Background: Observational studies have suggested that accelerated surgery is associated with improved outcomes in patients with a hip fracture. The HIP ATTACK trial assessed whether accelerated surgery could reduce mortality and major complications. Methods:We randomised 2970 patients from 69 hospitals in 17 countries. Patients with a hip fracture that required surgery and were ≥45 years of age were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to accelerated surgery (goal of surgery within 6 hours of diagnosis; 1487 patients) or standard care (1483 patients). The co-primary outcomes were 1.) mortality, and 2.) a composite of major complications (i.e., mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, life-threatening bleeding, and major bleeding) at 90 days after randomisation. Outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment allocation, and patients were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02027896. Findings:The median time from hip fracture diagnosis to surgery was 6 hours (interquartile range [IQR] 4-9) in the accelerated-surgery group and 24 hours (IQR 10-42) in the standard-care group, p<0.0001. Death occurred in 140 patients (9%) assigned to accelerated surgery and 154 patients (10%) assigned to standard care; hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.72-1.14; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1%, 95% CI -1-3%; p=0.40. The primary composite outcome occurred in 321 patients (22%) randomised to accelerated surgery and 331 patients (22%) randomised to standard care; HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83-1.13; ARR 1%, 95% CI -2-3%; p=0.71.Interpretation: Among patients with a hip fracture, accelerated surgery did not significantly lower the risk of mortality or a composite of major complications compared to standard care.

Objective: The authors investigated the incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGB) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), who were attending the emergency department (ED), before hospitalization. Methods:We retrospectively reviewed all COVID-19 patients diagnosed with UGB in 62 Spanish EDs (20% of Spanish EDs, case group) during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 outbreak. We formed 2 control groups: COVID-19 patients without UGB (control group A) and non-COVID-19 patients with UGB (control group B). Fifty-three independent variables and 4 outcomes were compared between cases and controls.Results: We identified 83 UGB in 74,814 patients with COVID-19 who were attending EDs (1.11%, 95% CI = 0.88-1.38). This incidence was lower compared with non-COVID-19 patients [2474/1,388,879, 1.78%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.71-1.85; odds ratio (OR) = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.50-0.77]. Clinical characteristics associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 patients presenting with UGB were abdominal pain, vomiting, hematemesis, dyspnea, expectoration, melena, fever, cough, chest pain, and dysgeusia. Compared with non-COVID-19 patients with UGB, COVID-19 patients with UGB more frequently had fever, cough, expectoration, dyspnea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, interstitial lung infiltrates, and ground-glass lung opacities. They underwent fewer endoscopies in the ED (although diagnoses did not differ between cases and control group B) and less endoscopic treatment. After adjustment for age and sex, cases showed a higher in-hospital all-cause mortality than control group B (OR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.09-3.86) but not control group A (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.59-2.19) patients.

BackgroundThe resolution of potential drug-related problems is a priority of pharmaceutical care programmes.ObjectivesTo assess the clinical impact on drug-related negative outcomes of a pharmaceutical care programme focusing on the resolution of potential drug-related problems, initiated in the emergency department for patients with heart failure (HF) and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).MethodsControlled trials, in which older adults (≥65 years) receiving four or more medications admitted to the emergency department for ≥12 hours for worsening of HF and/or COPD were randomised (1:1) to either a pharmaceutical care programme focusing on resolving potential drug-related problems initiated at the emergency department (intervention group (IG)) or standard care (control group). Comparisons between the groups were made for the proportion of patients with drug-related negative outcomes, number of drug-related negative outcomes per patient, mean stay, patients readmitted within 180 days and 180-day mortality.Results118 patients were included, 59 in each group. Fewer patients in the IG had drug-related negative outcomes (37 (62.7%) vs 47 (79.7%) in the control group (p=0.042)). Fewer drug-related negative outcomes per patient occurred in the IG (56 (0.95 per patient) vs 85 (1.44 per patient) in the control group (p=0.01)). The mean stay was similar between groups (194.7 hours in the IG vs 242.5 hours in the control group (p=0.186)). No difference in revisits within 180 days was found (32 (54.24%) in the IG vs 22 (37.3%) in the control group (p=0.065)). 180-Day mortality was detected in 11 (18.6%) patients in the IG compared with 13 (22%) in the control group (p=0.647).ConclusionA pharmaceutical care programme focusing on resolving potential drug-related problems initiated at the emergency department has a favourable clinical impact, as it reduces the number and prevalence of drug-related negative outcomes. No difference was found in other outcome variables.Trial registration number NCT02368548.

ObjectivesWe investigated the natural history of patients after a first episode of acute heart failure (FEAHF) requiring emergency department (ED) consultation, focusing on: the frequency of ED visits and hospitalisations, departments admitting patients during the first and subsequent hospitalisations, and factors associated with difficult disease control.We included consecutive patients diagnosed with FEAHF (either with or without previous heart failure diagnosis) in four EDs during 5 months in three different time periods (2009, 2011, 2014). Diagnosis was adjudicated by local principal investigators. The clinical characteristics of the index event were prospectively recorded, and all post-discharge ED visits and hospitalisations [related/unrelated to acute heart failure (AHF)], as well as departments involved in subsequent hospitalisations were retrospectively ascertained. 'Uncontrolled disease' during the first year after FEAHF was considered if patients were attended at ED (≥ 3 times) or hospitalised (≥ 2 times) for AHF or died. Overall, 505 patients with FEAHF were included and followed for a mean of 2.4 years. In-hospital mortality was 7.5%. Among 467 patients discharged alive, 288 died [median survival 3.9 years, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.5-4.4], 421 (90%) revisited the ED (2342 ED visits; 42.4% requiring hospitalisation, 34.0% AHF-related) and 357 Ò. Miró et al.(77%) were hospitalised (1054 hospitalisations; 94.1% through ED, 51.4% AHF-related). AHF-related hospitalisations were mainly in internal medicine (28.0%), short-stay unit (26.3%), cardiology (20.8%), and geriatrics (14.1%). Only 47.4% of AHF-related hospitalisations were in the same department as the FEAHF, and internal medicine involvement significantly increased with subsequent hospitalisations (P = 0.01). Uncontrolled disease was observed in 31% of patients, which was independently related to age > 80 years [odds ratio (OR) 1.80, 95% CI 1.17-2.77], systolic blood pressure < 110 mmHg at ED arrival (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1. 26-5.38) and anaemia (OR 2.39, 95% CI

Adherence to the MedDiet did not influence long-term mortality after an episode of AHF, but it was associated with decreased rates of rehospitalization during the next year.