Familiarity with radiation exposure dose from diagnostic imaging for acute pulmonary embolism and current patterns of practice

Objective: To assess the current level of knowledge and practice patterns of emergency physicians regarding radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging modalities for investigating acute pulmonary embolism (PE)

The utility of renal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of renal colic in emergency department patients

Objective: Computed tomography (CT) is an imaging modality used to detect renal stones. However, there is concern about the lifetime cumulative radiation exposure attributed to CT. Ultrasonography (US) has been used to diagnose urolithiasis, thereby avoiding radiation exposure. The objective of this study was to determine the ability of US to identify renal colic patients with a low risk of requiring urologic intervention within 90 days of their initial emergency department (ED) visit. Methods: We completed a retrospective medical record review for all adult patients who underwent ED-ordered renal US for suspected urolithiasis over a 1-year period. Independent, double data extraction was performed for all imaging reports and US results were categorized as normal, suggestive of ureterolithiasis, ureteric stone seen or disease unrelated to urolithiasis. Charts were reviewed to determine how many patients underwent subsequent CT and urologic intervention. Results: Of the 817 renal US procedures ordered for suspected urolithiasis during the study period, the results of 352 (43.2%) were classified as normal, and only 2 (0.6%) of these patients required urologie intervention. The results of 177 (21.7%) renal US procedures were suggestive of ureterolithiasis. Of these, 12 (6.8%) patients required urologie intervention. Of the 241 (29.5%) patients who had a ureteric stone seen on US, 15 (6.2%) required urologie intervention. The rate of urologie intervention was significantly lower in those with normal results on US (p \u3c 0.001) than in those with abnormal results on US. Conclusion: A normal result on renal US predicts a low likelihood for urologie intervention within 90 days for adult ED patients with suspected urolithiasis

Normal renal sonogram identifies renal colic patients at low risk for urologic intervention: A prospective cohort study

Introduction: Determining which patients with ureterolithiasis are likely to require urologic intervention is a common challenge in the emergency department (ED). The objective was to determine if normal renal sonogram could identify low-risk renal colic patients, who were defined as not requiring urologic intervention within 90 days of their initial ED visit and can be managed conservatively. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study involving adult patients presenting to the EDs of a tertiary care centre with suspected renal colic over a 20-month period. Renal ultrasonography (US) was performed in the diagnostic imaging department by trained ultrasonographers, and the results were categorized into four mutually exclusive groups: normal, suggestive of ureterolithiasis, visualized ureteric stone, or findings unrelated to urolithiasis. Electronic medical records were reviewed to determine if patients received urologic intervention within 90 days of their ED visit. Results: Of 610 patients enrolled, 341 (55.9%) had US for suspected renal colic. Of those, 105 (30.8%) were classified as normal; none of these patients underwent urologic intervention within 90 days of their ED visit. Ninety (26.4%) US results were classified as suggestive, and nine (10%) patients received urologic intervention. A total of 139 (40.8%) US results were classified as visualized ureteric stone, and 34 (24.5%) patients had urologic intervention. Seven (2.1%) US results were classified as findings unrelated to urolithiasis, and none of these patients required urologic intervention. The rate of urologic intervention was significantly lower in those with normal US results (p \u3c 0.001) than in those with abnormal findings. Conclusion: A normal renal sonogram predicts a low likelihood for urologic intervention within 90 days for adult ED patients with suspected renal colic

Acute Management and Outcomes of Patients with Diabetes Mellitus Presenting to Canadian Emergency Departments with Hypoglycemia

Objectifs: Cette vérification rétrospective des dossiers a permis d\u27examiner les données démographiques, les examens, la prise en charge et les résultats des patients adultes souffrant de diabète sucré qui se sont présentés aux services des urgences (SU) au Canada. Méthodes: Tous les sites ont mené une recherche dans leurs dossiers médicaux électroniques à l\u27aide des codes de la Classification internationale des maladies, dixième révision, pour relever les visites aux SU entre 2008 et 2010 qui étaient liées à l\u27hypoglycémie. Les caractéristiques des patients, les données démographiques, la prise en charge aux SU, les ressources des SU et les résultats sont rapportés. Résultats: Un total de 1039 patients de plus de 17 ans ont été inclus dans l\u27étude; 347 (33,4 %) ont été classifiés comme étant des cas de diabète de type 1 et 692 (66,6 %) ont été classifiés comme étant des cas de diabète de type 2. Les patients souffrant du diabète de type 2 étaient beaucoup plus âgés (73 ans vs 49 ans; p\u3c0,0001) et avaient plus d\u27affections chroniques inscrites à leur dossier (tous p\u3c0,001). La plupart des sujets arrivaient par ambulance, et 39 % des cas montraient des scores de triage qui révélaient des tableaux cliniques graves. Les traitements contre l\u27hypoglycémie étaient fréquents (75,7 %) durant le transport préhospitalier; 38,5 % recevaient du glucose et 40,1 % recevaient du glucagon par voie intraveineuse. Les traitements administrés dans les SU contre l\u27hypoglycémie comprenaient le glucose par voie orale (76,8 %), le glucose par voie intraveineuse (29,6 %) et en perfusion continue (27,7 %). Les examens diagnostiques (81,9 %) comprenaient fréquemment les électrocardiogrammes (51,9 %), la radiographie thoracique (37,5 %) et la tomodensitométrie crânienne (14,5 %). La plupart des patients (73,5 %) recevaient leur congé. Cependant, plus de sujets souffrant du diabète de type 2 nécessitaient une admission (30,3 vs 8,8 %). Les instructions de congé étaient étayées chez seulement 55,5 % des patients, et l\u27orientation vers des services de diabète se rencontrait chez moins de 20 % des cas. Une variation considérable dans la prise en charge de l\u27hypoglycémie existait entre les SU. Conclusions: Les patients souffrant de diabète qui se présentaient à un SU en raison d\u27une hypoglycémie consomment considérablement de ressources en soins de santé, puis une variation est observée dans la pratique. Les SU devraient élaborer des protocoles de prise en charge de l\u27hypoglycémie en portant une attention à la planification du congé pour réduire la récurrence

