Coming from the west-coast PEM powerhouses of Harbor-UCLA, CHLA, and USC, this prospective observational study attempts to distill the clinical characteristics of “apparent life threatening events” requiring hospitalization. Traditional teaching has always errs on the side of admission for ALTEs, despite the typical low-yield nature of the admission.
They collected data on 832 ALTEs, 191 (23%) of which they felt truly necessitated admission for a set of predefined criteria. Based on this data, they came up with a simple decision rule to identify ALTEs for admission:
– They obviously need to be admitted.
– Concerning medical history/prematurity/congenital comorbidities.
– >1 ALTE in 24 hours.
This captured 89% of necessary hospitalizations with a specificity of 61%, with an AUC of 0.71.
It’s a bit of an odd rule that includes “obvious need for admission”, but, I suppose it’s rather pragmatic. However, the adoption of a rule such as this – after prospective validation – would depend on the “acceptable miss rate” in an infant with a possible life-threatening condition. A sensitivity of 89% probably isn’t going to cut it, so, in the end, what this study is only good for is perusing the interesting data they’ve collected along the way.
“Apparent Life-Threatening Event: Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study to Develop a Clinical Decision Rule for Admission to the Hospital”