proof of concept, and save hundreds of millions of dollars, Braun said.

Concerns Raised

So far, Braun has only one cosponsor for the bill, Senator Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA), and the bill has drawn some criticism.

Brett Meeks, executive director of the Health Innovation Alliance, a trade group representing technology companies, insurers, and consumer organizations, objected to requiring Medicare enrollees to verify flagged orders. CMS should internally root out fraud through technology, not burden seniors, Meeks told this news organization.

Meeks said he has been following the discussion about the use of AI in addressing Medicare fraud. Had a bill broadly targeted Medicare fraud through AI, his alliance might have backed it, he said. But the current proposed legislation has a narrower focus.

Focusing on durable medical equipment, for example, could have unintended consequences like denying power wheelchairs to people with debilitating conditions like multiple sclerosis, Meeks said.

But Braun’s bill won a quick nod of approval from a researcher who studies the use of AI to detect Medicare fraud. Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, PhD, director of the Data Mining and Machine Learning Lab at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, said he sees an advantage to Braun’s approach of involving Medicare enrollees in the protection of their benefits.

The bill does not authorize funding for the pilot project, and it’s unclear what it would cost.

Detecting Medicare Fraud

The federal government has stepped up Medicare fraud investigations in recent years, and more doctors are getting caught.

A study published in 2018 examined cases of physicians excluded from Medicare using data from the US Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The OIG has the right to exclude clinicians from Medicare for fraud or other reasons. Chen and coauthors looked at Medicare physician exclusions from 2007 to 2017. They found that exclusions due to fraud increased an estimated 14% per year on average from a base level of 139 exclusions in 2007.

In 2019, CMS sought feedback on new ways to use AI to detect fraud. In a public request for information, the agency said Medicare scrutinizes fewer claims for payment than commercial insurers do.

About 99.7% of Medicare fee-for-service claims are processed and paid within 17 days without any medical review, CMS said at the time.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A new Senate bill would require Medicare to test two tools routinely used by credit card companies to prevent fraud: Artificial intelligence (AI)-trained algorithms to detect suspicious activity and a system to quickly alert Medicare patients on whose behalf payment is being sought.

Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) recently introduced the Medicare Transaction Fraud Prevention Act, which calls for a 2-year test of this approach.

The experiment, targeted to start in 2025, would focus on durable medical equipment and clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and cover Medicare beneficiaries who receive electronic notices about claims.

The legislation would direct the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to test the use of predictive risk-scoring algorithms in finding fraud. The program would be modeled on the systems that credit card companies already use. Transactions could be scored from 1 (least risky) to 99 (most risky).

CMS would then check directly by email or phone call with selected Medicare enrollees about transactions considered to present a high risk for fraud.

Many consumers have benefited from this approach when used to check for fraud on their credit cards, Braun noted during a November hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Credit card companies often can intervene before a fraudulent transaction is cleared.

“There’s no reason we wouldn’t want to minimally at least mimic that,” Braun said at the hearing.

Asking Medicare enrollees to verify certain purchases could give CMS increased access to vital predictive data, test proof of concept, and save hundreds of millions of dollars, Braun said.

Concerns Raised

So far, Braun has only one cosponsor for the bill, Senator Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA), and the bill has drawn some criticism.

Brett Meeks, executive director of the Health Innovation Alliance, a trade group representing technology companies, insurers, and consumer organizations, objected to requiring Medicare enrollees to verify flagged orders. CMS should internally root out fraud through technology, not burden seniors, Meeks told this news organization.

Meeks said he has been following the discussion about the use of AI in addressing Medicare fraud. Had a bill broadly targeted Medicare fraud through AI, his alliance might have backed it, he said. But the current proposed legislation has a narrower focus.

Focusing on durable medical equipment, for example, could have unintended consequences like denying power wheelchairs to people with debilitating conditions like multiple sclerosis, Meeks said.

But Braun’s bill won a quick nod of approval from a researcher who studies the use of AI to detect Medicare fraud. Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, PhD, director of the Data Mining and Machine Learning Lab at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, said he sees an advantage to Braun’s approach of involving Medicare enrollees in the protection of their benefits.

The bill does not authorize funding for the pilot project, and it’s unclear what it would cost.

Detecting Medicare Fraud

The federal government has stepped up Medicare fraud investigations in recent years, and more doctors are getting caught.

A study published in 2018 examined cases of physicians excluded from Medicare using data from the US Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The OIG has the right to exclude clinicians from Medicare for fraud or other reasons. Chen and coauthors looked at Medicare physician exclusions from 2007 to 2017. They found that exclusions due to fraud increased an estimated 14% per year on average from a base level of 139 exclusions in 2007.

In 2019, CMS sought feedback on new ways to use AI to detect fraud. In a public request for information, the agency said Medicare scrutinizes fewer claims for payment than commercial insurers do.

