Evidence Hub

Risk factors and effect of dyspnea inappropriate treatment in adults’ emergency department: a retrospective cohort study

Frédéric Balen, S. Lamy, Léa Froissart, Thomas Mesnard, Benjamin Sanchez, Xavier Dubucs, Sandrine Charpentier

European journal of emergency medicine, 2024

2,123 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

Dyspnea is a frequent symptom in adults’ emergency departments (EDs). Misdiagnosis at initial clinical examination is common, leading to early inappropriate treatment and increased in-hospital mortality. Risk factors of inappropriate treatment assessable at early examination remain undescribed herein. The objective of this study was to identify clinical risk factors of dyspnea and inappropriate treatment in patients admitted to ED. This is an observational retrospective cohort study. Patients over the age of 15 who were admitted to adult EDs of the University Hospital of Toulouse (France) with dyspnea were included from 1 July to 31 December 2019. The primary end-point was dyspnea and inappropriate treatment was initiated at ED. Inappropriate treatment was defined by looking at the final diagnosis of dyspnea at hospital discharge and early treatment provided. Afterward, this early treatment at ED was compared to the recommended treatment defined by the International Guidelines for Acute Heart Failure, bacterial pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma or pulmonary embolism. A total of 2123 patients were analyzed. Of these, 809 (38%) had inappropriate treatment in ED. Independent risk factors of inappropriate treatment were: age over 75 years (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.18–1.81), history of heart disease (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.07–1.62) and lung disease (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.21–1.78), SpO2 <90% (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.37–2.02), bilateral rale (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01–1.66),…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 2,123 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free