Browsing by Author "Van Der Flier, Michiel"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Characteristics and management of adolescents attending the ED with fever : A prospective multicentre study
    (2022-01-19) Borensztajn, Dorine; Hagedoorn, Nienke N.; Carrol, Enitan; Von Both, Ulrich; Dewez, Juan Emmanuel; Emonts, Marieke; Van Der Flier, Michiel; De Groot, Ronald; Herberg, Jethro; Kohlmaier, Benno; Levin, Michael; Lim, Emma; Maconochie, Ian; Martinon Torres, Federico; Nijman, Ruud; Pokorn, Marko; Rivero-Calle, Irene; Tsolia, Maria; Vermont, Clementien; Zavadska, Dace; Zenz, Werner; Zachariasse, Joany; Moll, Henriette A.; Department of Paediatrics
    Objective Most studies on febrile children have focused on infants and young children with serious bacterial infection (SBI). Although population studies have described an increased risk of sepsis in adolescents, little is known about febrile adolescents attending the emergency department (ED). We aimed to describe patient characteristics and management of febrile adolescents attending the ED. Design and setting The MOFICHE/PERFORM study (Management and Outcome of Febrile Children in Europe/Personalised Risk assessment in Febrile illness to Optimise Real-life Management across the European Union), a prospective multicentre study, took place at 12 European EDs. Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were performed, comparing febrile adolescents (12-18 years) with younger children in terms of patient characteristics, markers of disease severity (vital signs, clinical alarming signs), management (diagnostic tests, therapy, admission) and diagnosis (focus, viral/bacterial infection). Results 37 420 encounters were included, of which 2577 (6.9%) were adolescents. Adolescents were more often triaged as highly urgent (38.9% vs 34.5%) and described as ill appearing (23.1% vs 15.6%) than younger children. Increased work of breathing and a non-blanching rash were present less often in adolescents, while neurological signs were present more often (1% vs 0%). C reactive protein tests were performed more frequently in adolescents and were more often abnormal (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.7, 95% CI 1.5 to 1.9). Adolescents were more often diagnosed with SBI (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.6 to 2.0) and sepsis/meningitis (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 5.0) and were more frequently admitted (aOR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.4) and treated with intravenous antibiotics (aOR 1.7, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.0). Conclusions Although younger children presented to the ED more frequently, adolescents were more often diagnosed with SBI and sepsis/meningitis. Our data emphasise the importance of awareness of severe infections in adolescents.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Development and validation of a prediction model for invasive bacterial infections in febrile children at European Emergency Departments : MOFICHE, a prospective observational study
    (2021-07-01) Hagedoorn, Nienke N.; Borensztajn, Dorine; Nijman, Ruud Gerard; Nieboer, Daan; Herberg, Jethro Adam; Balode, Anda; Von Both, Ulrich; Carrol, Enitan; Eleftheriou, Irini; Emonts, Marieke; Van Der Flier, Michiel; De Groot, Ronald; Kohlmaier, Benno; Lim, Emma; MacOnochie, Ian; Martinón-Torres, Federico; Pokorn, Marko; Strle, Franc; Tsolia, Maria; Zavadska, Dace; Zenz, Werner; Levin, Michael; Vermont, Clementien; Moll, Henriette A.; Rīga Stradiņš University
    Objectives: To develop and cross-validate a multivariable clinical prediction model to identify invasive bacterial infections (IBI) and to identify patient groups who might benefit from new biomarkers. Design: Prospective observational study. Setting: 12 emergency departments (EDs) in 8 European countries. Patients: Febrile children aged 0-18 years. Main outcome measures: IBI, defined as bacteraemia, meningitis and bone/joint infection. We derived and cross-validated a model for IBI using variables from the Feverkidstool (clinical symptoms, C reactive protein), neurological signs, non-blanching rash and comorbidity. We assessed discrimination (area under the receiver operating curve) and diagnostic performance at different risk thresholds for IBI: sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive likelihood ratios (LRs). Results: Of 16 268 patients, 135 (0.8%) had an IBI. The discriminative ability of the model was 0.84 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.88) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.82) in pooled cross-validations. The model performed well for the rule-out threshold of 0.1% (sensitivity 0.97 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.99), negative LR 0.1 (95% CI 0.0 to 0.2) and for the rule-in threshold of 2.0% (specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.95), positive LR 8.4 (95% CI 6.9 to 10.0)). The intermediate thresholds of 0.1%-2.0% performed poorly (ranges: sensitivity 0.59-0.93, negative LR 0.14-0.57, specificity 0.52-0.88, positive LR 1.9-4.8) and comprised 9784 patients (60%). Conclusions: The rule-out threshold of this model has potential to reduce antibiotic treatment while the rule-in threshold could be used to target treatment in febrile children at the ED. In more than half of patients at intermediate risk, sensitive biomarkers could improve identification of IBI and potentially reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Diversity in the emergency care for febrile children in Europe : A questionnaire study