About 99.7% of Medicare fee-for-service claims are processed and paid within 17 days without any medical review, CMS said at the time.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A new Senate bill would require Medicare to test two tools routinely used by credit card companies to prevent fraud: Artificial intelligence (AI)-trained algorithms to detect suspicious activity and a system to quickly alert Medicare patients on whose behalf payment is being sought.

Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) recently introduced the Medicare Transaction Fraud Prevention Act, which calls for a 2-year test of this approach.

The experiment, targeted to start in 2025, would focus on durable medical equipment and clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and cover Medicare beneficiaries who receive electronic notices about claims.

The legislation would direct the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to test the use of predictive risk-scoring algorithms in finding fraud. The program would be modeled on the systems that credit card companies already use. Transactions could be scored from 1 (least risky) to 99 (most risky).

CMS would then check directly by email or phone call with selected Medicare enrollees about transactions considered to present a high risk for fraud.

Many consumers have benefited from this approach when used to check for fraud on their credit cards, Braun noted during a November hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Credit card companies often can intervene before a fraudulent transaction is cleared.

“There’s no reason we wouldn’t want to minimally at least mimic that,” Braun said at the hearing.

Asking Medicare enrollees to verify certain purchases could give CMS increased access to vital predictive data, test proof of concept, and save hundreds of millions of dollars, Braun said.

Concerns Raised

So far, Braun has only one cosponsor for the bill, Senator Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA), and the bill has drawn some criticism.

Brett Meeks, executive director of the Health Innovation Alliance, a trade group representing technology companies, insurers, and consumer organizations, objected to requiring Medicare enrollees to verify flagged orders. CMS should internally root out fraud through technology, not burden seniors, Meeks told this news organization.

Meeks said he has been following the discussion about the use of AI in addressing Medicare fraud. Had a bill broadly targeted Medicare fraud through AI, his alliance might have backed it, he said. But the current proposed legislation has a narrower focus.

Focusing on durable medical equipment, for example, could have unintended consequences like denying power wheelchairs to people with debilitating conditions like multiple sclerosis, Meeks said.

But Braun’s bill won a quick nod of approval from a researcher who studies the use of AI to detect Medicare fraud. Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, PhD, director of the Data Mining and Machine Learning Lab at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, said he sees an advantage to Braun’s approach of involving Medicare enrollees in the protection of their benefits.

The bill does not authorize funding for the pilot project, and it’s unclear what it would cost.

Detecting Medicare Fraud

The federal government has stepped up Medicare fraud investigations in recent years, and more doctors are getting caught.

A study published in 2018 examined cases of physicians excluded from Medicare using data from the US Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The OIG has the right to exclude clinicians from Medicare for fraud or other reasons. Chen and coauthors looked at Medicare physician exclusions from 2007 to 2017. They found that exclusions due to fraud increased an estimated 14% per year on average from a base level of 139 exclusions in 2007.

In 2019, CMS sought feedback on new ways to use AI to detect fraud. In a public request for information, the agency said Medicare scrutinizes fewer claims for payment than commercial insurers do.

About 99.7% of Medicare fee-for-service claims are processed and paid within 17 days without any medical review, CMS said at the time.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

As emergency medicine doctors, we regularly give medical advice to family and close friends when they get sick or are injured and don’t know what to do. In a matter of moments, we triage, diagnose, and assemble a logical plan, whatever the issue may be. This skill comes from our training and years of experience in treating emergencies and also routine medical matters. The value proposition is clear.

Frankly, it’s a service everyone should have. Think about the potential time and money saved if this option for medical care and triage was broadly available. Overtriage would plummet. That’s when people run to the emergency department (ED) and wait endless hours, only to be reassured or receive limited treatment. Undertriage would also decline. That’s when people should go to the ED but, unwisely, wait. For example, this may occur when symptoms of dizziness end up being a stroke.

Why doesn’t everyone have an ED doctor they can call? The primary reason is that the current system mostly doesn’t support it. The most common scenario is that insurance companies pay us to see patients in an expensive box called the ED. Most EDs are situated within an even more expensive box, called a hospital.

Here’s the good news: Better access to emergency care and people who are formally trained in emergency medicine and routine matters of urgent care is increasing.

One example is telemedicine, where a remote doctor — either your own or a doctor through an app — conducts a visit. Telemedicine is more common since the pandemic, now that insurance pays for it. In emergency situations, it’s rare that your own doctor can see you immediately by telemedicine. By contrast, direct-to-consumer telemedicine (eg, Teladoc, Doctor On Demand, and others) connects you with a random doctor.

In many apps, it’s unclear not only who the doctor is, but more importantly, what their specific medical specialty or training is. It may be an ED doctor evaluating your child’s fever, or it may be a retired general surgeon or an adult rheumatology specialist in the midst of their fellowship, making an extra buck, who may have no pediatric training.
 

Training Matters

Clinical training and whether the doctor knows you matters. A recent JAMA study from Ontario, Canada, found that patients with virtual visits who saw outside family physicians (whom they had never met) compared with their own family physicians were 66% more likely to visit an ED within 7 days after the visit. This illustrates the importance of understanding your personal history in assessing acute symptoms.

