Browsing by Author "McDonald E"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Respiratory support in the emergency department a systematic review and meta-analysis
    (Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Sigma Theta Tau International, 2024-03-22) O'Donnell J; Pirret A; Hoare K; Fenn R; McDonald E
    BACKGROUND: An estimated 20% of emergency department (ED) patients require respiratory support (RS). Evidence suggests that nasal high flow (NHF) reduces RS need. AIMS: This review compared NHF to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in adult ED patients. METHOD: The systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) methods reflect the Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Six databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NHF to COT or NIV use in the ED. Three summary estimates were reported: (1) need to escalate care, (2) mortality, and (3) adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: This SR and MA included 18 RCTs (n = 1874 participants). Two of the five MA conclusions were statistically significant. Compared with COT, NHF reduced the risk of escalation by 45% (RR 0.55; 95% CI [0.33, 0.92], p = .02, NNT = 32); however, no statistically significant differences in risk of mortality (RR 1.02; 95% CI [0.68, 1.54]; p = .91) and AE (RR 0.98; 95% CI [0.61, 1.59]; p = .94) outcomes were found. Compared with NIV, NHF increased the risk of escalation by 60% (RR 1.60; 95% CI [1.10, 2.33]; p = .01); mortality risk was not statistically significant (RR 1.23, 95% CI [0.78, 1.95]; p = .37). LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Evidence-based decision-making regarding RS in the ED is challenging. ED clinicians have at times had to rely on non-ED evidence to support their practice. Compared with COT, NHF was seen to be superior and reduced the risk of escalation. Conversely, for this same outcome, NIV was superior to NHF. However, substantial clinical heterogeneity was seen in the NIV delivered. Research considering NHF versus NIV is needed. COVID-19 has exposed the research gaps and slowed the progress of ED research.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Respiratory support of adults in the emergency department: A protocol for a prospective, observational, multicenter point prevalence study
    (Health Science Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC, 2023-01) O'Donnell J; Pirret A; Hoare K; McDonald E
    Background and Aims Providing respiratory support (RS) to patients may improve their oxygenation and ventilation, reducing the work of breathing. Emergency department (ED) patients often need RS; COVID-19 has heightened this need. Patients receiving RS may need escalation of their treatment; hence, studies considering the prevalence of escalation are warranted. Method This is a protocol for a prospective, observational, multicenter point prevalence study (PPS). Researchers will collect data over 2 days. All participants are adult ED patients needing RS. The setting is four EDs in New Zealand. The primary research question asks, “Which patients receiving RS require escalation of therapy in the ED?” For example, transitioning from conventional oxygen therapy (COT) to intubation is deemed an escalation of therapy. A sample size of 80 participants is required to resolve the primary research question. Secondary research questions: (1) Which patients receive nasal high flow (NHF) in the ED? (2) How is NHF therapy delivered in the ED? (3) What are the effects of NHF therapy on physiological and patient-centered outcomes? Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) will be used for data organization. Data will be imported for analysis from REDCap to IBM SPSS software (Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0). Data reporting on the primary outcome shall be considered by analysis of variance, regression modeling, and determination of two treatment effects: Odds Ratio and Number Needed to Treat. Statistical significance for inferential statistics shall use a two-sided α with p-values fixed at ≤0.05 level of significance and 95% confidence intervals. This protocol has ethical approval from Massey University, New Zealand. Conclusion This novel PPS may reduce the evidence and clinical practice gap on RS delivery and ED patient outcomes, as evidenced by the emergence of COVID-19.