Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) illness continues to affect national and global hospital systems, with a particularly high burden to intensive care unit (ICU) beds and resources. It is critical to identify patients who initially do not require ICU resources but subsequently rapidly deteriorate. We investigated patient populations during COVID-19 at times of full or near-full (surge) and non-full (non-surge) hospital capacity to determine the effect on those who may need a higher level of care or deteriorate quickly, defined as requiring a transfer to ICU within 24 hours of admission to a non-ICU level of care, and to provide further knowledge on this high-risk group of patients. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of a single health system comprising four emergency departments and three tertiary hospitals in New York, NY, across two different time periods (during surge and non-surge inpatient volume times during the COVID-19 pandemic). We queried the electronic health record for all patients admitted to a non-ICU setting with unexpected ICU transfer (UIT) within 24 hours of admission. We then made a comparison between adult patients with confirmed coronavirus 2019 and without during surge and non-surge time periods. RESULTS:During the surge period, there was a total of 86 UITs in a one-month period. Of those, 60 were COVID-19 positive patients who had a mortality rate of 63.3%, and 26 were COVID-19 negative with a 30.8 % mortality rate. During the non-surge period, there was a total of 112 UITs; of those, 24 were COVID-19 positive with a 37.5% mortality rate, and 90 were COVID-19 negative with a 11.1% mortality rate. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:During the surge, the mortality rate for both COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 negative patients experiencing an unexpected ICU transfer was significantly higher.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Aripiprazole is an atypical antipsychotic with unique receptor-binding properties that has a favorable safety profile in therapeutic doses compared to other antipsychotics. Massive aripiprazole overdose in children, however, presents with profound lethargy and may have neurologic, hemodynamic, and cardiac effects, often requiring admission to a high level of care. CASE REPORT/METHODS:We describe a case of a 21-month-old male with a reported 52-milligram aripiprazole ingestion. Initial vital signs were remarkable for tachycardia and hypertension, which rapidly resolved. The patient did not develop hypotension throughout hospitalization. He experienced 60 hours of lethargy. Irritability associated with upper extremity spasms and tremors occurred from 36-72 hours post ingestion, which resolved without intervention. The initial electrocardiogram demonstrated ST-segment depressions in the anteroseptal leads; further cardiac workup was normal. Concurrent medical workup was unrevealing. Aripiprazole and dehydro-aripiprazole serum concentrations sent 46 hours after reported exposure were 266.5 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) and 138.6 ng/mL, respectively. He returned to neurologic baseline and was discharged 72 hours after ingestion. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Antipsychotics, including aripiprazole, should be considered as a potential toxicological cause of persistent central nervous system depression; ingestion of a single dose has the potential to cause significant toxicity.

BACKGROUND:histamine receptor antagonist, is a commonly used nonprescription medication that is used for the treatment of allergy, as a sleep aid, or combined with cough and cold remedies. Naproxen, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), is used commonly for analgesia. Although most cases of diphenhydramine or naproxen overdose require excellent supportive care only, meticulous attention should be given to cardiovascular and neurologic status. CASE REPORT/METHODS:A 22-year-old woman presented with altered mental status secondary to intentional ingestion of 240 combination caplets of naproxen sodium 220 mg and diphenhydramine hydrochloride 25 mg. While in the emergency department, she manifested a wide-complex tachycardia in the setting of hypotension that required repeated administration of sodium bicarbonate to overcome the sodium channel blockade caused by diphenhydramine. Aggressive potassium repletion was performed simultaneously. Her clinical course was complicated by status-epilepticus that required intubation. Orogastric lavage was performed, which returned blue pill slurry consistent with the ingested caplets. The patient was extubated on hospital day 2 and transferred to psychiatry thereafter. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: In light of recent social media trends, such as the "Benadryl challenge" and its widespread availability, emergency providers should be familiar with diphenhydramine toxicity, especially the life-threatening neurologic consequences and risk of cardiovascular collapse. NSAIDs, such as naproxen, and other nonprescription analgesics are becoming more and more important in light of the current opioid crisis. There should be an emphasis on understanding these medications and their potential implications when taken in overdose.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:The use of activated charcoal in poisoning remains both a pillar of modern toxicology and a source of debate. Following the publication of the joint position statements on the use of single-dose and multiple-dose activated charcoal by the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology and the European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists, the routine use of activated charcoal declined. Over subsequent years, many new pharmaceuticals became available in modified or alternative-release formulations and additional data on gastric emptying time in poisoning was published, challenging previous assumptions about absorption kinetics. The American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, the European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists and the Asia Pacific Association of Medical Toxicology founded the Clinical Toxicology Recommendations Collaborative to create a framework for evidence-based recommendations for the management of poisoned patients. The activated charcoal workgroup of the Clinical Toxicology Recommendations Collaborative was tasked with reviewing systematically the evidence pertaining to the use of activated charcoal in poisoning in order to update the previous recommendations. OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:The main objective was: Does oral activated charcoal given to adults or children prevent toxicity or improve clinical outcome and survival of poisoned patients compared to those who do not receive charcoal?  Secondary objectives were to evaluate pharmacokinetic outcomes, the role of cathartics, and adverse events to charcoal administration. This systematic review summarizes the available evidence on the efficacy of activated charcoal. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library/DARE. All databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2019. There were no language limitations.  One author screened all citations identified in the search based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Excluded citations were confirmed by an additional author and remaining articles were obtained in full text and evaluated by at least two authors for inclusion. All authors cross-referenced full-text articles to identify articles missed in the searches. Data from included articles were extracted by the authors on a standardized spreadsheet and two authors used the GRADE methodology to independently assess the quality and risk of bias of each included study. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: = 484) of individuals. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:This systematic review found heterogenous data. The higher GRADE data was focused on a few select poisonings, while studies that addressed patients with unknown and or mixed ingestions were hampered by low rates of clinically meaningful toxicity or death.  Despite these limitations, they reported a benefit of activated charcoal beyond one hour in many clinical scenarios.