Some healthcare systems do use ED physicians for on-demand telehealth services, such as Thomas Jefferson’s JeffConnect. Amazon Clinic recently entered this space, providing condition-specific acute or chronic care to adults aged 18-64 years for a fee that is, notably, not covered by insurance.

A second innovative approach, albeit not specifically in the realm of a personal emergency medicine doctor, is artificial intelligence (AI)–powered kiosks. A concierge medicine company known as Forward recently unveiled an innovative concept known as CarePods that are now available in Sacramento, California; Chandler, Arizona; and Chicago. For a membership fee, you swipe into what looks like an oversize, space-age porta-potty. You sit in a chair and run through a series of health apps, which includes a biometric body scan along with mental health screenings. It even takes your blood (without a needle) and sequences your DNA. Results are reviewed by a doctor (not yours) who talks to you by video. They advertise that AI helps make the diagnosis. Although diagnostic AI is emerging and exciting, its benefit is not clear in emergency conditions. Yet, one clear value in a kiosk over telemedicine is the ability to obtain vital signs and lab results, which are useful for diagnosis.

Another approach is the telehealth offerings used in integrated systems of care, such as Kaiser Permanente. Kaiser is both an insurance company and a deliverer of healthcare services. Kaiser maintains a nurse call center and can handle urgent e-visits. Integrated systems not only help triage patients’ acute issues but also have access to their personal health histories. They can also provide a definitive plan for in-person treatment or a specific referral. A downside of integrated care is that it often limits your choice of provider.

Insurance companies also maintain call-in lines such as HumanaFirst, which is also staffed by nurses. We have not seen data on the calls such services receive, but we doubt people that want to call their insurance company when sick or injured, knowing that the insurer benefits when you receive less care. Additionally, studies have found that nurse-only triage is not as effective as physician triage and results in higher ED referral rates.
 

The Concierge Option

Probably the closest thing to having your own personal emergency medicine doctor is concierge medicine, which combines personalized care and accessibility. Concierge doctors come in many forms, but they usually charge a fixed fee for 24/7 availability and same-day appointments. A downside of concierge medicine is its expense ($2000–$3500 per year), and that many don’t take insurance. Concierge medicine is also criticized because, as doctors gravitate toward it, people in the community often lose their physician if they can’t afford the fees.

Ultimately, remote medical advice for emergency care is clearly evolving in new ways. The inability of traditional care models to achieve this goal will lead to innovation to improve the available options that have led us to think outside of the proverbial “box” we refer to as the ED-in-the-case.

At this time, will any option come close to having a personal emergency medicine physician willing to answer your questions, real-time, as with family and close friends? We think not.

But the future certainly holds promise for alternatives that will hopefully make payers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services take notice. Innovations in personalized care that reduce costs will be critical in our current healthcare landscape.
 

Dr. Pines is clinical professor of emergency medicine at George Washington University in Washington, DC, and chief of clinical innovation at US Acute Care Solutions in Canton, Ohio. He disclosed ties with CSL Behring and Abbott Point-of-Care. Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As emergency medicine doctors, we regularly give medical advice to family and close friends when they get sick or are injured and don’t know what to do. In a matter of moments, we triage, diagnose, and assemble a logical plan, whatever the issue may be. This skill comes from our training and years of experience in treating emergencies and also routine medical matters. The value proposition is clear.

Frankly, it’s a service everyone should have. Think about the potential time and money saved if this option for medical care and triage was broadly available. Overtriage would plummet. That’s when people run to the emergency department (ED) and wait endless hours, only to be reassured or receive limited treatment. Undertriage would also decline. That’s when people should go to the ED but, unwisely, wait. For example, this may occur when symptoms of dizziness end up being a stroke.

Why doesn’t everyone have an ED doctor they can call? The primary reason is that the current system mostly doesn’t support it. The most common scenario is that insurance companies pay us to see patients in an expensive box called the ED. Most EDs are situated within an even more expensive box, called a hospital.

Here’s the good news: Better access to emergency care and people who are formally trained in emergency medicine and routine matters of urgent care is increasing.

One example is telemedicine, where a remote doctor — either your own or a doctor through an app — conducts a visit. Telemedicine is more common since the pandemic, now that insurance pays for it. In emergency situations, it’s rare that your own doctor can see you immediately by telemedicine. By contrast, direct-to-consumer telemedicine (eg, Teladoc, Doctor On Demand, and others) connects you with a random doctor.

In many apps, it’s unclear not only who the doctor is, but more importantly, what their specific medical specialty or training is. It may be an ED doctor evaluating your child’s fever, or it may be a retired general surgeon or an adult rheumatology specialist in the midst of their fellowship, making an extra buck, who may have no pediatric training.
 

Training Matters

Clinical training and whether the doctor knows you matters. A recent JAMA study from Ontario, Canada, found that patients with virtual visits who saw outside family physicians (whom they had never met) compared with their own family physicians were 66% more likely to visit an ED within 7 days after the visit. This illustrates the importance of understanding your personal history in assessing acute symptoms.

Some healthcare systems do use ED physicians for on-demand telehealth services, such as Thomas Jefferson’s JeffConnect. Amazon Clinic recently entered this space, providing condition-specific acute or chronic care to adults aged 18-64 years for a fee that is, notably, not covered by insurance.

A second innovative approach, albeit not specifically in the realm of a personal emergency medicine doctor, is artificial intelligence (AI)–powered kiosks. A concierge medicine company known as Forward recently unveiled an innovative concept known as CarePods that are now available in Sacramento, California; Chandler, Arizona; and Chicago. For a membership fee, you swipe into what looks like an oversize, space-age porta-potty. You sit in a chair and run through a series of health apps, which includes a biometric body scan along with mental health screenings. It even takes your blood (without a needle) and sequences your DNA. Results are reviewed by a doctor (not yours) who talks to you by video. They advertise that AI helps make the diagnosis. Although diagnostic AI is emerging and exciting, its benefit is not clear in emergency conditions. Yet, one clear value in a kiosk over telemedicine is the ability to obtain vital signs and lab results, which are useful for diagnosis.

Another approach is the telehealth offerings used in integrated systems of care, such as Kaiser Permanente. Kaiser is both an insurance company and a deliverer of healthcare services. Kaiser maintains a nurse call center and can handle urgent e-visits. Integrated systems not only help triage patients’ acute issues but also have access to their personal health histories. They can also provide a definitive plan for in-person treatment or a specific referral. A downside of integrated care is that it often limits your choice of provider.

Insurance companies also maintain call-in lines such as HumanaFirst, which is also staffed by nurses. We have not seen data on the calls such services receive, but we doubt people that want to call their insurance company when sick or injured, knowing that the insurer benefits when you receive less care. Additionally, studies have found that nurse-only triage is not as effective as physician triage and results in higher ED referral rates.
 

The Concierge Option

Probably the closest thing to having your own personal emergency medicine doctor is concierge medicine, which combines personalized care and accessibility. Concierge doctors come in many forms, but they usually charge a fixed fee for 24/7 availability and same-day appointments. A downside of concierge medicine is its expense ($2000–$3500 per year), and that many don’t take insurance. Concierge medicine is also criticized because, as doctors gravitate toward it, people in the community often lose their physician if they can’t afford the fees.

Ultimately, remote medical advice for emergency care is clearly evolving in new ways. The inability of traditional care models to achieve this goal will lead to innovation to improve the available options that have led us to think outside of the proverbial “box” we refer to as the ED-in-the-case.

At this time, will any option come close to having a personal emergency medicine physician willing to answer your questions, real-time, as with family and close friends? We think not.

But the future certainly holds promise for alternatives that will hopefully make payers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services take notice. Innovations in personalized care that reduce costs will be critical in our current healthcare landscape.
 

Dr. Pines is clinical professor of emergency medicine at George Washington University in Washington, DC, and chief of clinical innovation at US Acute Care Solutions in Canton, Ohio. He disclosed ties with CSL Behring and Abbott Point-of-Care. Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As emergency medicine doctors, we regularly give medical advice to family and close friends when they get sick or are injured and don’t know what to do. In a matter of moments, we triage, diagnose, and assemble a logical plan, whatever the issue may be. This skill comes from our training and years of experience in treating emergencies and also routine medical matters. The value proposition is clear.

Frankly, it’s a service everyone should have. Think about the potential time and money saved if this option for medical care and triage was broadly available. Overtriage would plummet. That’s when people run to the emergency department (ED) and wait endless hours, only to be reassured or receive limited treatment. Undertriage would also decline. That’s when people should go to the ED but, unwisely, wait. For example, this may occur when symptoms of dizziness end up being a stroke.

Why doesn’t everyone have an ED doctor they can call? The primary reason is that the current system mostly doesn’t support it. The most common scenario is that insurance companies pay us to see patients in an expensive box called the ED. Most EDs are situated within an even more expensive box, called a hospital.

Here’s the good news: Better access to emergency care and people who are formally trained in emergency medicine and routine matters of urgent care is increasing.

One example is telemedicine, where a remote doctor — either your own or a doctor through an app — conducts a visit. Telemedicine is more common since the pandemic, now that insurance pays for it. In emergency situations, it’s rare that your own doctor can see you immediately by telemedicine. By contrast, direct-to-consumer telemedicine (eg, Teladoc, Doctor On Demand, and others) connects you with a random doctor.

In many apps, it’s unclear not only who the doctor is, but more importantly, what their specific medical specialty or training is. It may be an ED doctor evaluating your child’s fever, or it may be a retired general surgeon or an adult rheumatology specialist in the midst of their fellowship, making an extra buck, who may have no pediatric training.
 

