Key result
Standard AHF therapy is linked to reduced 4-hour dyspnea but fails to determine hospitalization need.
Why the study?
The study aimed to compare three dyspnea scales (Likert, VAS, and NRS) in patients with acute heart failure in the emergency department.
Do dyspnea scales (Likert, VAS, NRS) accurately reflect clinical improvement and guide disposition in patients with acute heart failure in the emergency department?
Observational (n=114)
No
Do dyspnea scales (Likert, VAS, NRS) accurately reflect clinical improvement and guide disposition in patients with acute heart failure in the emergency department?
Dyspnea scales (Likert, VAS, NRS) effectively capture symptom relief in acute heart failure patients in the ED, but symptom improvement alone is insufficient to determine the need for hospitalization.
Dyspnea improvement at 4 hours after standard acute HF therapy does not guide hospitalization; leaves open the utility of symptom scales for disposition decisions.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
GENOĞLU et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Acute heart failure (n=114). Standard AHF therapy vs. Baseline (admission) was evaluated on Dyspnea severity scores (Likert, VAS, NRS) at 4 hours compared to admission (p=<0.001). Standard acute heart failure treatment significantly reduced dyspnea severity at 4 hours across Likert, VAS, and NRS scales (p<0.001), though improvement alone was insufficient to determine the need for hospitalization.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: