Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Frailty assessment by paramedics in the prehospital setting is understudied. The goals of this study were to assess the inter-rater reliability and accuracy of frailty assessment by paramedics using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Methods This was a cross-sectional study with paramedics exposed to 30 clinical vignettes created from real-life situations. There was no teaching intervention prior to the study and paramedics were only provided with the French version of the CFS (definitions and pictograms). The primary outcome was the inter-rater reliability of the assessment. The secondary outcome was the accuracy, compared with the expert-based assessment. Reliability was determined by calculating an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Accuracy was assessed through a mixed effects logistic regression model. A sensitivity analysis was carried out by considering that an assessment was still accurate if the score differed from no more than 1 level. Results A total of 56 paramedics completed the assessment. The overall assessment was found to have good inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.87 [95%CI 0.81–0.93]). The overall accuracy was moderate at 60.6% (95%CI 54.9–66.1) when considering the full scale. It was however much higher (94.8% [95%CI 92.0–96.7] when close assessments were considered as accurate. The only factor associated with accurate assessment was field experience. Conclusion The assessment of frailty by paramedics was reliable in this vignette-based study. However, the accuracy deserved to be improved. Future research should focus on the clinical impact of these results and on the association of prehospital frailty assessment with patient outcomes. Registration This study was registered on the Open Science Framework registries ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VDUZY ).

Frailty has emerged as an important prognostic marker of adverse outcomes after cardiac surgery, but evidence regarding its ability to predict quality of life after cardiac surgery is currently lacking. Whether frail patients derive the same quality of life benefit after cardiac surgery as patients without frailty remains unclear. This systematic review will include interventional studies (RCT and others) and observational studies evaluating the effect of preoperative frailty on quality-of-life outcomes after cardiac surgery amongst patients 65 years and older. Studies will be retrieved from major databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and Medline. The primary exposure will be frailty status, independent of the tool used. The primary outcome will be change in quality of life, independent of the tool used. Secondary outcomes will include readmission during the year following the index intervention, discharge to a long-term care facility and living in a long-term care facility at one year. Screening, inclusion, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis based on the random-effects model will be conducted to compare the outcomes between frail and non-frail patients. The evidential quality of the findings will be assessed with the GRADE profiler. The findings of this systematic review will be important to clinicians, patients and health policy-makers regarding the use of preoperative frailty as a screening and assessment tool before cardiac surgery. OSF registries (https://osf.io/vm2p8).

Background Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is a cornerstone in the management of acute chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations with respiratory failure. While extensively studied in hospital settings, limited data exist on its use in the pre-hospital setting and clinical factors influencing its application. This study aimed to identify predictors of NIV use in the pre-hospital setting and to assess its association with patient-centered outcomes. Methods This single-center retrospective cohort study analyzed data from a pre-hospital emergency medical service registry in Geneva, Switzerland. Adult patients with a presumptive diagnosis of acute COPD exacerbation were included, spanning a control period (2007–2010, before NIV implementation) and an intervention period (2013–2017, after NIV implementation). For the primary analysis, multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of NIV use during the intervention period. For the secondary analysis, coarsened exact matching balanced patients treated with NIV during the intervention period with those from the control period, followed by conditional regression analyses to assess patient-centered outcomes. Results Among 270 included patients, 84 (46%) received NIV during the intervention period. Age ≥ 70 years (aOR 2.49, 95% CI 1.11, 5.76), female sex (aOR 2.48, 95% CI 1.13, 5.60), and systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 140 mmHg (aOR 2.75, 95% CI 1.19, 6.62) were independent predictors associated with receiving NIV in the pre-hospital setting. In the matched cohort, pre-hospital NIV use was significantly associated with increased ICU admission rates, but was not associated with transport time, emergency department length of stay, hospital length of stay, or 28-day mortality. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated consistent results across different modeling approaches. Conclusions Age ≥ 70 years, female sex, and SBP ≥ 140 mmHg were independent predictors associated with receiving NIV in the pre-hospital management of acute COPD exacerbation. The association between NIV use and increased ICU admissions may reflect its application in more severely ill patients. Pre-hospital NIV was not associated with short- or long-term outcomes beyond ICU admission. These findings underscore the need for prospective studies to clarify the role of pre-hospital NIV in patient outcomes.

