| Literature DB >> 34125055 |
Nikhil Ranadive1,2, Jayraj Desai3, L M Sathish4, Kim Knowlton5, Priya Dutta4, Parthasarathi Ganguly4, Abhiyant Tiwari4, Anjali Jaiswal5, Tejas Shah6, Bhavin Solanki6, Dileep Mavalankar4, Jeremy J Hess7,8,9.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Extreme heat is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, and the incidence of acute heat illness (AHI) will likely increase secondary to anthropogenic climate change. Prompt diagnosis and treatment of AHI are critical; however, relevant diagnostic and surveillance tools have received little attention. In this exploratory cross-sectional and diagnostic accuracy study, we evaluated three tools for use in the prehospital setting: 1) case definitions; 2) portable loggers to measure on-scene heat exposure; and 3) prevalence data for potential AHI risk factors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34125055 PMCID: PMC8203017 DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2020.11.48209
Source DB: PubMed Journal: West J Emerg Med ISSN: 1936-900X
Figure 1Study diagram, including participant enrollment, data collection, and data storage.
GVK-EMRI, GVK- GVK-Emergency Management and Research Institute; H&P, history and physical; EMS, emergency medical services; METAR, Meteorological Terminal Aviation Routine weather report.
Study sample (n = 480) demographic, environmental, and clinical characteristics.
| n (%) | |
|---|---|
| Demographic characteristics | |
| Gender | |
| Male | 239 (49.8) |
| Female | 241 (50.2) |
| Age (years) | |
| < 1 | 4 (0.8) |
| 1 – 5 | 15 (3.1) |
| 6 – 17 | 30 (6.3) |
| 18 – 44 | 202 (42.1) |
| 45 – 64 | 123 (25.6) |
| ≥ 65 | 106 (22.1) |
| Highest level of education | |
| None/less than grade 5 | 237 (49.4) |
| Primary (up to grade 5) | 112 (23.3) |
| Secondary (up to grade 10) | 66 (13.8) |
| High (up to grade 12) | 34 (7.1) |
| Bachelor’s degree or above | 18 (3.8) |
| Missing | 13 (2.7) |
| Prior medical history | |
| Alcoholism | 2 (0.4) |
| Cardiovascular disease | 8 (1.7) |
| Diabetes | 38 (7.9) |
| Hypertension | 66 (13.8) |
| Liver disease | 1 (0.2) |
| Renal disease | 9 (1.9) |
| Patient pickup location | |
| Residence | 439 (91.5) |
| Indoor public space | 4 (0.8) |
| Outdoor public space | 14 (2.9) |
| Worksite | 17 (3.5) |
| School or college | 3 (0.6) |
| Other | 3 (0.6) |
| Clinical characteristics | |
| Dermatological signs | |
| Skin hot, diaphoretic | 21 (4.3) |
| Skin hot, dry | 59 (12.3) |
| Neurological signs | |
| GCS ≤ 14 | 48 (10.0) |
| GCS ≤ 13 | 37 (7.7) |
| Body temperature | |
| ≥ 38.5°C | 112 (23.3) |
| ≥ 40.0°C | 47 (9.8) |
| Clinical characteristics | |
| Temperature measurement location | |
| Oral | 81 (16.9) |
| Axillary | 391 (81.5) |
| Rectal | 1 (0.2) |
| Not measured | 7 (1.5) |
| Median [Interquartile range] | |
|
| |
| On-scene meteorological data | |
| On-scene temperature (°C) | 43.0 [40.0 – 45.7] |
| On-scene relative humidity (%) | 29.5 [23.5 – 38.0] |
| On-scene heat index (°C) | 50.2 [45.6 – 54.2] |
| Station meteorological data | |
| Station temperature (°C) | 40.6 [38.1 – 42.1] |
| Station relative humidity (%) | 29.8 [20.8 – 36.1] |
| Station heat index (°C) | 44.2 [41.2 – 46.2] |
GCS, Glosgow Coma Scale; C, Celsius.
Figure 2Mean logger heat index and emergency medical services call volume (n) for each of the six eligible ambulance duty stations in Ahmedabad, India.
C, Celsius.
Diagnostic accuracy of heat exhaustion case definition using prehospital provider impressions as reference standard (n = 480).
| Test characteristic | Value % [95% confidence interval] |
|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 23.8 [12.1 – 39.5] |
| Specificity | 93.6 [90.9 – 95.7] |
| Positive predictive value (2.1%, sample prevalence) | 26.3 [13.4 – 43.1] |
| Negative predictive value (2.1%, sample prevalence) | 92.8 [89.9 – 95.0] |
| Positive predictive value (11.9% prevalence) | 33.5 [20.8 – 49.0] |
| Negative predictive value (11.9% prevalence) | 90.1 [88.5 – 91.5] |
| Positive predictive value (20.1% prevalence) | 48.4 [32.9 – 64.2] |
| Negative predictive value (20.1% prevalence) | 83.0 [80.5 – 85.3] |
| True positives | 10 |
| False positives | 28 |
| True negatives | 410 |
| False negatives | 32 |
| Total positives, using prehospital provider impressions | 42 |
| Total positives, using case definitions | 38 |
Figure 3Daily logger (red circles) and station (blue rhombi) heat indices for all study participants.
C, Celsius.
Figure 4Mean heat indices (HI) with 95% confidence intervals as measured by loggers (red circles, upper band) and the METAR* station (blue rhombi, lower band) among individuals with heat exhaustion according to pre-hospital providers.
C, Celsious; METAR, Meteorological Terminal Aviation Routine weather report.
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of risk factors associated with developing heat exhaustion, as determined by prehospital provider impressions (for n = 476 observations, with 4 observations dropped from the model due to missing exposure data).
| Variable | Odds ratio | 95% confidence interval | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Station weather data | |||
| Station heat index ≥ 49°C a | 2.11 | [0.54 – 8.22] | 0.280 |
| Station wind speed | 0.97 | [0.92 – 1.03] | 0.368 |
| Station visibility | 0.69 | [0.49 – 0.97] | 0.034 |
| On-scene environmental exposures | |||
| Logger heat index ≥ 49°C | 2.66 | [1.13 – 6.25] | 0.025 |
| On-scene air conditioning | 0.29 | [0.10 – 0.85] | 0.024 |
| Exposure to external heat source | 0.73 | [0.26 – 2.08] | 0.560 |
| Behavioral history | |||
| Recent history of exertion | 3.66 | [1.30 – 10.29] | 0.014 |
Re-coded as bivariate heat index thresholds;
External heat sources, such as ovens.