BACKGROUND:Telemedicine use rapidly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study assessed quality aspects of rapid expansion of a virtual urgent care (VUC) telehealth system and the effects of a secondary telephonic screening initiative during the pandemic. METHODS:A retrospective cohort analysis was performed in a single health care network of VUC patients from March 1, 2020, through April 20, 2020. Researchers abstracted demographic data, comorbidities, VUC return visits, emergency department (ED) referrals and ED visits, dispositions, intubations, and deaths. The team also reviewed incomplete visits. For comparison, the study evaluated outcomes of non-admission dispositions from the ED: return visits with and without admission and deaths. We separately analyzed the effects of enhanced callback system targeting higher-risk patients with COVID-like illness during the last two weeks of the study period. RESULTS:A total of 18,278 unique adult patients completed 22,413 VUC visits. Separately, 718 patient-scheduled visits were incomplete; the majority were no-shows. The study found that 50.9% of all patients and 74.1% of patients aged 60 years or older had comorbidities. Of VUC visits, 6.8% had a subsequent VUC encounter within 72 hours; 1.8% had a subsequent ED visit. Of patients with enhanced follow-up, 4.3% were referred for ED evaluation. Mortality was 0.20% overall; 0.21% initially and 0.16% with enhanced follow-up (p = 0.59). Males and black patients were significantly overrepresented in decedents. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Appropriately deployed VUC services can provide a pragmatic strategy to care for large numbers of patients. Ongoing surveillance of operational, technical, and clinical factors is critical for patient quality and safety with this modality.

BACKGROUND:The coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic quickly challenged New York City health care systems. Telemedicine has been suggested to manage acute complaints and divert patients from in-person care. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to describe and assess the impact of a rapidly scaled virtual urgent care platform during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients who presented to a virtual urgent care platform over 1 month during the COVID-19 pandemic surge. We described scaling our telemedicine urgent care capacity, described patient clinical characteristics, assessed for emergency department (ED) referrals, and analyzed postvisit surveys. RESULTS:During the study period, a total of 17,730 patients were seen via virtual urgent care; 454 (2.56%) were referred to an ED. The most frequent diagnoses were COVID-19 related or upper respiratory symptoms. Geospatial analysis indicated a wide catchment area. There were 251 providers onboarded to the platform; at peak, 62 providers supplied 364 h of coverage in 1 day. The average patient satisfaction score was 4.4/5. There were 2668 patients (15.05%) who responded to the postvisit survey; 1236 (49.35%) would have sought care in an ED (11.86%) or in-person urgent care (37.49%). CONCLUSIONS:A virtual urgent care platform was scaled to manage a volume of more than 800 patients a day across a large catchment area during the pandemic surge. About half of the patients would otherwise have presented to an ED or urgent care in person. Virtual urgent care is an option for appropriate patients while minimizing in-person visits during the COVID-19 pandemic.