Background Code status determination typically relies on the expected benefits and harms of treatment intensification and patient values and preferences. Resource availability may also influence code status decisions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the demand for critical care often exceeded the available resources. This study investigated the association between critical care occupancy and code status decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients hospitalized at Geneva University Hospital for acute COVID-19-related illness during two successive pandemic waves, in spring and autumn 2020. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze the association between critical care occupancy at admission and code status attribution while accounting for clinical and demographic characteristics, including age, sex, ROX index (pulse oximetry/fraction of inspired oxygen/respiratory rate), comorbidities, malignancy, nationality, insurance, and socioeconomic status. Results A total of 2,122 patients were included in the analysis. Higher critical care occupancy was associated with an increased likelihood of being assigned an intensive care unit (ICU)-ineligible code status. The odds ratios (ORs) were 1.61 (95% CI 1.11–2.32), 1.59 (1.11–2.28) and 1.71 (1.06–2.76) for critical care occupancy levels of 100–119%, 120–139% and ≥ 140%, respectively, compared with the prepandemic baseline capacity. Other factors significantly associated with the assignment of an ICU-ineligible code status included age 70–79 years (OR 8.56; 95% CI 4.12–17.77), 80–89 years (OR 32.78; 95% CI 16.16–66.50) and ≥90 years (OR 49.04; 95% CI 23.05–104.31) and a higher comorbidity index (OR 1.22; 95% CI 1.07–1.39). Conversely, complementary hospitalization insurance was associated with lower odds of being assigned an ICU-ineligible code status (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.29–0.92). Conclusions Our study revealed a positive association between critical care occupancy and ICU-ineligible code status, suggesting the presence of implicit triaging during periods of high resource strain. This raises several ethical concerns, including the use of non-consensual triage criteria, lack of transparency and the risk of moral distress for healthcare professionals.

Reproducibility is a central tenant of research. We aimed to synthesize the literature on reproducibility and describe its epidemiological characteristics, including how reproducibility is defined and assessed. We also aimed to determine and compare estimates for reproducibility across different fields. We conducted a scoping review to identify English language replication studies published between 2018 and 2019 in economics, education, psychology, health sciences, and biomedicine. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature - CINAHL, Education Source via EBSCOHost, ERIC, EconPapers, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS), and EconLit. Documents retrieved were screened in duplicate against our inclusion criteria. We extracted year of publication, number of authors, country of affiliation of the corresponding author, and whether the study was funded. For the individual replication studies, we recorded whether a registered protocol for the replication study was used, whether there was contact between the reproducing team and the original authors, what study design was used, and what the primary outcome was. Finally, we recorded how reproducibilty was defined by the authors, and whether the assessed study(ies) successfully reproduced based on this definition. Extraction was done by a single reviewer and quality controlled by a second reviewer. Our search identified 11,224 unique documents, of which 47 were included in this review. Most studies were related to either psychology (48.6%) or health sciences (23.7%). Among these 47 documents, 36 described a single reproducibility study while the remaining 11 reported at least two reproducibility studies in the same paper. Less than the half of the studies referred to a registered protocol. There was variability in the definitions of reproduciblity success. In total, across the 47 documents 177 studies were reported. Based on the definition used by the author of each study, 95 of 177 (53.7%) studies reproduced. This study gives an overview of research across five disciplines that explicitly set out to reproduce previous research. Such reproducibility studies are extremely scarce, the definition of a successfully reproduced study is ambiguous, and the reproducibility rate is overall modest. No external funding was received for this work.

IntroductionInflammation is emerging as an important risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and has been a recent target for many novel therapeutic agents. However, comparative evidence regarding efficacy of these anti-inflammatory treatment options is currently lacking.Methods and analysisThis systematic review will include randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of anti-inflammatory agents on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with known cardiovascular disease. Studies will be retrieved from Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, as well as clinical trial registry websites, Europe PMC and conference abstract handsearching. No publication date or language restrictions will be imposed. Eligible interventions must have some component of anti-inflammatory agent. These include (but are not limited to): non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), colchicine, prednisone, methotrexate, canakinumab, pexelizumab, anakinra, succinobucol, losmapimod, inclacumab, atreleuton, LP-PLA2 (darapladib) and sPLA2 (varespladib). The primary outcomes will include major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and each individual component of MACE (myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular death). Key secondary outcomes will include unstable angina, heart failure, all-cause mortality, cardiac arrest and revascularisation. Screening, inclusion, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by two reviewers. Network meta-analysis based on the random effects model will be conducted to compare treatment effects both directly and indirectly. The quality of the evidence will be assessed with appropriate tools including the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation profiler or Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this systematic review. The findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022303289.