    (2019-06-01) Borensztajn, Dorine; Yeung, Shunmay; Hagedoorn, Nienke N.; Balode, Anda; Von Both, Ulrich; Carrol, Enitan D.; Dewez, Juan Emmanuel; Eleftheriou, Irini; Emonts, Marieke; Van Der Flier, Michiel; De Groot, Ronald; Herberg, Jethro Adam; Kohlmaier, Benno; Lim, Emma; MacOnochie, Ian; Martinón-Torres, Federico; Nijman, Ruud; Pokorn, Marko; Strle, Franc; Tsolia, Maria; Wendelin, Gerald; Zavadska, Dace; Zenz, Werner; Levin, Michael; Moll, Henriette A.; Department of Paediatrics
    Objective To provide an overview of care in emergency departments (EDs) across Europe in order to interpret observational data and implement interventions regarding the management of febrile children. Design and setting An electronic questionnaire was sent to the principal investigators of an ongoing study (PERFORM (Personalised Risk assessment in Febrile illness to Optimise Real-life Management), www.perform2020.eu) in 11 European hospitals in eight countries: Austria, Germany, Greece, Latvia, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and the UK. Outcome measures The questionnaire covered indicators in three domains: local ED quality (supervision, guideline availability, paper vs electronic health records), organisation of healthcare (primary care, immunisation), and local factors influencing or reflecting resource use (availability of point-of-care tests, admission rates). Results Reported admission rates ranged from 4% to 51%. In six settings (Athens, Graz, Ljubljana, Riga, Rotterdam, Santiago de Compostela), the supervising ED physicians were general paediatricians, in two (Liverpool, London) these were paediatric emergency physicians, in two (Nijmegen, Newcastle) supervision could take place by either a general paediatrician or a general emergency physician, and in one (München) this could be either a general paediatrician or a paediatric emergency physician. The supervising physician was present on site in all settings during office hours and in five out of eleven settings during out-of-office hours. Guidelines for fever and sepsis were available in all settings; however, the type of guideline that was used differed. Primary care was available in all settings during office hours and in eight during out-of-office hours. There were differences in routine immunisations as well as in additional immunisations that were offered; immunisation rates varied between and within countries. Conclusion Differences in local, regional and national aspects of care exist in the management of febrile children across Europe. This variability has to be considered when trying to interpret differences in the use of diagnostic tools, antibiotics and admission rates. Any future implementation of interventions or diagnostic tests will need to be aware of this European diversity.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Shock Index in the early assessment of febrile children at the emergency department : a prospective multicentre study
    (2022-02) Hagedoorn, Nienke N.; Zachariasse, Joany M.; Borensztajn, Dorine; Adriaansens, Elise; Von Both, Ulrich; Carrol, Enitan D.; Eleftheriou, Irini; Emonts, Marieke; Van Der Flier, Michiel; De Groot, Ronald; Herberg, Jethro Adam; Kohlmaier, Benno; Lim, Emma; Maconochie, Ian; Martinón-Torres, Federico; Nijman, Ruud Gerard; Pokorn, Marko; Rivero-Calle, Irene; Tsolia, Maria; Zavadska, Dace; Zenz, Werner; Levin, Michael; Vermont, Clementien; Moll, Henriette A.; Department of Paediatrics
    Objective: (1) To derive reference values for the Shock Index (heart rate/systolic blood pressure) based on a large emergency department (ED) population of febrile children and (2) to determine the diagnostic value of the Shock Index for serious illness in febrile children. Design/setting: Observational study in 11 European EDs (2017-2018). Patients: Febrile children with measured blood pressure. Main outcome measures: Serious bacterial infection (SBI), invasive bacterial infection (IBI), immediate life-saving interventions (ILSIs) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The association between high Shock Index (>95th centile) and each outcome was determined by logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, referral, comorbidity and temperature. Additionally, we calculated sensitivity, specificity and negative/positive likelihood ratios (LRs). Results: Of 5622 children, 461 (8.2%) had SBI, 46 (0.8%) had IBI, 203 (3.6%) were treated with ILSI and 69 (1.2%) were ICU admitted. High Shock Index was associated with SBI (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.6 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.9)), ILSI (aOR 2.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 2.9)), ICU admission (aOR 2.2 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.9)) but not with IBI (aOR: 1.5 (95% CI 0.6 to 2.4)). For the different outcomes, sensitivity for high Shock Index ranged from 0.10 to 0.15, specificity ranged from 0.95 to 0.95, negative LRs ranged from 0.90 to 0.95 and positive LRs ranged from 1.8 to 2.8. Conclusions: High Shock Index is associated with serious illness in febrile children. However, its rule-out value is insufficient which suggests that the Shock Index is not valuable as a screening tool for all febrile children at the ED.