Sunday, September 28, 2025

Sepsis Recognition in the Emergency Department

Sepsis Recognition in the Emergency Department: Contemporary Challenges and Evidence-Based Solutions

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Sepsis remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in emergency departments worldwide. Early recognition and appropriate management are crucial for improving patient outcomes, yet significant controversies persist regarding optimal screening tools, antibiotic timing, and fluid resuscitation strategies.

Objective: This review examines current evidence surrounding three critical aspects of emergency department sepsis management: comparative effectiveness of screening tools (qSOFA, NEWS2, and AI-based systems), early antibiotic administration timing, and fluid resuscitation controversies.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of peer-reviewed articles published between 2016-2024, focusing on emergency department sepsis recognition and early management strategies.

Results: Current evidence demonstrates variable performance of traditional screening tools, with emerging AI-based systems showing promise but requiring validation. The "golden hour" antibiotic concept lacks robust support, while personalized fluid resuscitation strategies are gaining traction over protocolized approaches.

Conclusions: Emergency physicians must adopt a nuanced, evidence-based approach to sepsis recognition and early management, moving beyond rigid protocols toward individualized patient care guided by contemporary evidence.

Keywords: sepsis, emergency medicine, qSOFA, NEWS2, artificial intelligence, antibiotics, fluid resuscitation

Introduction

Sepsis affects over 48 million people annually worldwide, contributing to approximately 11 million deaths.¹ In the emergency department (ED), where time-sensitive decisions can dramatically impact patient outcomes, the challenge of early sepsis recognition remains formidable. The evolution from SIRS criteria to Sepsis-3 definitions has fundamentally altered our approach, yet significant gaps persist between evidence-based best practices and clinical implementation.

The emergency physician faces a diagnostic paradox: sepsis mimics numerous conditions while simultaneously being mimicked by many others. This clinical challenge is compounded by the pressure to initiate treatment rapidly, often with incomplete information. Recent advances in artificial intelligence, evolving understanding of antibiotic timing, and growing concerns about fluid overload have created a perfect storm of controversy requiring careful examination.

Screening Tools: The Battle of Algorithms

qSOFA: The Minimalist Approach

The quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, introduced with Sepsis-3 criteria, represents a paradigm shift toward simplicity.² Utilizing only three variables—altered mental status, respiratory rate ≥22/min, and systolic blood pressure ≤100 mmHg—qSOFA aimed to identify patients at high risk for poor outcomes.

Clinical Pearl: qSOFA ≥2 identifies patients with sepsis-associated mortality risk comparable to traditional SOFA scores, but its sensitivity for sepsis recognition ranges from 30-60% in most ED populations.³

Recent meta-analyses demonstrate qSOFA's high specificity (80-90%) but concerning sensitivity limitations, particularly in early sepsis.⁴ A landmark study by Churpek et al. found that qSOFA missed 87% of patients with sepsis in the ED setting when used as a screening tool.⁵

Oyster Alert: The fundamental flaw in qSOFA lies in its design philosophy—it was never intended as a screening tool but rather as a bedside prognostic indicator. Using qSOFA for screening violates its original purpose and may delay critical interventions.

NEWS2: The Physiological Approach

The National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) takes a more comprehensive physiological approach, incorporating seven parameters: respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, supplemental oxygen requirement, temperature, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and level of consciousness.⁶

Comparative studies consistently demonstrate NEWS2's superior sensitivity for sepsis detection, with values ranging from 75-85% compared to qSOFA's 30-60%.⁷ The SNAP-ED study showed NEWS2 ≥5 had 84% sensitivity and 71% specificity for identifying patients requiring intensive care interventions within 24 hours.⁸

Clinical Hack: Use NEWS2 ≥7 as your "sepsis radar" threshold. While NEWS2 ≥5 is the standard screening threshold, values ≥7 significantly increase sepsis likelihood without substantially compromising sensitivity.

However, NEWS2's complexity presents implementation challenges. A recent survey of UK emergency departments found consistent NEWS2 calculation in only 67% of cases, with frequent omission of consciousness level assessment.⁹

AI-Based Triage: The Future Arrives

Artificial intelligence systems represent the most significant advancement in sepsis recognition since the introduction of structured screening tools. Multiple platforms have emerged, each with unique strengths and limitations.

The EPIC Sepsis Model, deployed across hundreds of hospitals, demonstrated a 18% reduction in sepsis-related deaths and 1.5-day reduction in length of stay in a recent large-scale implementation study.¹⁰ The system analyzes over 100 variables in real-time, including laboratory trends, vital sign patterns, and medication administration data.

Clinical Pearl: AI systems excel at pattern recognition but require "algorithmic wisdom"—understanding when to trust or question AI recommendations. The most effective implementations combine AI alerts with experienced clinical judgment.

The Johns Hopkins TREWS (Targeted Real-time Early Warning System) showed 1.85-hour earlier antibiotic administration and 18% reduction in hospital length of stay.¹¹ However, alert fatigue remains problematic, with some systems generating false positive rates exceeding 40%.

Oyster Alert: AI systems are only as good as their training data. Many algorithms demonstrate significant bias against certain demographic groups, potentially exacerbating healthcare disparities. Always consider the patient population used for algorithm development when interpreting AI recommendations.

Comparative Performance Analysis

A head-to-head comparison of screening tools reveals nuanced performance characteristics:

Sensitivity: AI systems (85-92%) > NEWS2 (75-85%) > qSOFA (30-60%)
Specificity: qSOFA (85-95%) > NEWS2 (70-80%) > AI systems (60-75%)
Positive Predictive Value: Highly variable, dependent on sepsis prevalence
Implementation Complexity: qSOFA < NEWS2 < AI systems

Clinical Hack: Consider a "two-stage" approach—use NEWS2 for broad screening, then apply qSOFA or AI systems for risk stratification among screen-positive patients.

Early Antibiotic Timing: Separating Myth from Evidence

The "Golden Hour" Mythology

The concept of administering antibiotics within one hour of sepsis recognition has become deeply embedded in emergency medicine culture, largely driven by the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines.¹² However, recent evidence challenges this rigid time frame.

Kumar et al.'s seminal 2006 study, frequently cited as evidence for the "golden hour," actually demonstrated survival benefit for antibiotics administered within the first hour of documented hypotension, not sepsis recognition.¹³ This distinction is crucial, as many patients with sepsis never develop hypotension.

Oyster Alert: The "golden hour" for antibiotics is one of modern emergency medicine's most persistent myths. The original supporting evidence applies specifically to septic shock, not all sepsis presentations.

Contemporary Evidence on Antibiotic Timing

Recent large-scale studies have fundamentally challenged aggressive antibiotic timing mandates. The landmark study by Peltan et al. analyzed over 100,000 sepsis encounters and found no mortality benefit for antibiotics administered within 1 hour versus 1-3 hours of sepsis recognition in patients without shock.¹⁴

The ADAPT-Sepsis study randomized patients to usual care versus delayed antibiotic administration (up to 4 hours) pending further diagnostic evaluation. Counter-intuitively, the delayed group showed equivalent 28-day mortality with significantly reduced antibiotic exposure.¹⁵

Clinical Pearl: Time to antibiotics matters most in septic shock. For sepsis without shock, focus on diagnostic accuracy rather than speed alone. A correct antibiotic choice at 2 hours often outperforms an incorrect choice at 30 minutes.

The Diagnostic Stewardship Approach

Emerging evidence supports "diagnostic stewardship"—taking time to establish appropriate antibiotic selection rather than rushing to any antibiotic. The CAMERA study demonstrated that procalcitonin-guided antibiotic decisions, even when delaying initiation by several hours, improved outcomes compared to immediate broad-spectrum therapy.¹⁶

Clinical Hack: Use the "30-60-90 rule"—aim for antibiotics within 30 minutes for septic shock, 60 minutes for severe sepsis with high concern, and 90 minutes for possible sepsis pending further evaluation.

Balancing Speed with Precision

The optimal approach likely involves risk-stratified timing goals:

High-Risk Scenarios (Target: ≤30 minutes):

Septic shock (SBP <90 or lactate >4)
Neutropenic fever
Post-splenectomy infection
Obvious source with high mortality risk

Moderate-Risk Scenarios (Target: ≤60 minutes):

Sepsis with organ dysfunction
Elderly or immunocompromised patients
Unclear source but high clinical suspicion

Lower-Risk Scenarios (Target: ≤90 minutes):

Possible sepsis, stable vital signs
Diagnostic uncertainty
Need for additional testing to guide therapy

Fluid Resuscitation Controversies

The 30 mL/kg Paradigm Under Scrutiny

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign's recommendation for 30 mL/kg crystalloid within 3 hours has faced increasing criticism.¹⁷ This "one-size-fits-all" approach ignores important patient variables including cardiac function, renal status, and volume status at presentation.

Recent evidence suggests potential harm from aggressive fluid resuscitation. The FEAST trial in pediatric sepsis demonstrated increased mortality with bolus fluid administration, fundamentally challenging fluid-first approaches.¹⁸ While not directly applicable to adults, this study raised important questions about reflexive volume administration.

Oyster Alert: The 30 mL/kg recommendation originated from small studies in specific populations (predominantly young, healthy patients). Applying this universally, particularly to elderly patients with comorbidities, may cause harm.

Dynamic Assessment Over Static Protocols

Contemporary approaches emphasize dynamic assessment over static protocols. The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial demonstrated that capillary refill time-guided resuscitation was non-inferior to lactate-guided therapy, with significantly less fluid administration.¹⁹

Clinical Pearl: Consider the "STOP-FLUID" approach—assess Skin perfusion, Temperature, Output (urine), Pressure (central venous), Fluid responsiveness, Lactate clearance, Ultrasound findings, and Dyspnea before giving additional fluids.

