Introduction: Recent studies from urban academic centers have shown the promise of emergency physician-initiated buprenorphine for improving outcomes in opioid use disorder (OUD) patients. We investigated whether emergency physician-initiated buprenorphine in a rural, community setting decreases subsequent healthcare utilization for OUD patients. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients presenting to a community hospital emergency department (ED) who received a prescription for buprenorphine from June 15, 2018–June 15, 2019. Demographic and opioid-related International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, (ICD-10) codes were documented and used to create a case-matched control cohort of demographically matched patients who presented in a similar time frame with similar ICD-10 codes but did not receive buprenorphine. We recorded 12-month rates of ED visits, all-cause hospitalizations, and opioid overdoses. Differences in event occurrences between groups were assessed with Poisson regression. Results: Overall 117 patients were included in the study: 59 who received buprenorphine vs 58 controls. The groups were well matched, both roughly 90% White and 60% male, with an average age of 33.4 years for both groups. Controls had a median two ED visits (range 0-33), median 0.5 hospitalizations (range 0-8), and 0 overdoses (range 0-3), vs median one ED visit (range 0-8), median 0 hospitalizations (range 0-4), and median 0 overdoses (range 0-3) in the treatment group. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) for counts of ED visits was 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49, 0.75, favoring medication-assisted treatment (MAT). For hospitalizations, IRR was 0.34, 95% CI, 0.22, 0.52 favoring MAT, and for overdoses was 1.04, 95% CI, 0.53, 2.07. Conclusion: Initiation of buprenorphine by ED providers was associated with lower 12-month ED visit and all-cause hospitalization rates with comparable overdose rates compared to controls. These findings show the ED’s potential as an initiation point for medication-assisted treatment in OUD patients.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective Remote cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) interrogators, originally developed for home use, have been proven to be efficacious in clinical settings, especially emergency departments. Concern exists that attempting to interrogate a CIED with the remote interrogator of a different brand, i.e., a brand-mismatched interrogator, may cause device malfunction. The aim of this study was to determine if intentionally attempting to interrogate a CIED with a brand-mismatched remote interrogator resulted in device malfunction.Methods A total of 75 ex vivo CIEDs manufactured by various companies underwent attempted interrogation by a brand-mismatched remote interrogator. CIED settings were compared before and after attempted mismatch interrogation. A total of 30 in vivo CIEDs were then randomized for an attempted 2-minute mismatched remote interrogation by one of the two possible mismatched remote interrogators. CIED settings were compared before and after attempted mismatch interrogation.Results Of 150 ex vivo brand-mismatched interrogations, no device setting changes or malfunctions occurred; no remote interrogators connected to a mismatched CIED, and no devices were turned off. In the 30 patients undergoing brand-mismatched interrogations, the mean (standard deviation) age was 71.6 ( ± 14.7) years, 16 (53%) were male, with 24 pacemakers (80%), four pacemaker/implantable cardioverter defibrillators (13%), and two implantable cardioverter defibrillators (7%). Of the 30 mismatched interrogations performed, no device setting changes or malfunctions occurred; no remote interrogators connected to a mismatched CIED, and no devices turned off.Conclusion In a total 180 attempted brand-mismatched CIED interrogations, no CIED malfunctions occurred. This suggests that the use of remote CIED interrogators when device manufacturer is unknown is unlikely to result in adverse CIED-related events.