Training Matters

Clinical training and whether the doctor knows you matters. A recent JAMA study from Ontario, Canada, found that patients with virtual visits who saw outside family physicians (whom they had never met) compared with their own family physicians were 66% more likely to visit an ED within 7 days after the visit. This illustrates the importance of understanding your personal history in assessing acute symptoms.

Some healthcare systems do use ED physicians for on-demand telehealth services, such as Thomas Jefferson’s JeffConnect. Amazon Clinic recently entered this space, providing condition-specific acute or chronic care to adults aged 18-64 years for a fee that is, notably, not covered by insurance.

A second innovative approach, albeit not specifically in the realm of a personal emergency medicine doctor, is artificial intelligence (AI)–powered kiosks. A concierge medicine company known as Forward recently unveiled an innovative concept known as CarePods that are now available in Sacramento, California; Chandler, Arizona; and Chicago. For a membership fee, you swipe into what looks like an oversize, space-age porta-potty. You sit in a chair and run through a series of health apps, which includes a biometric body scan along with mental health screenings. It even takes your blood (without a needle) and sequences your DNA. Results are reviewed by a doctor (not yours) who talks to you by video. They advertise that AI helps make the diagnosis. Although diagnostic AI is emerging and exciting, its benefit is not clear in emergency conditions. Yet, one clear value in a kiosk over telemedicine is the ability to obtain vital signs and lab results, which are useful for diagnosis.

Another approach is the telehealth offerings used in integrated systems of care, such as Kaiser Permanente. Kaiser is both an insurance company and a deliverer of healthcare services. Kaiser maintains a nurse call center and can handle urgent e-visits. Integrated systems not only help triage patients’ acute issues but also have access to their personal health histories. They can also provide a definitive plan for in-person treatment or a specific referral. A downside of integrated care is that it often limits your choice of provider.

Insurance companies also maintain call-in lines such as HumanaFirst, which is also staffed by nurses. We have not seen data on the calls such services receive, but we doubt people that want to call their insurance company when sick or injured, knowing that the insurer benefits when you receive less care. Additionally, studies have found that nurse-only triage is not as effective as physician triage and results in higher ED referral rates.
 

The Concierge Option

Probably the closest thing to having your own personal emergency medicine doctor is concierge medicine, which combines personalized care and accessibility. Concierge doctors come in many forms, but they usually charge a fixed fee for 24/7 availability and same-day appointments. A downside of concierge medicine is its expense ($2000–$3500 per year), and that many don’t take insurance. Concierge medicine is also criticized because, as doctors gravitate toward it, people in the community often lose their physician if they can’t afford the fees.

Ultimately, remote medical advice for emergency care is clearly evolving in new ways. The inability of traditional care models to achieve this goal will lead to innovation to improve the available options that have led us to think outside of the proverbial “box” we refer to as the ED-in-the-case.

At this time, will any option come close to having a personal emergency medicine physician willing to answer your questions, real-time, as with family and close friends? We think not.

But the future certainly holds promise for alternatives that will hopefully make payers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services take notice. Innovations in personalized care that reduce costs will be critical in our current healthcare landscape.
 

Dr. Pines is clinical professor of emergency medicine at George Washington University in Washington, DC, and chief of clinical innovation at US Acute Care Solutions in Canton, Ohio. He disclosed ties with CSL Behring and Abbott Point-of-Care. Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New criteria for pediatric sepsis, based on a novel score that predicts mortality in children with suspected or confirmed infection, perform better than existing organ dysfunction scores and criteria and have the potential to improve clinical care globally, researchers say.

Current pediatric-specific criteria for sepsis were published in 2005, based on expert opinion. In 2016, sepsis was redefined for adults as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, as opposed to an earlier focus on systemic inflammation. But the paradigm-shifting changes were not extended to children (< 18 years, but not newborns), setting the stage for the new initiative.

The new criteria, and their development and validation, were published in JAMA and presented the same day at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2024 Critical Care Congress in Phoenix, Arizona.
 

International Consensus

“The new criteria we derived are based on data from electronic health records and analysis of more than 3 million pediatric healthcare encounters from 10 hospitals around the world, including in low-resource settings,” L. Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD, MBI, a critical care physician at the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization.

Dr. Sanchez-Pinto co-led the data group of the international expert task force convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to develop and validate the criteria, which are based on evidence from an international survey, systematic review and meta-analysis, a newly created organ dysfunction score (Phoenix Sepsis Score), and sites on four continents.

Based on the findings, the task force now suggests that pediatric sepsis be defined by a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points in children with suspected infection, which indicates potentially life-threatening dysfunction of the respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological systems. Septic shock is defined as sepsis with at least 1 cardiovascular point in the score.
 

Disparities Across Settings

To derive and validate the new criteria across differently resourced settings, the researchers conducted a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study involving 10 health systems in the United States, Colombia, Bangladesh, China, and Kenya, 3 of which were used as external validation sites.

Data were collected from pediatric emergency and inpatient encounters from 2010 to 2019. The development set comprised 3,049,699 children, and the external validation set included 581,317.