Lassitude and a rather high degree of mistrust toward the authorities can make regular or overly constraining COVID-19 infection prevention and control campaigns inefficient and even counterproductive. Serious games provide an original, engaging, and potentially effective way of disseminating COVID-19 infection prevention and control guidelines. Escape COVID-19 is a serious game for teaching COVID-19 infection prevention and control practices that has previously been validated in a population of nursing home personnel. We aimed to identify factors learned from playing the serious game Escape COVID-19 that facilitate or impede intentions of changing infection prevention and control behavior in a large and heterogeneous Swiss population. This fully automated, prospective web-based study, compliant with the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES), was conducted in all 3 main language regions of Switzerland. After creating an account on the platform, participants were asked to complete a short demographic questionnaire before accessing the serious game. The only incentive given to the potential participants was a course completion certificate, which participants obtained after completing the postgame questionnaire. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who reported that they were willing to change their infection prevention and control behavior. Secondary outcomes were the infection prevention and control areas affected by this willingness and the presumed evolution in the use of specific personal protective equipment items. The elements associated with intention to change infection prevention and control behavior, or lack thereof, were also assessed. Other secondary outcomes were the subjective perceptions regarding length, difficulty, meaningfulness, and usefulness of the serious game; impression of engagement and boredom while playing the serious game; and willingness to recommend its use to friends or colleagues. From March 9 to June 9, 2021, a total of 3227 accounts were created on the platform, and 1104 participants (34.2%) completed the postgame questionnaire. Of the 1104 respondents, 509 respondents (46.1%) answered that they intended to change their infection prevention and control behavior after playing the game. Among the respondents who answered that they did not intend to change their behavior, 86.1% (512/595) answered that they already apply these guidelines. Participants who followed the German version were less likely to intend to change their infection prevention and control behavior (odds ratio [OR] 0.48, 95% CI 0.24-0.96; P=.04) and found the game less engaging (P<.001). Conversely, participants aged 53 years or older had stronger intentions of changing infection prevention and control behavior (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.44-2.97; P<.001). Escape COVID-19 is a useful tool to enhance correct infection prevention and control measures on a national scale, even after 2 COVID-19 pandemic waves; however, the serious game's impact was affected by language, age category, and previous educational training, and the game should be adapted to enhance its impact on specific populations.

Background Acute Heart Failure (AHF) is a potentially lethal pathology and is often encountered in the prehospital setting. Although an association between prehospital arterial hypercapnia in AHF patients and admission in high-dependency and intensive care units has been previously described, there is little data to support an association between prehospital arterial hypercapnia and mortality in this population. Methods This was a retrospective study based on electronically recorded prehospital medical files. All adult patients with AHF were included. Records lacking arterial blood gas data were excluded. Other exclusion criteria included the presence of a potentially confounding diagnosis, prehospital cardiac arrest, and inter-hospital transfers. Hypercapnia was defined as a PaCO 2 higher than 6.0 kPa. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were 7-day mortality and emergency room length of stay (ER LOS). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used. Results We included 225 patients in the analysis. Prehospital hypercapnia was found in 132 (58.7%) patients. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with hypercapnia (17.4% [23/132] versus 6.5% [6/93], p  = 0.016), with a crude odds-ratio of 3.06 (95%CI 1.19–7.85). After adjustment for pre-specified covariates, the adjusted OR was 3.18 (95%CI 1.22–8.26). The overall 7-day mortality was also higher in hypercapnic patients (13.6% versus 5.5%, p  = 0.044), and ER LOS was shorter in this population (5.6 h versus 7.1 h, p  = 0.018). Conclusion Prehospital hypercapnia is associated with an increase in in-hospital and 7-day mortality in patient with AHF.

Background and Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the association between prehospital peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission in confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) patients. Materials and Methods: We carried out a retrospective cohort study on patients requiring prehospital intervention between 11 March 2020 and 4 May 2020. All adult patients in whom a diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia was suspected by the prehospital physician were included. Patients who presented a prehospital confounding respiratory diagnosis and those who were not eligible for ICU admission were excluded. The main exposure was “Low SpO2” defined as a value < 90%. The primary outcome was 48-h ICU admission. Secondary outcomes were 48-h mortality and 30-day mortality. We analyzed the association between low SpO2 and ICU admission or mortality with univariable and multivariable regression models. Results: A total of 145 patients were included. A total of 41 (28.3%) patients had a low prehospital SpO2 and 21 (14.5%) patients were admitted to the ICU during the first 48 h. Low SpO2 was associated with an increase in ICU admission (OR = 3.4, 95% CI = 1.2–10.0), which remained significant after adjusting for sex and age (aOR = 5.2, 95% CI = 1.8–15.4). Mortality was higher in low SpO2 patients at 48 h (OR = 7.1 95% CI 1.3–38.3) and at 30 days (OR = 3.9, 95% CI 1.4–10.7). Conclusions: In our physician-staffed prehospital system, first low prehospital SpO2 values were associated with a higher risk of ICU admission during the COVID-19 pandemic.