Prospective Validation of the Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade for Acute Heart Failure: The ACUTE Study

Background: Improved risk stratification of acute heart failure in the emergency department may inform physicians\u27 decisions regarding patient admission or early discharge disposition. We aimed to validate the previously-derived Emergency Heart failure Mortality Risk Grade for 7-day (EHMRG7) and 30-day (EHMRG30-ST) mortality. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, prospective validation study of patients with acute heart failure at 9 hospitals. We surveyed physicians for their estimates of 7-day mortality risk, obtained for each patient before knowledge of the model predictions, and compared these with EHMRG7 for discrimination and net reclassification improvement. We also prospectively examined discrimination of the EHMRG30-ST model, which incorporates all components of EHMRG7 as well as the presence of ST-depression on the 12-lead ECG. Results: We recruited 1983 patients seeking emergency department care for acute heart failure. Mortality rates at 7 days in the 5 risk groups (very low, low, intermediate, high, and very high risk) were 0%, 0%, 0.6%, 1.9%, and 3.9%, respectively. At 30 days, the corresponding mortality rates were 0%, 1.9%, 3.9%, 5.9%, and 14.3%. Compared with physician-estimated risk of 7-day mortality (PER7; c-statistic, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.78) there was improved discrimination with EHMRG7 (c-statistic, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.87; P=0.022 versus PER7) and with EHMRG7 combined with physicians\u27 estimates (c-statistic, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76-0.88; P=0.003 versus PER7). Model discrimination increased nonsignificantly by 0.014 (95% CI, -0.009-0.037) when physicians\u27 estimates combined with EHMRG7 were compared with EHMRG7 alone (P=0.242). The c-statistic for EHMRG30-ST alone was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81) and 30-day model discrimination increased nonsignificantly by addition of physician-estimated risk to 0.78 (95% CI, 0.73-0.82; P=0.187). Net reclassification improvement with EHMRG7 was 0.763 (95% CI, 0.465-1.062) when assessed continuously and 0.820 (0.560-1.080) using risk categories compared with PER7. Conclusions: A clinical model allowing simultaneous prediction of mortality at both 7 and 30 days identified acute heart failure patients with a low risk of events. Compared with physicians\u27 estimates, our multivariable model was better able to predict 7-day mortality and may guide clinical decisions. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02634762

Early use of inhaled corticosteroids in the emergency department treatment of acute asthma