Stacked regression models to predict mortality in children with suspected infection were derived and validated using the best-performing organ dysfunction subscores from eight existing scores.

The final model was then translated into the integer-based Phoenix Sepsis Score and used to establish binary criteria for sepsis and septic shock.

Among 172,984 children with suspected infection in the first 24 hours (development set; 1.2% mortality), a four-organ-system model performed best. The Phoenix Sepsis Score — the integer version of the model — had areas under the precision recall curve of 0.23 to 0.38, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 to 0.92 to predict mortality in the validation sets.

A Phoenix Sepsis Score of 2 points or higher in children with suspected infection as criteria for sepsis, plus 1 or more cardiovascular points as criteria for septic shock, resulted in a higher positive predictive value and higher or similar sensitivity compared with the 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference criteria across differently resourced settings.

Specifically, children with a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points had in-hospital mortality of 7.1% in higher-resource settings and 28.5% in lower-resource settings — more than 8 times that of children with suspected infection not meeting these criteria.

Mortality also was higher in children who had organ dysfunction in at least one of four organ systems — respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological — that was not the primary site of infection.

Children with septic shock, indicated by at least 1 cardiovascular point in the Phoenix Sepsis Score, had severe hypotension for age, blood lactate exceeding 5 mmol/L, or need for vasoactive medication. These children had an in-hospital mortality rate of 10.8% in higher-resource settings and 33.5% in lower-resource settings.
 

A Better Score

Given the findings, the task force recommends that “the former criteria based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome should not be used to diagnose sepsis in children [and] the former term severe sepsis should no longer be used because sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction associated with infection and is thus indicative of a severe disease state.”

The task force cautions that although the four organs in the Phoenix Sepsis Score are most commonly involved in sepsis, “this does not diminish the crucial importance of the assessment and management of other organ dysfunction.”

Furthermore, they emphasize that the Phoenix score was designed to identify sepsis in children, not to screen children at risk for developing sepsis or early identification of children with suspected sepsis.
 

Additional Considerations

In related editorials, commentators noted some caveats and concerns with regard to the study design and the new criteria.

Roberto Jabornisky, MD, PhD, of National University of the Northeast, Corrientes, Argentina, and colleagues pointed out that “all the low-resource validation sites were institutions with electronic health records and most had PICUs [pediatric intensive care units], which does not adequately reflect conditions in most low-resource settings. These factors introduce a distinct bias favoring a ‘PICU-based consensus,’ potentially limiting the generalizability and adoption of the new criteria by health care practitioners in non-PICU and nonhospital settings responsible for recognizing and managing children with sepsis.” The editorialists called for additional prospective validation in differently resourced settings, especially those with the highest disease burdens.

“Until then,” they wrote, “it is essential to refrain from considering these criteria as an inflexible directive governing medical interventions for pediatric sepsis. No definition can fully substitute for the clinical judgment of an experienced, vigilant clinician caring for an unwell child.”

Erin F. Carlton, MD, MSc of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues added in a separate editorial, “The Phoenix criteria identify a sicker subset of patients than prior SIRS [systemic inflammatory response syndrome]-based criteria. Some may worry this higher threshold could delay management of patients not meeting sepsis criteria. Just as patients with chest pain and a troponin leak warrant monitoring and treatment (but are not prioritized for immediate heart catheterization), patients with infection need monitoring and treatment. Improvements in care should thus be judged not only by improved outcomes among patients with sepsis but also by decreased progression to sepsis among patients with infection.”

The International Consensus Criteria paper was supported by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Tellen C. Bennett, MD, MS, and Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD. Data for the Kenya site were collected with support of the Wellcome Trust to the Kenya Major Overseas Programme. Dr. Jabornisky reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Carlton reported serving on the Pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline committee and receiving grant support from the NIH.

New criteria for pediatric sepsis, based on a novel score that predicts mortality in children with suspected or confirmed infection, perform better than existing organ dysfunction scores and criteria and have the potential to improve clinical care globally, researchers say.

Current pediatric-specific criteria for sepsis were published in 2005, based on expert opinion. In 2016, sepsis was redefined for adults as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, as opposed to an earlier focus on systemic inflammation. But the paradigm-shifting changes were not extended to children (< 18 years, but not newborns), setting the stage for the new initiative.

The new criteria, and their development and validation, were published in JAMA and presented the same day at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2024 Critical Care Congress in Phoenix, Arizona.
 

International Consensus

“The new criteria we derived are based on data from electronic health records and analysis of more than 3 million pediatric healthcare encounters from 10 hospitals around the world, including in low-resource settings,” L. Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD, MBI, a critical care physician at the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization.

Dr. Sanchez-Pinto co-led the data group of the international expert task force convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to develop and validate the criteria, which are based on evidence from an international survey, systematic review and meta-analysis, a newly created organ dysfunction score (Phoenix Sepsis Score), and sites on four continents.