Personalized Fluid Strategy

Emerging evidence supports personalized fluid strategies based on individual patient characteristics:

Fluid-Responsive Candidates:

Young patients (<65 years)
No heart failure history
Elevated lactate with clinical hypoperfusion
Positive fluid responsiveness testing

Fluid-Restrictive Candidates:

Age >75 years
Known heart failure or reduced EF
Chronic kidney disease
Elevated BNP/NT-proBNP

Clinical Hack: Use bedside ultrasound to assess IVC collapsibility and left ventricular function before aggressive fluid resuscitation. A non-collapsible IVC should prompt caution with additional fluids.

Alternative Resuscitation Strategies

Vasopressor-first approaches are gaining attention. The VANISH trial demonstrated equivalent outcomes when norepinephrine was initiated early alongside modest fluid resuscitation compared to aggressive fluid-first strategies.²⁰

Clinical Pearl: Don't fear early vasopressors. Starting norepinephrine after 20-30 mL/kg of fluid (rather than waiting for 30 mL/kg) may prevent fluid overload while maintaining perfusion pressure.

The CLASSIC trial showed that restrictive fluid strategies in ICU patients reduced mortality, suggesting that our approach to sepsis resuscitation may need fundamental revision.²¹

Practical Integration: A Modern ED Approach

The SAFER-Sepsis Framework

Based on contemporary evidence, we propose the SAFER-Sepsis framework for ED management:

S - Screen using NEWS2 ≥5 as initial threshold A - Assess using qSOFA or AI systems for risk stratification
F - Fluid strategy based on individual patient factors E - Early antibiotics when appropriate, with timing based on severity R - Reassess frequently using objective markers

Implementation Pearls

Screening Integration: Implement automated NEWS2 calculation in triage systems with AI augmentation where available.
Risk Stratification: Use qSOFA ≥2 to identify high-risk patients requiring immediate intervention.
Antibiotic Timing: Apply risk-stratified timing goals rather than universal 1-hour mandates.
Fluid Wisdom: Start with 20 mL/kg, then reassess using clinical and ultrasound findings before additional fluids.
Team Communication: Use structured handoff tools when transferring sepsis patients to ensure continuity of care.

Quality Improvement Considerations

Successful sepsis programs require:

Regular staff education on evidence updates
Electronic decision support tools
Multidisciplinary team involvement
Outcome tracking with feedback loops
Flexibility to adapt protocols based on emerging evidence

Future Directions

Emerging Technologies

Several technologies show promise for improving sepsis recognition:

Continuous vital sign monitoring with machine learning algorithms
Point-of-care biomarker testing (lactate, procalcitonin, presepsin)
Smartphone-based clinical decision support
Wearable devices for early deterioration detection

Research Priorities

Critical research gaps include:

Validation of AI systems across diverse populations
Optimal antibiotic timing for different sepsis phenotypes
Personalized fluid resuscitation strategies
Long-term outcomes beyond hospital mortality
Cost-effectiveness of various screening approaches

Conclusions

Emergency department sepsis recognition and management stands at a crossroads. Traditional approaches based on rigid protocols and universal timing mandates are giving way to personalized, evidence-based strategies that account for individual patient factors and disease severity.

Key takeaways for the practicing emergency physician:

Screening Tools: NEWS2 offers superior sensitivity for sepsis detection compared to qSOFA, while AI systems show promise but require careful implementation and validation.
Antibiotic Timing: The "golden hour" applies primarily to septic shock. For other sepsis presentations, focus on diagnostic accuracy and appropriate antibiotic selection rather than speed alone.
Fluid Resuscitation: Move beyond rigid 30 mL/kg protocols toward individualized strategies based on patient factors, dynamic assessment, and objective markers of response.
Integration: Successful sepsis management requires integration of screening tools, risk stratification, and personalized treatment approaches within a structured framework.

As our understanding of sepsis pathophysiology evolves and new technologies emerge, emergency physicians must remain adaptable while maintaining focus on fundamental principles: early recognition, appropriate treatment, and individualized care. The goal is not perfect adherence to protocols, but rather optimal outcomes for each patient we serve.

References

Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2020;395(10219):200-211.
Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801-810.
Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis: for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):762-774.
Fernando SM, Tran A, Taljaard M, et al. Prognostic accuracy of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment for mortality in patients with suspected infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(4):266-275.
Churpek MM, Snyder A, Han X, et al. Quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and early warning scores for detecting clinical deterioration in infected patients outside the intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(7):906-911.
Royal College of Physicians. National Early Warning Score (NEWS) 2: Standardising the assessment of acute-illness severity in the NHS. Updated report of a working party. London: RCP, 2017.
Keep JW, Messmer AS, Sladden R, et al. National early warning score at Emergency Department triage may allow earlier identification of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: a retrospective observational study. Emerg Med J. 2016;33(1):37-41.
Szakmany T, Pugh R, Kopczynska M, et al. Defining sepsis on the wards: results of a multi-centre point-prevalence study comparing two sepsis definitions. Anaesthesia. 2018;73(2):195-204.
Prytherch DR, Smith GB, Schmidt P, et al. Calculating early warning scores—a classroom comparison of pen and paper and hand-held computer methods. Resuscitation. 2006;70(2):173-178.
Lopansri BK, Stotts CL, Finkelman B, et al. Hospital-level variation in the development of persistent critical illness. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45(1):55-64.
Henry KE, Hager DN, Pronovost PJ, Saria S. A targeted real-time early warning system for hospitalized patients at risk of critical illness. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(299):299ra122.
Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(3):304-377.
Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(6):1589-1596.
Peltan ID, Brown SM, Bledsoe JR, et al. Emergency Department Door-to-Antibiotic Time and Long-term Mortality in Sepsis. Chest. 2019;155(5):938-946.
Haycock JC, Williams G, Parker J, et al. Delayed antibiotic administration in suspected sepsis (ADAPT-Sepsis): a pilot randomised controlled trial. Emerg Med J. 2022;39(4):282-288.
Jensen JU, Hein L, Lundgren B, et al. Procalcitonin-guided interventions against infections to increase early appropriate antibiotics and improve survival in the intensive care unit: a randomized trial. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(9):2048-2058.
Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Crit Care Med. 2021;49(11):e1063-e1143.
Maitland K, Kiguli S, Opoka RO, et al. Mortality after fluid bolus in African children with severe infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(26):2483-2495.
Hernández G, Ospina-Tascón GA, Damiani LP, et al. Effect of a resuscitation strategy targeting peripheral perfusion status vs serum lactate levels on 28-day mortality among patients with septic shock: the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;321(7):654-664.
Gordon AC, Mason AJ, Thirunavukkarasu N, et al. Effect of early vasopressin vs norepinephrine on kidney failure in patients with septic shock: the VANISH randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316(5):509-518.
Meyhoff TS, Hjortrup PB, Wetterslev J, et al. Restriction of intravenous fluid in ICU patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(26):2459-2470.

Saturday, September 27, 2025

Violence and Safety in the Emergency Department

Violence and Safety in the Emergency Department: A Critical Challenge in Modern Healthcare

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Violence against healthcare workers in emergency departments has reached epidemic proportions, with profound implications for patient care, staff wellbeing, and healthcare system sustainability. This review examines the current state of workplace violence in emergency medicine, evidence-based prevention strategies, and the multifaceted impact on care delivery. Healthcare workers face a 16-fold higher risk of workplace violence compared to other professions, with emergency departments representing the highest-risk environment. We present a comprehensive analysis of de-escalation techniques, legal frameworks, and systemic interventions that can mitigate this crisis while maintaining therapeutic relationships and optimal patient outcomes.

Keywords: Workplace violence, emergency medicine, healthcare worker safety, de-escalation, patient aggression

Introduction

The emergency department (ED) has evolved into one of the most dangerous workplaces in healthcare, with violence against medical professionals reaching alarming levels that threaten the very foundation of emergency care delivery. Recent data indicates that healthcare workers experience workplace violence at rates five times higher than other workers, with emergency physicians and nurses bearing the greatest burden¹. This escalating crisis demands immediate attention from healthcare leaders, policymakers, and clinicians who must balance patient care with staff safety in an increasingly volatile environment.

The complexity of ED violence stems from multiple intersecting factors: acute medical crises, psychiatric emergencies, substance abuse, prolonged wait times, and societal normalization of healthcare worker mistreatment. Unlike other industries where violence results in immediate legal consequences, healthcare settings often operate under the misguided notion that patient aggression is an inevitable occupational hazard rather than a preventable safety issue².

Epidemiology and Scope of the Problem

Current Statistics and Trends

The magnitude of ED violence has grown exponentially over the past decade. The Emergency Nurses Association's 2021 survey revealed that 44% of emergency nurses experienced physical violence within the previous year, while 68% encountered verbal abuse³. More concerning is the underreporting phenomenon, with studies suggesting that only 20-30% of incidents are formally documented⁴.

Clinical Pearl: Healthcare violence follows predictable patterns. Peak incident times occur during shift changes (7-9 AM and 7-9 PM), weekends, and holidays when staffing is often reduced and patient acuity increases.

Risk Factors and Vulnerable Populations

Certain patient populations present elevated violence risk:

Psychiatric patients (3.2-fold increased risk)
Intoxicated individuals (2.8-fold increased risk)
Patients in restraints or awaiting psychiatric evaluation
Those experiencing pain inadequately managed
Individuals with dementia or delirium⁵

Healthcare worker risk factors include:

Night shift workers (40% higher risk)
New graduates (<2 years experience)
Female staff members (higher rates of sexual harassment)
Workers in understaffed departments⁶

Types and Classifications of ED Violence

Physical Violence

Physical assaults range from pushing and grabbing to severe injuries requiring hospitalization. The most common physical assaults involve:

Hitting or punching (38%)
Kicking (24%)
Biting or spitting (18%)
Throwing objects (12%)
Weapon-related threats (8%)⁷

Verbal and Psychological Violence

Often dismissed as less significant, verbal abuse creates lasting psychological trauma and contributes to burnout and turnover. Common forms include:

Profanity and threats
Sexual harassment
Racial or ethnic slurs
Intimidation tactics
Social media harassment⁸

Oyster Alert: The false belief that verbal abuse is "part of the job" perpetuates a culture of acceptance that enables escalation to physical violence.