Background Systemic corticosteroid therapy is central to the management of acute asthma. The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may also be beneficial in this setting. Objectives To determine the benefit of ICS for the treatment of patients with acute asthma managed in the emergency department (ED). Search methods We identified controlled clinical trials from the Cochrane Airways Group specialised register of controlled trials. Bibliographies from included studies, known reviews, and texts also were searched. The latest search was September 2012. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. Studies were included if patients presented to the ED or its equivalent with acute asthma, and were treated with ICS or placebo, in addition to standard therapy. Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant articles, and then independently selected articles for inclusion. Methodological quality was independently assessed by two review authors. There were three different types of studies that were included in this review: 1) studies comparing ICS vs. placebo, with no systemic corticosteroids given to either treatment group, 2) studies comparing ICS vs. placebo, with systemic corticosteroids given to both treatment groups, and 3) studies comparing ICS alone versus systemic corticosteroids. For the analysis, the first two types of studies were included as separate subgroups in the primary analysis (ICS vs. placebo), while the third type of study was included in the secondary analysis (ICS vs. systemic corticosteroid). Data collection and analysis Data were extracted independently by two review authors if the authors were unable to verify the validity of extracted information. Missing data were obtained from the authors or calculated from other data presented in the paper. Where appropriate, individual and pooled dichotomous outcomes were reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where appropriate, individual and pooled continuous outcomes were reported as mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. The primary analysis employed a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model was used for sensitivity analysis. Heterogeneity is reported using I-squared (I2) statistics. Main results Twenty trials were selected for inclusion in the primary analysis (13 paediatric, seven adult), with a total number of 1403 patients. Patients treated with ICS were less likely to be admitted to hospital (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.62; 12 studies; 960 patients) and heterogeneity (I2 = 27%) was modest. This represents a reduction from 32 to 17 hospital admissions per 100 patients treated with ICS in comparison with placebo. Subgroup analysis of hospital admissions based on concomitant systemic corticosteroid use revealed that both subgroups indicated benefit from ICS in reducing hospital admissions (ICS and systemic corticosteroid versus systemic corticosteroid: OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.81; 5 studies; N = 433; ICS versus placebo: OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.52; 7 studies; N = 527). However, there was moderate heterogeneity in the subgroup using ICS in addition to systemic steroids (I2 = 52%). Patients receiving ICS demonstrated small, significant improvements in peak expiratory flow (PEF: MD 7%; 95% CI 3% to 11%) and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1: MD 6%; 95% CI 2% to 10%) at three to four hours post treatment). Only a small number of studies reported these outcomes such that they could be included in the meta-analysis and most of the studies in this comparison did not administer systemic corticosteroids to either treatment group. There was no evidence of significant adverse effects from ICS treatment with regard to tremor or nausea and vomiting. In the secondary analysis of studies comparing ICS alone versus systemic corticosteroid alone, heterogeneity among the studies complicated pooling of data or drawing reliable conclusions. Authors' conclusions ICS therapy reduces hospital admissions in patients with acute asthma who are not treated with oral or intravenous corticosteroids. They may also reduce admissions when they are used in addition to systemic corticosteroids; however, the most recent evidence is conflicting. There is insufficient evidence that ICS therapy results in clinically important changes in pulmonary function or clinical scores when used in acute asthma in addition to systemic corticosteroids. Also, there is insufficient evidence that ICS therapy can be used in place of systemic corticosteroid therapy when treating acute asthma. Further research is needed to clarify the most appropriate drug dosage and delivery device, and to define which patients are most likely to benefit from ICS therapy. Use of similar measures and reporting methods of lung function, and a common, validated, clinical score would be helpful in future versions of this meta-analysis

Inhaled steroids for acute asthma following emergency department discharge

Background Patients with acute asthma treated in the emergency department (ED) are frequently treated with inhaled beta2-agonists and systemic corticosteroids after discharge. The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) following discharge may also be beneficial in improving patient outcomes after acute asthma. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of ICS on outcomes in the treatment of acute asthma following discharge from the ED. To quantify the effectiveness of ICS therapy on acute asthma following ED discharge, when used in addition to, or as a substitute for, systemic corticosteroids. Search methods Controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were identified from the Cochrane Airways Review Group register, which consists of systematic searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE and CINAHL databases supplemented by handsearching of respiratory journals and conference proceedings. In addition, primary authors and pharmaceutical companies were contacted to identify eligible studies. Bibliographies from included studies, known reviews and texts also were searched. The searches have been conducted up to September 2012 Selection criteria We included both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. Studies were included if patients were treated for acute asthma in the ED or its equivalent, and following ED discharge were treated with ICS therapy either in addition to, or as a substitute for, oral corticosteroids. Two review authors independently assessed articles for potential relevance, final inclusion and methodological quality. Data collection and analysis Data were extracted independently by two review authors, or confirmed by the study authors. Several authors and pharmaceutical companies provided unpublished data. The data were analysed using the Cochrane Review Manager software. Where appropriate, individual and pooled dichotomous outcomes were reported as odds ratios (OR) or relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where appropriate, individual and pooled continuous outcomes were reported as mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. The primary analysis employed a fixed effect model and heterogeneity is reported using I-squared (I2) statistics. Main results Twelve trials were eligible for inclusion. Three of these trials, involving a total of 909 patients, compared ICS plus systemic corticosteroids versus oral corticosteroid therapy alone. There was no demonstrated benefit of ICS therapy when used in addition to oral corticosteroid therapy in the trials. Relapses were reduced; however, this was not statistically significant with the addition of ICS therapy (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.02; 3 studies; N = 909). In addition, no statistically significant differences were demonstrated between the two groups for relapses requiring admission, quality of life, symptom scores or adverse effects. Nine trials, involving a total of 1296 patients compared high-dose ICS therapy alone versus oral corticosteroid therapy alone after ED discharge. There were no significant differences demonstrated between ICS therapy alone versus oral corticosteroid therapy alone for relapse rates (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52; 4 studies; N = 684), admissions to hospital, or in the secondary outcomes of beta2-agonist use, symptoms or adverse events. However, the sample size was not adequate to exclude the possibility of either treatment being significantly inferior and people with severe asthma were excluded from these trials. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence that ICS therapy provides additional benefit when used in combination with standard systemic corticosteroid therapy upon ED discharge for acute asthma. There is some evidence that high-dose ICS therapy alone may be as effective as oral corticosteroid therapy when used in mild asthmatics upon ED discharge; however, the confidence intervals were too wide to be confident of equal effectiveness. Further research is needed to clarify whether ICS therapy should be employed in acute asthma treatment following ED discharge. The review does not suggest any reason to stop usual treatment with ICS following ED discharge, even if a course of oral corticosteroids are prescribed