Pediatrician Perspectives on Brief Resolved Unexplained Events

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

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.

Risk Prediction After a Brief Resolved Unexplained Event

OBJECTIVES

Only 4% of brief resolved unexplained events (BRUE) are caused by a serious underlying illness. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines do not distinguish patients who would benefit from further investigation and hospitalization. We aimed to derive and validate a clinical decision rule for predicting the risk of a serious underlying diagnosis or event recurrence.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified infants presenting with a BRUE to 15 children's hospitals (2015-2020). We used logistic regression in a split-sample to derive and validate a risk prediction model.

RESULTS

Of 3283 eligible patients, 565 (17.2%) had a serious underlying diagnosis (n = 150) or a recurrent event (n = 469). The AAP's higher-risk criteria were met in 91.5% (n = 3005) and predicted a serious diagnosis with 95.3% sensitivity, 8.6% specificity, and an area under the curve of 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47-0.57). A derived model based on age, previous events, and abnormal medical history demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.64 (95%CI: 0.59-0.70). In contrast to the AAP criteria, patients >60 days were more likely to have a serious underlying diagnosis (odds ratio:1.43, 95%CI: 1.03-1.98, P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Most infants presenting with a BRUE do not have a serious underlying pathology requiring prompt diagnosis. We derived 2 models to predict the risk of a serious diagnosis and event recurrence. A decision support tool based on this model may aid clinicians and caregivers in the discussion on the benefit of diagnostic testing and hospitalization (https://www.mdcalc.com/calc/10400/brief-resolved-unexplained-events-2.0-brue-2.0-criteria-infants).