Is Tachycardia at Discharge From the Pediatric Emergency Department a Cause for Concern? A Nonconcurrent Cohort Study - 29/08/17
Abstract |
Study objective |
We evaluate the association between discharge tachycardia and (1) emergency department (ED) and urgent care revisit and (2) receipt of clinically important intervention at the revisit.
Methods |
The study included a nonconcurrent cohort of children aged 0 to younger than 19 years, discharged from 2 pediatric EDs and 4 pediatric urgent care centers in 2013. The primary exposure was discharge tachycardia (last recorded pulse rate ≥99th percentile for age). The main outcome was ED or urgent care revisit within 72 hours of discharge. Additional outcomes included interventions received and disposition at the revisit, prevalence of discharge tachycardia at the index visit, and associations of pain, fever, and medications with discharge tachycardia. Multivariable logistic regression determined relative risk ratios for revisit and receipt of clinically important intervention at the revisit.
Results |
Of eligible visits, 126,774 were included, of which 10,470 patients (8.3%) had discharge tachycardia. Discharge tachycardia was associated with an increased risk of revisit (adjusted RR 1.3; 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 1.5), increased risk of tachycardia at the revisit (relative risk 3.1; 95% confidence interval 2.6 to 3.7), and of the receipt of certain clinically important interventions (supplemental oxygen, respiratory medications and admission, antibiotics and admission, and peripheral intravenous line placement and admission). However, there was no increased risk for the composite outcome of receipt of any clinically important intervention or admission on revisit.
Conclusion |
Discharge tachycardia is associated with an increased risk of revisit. It is likely that tachycardia at discharge is not a critical factor associated with impending physiologic deterioration.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Please see page 269 for the Editor’s Capsule Summary of this article. |
|
Supervising editor: Kelly D. Young, MD, MS |
|
Author contributions: PMW, TAF, and MRM conceived and designed the study and performed analysis and interpretation of data. GH and MF provided statistical advice on study design and analyzed the data. PMW drafted the article, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. PMW takes responsibility for the paper as a whole. |
|
All authors attest to meeting the four ICMJE.org authorship criteria: (1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND (2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND (3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND (4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. |
|
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org/). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. |
|
Readers: click on the link to go directly to a survey in which you can provide Q2H32XF to Annals on this particular article. |
|
A podcast for this article is available at www.annemergmed.com. |
|
Continuing Medical Education exam for this article is available at ACEPeCME/. |
Vol 70 - N° 3
P. 268 - septembre 2017 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?