Based on the findings, the task force now suggests that pediatric sepsis be defined by a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points in children with suspected infection, which indicates potentially life-threatening dysfunction of the respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological systems. Septic shock is defined as sepsis with at least 1 cardiovascular point in the score.
 

Disparities Across Settings

To derive and validate the new criteria across differently resourced settings, the researchers conducted a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study involving 10 health systems in the United States, Colombia, Bangladesh, China, and Kenya, 3 of which were used as external validation sites.

Data were collected from pediatric emergency and inpatient encounters from 2010 to 2019. The development set comprised 3,049,699 children, and the external validation set included 581,317.

Stacked regression models to predict mortality in children with suspected infection were derived and validated using the best-performing organ dysfunction subscores from eight existing scores.

The final model was then translated into the integer-based Phoenix Sepsis Score and used to establish binary criteria for sepsis and septic shock.

Among 172,984 children with suspected infection in the first 24 hours (development set; 1.2% mortality), a four-organ-system model performed best. The Phoenix Sepsis Score — the integer version of the model — had areas under the precision recall curve of 0.23 to 0.38, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 to 0.92 to predict mortality in the validation sets.

A Phoenix Sepsis Score of 2 points or higher in children with suspected infection as criteria for sepsis, plus 1 or more cardiovascular points as criteria for septic shock, resulted in a higher positive predictive value and higher or similar sensitivity compared with the 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference criteria across differently resourced settings.

Specifically, children with a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points had in-hospital mortality of 7.1% in higher-resource settings and 28.5% in lower-resource settings — more than 8 times that of children with suspected infection not meeting these criteria.

Mortality also was higher in children who had organ dysfunction in at least one of four organ systems — respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological — that was not the primary site of infection.

Children with septic shock, indicated by at least 1 cardiovascular point in the Phoenix Sepsis Score, had severe hypotension for age, blood lactate exceeding 5 mmol/L, or need for vasoactive medication. These children had an in-hospital mortality rate of 10.8% in higher-resource settings and 33.5% in lower-resource settings.
 

A Better Score

Given the findings, the task force recommends that “the former criteria based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome should not be used to diagnose sepsis in children [and] the former term severe sepsis should no longer be used because sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction associated with infection and is thus indicative of a severe disease state.”

The task force cautions that although the four organs in the Phoenix Sepsis Score are most commonly involved in sepsis, “this does not diminish the crucial importance of the assessment and management of other organ dysfunction.”

Furthermore, they emphasize that the Phoenix score was designed to identify sepsis in children, not to screen children at risk for developing sepsis or early identification of children with suspected sepsis.
 

Additional Considerations

In related editorials, commentators noted some caveats and concerns with regard to the study design and the new criteria.

Roberto Jabornisky, MD, PhD, of National University of the Northeast, Corrientes, Argentina, and colleagues pointed out that “all the low-resource validation sites were institutions with electronic health records and most had PICUs [pediatric intensive care units], which does not adequately reflect conditions in most low-resource settings. These factors introduce a distinct bias favoring a ‘PICU-based consensus,’ potentially limiting the generalizability and adoption of the new criteria by health care practitioners in non-PICU and nonhospital settings responsible for recognizing and managing children with sepsis.” The editorialists called for additional prospective validation in differently resourced settings, especially those with the highest disease burdens.

“Until then,” they wrote, “it is essential to refrain from considering these criteria as an inflexible directive governing medical interventions for pediatric sepsis. No definition can fully substitute for the clinical judgment of an experienced, vigilant clinician caring for an unwell child.”

Erin F. Carlton, MD, MSc of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues added in a separate editorial, “The Phoenix criteria identify a sicker subset of patients than prior SIRS [systemic inflammatory response syndrome]-based criteria. Some may worry this higher threshold could delay management of patients not meeting sepsis criteria. Just as patients with chest pain and a troponin leak warrant monitoring and treatment (but are not prioritized for immediate heart catheterization), patients with infection need monitoring and treatment. Improvements in care should thus be judged not only by improved outcomes among patients with sepsis but also by decreased progression to sepsis among patients with infection.”

The International Consensus Criteria paper was supported by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Tellen C. Bennett, MD, MS, and Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD. Data for the Kenya site were collected with support of the Wellcome Trust to the Kenya Major Overseas Programme. Dr. Jabornisky reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Carlton reported serving on the Pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline committee and receiving grant support from the NIH.

New criteria for pediatric sepsis, based on a novel score that predicts mortality in children with suspected or confirmed infection, perform better than existing organ dysfunction scores and criteria and have the potential to improve clinical care globally, researchers say.

Current pediatric-specific criteria for sepsis were published in 2005, based on expert opinion. In 2016, sepsis was redefined for adults as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, as opposed to an earlier focus on systemic inflammation. But the paradigm-shifting changes were not extended to children (< 18 years, but not newborns), setting the stage for the new initiative.

