Identifying serious underlying diagnoses among patients with brief resolved unexplained events (BRUEs): a Canadian cohort study

Nassr Nama,Zerlyn Lee,Kara Picco,Falla Jin,Jeffrey N Bone,Julie Quet,Jessica Foulds,Josée Anne Gagnon,Chris Novak,Brigitte Parisien,Matthew Donlan,Ran D Goldman,Anupam Sehgal,Ronik Kanani,Joanna Holland,Polina Kyrychenko,Nardin Kirolos,Ioulia Opotchanova,Émilie Harnois,Alyse Schacter,Elisa Frizon-Peresa,Praveen Rajasegaran,Parnian Hosseini,Melody Wyslobicky,Susan Akbaroghli,Prathiksha Nalan,Sanjay Mahant,Joel Tieder,Peter Gill,Canadian BRUE Collaboration (C-BRUE-C) and the Canadian Paediatric Inpatient Research Network (PIRN),Marie-Pier Goupil,Shawn Lee,Emy Philibert,Juliette Dufresne,Raman Chawla,Martin Ogwuru
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2024-002525
2024-09-24
Abstract:Objective: To describe the demographics and clinical outcomes of infants with brief resolved unexplained events (BRUE). Design: A retrospective cohort study. Setting: 11 centres within the Canadian Paediatric Inpatient Research Network. Patients: Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) following a BRUE (2017-2021) were eligible, when no clinical cause identified after a thorough history and physical examination. Main outcome measures: Serious underlying diagnosis (requiring prompt identification) and event recurrence (within 90 days). Results: Of 1042 eligible patients, 665 were hospitalised (63.8%), with a median stay of 1.73 days. Diagnostic tests were performed on 855 patients (82.1%), and 440 (42.2%) received specialist consultations. In total, 977 patients (93.8%) were categorised as higher risk BRUE per the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines. Most patients (n=551, 52.9%) lacked an explanatory diagnosis; however, serious underlying diagnoses were identified in 7.6% (n=79). Epilepsy/infantile spasms were the most common serious underlying diagnoses (2.0%, n=21). Gastro-oesophageal reflux was the most common non-serious underlying diagnosis identified in 268 otherwise healthy and thriving infants (25.7%). No instances of invasive bacterial infections, arrhythmias or metabolic disorders were found. Recurrent events were observed in 113 patients (10.8%) during the index visit, and 65 patients had a return to ED visit related to a recurrent event (6.2%). One death occurred within 90 days. Conclusions: There is a low risk for a serious underlying diagnosis, where the majority of patients remain without a clear explanation. This study provides evidence-based risk for adverse outcomes, critical information to be used when engaging in shared decision-making with caregivers.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?