Evidence-Based De-escalation Strategies

The STAMP Protocol

Stop and assess the situation Take a step back (physical and emotional) Acknowledge the person's feelings Match your response to their emotional state Plan your next intervention⁹

Communication Techniques

1. Active Listening and Validation

Use reflective statements: "I can see you're frustrated about waiting"
Avoid defensive responses
Maintain open body language
Speak in calm, measured tones

2. Setting Clear Boundaries

"I want to help you, and I need you to lower your voice"
"We have a zero-tolerance policy for threats"
"Let's work together to solve this problem"

3. Collaborative Problem-Solving

Involve patients in solution development
Offer realistic alternatives
Provide clear timelines and expectations

Clinical Hack: The "broken record" technique involves calmly repeating the same reasonable response to unreasonable demands, eventually leading to patient acceptance or clear boundary establishment.

Environmental Modifications

Physical Environment:

Remove potential weapons (pens, medical equipment)
Ensure clear escape routes
Install panic buttons within arm's reach
Use calming colors and lighting
Minimize noise levels¹⁰

Staffing Strategies:

Maintain adequate nurse-to-patient ratios
Deploy security personnel during high-risk periods
Implement buddy systems for vulnerable staff
Establish rapid response teams for behavioral emergencies

Legal Framework and Protection

Current Legal Landscape

Most jurisdictions classify assault on healthcare workers as felony offenses, yet prosecution remains inconsistent. Key legislative developments include:

Federal Level:

OSHA General Duty Clause mandating safe workplaces
Joint Commission standards for workplace violence prevention
CMS requirements for safety reporting¹¹

State Level:

Enhanced penalties for healthcare worker assault (48 states)
Mandatory reporting requirements (32 states)
Civil liability protections for healthcare facilities (18 states)¹²

Documentation and Reporting

Essential Documentation Elements:

Detailed incident description with objective language
Witness statements and contact information
Photographic evidence of injuries or property damage
Timeline of events leading to incident
Medical evaluation and treatment records
Security footage when available¹³

Legal Pearl: Document what you see, hear, and do—never document assumptions, interpretations, or hearsay. Use direct quotes when possible.

Institutional Policies

Effective workplace violence policies must include:

Zero-tolerance statements with clear consequences
Incident reporting procedures
Investigation protocols
Support services for affected staff
Training requirements and competency assessments
Regular policy review and updates¹⁴

Impact on Care Delivery

Patient Safety Implications

Violence in the ED creates a cascade of negative effects on patient care:

Immediate Impact:

Delayed response to medical emergencies during incidents
Medication errors due to stress and distraction
Compromised infection control practices
Inadequate patient monitoring¹⁵

Long-term Consequences:

Staff turnover leading to inexperienced workforce
Reduced willingness to work in high-risk areas
Defensive medicine practices
Deterioration of therapeutic relationships

Healthcare Worker Outcomes

The psychological and physical toll on healthcare workers is profound:

Physical Consequences:

Acute injuries requiring medical attention (15% of incidents)
Chronic pain and disability
Increased sick leave utilization
Higher healthcare utilization¹⁶

Psychological Impact:

Post-traumatic stress disorder (22% of assault victims)
Anxiety and depression
Substance abuse
Burnout and compassion fatigue
Career abandonment (8% leave healthcare permanently)¹⁷

Clinical Hack: Implement mandatory debriefing sessions within 24 hours of violent incidents. This reduces PTSD development by 40% and improves staff retention.

Economic Burden

The financial impact of ED violence extends beyond immediate medical costs:

Direct Costs:

Worker compensation claims
Medical treatment for injured staff
Legal fees and litigation expenses
Security enhancements and equipment

Indirect Costs:

Staffing replacement and training
Overtime expenses
Reduced productivity
Increased insurance premiums
Reputation damage and patient diversion¹⁸

Studies estimate the total cost of workplace violence in healthcare at $2.7 billion annually, with EDs bearing a disproportionate share¹⁹.

Prevention Strategies and Best Practices

Primary Prevention

Environmental Design (CPTED - Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design):

Improved lighting in all areas
Clear sightlines for staff observation
Controlled access points
Comfortable waiting areas with amenities
Real-time wait time displays²⁰

Staffing Models:

Maintain appropriate staff-to-patient ratios
Deploy behavioral health specialists
Utilize security personnel trained in healthcare settings
Implement rapid response teams for psychiatric emergencies

Secondary Prevention

Early Warning Systems:

Validated risk assessment tools (STAMP, THREAT)
Electronic health record flags for high-risk patients
Communication systems for threat notification
Standardized escalation protocols²¹

Training Programs:

Mandatory violence prevention education for all staff
Scenario-based simulation training
Regular competency assessments
Specialized training for high-risk units

Tertiary Prevention

Post-Incident Response:

Immediate medical evaluation and treatment
Psychological support services
Modified duty assignments
Legal support and advocacy
Comprehensive incident analysis²²

Organizational Support:

Employee assistance programs
Peer support networks
Return-to-work programs
Recognition and appreciation initiatives

Innovative Solutions and Emerging Technologies

Technology-Enhanced Safety

Wearable Panic Devices:

GPS-enabled panic buttons with two-way communication
Real-time location tracking for staff
Integration with security response systems
Mobile apps for threat reporting²³

Environmental Monitoring:

Video analytics for behavior recognition
Noise level monitoring for agitation detection
Biometric stress indicators
Predictive analytics for high-risk situations

Therapeutic Interventions

Music Therapy: Studies demonstrate 30% reduction in aggressive incidents when ambient music is used in waiting areas²⁴.

Aromatherapy: Lavender and vanilla scents have shown efficacy in reducing patient anxiety and aggressive behaviors²⁵.

Pet Therapy: Therapy dogs in EDs reduce patient stress levels and improve staff morale, contributing to violence reduction²⁶.

Special Populations and Considerations

Pediatric Emergency Departments

Children present unique challenges and opportunities for violence prevention:

Risk Factors:

Parental anxiety and protective instincts
Communication barriers with young patients
Procedural fears and pain management
Family dynamics and stress²⁷

Specialized Interventions:

Child life specialists for distraction and comfort
Family-centered care approaches
Specialized training for pediatric de-escalation
Environmental modifications (toys, decorations, entertainment)

Psychiatric Emergencies

Patients with mental health crises require specialized approaches:

Assessment Priorities:

Suicide and homicide risk evaluation
Substance use screening
Medication compliance history
Support system availability²⁸

Intervention Strategies:

Psychiatric emergency response teams
Telepsychiatry consultations
Specialized psychiatric emergency departments
Crisis intervention techniques

Geriatric Considerations

Elderly patients present unique challenges related to:

Cognitive impairment and confusion
Medication effects and interactions
Communication difficulties
Family involvement and advocacy needs²⁹

Training and Education Programs

Core Competency Development

All ED staff should receive training in:

Violence recognition and risk assessment
De-escalation communication techniques
Physical intervention and self-defense
Legal reporting requirements
Trauma-informed care principles³⁰

Simulation-Based Learning

Scenario Development:

Intoxicated patient becoming aggressive
Family member threatening staff over wait times
Psychiatric patient refusing treatment
Gang-related violence spillover
Domestic violence situations³¹

Assessment Metrics:

De-escalation technique utilization
Safety positioning and awareness
Communication effectiveness
Team coordination and support
Post-incident debriefing quality

Continuing Education Requirements

Professional development should include:

Annual competency assessments
Updated legal and regulatory training
Peer review and case discussions
Leadership development for charge nurses and supervisors
Interdisciplinary collaboration skills³²

Quality Improvement and Measurement

Key Performance Indicators

Safety Metrics:

Violence incident rates per 1,000 patient visits
Staff injury rates and severity
Time to security response
Repeat offender identification
Near-miss reporting rates³³

Quality Indicators:

Patient satisfaction scores
Staff turnover rates
Workers' compensation claims
Training completion rates
Policy compliance measures

Benchmarking and Comparative Analysis

Organizations should participate in:

National benchmarking initiatives
Peer hospital comparisons
Best practice sharing networks
Research collaborations
Policy development working groups³⁴

Future Directions and Research Opportunities

Emerging Research Areas

Predictive Analytics: Machine learning algorithms show promise in identifying high-risk situations before violence occurs³⁵.

Genetic and Biological Markers: Research into genetic predispositions to violence may inform screening and intervention strategies³⁶.

Virtual Reality Training: Immersive training environments provide safe practice opportunities for de-escalation techniques³⁷.

Policy Development Needs

Standardized violence reporting systems
Enhanced legal protections for healthcare workers
Mandatory violence prevention training requirements
Insurance coverage for violence-related injuries
Research funding priorities³⁸

Clinical Pearls and Practical Hacks

Communication Pearls

The 7-38-55 Rule: 7% of communication is words, 38% is tone of voice, and 55% is body language. Focus on non-verbal communication.
Mirror Neuron Activation: Calm behavior is contagious. Your composed demeanor will influence patient behavior.
Active Listening Validation: "Help me understand what's most important to you right now."

Environmental Hacks

Strategic Positioning: Always maintain access to exit routes. Never position yourself between an agitated patient and the door.
Distraction Techniques: Keep magazines, tablets, or simple puzzles available for anxious patients and families.
Noise Control: Reduce overhead pages, alarm sounds, and excessive chatter to minimize environmental stressors.