The new criteria, and their development and validation, were published in JAMA and presented the same day at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2024 Critical Care Congress in Phoenix, Arizona.
 

International Consensus

“The new criteria we derived are based on data from electronic health records and analysis of more than 3 million pediatric healthcare encounters from 10 hospitals around the world, including in low-resource settings,” L. Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD, MBI, a critical care physician at the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization.

Dr. Sanchez-Pinto co-led the data group of the international expert task force convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to develop and validate the criteria, which are based on evidence from an international survey, systematic review and meta-analysis, a newly created organ dysfunction score (Phoenix Sepsis Score), and sites on four continents.

Based on the findings, the task force now suggests that pediatric sepsis be defined by a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points in children with suspected infection, which indicates potentially life-threatening dysfunction of the respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological systems. Septic shock is defined as sepsis with at least 1 cardiovascular point in the score.
 

Disparities Across Settings

To derive and validate the new criteria across differently resourced settings, the researchers conducted a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study involving 10 health systems in the United States, Colombia, Bangladesh, China, and Kenya, 3 of which were used as external validation sites.

Data were collected from pediatric emergency and inpatient encounters from 2010 to 2019. The development set comprised 3,049,699 children, and the external validation set included 581,317.

Stacked regression models to predict mortality in children with suspected infection were derived and validated using the best-performing organ dysfunction subscores from eight existing scores.

The final model was then translated into the integer-based Phoenix Sepsis Score and used to establish binary criteria for sepsis and septic shock.

Among 172,984 children with suspected infection in the first 24 hours (development set; 1.2% mortality), a four-organ-system model performed best. The Phoenix Sepsis Score — the integer version of the model — had areas under the precision recall curve of 0.23 to 0.38, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 to 0.92 to predict mortality in the validation sets.

A Phoenix Sepsis Score of 2 points or higher in children with suspected infection as criteria for sepsis, plus 1 or more cardiovascular points as criteria for septic shock, resulted in a higher positive predictive value and higher or similar sensitivity compared with the 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference criteria across differently resourced settings.

Specifically, children with a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points had in-hospital mortality of 7.1% in higher-resource settings and 28.5% in lower-resource settings — more than 8 times that of children with suspected infection not meeting these criteria.

Mortality also was higher in children who had organ dysfunction in at least one of four organ systems — respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological — that was not the primary site of infection.

Children with septic shock, indicated by at least 1 cardiovascular point in the Phoenix Sepsis Score, had severe hypotension for age, blood lactate exceeding 5 mmol/L, or need for vasoactive medication. These children had an in-hospital mortality rate of 10.8% in higher-resource settings and 33.5% in lower-resource settings.
 

A Better Score

Given the findings, the task force recommends that “the former criteria based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome should not be used to diagnose sepsis in children [and] the former term severe sepsis should no longer be used because sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction associated with infection and is thus indicative of a severe disease state.”

The task force cautions that although the four organs in the Phoenix Sepsis Score are most commonly involved in sepsis, “this does not diminish the crucial importance of the assessment and management of other organ dysfunction.”

Furthermore, they emphasize that the Phoenix score was designed to identify sepsis in children, not to screen children at risk for developing sepsis or early identification of children with suspected sepsis.
 

Additional Considerations

In related editorials, commentators noted some caveats and concerns with regard to the study design and the new criteria.

Roberto Jabornisky, MD, PhD, of National University of the Northeast, Corrientes, Argentina, and colleagues pointed out that “all the low-resource validation sites were institutions with electronic health records and most had PICUs [pediatric intensive care units], which does not adequately reflect conditions in most low-resource settings. These factors introduce a distinct bias favoring a ‘PICU-based consensus,’ potentially limiting the generalizability and adoption of the new criteria by health care practitioners in non-PICU and nonhospital settings responsible for recognizing and managing children with sepsis.” The editorialists called for additional prospective validation in differently resourced settings, especially those with the highest disease burdens.

“Until then,” they wrote, “it is essential to refrain from considering these criteria as an inflexible directive governing medical interventions for pediatric sepsis. No definition can fully substitute for the clinical judgment of an experienced, vigilant clinician caring for an unwell child.”

Erin F. Carlton, MD, MSc of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues added in a separate editorial, “The Phoenix criteria identify a sicker subset of patients than prior SIRS [systemic inflammatory response syndrome]-based criteria. Some may worry this higher threshold could delay management of patients not meeting sepsis criteria. Just as patients with chest pain and a troponin leak warrant monitoring and treatment (but are not prioritized for immediate heart catheterization), patients with infection need monitoring and treatment. Improvements in care should thus be judged not only by improved outcomes among patients with sepsis but also by decreased progression to sepsis among patients with infection.”

The International Consensus Criteria paper was supported by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Tellen C. Bennett, MD, MS, and Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD. Data for the Kenya site were collected with support of the Wellcome Trust to the Kenya Major Overseas Programme. Dr. Jabornisky reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Carlton reported serving on the Pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline committee and receiving grant support from the NIH.