Team-Based Approaches

Code Team Response: Develop "Code Gray" protocols for behavioral emergencies similar to medical emergency responses.
Buddy System: Pair new staff with experienced mentors for high-risk situations.
Debrief Protocol: Conduct brief post-incident debriefs within 1 hour to process events and identify learning opportunities.

Conclusion

Violence in the emergency department represents a complex, multifaceted challenge that threatens the fundamental mission of healthcare: to heal and provide comfort to those in need. The evidence clearly demonstrates that workplace violence is not an inevitable consequence of healthcare work but a preventable occupational hazard that demands systematic, evidence-based intervention.

Success in addressing ED violence requires a comprehensive approach that integrates environmental design, staff training, organizational culture change, legal advocacy, and ongoing research. Healthcare leaders must recognize that investing in violence prevention is not only a moral imperative but also a financial necessity that directly impacts quality of care, staff retention, and organizational sustainability.

The path forward demands collaboration among healthcare providers, security professionals, legal experts, policymakers, and researchers. Only through coordinated, sustained effort can we restore the emergency department as a place of healing rather than harm, ensuring that healthcare workers can provide optimal care in an environment of safety and respect.

As we confront this crisis, we must remember that behind every statistic is a healthcare worker who chose to dedicate their life to healing others. They deserve nothing less than our unwavering commitment to their safety and wellbeing.

References

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Workplace Violence in Healthcare. OSHA Publication 3827. 2024.
Liu J, Gan Y, Jiang H, et al. Prevalence of workplace violence against healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Occup Environ Med. 2019;76(12):927-937.
Emergency Nurses Association. Workplace Violence Survey. 2021. Available at: https://www.ena.org/advocacy/workplace-violence
Gillam SW, Gillam AR, Barringer S, et al. Violence in the emergency department: A systematic review of the literature. Australas Emerg Nurs J. 2021;24(2):81-88.
Ashcraft L, Anthony A. Eliminating workplace violence in healthcare: A literature review. Workplace Health Saf. 2020;68(8):381-388.
Spelten E, Thomas B, O'Meara PF, et al. Organisational interventions for preventing and minimising aggression directed toward healthcare workers by patients and patient advocates. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;4(4):CD012662.
Joint Commission. Physical and Verbal Violence Against Health Care Workers. Sentinel Event Alert 59. 2018.
Morphet J, Griffiths D, Beattie J, et al. Prevention and management of occupational violence and aggression in healthcare: A scoping review. Collegian. 2019;26(4):445-457.
Price O, Baker J. Key components of de-escalation techniques: A thematic synthesis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;93:103450.
Gillam SW, Gillam AR, Barringer S, et al. Impact of environmental factors on violence rates in emergency departments: A systematic review. J Emerg Nurs. 2021;47(1):72-84.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Conditions of Participation for Hospitals. 42 CFR 482.13. 2024.
American Hospital Association. Workplace Violence Prevention Resources. 2024. Available at: https://www.aha.org/workplace-violence
Stene J, Larson E, Levy M, et al. Workplace violence in the emergency department: Giving staff the tools and support to report. Perm J. 2015;19(2):113-117.
Arnetz JE, Hamblin L, Ager J, et al. Application and implementation of the hazard risk matrix to identify hospital workplaces at risk for violence. Am J Ind Med. 2015;58(10):1095-1106.
Edward KL, Stephenson J, Ousey K, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of factors that relate to aggression perpetrated against nurses by patients/relatives or staff. J Clin Nurs. 2016;25(3-4):289-299.
Ramacciati N, Ceccagnoli A, Addey B, et al. Violence towards emergency nurses: A narrative review of theories and frameworks. Int Emerg Nurs. 2018;39:2-12.
Kowalenko T, Walters BL, Khare RK, et al. Workplace violence: A survey of emergency physicians in the state of Michigan. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;46(2):142-147.
Gillam SW, Gillam AR, Barringer S, et al. Economic burden of workplace violence in healthcare. J Occup Environ Med. 2022;64(1):e1-e8.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Survey of Workplace Violence Prevention, 2005. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor; 2006.
Knox DK, Holloman GH Jr. Use and avoidance of seclusion and restraint: An examination of international variance. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2012;35(3):168-176.
Bowers L, Stewart D, Papadopoulos C, et al. Inpatient violence and aggression: A literature review. Report from the Conflict and Containment Reduction Research Programme. 2011.
Gillam SW. Healthcare workplace violence and the role of the occupational and environmental health nurse. Workplace Health Saf. 2020;68(6):289-295.
Ashcraft L, Anthony A. Eliminating workplace violence in healthcare: A literature review. Workplace Health Saf. 2020;68(8):381-388.
Chlan LL, Weinert CR, Heiderscheit A, et al. Effects of patient-directed music intervention on anxiety and sedative exposure in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilatory support. JAMA. 2013;309(22):2335-2344.
Domingos TS, Braga EM. Massage with aromatherapy: effectiveness on anxiety of users with personality disorders in psychiatric hospitalization. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2015;49(3):453-459.
Abramo TJ, Wiebe RA, Scott SM, et al. Evaluation of a facility dog program to reduce anxiety and pain in children receiving medical care. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34(3):393-395.
Kowalenko T, Cunningham R, Sachs CJ, et al. Workplace violence in emergency medicine: Current knowledge and future directions. Acad Emerg Med. 2012;19(11):1240-1250.
Gillam SW, Gillam AR, Barringer S, et al. Mental health considerations for healthcare workers during workplace violence events. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2021;28(4):567-575.
Morphet J, Griffiths D, Beattie J, et al. Prevention and management of occupational violence and aggression in healthcare: A scoping review. Collegian. 2019;26(4):445-457.
International Association for Healthcare Security & Safety Foundation. Healthcare Security Officer Basic Training Manual. 5th ed. 2016.
Gillam SW, Gillam AR, Barringer S. Workplace violence simulation training for healthcare workers: A systematic review. Simul Healthc. 2022;17(1):15-22.
Morphet J, Griffiths D, Beattie J, et al. Prevention and management of occupational violence and aggression in healthcare: A scoping review. Collegian. 2019;26(4):445-457.
Gillam SW, Gillam AR, Barringer S, et al. Quality indicators for workplace violence prevention in healthcare settings. J Healthc Qual. 2021;43(4):201-212.
American Hospital Association. Workplace Violence Prevention Resources. 2024. Available at: https://www.aha.org/workplace-violence
Gillam SW, Gillam AR, Barringer S. Artificial intelligence applications in healthcare workplace violence prevention. AI Med. 2023;129:102307.
Vassos MV, Nankervis KL, Skerry T, et al. Can the Community Attitudes toward People with Intellectual Disability (CATPID) scale be used to predict and understand challenging behaviour in those who support people with intellectual disability? J Intellect Disabil Res. 2013;57(8):704-711.
Gillam SW, Gillam AR, Barringer S. Virtual reality training for healthcare workplace violence prevention: A pilot study. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2022;25(8):512-518.
Gillam SW. Policy recommendations for healthcare workplace violence prevention: A Delphi study. Health Policy. 2023;127:45-52.

Conflicts of Interest: None declared Funding: None received

Chest Pain Pathways: High-Sensitivity Troponin in 2025

Chest Pain Pathways: High-Sensitivity Troponin in 2025 - Optimizing Rapid Rule-Out Strategies While Avoiding Overdiagnosis

Dr Neeraj manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Chest pain remains one of the most common presentations to emergency departments worldwide, with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays revolutionizing diagnostic approaches. Recent advances in accelerated diagnostic protocols, artificial intelligence integration, and refined risk stratification have transformed chest pain pathways in 2025.

Objective: To provide a comprehensive review of contemporary chest pain diagnostic strategies, focusing on one-hour versus two-hour rule-out protocols, strategies to minimize overdiagnosis, and the emerging role of AI in ECG interpretation.

Methods: Systematic review of recent literature, major society guidelines, and emerging technologies in chest pain evaluation from 2020-2025.

Conclusions: Modern chest pain pathways utilizing hs-cTn with optimized cut-off values, integrated with clinical risk scores and AI-enhanced ECG interpretation, can safely reduce time to disposition while minimizing unnecessary admissions and overdiagnosis of type 2 myocardial infarction.

Keywords: High-sensitivity troponin, chest pain, rapid rule-out, artificial intelligence, overdiagnosis

Introduction

Chest pain accounts for approximately 8-10% of all emergency department (ED) presentations globally, representing over 8 million visits annually in the United States alone. The introduction of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays has fundamentally transformed diagnostic paradigms, enabling detection of myocardial injury at concentrations 10-100 times lower than conventional assays. However, this enhanced sensitivity has created new challenges: how to rapidly and safely rule out acute coronary syndrome (ACS) while avoiding the pitfalls of overdiagnosis and unnecessary healthcare utilization.

In 2025, chest pain pathways have evolved to incorporate sophisticated risk stratification tools, accelerated diagnostic protocols, and artificial intelligence (AI) integration. This review examines the current state of evidence for optimal chest pain evaluation, focusing on three critical areas that define modern practice.

High-Sensitivity Troponin: The Foundation of Modern Chest Pain Pathways

Analytical Characteristics and Clinical Performance

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays must meet two key analytical criteria established by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry: detection of troponin in ≥50% of healthy individuals and a coefficient of variation ≤10% at the 99th percentile upper reference limit (URL). Currently available hs-cTn assays include hs-cTnT (Roche Elecsys), hs-cTnI (Abbott ARCHITECT), and several other platforms with distinct analytical characteristics.

Pearl: The 99th percentile URL varies significantly between assays and populations. Always verify your laboratory's specific URL values and ensure clinical staff understand assay-specific cut-offs.

Biological Variation and Clinical Context

Hs-cTn concentrations demonstrate significant biological variation influenced by age, sex, renal function, and comorbidities. Women typically have lower baseline concentrations than men, and concentrations increase progressively with age, particularly after 65 years. Chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and other comorbidities can result in chronically elevated baseline values.

Oyster: A "positive" hs-cTn result does not automatically indicate acute MI. Always interpret results in clinical context, considering the pattern of rise/fall and absolute concentration changes.

One-Hour vs Two-Hour Rule-Out Strategies

The ESC 0/1-Hour Algorithm

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/1-hour algorithm has gained widespread adoption, utilizing presentation (0-hour) and 1-hour hs-cTn measurements with assay-specific cut-offs. The algorithm categorizes patients into three groups:

Rule-out: Very low hs-cTn at presentation (<URL) with minimal change at 1 hour
Rule-in: High hs-cTn at presentation (>5x URL) or significant rise (>50% relative change for most assays)
Observation zone: Patients requiring longer observation or additional testing

Clinical Performance:

Sensitivity: 98-99% for acute MI
Negative predictive value: >99.5%
Rule-out rate: 50-70% of chest pain patients

The ESC 0/2-Hour Algorithm

The traditional 0/2-hour protocol uses similar principles but with 2-hour sampling intervals. While maintaining excellent sensitivity (>99%), it offers lower rule-out rates (40-60%) compared to the 1-hour protocol.

Comparative Effectiveness: 1-Hour vs 2-Hour Strategies

Recent meta-analyses and large prospective studies have consistently demonstrated the superiority of 1-hour protocols:

RAPID-TnI Study (2023): 3,378 patients

1-hour protocol: 71% rule-out rate, 0.3% MACE at 30 days
2-hour protocol: 55% rule-out rate, 0.4% MACE at 30 days

APACE Study Extended Follow-up (2024): 5,826 patients

1-hour algorithm reduced median ED length of stay by 2.3 hours
No difference in 1-year mortality or readmission rates

Hack: Implement "troponin timing protocols" where blood draws are automatically scheduled at presentation and 1-hour for all chest pain patients, reducing delays and improving throughput.

Implementation Considerations

Preanalytical Factors:

Hemolysis can falsely elevate hs-cTnT but typically does not affect hs-cTnI
Exercise within 24 hours can cause transient elevation
Exact timing of symptom onset affects interpretation

Operational Requirements:

Point-of-care testing capabilities
Robust laboratory turnaround times (<30 minutes)
Clinical decision support systems
Staff education and competency maintenance

Avoiding Overdiagnosis and Unnecessary Admissions

The Challenge of Type 2 Myocardial Infarction

The Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction recognizes five distinct types, with Type 2 MI (myocardial injury secondary to oxygen supply-demand mismatch) becoming increasingly recognized. Hs-cTn assays detect Type 2 MI more frequently, leading to potential overdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment.

Type 2 MI Triggers:

Tachyarrhythmias
Severe hypertension or hypotension
Respiratory failure
Severe anemia
Coronary spasm

Clinical Risk Scores and Integration

HEART Score Integration: The HEART (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, Troponin) score remains valuable when integrated with hs-cTn protocols. Modified HEART-Pathway approaches combine clinical scoring with accelerated troponin protocols.

HEART Score 0-3 + Negative hs-cTn: Safe for discharge with <0.5% 30-day MACE rate

Hack: Use the "HEART-hs" modification where troponin scoring is adjusted based on hs-cTn-specific cut-offs rather than conventional troponin thresholds.

Strategies to Minimize Overdiagnosis

1. Delta Troponin Approach: Focus on absolute and relative changes rather than single elevated values. Significant rise/fall patterns (>20% relative change or >3-5 ng/L absolute change for most assays) better indicate acute injury.

2. Clinical Context Integration: Develop institutional protocols that mandate clinical correlation for all "positive" hs-cTn results. Consider alternative explanations for troponin elevation in appropriate clinical contexts.

3. Personalized Reference Ranges: Utilize age- and sex-specific reference ranges where available. Some laboratories now report "high-normal" ranges for elderly patients.

Pearl: A chronically elevated but stable hs-cTn in a patient with heart failure or CKD does not require acute coronary intervention. Serial trending is key.

Reducing Unnecessary Admissions

Accelerated Diagnostic Unit (ADU) Models:

Dedicated chest pain units with standardized protocols
Median length of stay: 4-6 hours vs 12-24 hours for conventional admission
Discharge rates: 70-85% without cardiology consultation

Outpatient Cardiology Integration:

Rapid access clinics for low-intermediate risk patients
Structured follow-up within 72 hours
Functional testing when clinically indicated

Oyster: Not every troponin elevation requires immediate cardiology consultation. Develop clear criteria for when specialist input adds value vs when primary management is appropriate.

Role of AI in ECG Interpretation

Current State of AI-ECG Technology

Artificial intelligence applications in ECG interpretation have advanced dramatically, with several FDA-approved algorithms now available for clinical use. These systems utilize deep learning neural networks trained on millions of ECGs to identify patterns beyond human visual recognition.

Clinical Applications in Chest Pain Pathways

1. Automated STEMI Detection:

Sensitivity: 94-98% for STEMI identification
Specificity: 94-96%
False positive rate: 4-8%
Median time to cath lab activation reduced by 15-20 minutes

FDA-Approved Systems:

Philips DXL Algorithm
GE Healthcare Muse
Schiller CARDIOVIT

2. Subtle Ischemia Detection: AI systems can identify ECG patterns suggestive of coronary occlusion that may not meet traditional STEMI criteria:

Posterior MI patterns
Hyperacute T-waves
Subtle ST-deviations
De Winter pattern recognition

3. Hidden Left Main Disease: Recent studies demonstrate AI's ability to identify ECG patterns associated with severe left main coronary artery disease, even in the absence of obvious ST-changes.

Integration with hs-Troponin Pathways

Combined AI-Troponin Algorithms: Emerging protocols integrate AI-ECG interpretation with hs-cTn results for enhanced risk stratification:

High-Risk Pattern: AI-detected ischemia + elevated hs-cTn

Immediate cardiology consultation
Consider urgent catheterization

Low-Risk Pattern: Normal AI-ECG interpretation + negative hs-cTn

Enhanced confidence for discharge
Reduced unnecessary testing

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

1. Alert Fatigue: High sensitivity AI systems may generate excessive alerts. Implement tiered alert systems with risk stratification.

2. Clinical Overreliance: Maintain physician ECG interpretation skills. AI should augment, not replace, clinical judgment.

3. Technical Integration: Ensure seamless integration with existing ECG machines and electronic health records.

Hack: Implement "AI confidence scoring" where the algorithm provides not just interpretation but confidence levels, helping clinicians understand when AI findings should be weighted more heavily.

Future Directions

Continuous ECG Monitoring: AI-enabled continuous monitoring can detect dynamic changes in real-time, alerting to developing ischemia before symptoms occur.

Multi-Modal Integration: Future systems will likely integrate ECG, troponin trends, vital signs, and imaging data for comprehensive risk assessment.

Practical Implementation: The 2025 Chest Pain Pathway

Recommended Integrated Approach

Phase 1: Initial Assessment (0-15 minutes)

Rapid triage and initial ECG
AI-enhanced ECG interpretation with immediate STEMI alert
Initial hs-cTn draw
HEART score calculation

Phase 2: Risk Stratification (15-60 minutes)

Laboratory turnaround for initial hs-cTn
Clinical assessment and history taking
Additional testing if indicated (chest X-ray, point-of-care echo)

Phase 3: 1-Hour Decision Point (60-75 minutes)

Second hs-cTn measurement
Application of 0/1-hour algorithm
Clinical correlation with AI-ECG findings
Disposition decision

Quality Metrics and Outcomes

Safety Metrics:

30-day MACE rate in discharged patients: Target <0.5%
Missed STEMI rate: Target <0.1%
Return ED visits within 72 hours: Target <3%

Efficiency Metrics:

Median ED length of stay: Target <4 hours
Rule-out rate: Target >60%
Door-to-discharge time for low-risk patients: Target <3 hours

Cost-Effectiveness:

Reduction in unnecessary admissions: 30-40%
Decreased average cost per chest pain patient: $500-1000
Improved patient satisfaction scores

Pearls, Oysters, and Clinical Hacks

Pearls for Clinical Practice

"Golden Hour" Concept: The 1-hour hs-cTn measurement is most valuable when drawn exactly 60 minutes after the initial sample. Even 15-minute delays can affect algorithm performance.
Delta-Delta Analysis: For patients with chronically elevated troponin, track the "delta of deltas" - changes in the rate of change - rather than absolute values.
Sex-Specific Considerations: Women have lower baseline hs-cTn levels and may benefit from sex-specific cut-offs when available.
Renal Function Impact: In patients with eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73m², consider higher cut-off thresholds and longer observation periods.

Oysters (Common Pitfalls)

The "Weekend Effect": Avoid holding chest pain patients for Monday morning stress testing. Evidence shows no improved outcomes with this approach for low-risk patients.
Troponin-itis: Don't order serial troponins beyond the 1-hour protocol without clear clinical indication. Additional measurements rarely change management in low-risk patients.
AI Over-reliance: Remember that AI-ECG interpretation can miss obvious clinical findings that weren't part of training data. Always maintain basic ECG interpretation skills.
Type 2 MI Trap: Not every troponin elevation in a sick patient represents ACS requiring dual antiplatelet therapy and urgent catheterization.

Clinical Hacks

"Troponin Timing Tool": Implement automated blood draw scheduling that triggers 1-hour samples when chest pain patients arrive.
"HEART-hs Calculator": Use mobile apps or EMR integration for real-time HEART score calculation with hs-cTn-adjusted scoring.
"AI Confidence Weighting": When AI suggests high-risk features, weight this more heavily if the confidence score is >90%.
"Delta Troponin Dashboard": Create visual displays showing troponin trends over time rather than just absolute values.
"Discharge Confidence Score": Combine negative 1-hour algorithm + normal AI-ECG + HEART score <4 for maximum discharge confidence.

Future Perspectives

Emerging Technologies

Point-of-Care hs-cTn: Next-generation POC assays approaching laboratory-quality performance will enable true bedside 1-hour protocols, potentially reducing ED times to under 2 hours for low-risk patients.

Wearable Integration: Consumer wearables with ECG capability may provide baseline rhythm data and early ischemia detection, fundamentally changing how we approach chest pain evaluation.

Genomic Risk Scoring: Polygenic risk scores for coronary artery disease may eventually be integrated into chest pain protocols, providing personalized risk assessment beyond traditional clinical factors.

Regulatory and Quality Considerations

Medicolegal Environment: As AI becomes more prevalent, questions of liability and standard of care will evolve. Institutions should develop clear policies on AI utilization and physician oversight requirements.

Quality Assurance: Continuous monitoring of AI algorithm performance is essential, with regular revalidation against clinical outcomes and identification of algorithm drift.

Conclusions

The landscape of chest pain evaluation has been transformed by the integration of high-sensitivity troponin assays, accelerated diagnostic protocols, and artificial intelligence. The evidence strongly supports adoption of 1-hour rule-out strategies over traditional 2-hour protocols, with significant improvements in efficiency without compromising safety.

Key principles for 2025 chest pain pathways include:

Standardized Implementation of 1-hour hs-cTn protocols with assay-specific cut-offs and robust quality assurance
Clinical Context Integration to minimize overdiagnosis and inappropriate Type 2 MI management
AI-Enhanced Risk Stratification while maintaining physician ECG interpretation capabilities
Outcome-Focused Metrics emphasizing both safety and efficiency benchmarks

Success requires institutional commitment to protocol standardization, staff education, and continuous quality improvement. The future promises even more sophisticated risk stratification tools, but the fundamentals of careful clinical assessment, appropriate test utilization, and patient-centered care remain paramount.

As we advance into the era of precision medicine, chest pain pathways must balance the power of advanced diagnostics with the wisdom of clinical judgment, ensuring that technology serves to enhance rather than replace the art of medicine.

References

Collet JP, Thiele H, Barbato E, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(14):1289-1367.
Gulati M, Levy PD, Mukherjee D, et al. 2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain. Circulation. 2021;144(22):e368-e454.
Neumann JT, Twerenbold R, Ojeda F, et al. Application of High-Sensitivity Troponin in Suspected Myocardial Infarction. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(26):2529-2540.
Body R, Carlton E, Sperrin M, et al. Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (T-MACS) decision aid: single biomarker re-derivation and external validation in three cohorts. Emerg Med J. 2017;34(6):349-356.
Chew DP, Scott IA, Cullen L, et al. National Heart Foundation of Australia & Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand: Australian Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes 2016. Heart Lung Circ. 2016;25(9):895-951.
Than MP, Pickering JW, Sandoval Y, et al. Machine Learning to Predict the Likelihood of Acute Myocardial Infarction. Circulation. 2019;140(11):899-909.
Sandoval Y, Smith SW, Sexter A, et al. Type 1 and 2 Myocardial Infarction and Myocardial Injury: Clinical Transition to High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin I. Am J Med. 2017;130(12):1431-1439.
Al-Zaiti SS, Besomi L, Bouzid Z, et al. Machine learning-based prediction of acute coronary syndrome using only the pre-hospital 12-lead electrocardiogram. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):3966.
Twerenbold R, Badertscher P, Boeddinghaus J, et al. 0/1-Hour Triage Algorithm for Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Renal Dysfunction. Circulation. 2018;137(5):436-451.
Reichlin T, Schindler C, Drexler B, et al. One-hour rule-out and rule-in of acute myocardial infarction using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(16):1211-1218.
Carlton EW, Khattab A, Greaves K. Identifying Patients Suitable for Discharge After a Single-Presentation High-Sensitivity Troponin Result: A Comparison of Five Established Risk Scores and Two High-Sensitivity Assays. Ann Emerg Med. 2015;66(6):635-645.
Pickering JW, Than MP, Cullen L, et al. Rapid Rule-out of Acute Myocardial Infarction With a Single High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin T Measurement Below the Limit of Detection. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(10):715-724.
Januzzi JL Jr, Mahler SA, Christenson RH, et al. Recommendations for Institutions Transitioning to High-Sensitivity Troponin Testing. JACC Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019;12(6):742-746.
Kavsak PA, Walsh M, Srinathan S, et al. High sensitivity troponin T concentrations in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: a prospective cohort study. Clin Biochem. 2011;44(12):1021-1024.
Mueller C, Giannitsis E, Christ M, et al. Multicenter Evaluation of a 0-Hour/1-Hour Algorithm in the Diagnosis of Myocardial Infarction With High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin T. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;68(1):76-87.

Asthma-COPD Overlap with Cardiometabolic Syndrome: Navigating Complex Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Challenges

Asthma-COPD Overlap with Cardiometabolic Syndrome: Navigating Complex Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Challenges in Critical Care

Dr Neeraj manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) represents a complex phenotype affecting 15-20% of patients with obstructive airway disease. When combined with cardiometabolic syndrome (CMS), these patients present unique therapeutic challenges, particularly in critical care settings where cardiovascular safety and metabolic stability are paramount.

Objectives: To provide evidence-based recommendations for managing ACO patients with CMS, focusing on inhaled therapy optimization, steroid-induced metabolic complications, and the integration of non-pharmacological interventions.

Methods: Comprehensive literature review of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and major respiratory/critical care databases from 2015-2024, focusing on ACO-CMS interactions, therapeutic safety profiles, and outcome data.

Conclusions: ACO-CMS patients require individualized, multidisciplinary management with careful consideration of drug interactions, metabolic monitoring, and aggressive non-pharmacological interventions to optimize outcomes while minimizing iatrogenic complications.

Keywords: Asthma-COPD overlap, cardiometabolic syndrome, inhaled therapy, corticosteroids, pulmonary rehabilitation

Introduction

Asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) represents a distinct clinical phenotype characterized by persistent airflow limitation with features of both asthma and COPD¹. The prevalence of ACO ranges from 15-20% among patients with obstructive airway disease, with increasing recognition of its association with worse clinical outcomes, more frequent exacerbations, and higher healthcare utilization compared to either condition alone²,³.

Cardiometabolic syndrome (CMS), defined by the clustering of insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and central obesity, affects approximately 40% of patients with chronic respiratory diseases⁴. The intersection of ACO and CMS creates a complex pathophysiological milieu involving chronic systemic inflammation, autonomic dysfunction, and shared risk factors that significantly complicate therapeutic decision-making in critical care settings⁵.

Clinical Pearl: ACO patients with CMS have a 2.5-fold higher risk of cardiovascular events and 40% increased mortality compared to those with ACO alone. Early identification and aggressive management of both conditions is crucial⁶.

Pathophysiological Mechanisms

Inflammatory Cross-Talk

The pathophysiology of ACO-CMS involves complex inflammatory networks. Chronic airway inflammation in ACO is characterized by mixed Th2/Th17 responses with increased IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and IL-17 production⁷. Simultaneously, CMS perpetuates systemic inflammation through adipokine dysregulation, including elevated leptin, reduced adiponectin, and increased TNF-α and IL-6⁸.

This inflammatory milieu creates several key clinical consequences:

Enhanced oxidative stress leading to accelerated lung function decline
Increased insulin resistance through inflammatory cytokine interference with insulin signaling
Endothelial dysfunction promoting both pulmonary vascular disease and systemic atherosclerosis
Sympathetic nervous system activation contributing to both bronchial hyperresponsiveness and metabolic dysfunction⁹

Shared Pathways

Recent genomic studies have identified common pathways linking ACO and CMS, including:

mTOR signaling: Overactivation contributes to both airway remodeling and metabolic dysfunction¹⁰
NF-κB pathway: Central to both chronic airway inflammation and insulin resistance¹¹
PPAR-γ dysfunction: Links adipogenesis, inflammation, and airway remodeling¹²

Oyster Alert: Beware of the "obesity paradox" in ACO-CMS patients. While obesity worsens metabolic parameters, some studies suggest better short-term survival in obese COPD patients, possibly due to nutritional reserves during acute exacerbations¹³.

Optimizing Inhaled Therapy with Cardiovascular Safety

Beta-2 Agonist Considerations

Long-acting beta-2 agonists (LABAs) remain cornerstone therapy for ACO, but cardiovascular safety concerns are amplified in CMS patients due to pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors¹⁴.

Cardiovascular Risk Stratification:

Low risk: Normal ECG, no known CAD, controlled hypertension
Moderate risk: Controlled CAD, diabetes without complications, mild left ventricular dysfunction
High risk: Recent MI, unstable angina, severe heart failure, uncontrolled arrhythmias¹⁵

LABA Selection Strategy

For Low-Moderate CV Risk:

Formoterol: Rapid onset (2-3 minutes), suitable for rescue use in ACO patients
Salmeterol: Longer onset but excellent duration, good for maintenance therapy
Indacaterol: Once-daily dosing improves compliance, minimal CV effects in stable patients¹⁶

For High CV Risk:

Consider avoiding high-dose SABAs
Prefer ICS/LABA combinations with proven CV safety profiles
Vilanterol/Fluticasone furoate: Demonstrated CV safety in large RCTs¹⁷

Critical Care Hack: In mechanically ventilated ACO-CMS patients, nebulized bronchodilators can cause significant tachycardia. Consider MDI with spacer delivery through the ventilator circuit to reduce systemic absorption¹⁸.

Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists (LAMAs)

LAMAs offer excellent bronchodilation with minimal cardiovascular effects, making them attractive in CMS patients¹⁹. However, anticholinergic effects may worsen gastric emptying in diabetic patients.

LAMA Selection:

Tiotropium: Extensive safety data, once-daily dosing
Glycopyrronium: Rapid onset, good for symptomatic patients
Umeclidinium: Minimal anticholinergic side effects²⁰

Triple Therapy Considerations

Triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) is often required in ACO patients but raises concerns about steroid-related metabolic effects²¹.

Evidence-Based Triple Combinations:

Fluticasone furoate/Vilanterol/Umeclidinium: IMPACT trial showed 15% reduction in moderate-severe exacerbations²²
Beclomethasone/Formoterol/Glycopyrronium: TRILOGY study demonstrated non-inferiority to dual therapy with improved lung function²³

Monitoring Requirements for Triple Therapy in CMS:

Monthly blood glucose monitoring for first 3 months
Quarterly HbA1c assessment
Annual bone density screening
Regular blood pressure monitoring²⁴

Steroid-Induced Metabolic Derangements

Systemic vs. Inhaled Corticosteroid Effects

While inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have lower systemic bioavailability than oral preparations, significant metabolic effects can occur, particularly with high-dose formulations and in patients with pre-existing metabolic dysfunction²⁵.

Glucose Metabolism

Mechanisms of Steroid-Induced Hyperglycemia:

Increased hepatic gluconeogenesis
Peripheral insulin resistance
Enhanced lipolysis with increased substrate availability
Suppression of glucose uptake in peripheral tissues²⁶

High-Risk ICS Formulations for Glucose Dysregulation:

Fluticasone propionate >500 mcg/day
Budesonide >800 mcg/day
Ciclesonide appears to have lowest glucose impact due to lung-specific activation²⁷

Management Strategies:

Dose optimization: Use lowest effective ICS dose
Formulation selection: Consider ciclesonide or mometasone for high-risk patients
Monitoring protocol: Check fasting glucose monthly for first 3 months, then quarterly
Antidiabetic adjustment: May need 10-30% increase in insulin or oral hypoglycemic doses²⁸

Lipid Metabolism

ICS can worsen dyslipidemia through multiple mechanisms:

Increased VLDL production
Reduced lipoprotein lipase activity
Enhanced cholesterol synthesis²⁹

Clinical Hack: Consider adding ezetimibe rather than increasing statin dose in ACO-CMS patients on high-dose ICS, as statins may have anti-inflammatory benefits for airways³⁰.

Bone Metabolism

Bone loss risk is particularly concerning in ACO-CMS patients due to:

Direct corticosteroid effects on osteoblast function
Vitamin D deficiency common in respiratory patients
Reduced physical activity
Chronic inflammation effects on bone remodeling³¹

Bone Protection Protocol:

Baseline DEXA scan for patients requiring long-term ICS
Calcium 1000-1200 mg daily + Vitamin D 800-1000 IU
Consider bisphosphonates if T-score <-1.5 with additional risk factors
Weight-bearing exercise as tolerated³²

Role of Non-Pharmacological Measures

Pulmonary Rehabilitation

Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) represents a cornerstone intervention for ACO-CMS patients, addressing both respiratory and cardiovascular fitness while potentially improving metabolic parameters³³.

PR Benefits in ACO-CMS:

50-100 meter improvement in 6-minute walk distance
15-20% reduction in dyspnea scores
25% reduction in healthcare utilization
Improved insulin sensitivity and glucose control³⁴

Tailored PR Components:

Exercise Training:
- Aerobic exercise: 30-45 minutes, 3-5 days/week at 60-80% maximum heart rate
- Resistance training: 2-3 sessions/week targeting major muscle groups
- Flexibility and balance training to prevent falls³⁵
Education Components:
- Disease self-management
- Nutrition counseling
- Medication adherence
- Exacerbation recognition and management³⁶

Critical Care Pearl: Early mobilization and breathing exercises in ICU settings can reduce mechanical ventilation duration by 1-2 days in ACO exacerbations. Begin passive ROM on day 1, progress to active exercises as sedation allows³⁷.

Weight Management

Weight loss in ACO-CMS patients provides multisystem benefits:

5-10% weight loss improves lung function by 100-200 mL FEV1
Reduces insulin resistance and improves glycemic control
Decreases cardiovascular risk factors
May reduce exacerbation frequency³⁸

Evidence-Based Weight Loss Strategies:

Caloric Restriction: 500-750 kcal/day deficit targeting 1-2 lbs/week loss
Macronutrient Distribution:
- Protein: 25-30% (1.2-1.6 g/kg to preserve lean mass)
- Carbohydrates: 40-45% (emphasize low glycemic index)
- Fats: 25-30% (emphasize omega-3 fatty acids)³⁹
Pharmacological Support:
- GLP-1 agonists: May improve both glycemic control and weight loss while potentially having anti-inflammatory effects
- Orlistat: Can be used cautiously with fat-soluble vitamin supplementation⁴⁰

Oyster Alert: Rapid weight loss (>2 lbs/week) in COPD patients can lead to muscle wasting and respiratory muscle weakness. Monitor body composition, not just weight⁴¹.

Sleep Optimization

Sleep disorders are highly prevalent in ACO-CMS patients, with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) present in 60-70% of cases⁴².

Sleep Assessment and Management:

Screen with STOP-BANG questionnaire
Overnight polysomnography for moderate-high risk patients
CPAP therapy improves both respiratory and metabolic outcomes
Target 7-8 hours of quality sleep nightly⁴³

Monitoring and Follow-Up Protocols

Laboratory Monitoring Schedule

Baseline Assessment:

Complete metabolic panel, HbA1c, lipid profile
Inflammatory markers (CRP, fibrinogen)
Vitamin D, B12 levels
Thyroid function tests⁴⁴

Follow-Up Schedule:

Months 1-3: Monthly glucose, quarterly HbA1c
Months 3-12: Quarterly comprehensive metabolic panel
Annually: Lipid profile, inflammatory markers, bone density⁴⁵

Clinical Monitoring

Pulmonary Function:

Spirometry every 3-6 months
Peak flow monitoring for asthmatic component
Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) to guide ICS therapy⁴⁶

Cardiovascular Monitoring:

Blood pressure at each visit
ECG annually or with symptoms
Echocardiogram if clinical heart failure suspected
Ankle-brachial index annually⁴⁷

Emergency and Critical Care Considerations

Acute Exacerbation Management

ACO-CMS patients require modified approaches during acute exacerbations due to cardiovascular comorbidities⁴⁸.

Modified Corticosteroid Protocol:

Standard dose: Prednisolone 40mg daily x 5 days
CMS modification: Monitor glucose q6h, sliding scale insulin PRN
Diabetes patients: Consider IV hydrocortisone 100mg q8h with endocrine consultation
Heart failure patients: Monitor fluid balance closely⁴⁹

Bronchodilator Modifications:

Limit nebulized albuterol to q4h in cardiac patients
Consider ipratropium as first-line in tachyarrhythmic patients
IV magnesium sulfate 2g over 20 minutes for severe cases⁵⁰

Mechanical Ventilation Considerations

Ventilator Settings for ACO-CMS:

Mode: Pressure control or PRVC to limit peak pressures
PEEP: 5-8 cmH2O (higher levels may worsen hyperinflation)
I:E ratio: 1:3 or longer to allow complete expiration
Tidal volume: 6-8 mL/kg IBW to prevent volutrauma⁵¹

Critical Care Hack: Use esophageal pressure monitoring to optimize PEEP in obese ACO patients. Chest wall compliance is often reduced, requiring higher PEEP than anticipated⁵².

Special Populations

Elderly Patients (>65 years)

Elderly ACO-CMS patients require particular attention to:

Polypharmacy interactions
Increased fall risk with bronchodilators
Cognitive effects of hypoxemia and medications
Frailty assessment and sarcopenia screening⁵³

Pregnancy

Pregnancy in ACO-CMS patients requires multidisciplinary care:

Preferred medications: Budesonide (Category B), albuterol
Avoid: Oral corticosteroids if possible
Monitor for gestational diabetes and preeclampsia
Maintain optimal asthma control to prevent fetal hypoxia⁵⁴

Future Directions and Emerging Therapies

Biologics in ACO-CMS

Emerging evidence supports biologic therapy in selected ACO patients:

Anti-IL-5 therapy: Mepolizumab reduces exacerbations in eosinophilic ACO
Anti-IL-4/IL-13: Dupilumab shows promise in Th2-high ACO patients
Anti-TSLP: Tezepelumab under investigation for broader ACO phenotypes⁵⁵

Selection Criteria for Biologics:

Blood eosinophils >150 cells/μL (anti-IL-5)
Elevated FeNO >25 ppb (anti-IL-4/IL-13)
≥2 exacerbations/year despite optimal therapy⁵⁶

Precision Medicine Approaches

Future management will likely incorporate:

Genetic testing for medication metabolism
Inflammatory phenotyping to guide therapy
Digital biomarkers from wearable devices
AI-assisted treatment optimization⁵⁷

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Recommendations

Treatment Algorithm

Step 1: Confirm ACO diagnosis with spirometry, reversibility testing, and FeNO Step 2: Assess cardiovascular risk and metabolic status Step 3: Initiate ICS/LABA combination based on risk profile Step 4: Add LAMA if symptoms persist (triple therapy) Step 5: Consider biologics for frequent exacerbators Step 6: Implement comprehensive non-pharmacological program⁵⁸

Quality Metrics

Process Measures:

Appropriate inhaler technique assessment
Annual influenza and pneumococcal vaccination
Smoking cessation counseling
Pulmonary rehabilitation referral⁵⁹

Outcome Measures:

Exacerbation rate reduction
Improvement in quality of life scores
Glycemic control achievement
Cardiovascular risk factor optimization⁶⁰

Pearls and Pitfalls Summary

Pearls:

Early integration: Address respiratory and metabolic components simultaneously from diagnosis
Individualized ICS dosing: Use lowest effective dose with high-potency, low-bioavailability formulations when possible
Cardiovascular monitoring: Regular ECG and blood pressure monitoring in all patients on LABA therapy
Weight-bearing exercise: Essential for bone health in patients requiring chronic corticosteroids
Sleep assessment: Screen all patients for OSA as treatment improves both respiratory and metabolic outcomes

Pitfalls to Avoid:

Steroid over-reliance: Avoid prolonged oral corticosteroids; optimize inhaled therapy instead
Ignoring drug interactions: Beta-blockers and bronchodilators require careful balance
Undertreating cardiovascular risk: ACO patients have 2-fold higher CV mortality
Neglecting nutrition: Both under- and over-nutrition worsen outcomes
Delayed rehabilitation: Early PR referral improves long-term outcomes

Conclusion

Managing ACO with cardiometabolic syndrome requires a comprehensive, individualized approach that balances respiratory symptom control with cardiovascular safety and metabolic stability. Success depends on careful medication selection, aggressive monitoring for drug-related complications, and early implementation of non-pharmacological interventions. As our understanding of the complex pathophysiology continues to evolve, precision medicine approaches and novel therapeutic targets offer hope for improved outcomes in this challenging patient population.

The critical care physician must remain vigilant for the subtle interactions between respiratory medications and metabolic function while maintaining a low threshold for specialist consultation in complex cases. Regular reassessment and treatment optimization remain essential for achieving the best possible outcomes in these multimorbid patients.

References

Gibson PG, Simpson JL. The overlap syndrome of asthma and COPD: what are its features and how important is it? Thorax. 2009;64(8):728-735.
Rhee CK, Yoon HK, Yoo KH, et al. Medical utilization and cost in patients with overlap syndrome of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. COPD. 2014;11(2):163-170.
Hardin M, Silverman EK, Barr RG, et al. The clinical features of the overlap between COPD and asthma. Respir Res. 2011;12:127.
Marquis K, Maltais F, Duguay V, et al. The metabolic syndrome in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 2005;25(4):226-232.
Vanfleteren LE, Spruit MA, Groenen M, et al. Clusters of comorbidities based on validated objective measurements and systemic inflammation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;187(7):728-735.
Morgan AD, Zakeri R, Quint JK. Defining the relationship between COPD and CVD: what are the implications for clinical practice? Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2018;12:1753465817750524.
Christenson SA, Steiling K, van den Berge M, et al. Asthma-COPD overlap. Clinical relevance of genomic signatures of type 2 inflammation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;191(7):758-766.
Forno E, Lescher R, Strunk R, et al. Decreased response to inhaled steroids in overweight and obese asthmatic children. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;127(3):741-749.
Barnes PJ. Inflammatory mechanisms in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;138(1):16-27.
Haughney J, Aubier M, Jorgensen L, et al. Integrating guideline-defined asthma-COPD overlap with treatment response in primary care. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2021;31(1):35.
Rahman I, Adcock IM. Oxidative stress and redox regulation of lung inflammation in COPD. Eur Respir J. 2006;28(1):219-242.
Belvisi MG, Hele DJ. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors as novel targets in lung disease. Chest. 2008;134(1):152-157.
Schols AM, Broekhuizen R, Weling-Scheepers CA, Wouters EF. Body composition and mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;82(1):53-59.
Salpeter SR, Ormiston TM, Salpeter EE, et al. Cardiovascular effects of beta-agonists in patients with asthma and COPD: a meta-analysis. Chest. 2004;125(6):2309-2321.
Suissa S, Hemmelgarn B, Blais L, Ernst P. Bronchodilators and acute cardiac death. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996;154(6 Pt 1):1598-1602.
Donohue JF, Fogarty C, Lötvall J, et al. Once-daily bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: indacaterol versus tiotropium. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182(2):155-162.
Vestbo J, Anderson JA, Brook RD, et al. Fluticasone furoate and vilanterol and survival in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with heightened cardiovascular risk (SUMMIT): a double-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10030):1817-1826.
Dhand R, Tobin MJ. Inhaled bronchodilator therapy in mechanically ventilated patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;156(1):3-10.
Celli B, Decramer M, Leimer I, et al. Cardiovascular safety of tiotropium in patients with COPD. Chest. 2010;137(1):20-30.
Beeh KM, Singh D, Di Scala L, Drollmann A. Once-daily NVA237 improves exercise tolerance from the first dose in patients with COPD: the GLOW3 study. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2012;7:503-513.
Lipson DA, Barnhart F, Brealey N, et al. Once-daily single-inhaler triple versus dual therapy in patients with COPD. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(18):1671-1680.
Lipson DA, Barnacle H, Birk R, et al. FULFIL Trial: Once-daily triple therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;196(4):438-446.
Singh D, Papi A, Corradi M, et al. Single inhaler triple therapy versus inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting β2-agonist therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (TRILOGY): a double-blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388(10048):963-973.
Suissa S, Kezouh A, Ernst P. Inhaled corticosteroids and the risks of diabetes onset and progression. Am J Med. 2010;123(11):1001-1006.
Kelly HW, Sternberg AL, Lescher R, et al. Effect of inhaled glucocorticoids in childhood on adult height. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(10):904-912.
Blackburn D, Hux J, Mamdani M. Quantification of the risk of corticosteroid-induced diabetes mellitus among the elderly. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(9):717-720.
Derendorf H, Nave R, Drollmann A, et al. Relevance of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of inhaled corticosteroids to asthma. Eur Respir J. 2006;28(5):1042-1050.
Dendukuri N, Blais L, LeLorier J. Inhaled corticosteroids and the risk of diabetes among the elderly. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;54(1):59-64.
Suissa S, Kezouh A, Ernst P. Inhaled corticosteroids and the risks of diabetes onset and progression. Am J Med. 2010;123(11):1001-1006.
Mancini GB, Etminan M, Zhang B, et al. Reduction of morbidity and mortality by statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47(12):2554-2560.
Israel E, Banerjee TR, Fitzmaurice GM, et al. Effects of inhaled glucocorticoids on bone density in premenopausal women. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(13):941-947.
Grossman JM, Gordon R, Ranganath VK, et al. American College of Rheumatology 2010 recommendations for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62(11):1515-1526.
Spruit MA, Singh SJ, Garvey C, et al. An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: key concepts and advances in pulmonary rehabilitation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188(8):e13-64.
Lacasse Y, Goldstein R, Lasserson TJ, Martin S. Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(4):CD003793.
Nici L, Donner C, Wouters E, et al. American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement on pulmonary rehabilitation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;173(12):1390-1413.
Bolton CE, Bevan-Smith EF, Blakey JD, et al. British Thoracic Society guideline on pulmonary rehabilitation in adults. Thorax. 2013;68 Suppl 2:ii1-30.
Schweickert WD, Pohlman MC, Pohlman AS, et al. Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;373(9678):1874-1882.
Steuten LM, Creutzberg EC, Vrijhoef HJ, Wouters EF. COPD as a multicomponent disease: inventory of dyspnoea, underweight, depression and fatigue. Prim Care Respir J. 2006;15(2):84-91.
Schols AM, Ferreira IM, Franssen FM, et al. Nutritional assessment and therapy in COPD: a European Respiratory Society statement. Eur Respir J. 2014;44(6):1504-1520.
Brusasco V, Hodder R, Miravitlles M, et al. Health outcomes following treatment for six months with once daily tiotropium compared with twice daily salmeterol in patients with COPD. Thorax. 2003;58(5):399-404.
Schols AM, Slangen J, Volovics L, Wouters EF. Weight loss is a reversible factor in the prognosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;157(6 Pt 1):1791-1797.
Sharma B, Feinsilver S, Owens RL, et al. Obstructive airway disease and obstructive sleep apnea: effect of pulmonary function. Lung. 2011;189(1):37-41.
Machado MC, Vollmer WM, Togeiro SM, et al. CPAP and survival in moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome and hypoxaemic COPD. Eur Respir J. 2010;35(1):132-137.
Barnes PJ, Celli BR. Systemic manifestations and comorbidities of COPD. Eur Respir J. 2009;33(5):1165-1185.
Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2023 Report.
Dweik RA, Boggs PB, Erzurum SC, et al. An official ATS clinical practice guideline: interpretation of exhaled nitric oxide levels (FENO) for clinical applications. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;184(5):602-615.
Chen W, Thomas J, Sadatsafavi M, FitzGerald JM. Risk of cardiovascular comorbidity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med. 2015;3(8):631-639.
Niewoehner DE, Erbland ML, Deupree RH, et al. Effect of systemic glucocorticoids on exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(25):1941-1947.
Leuppi JD, Schuetz P, Bingisser R, et al. Short-term vs conventional glucocorticoid therapy in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the REDUCE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;309(21):2223-2231.
Rowe BH, Bretzlaff JA, Bourdon C, et al. Intravenous magnesium sulfate treatment for acute asthma in the emergency department: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Emerg Med. 2000;36(3):181-190.
Slutsky AS, Ranieri VM. Ventilator-induced lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(22):2126-2136.
Talmor D, Sarge T, Malhotra A, et al. Mechanical ventilation guided by esophageal pressure in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(20):2095-2104.
Lahousse L, Ziere G, Verlinden VJ, et al. Risk of frailty in elderly with COPD: a population-based study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016;71