Cancer Molecular Analysis Project: Weaving a rich cancer research tapestry

AbstractThe Cancer Molecular Analysis Project (CMAP) of the NCI is integrating diverse cancer research data to elucidate fundamental etiologic processes, enable development of novel therapeutic approaches, and facilitate the bridging of basic and clinical science

Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of a Rapid High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin I Protocol Between Hospital-Based and Free-Standing Emergency Departments

Study Objectives: Current high sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) research has been conducted almost exclusively in hospital-based emergency department (HBED) settings and the translation of these protocols into free-standing emergency departments (FSED) has yet to be explored. This study compared the safety and efficacy of applying a rapid-rule out protocol using hs-cTnI for exclusion of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in HBEDs and FSEDs. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial of patients evaluated for possible AMI in 9 emergency departments (ED) from July 2020 through March 2021. The trial arms included a new 0/1-hour rapid protocol using hs-cTnI versus standard care, which used a 0/3-hour protocol without reporting hs-cTnI values below the 99th percentile. The primary outcome was safe ED discharge, defined as discharge with no death or AMI within 30-days. Analysis included a mixed-effect model adjusting for demographic variables. Results: There was a statistically significant difference in safe discharges from FSEDs when comparing the standard care arm (86.2%) to the rapid rule-out protocol (95.1%). There was a statistically significant reduction in FSED length of stay with application of a rapid rule-out protocol at 3.43 hours vs. 3.97 hours using standard care. The percentage of patients who ruled-out with their initial hs-cTnI (\u3c4 ng/L) at FSEDs (74%) was also significantly larger when compared to HBEDs (54%). Conclusion: Implementation of a hs-cTnI rapid 0/1-hour protocol to evaluate for AMI in FSEDs is feasible and had greater impact on safe ED discharge and length of stay compared to HBEDs

The Association Between Money and Opinion in Academic Emergency Medicine

Objectives: Financial conflicts of interest have come under increasing scrutiny in medicine, but their impact has not been quantified. Our objective was to use the results of a national survey of academic emergency medicine (EM) faculty to determine if an association between money and personal opinion exists.Methods: We conducted a web-based survey of EM faculty. Opinion questions were analyzed with regard to whether the respondent had either 1) received research grant money or 2) received money from industry as a speaker, consultant, or advisor. Responses were unweighted, and tests of differences in proportions were made using Chi-squared tests, with p<0.05 set for significance.Results: We received responses from 430 members; 98 (23%) received research grants from industry, while 145 (34%) reported fee-for-service money. Respondents with research money were more likely to be comfortable accepting gifts (40% vs. 29%) and acting as paid consultants (50% vs. 37%). They had a more favorable attitude with regard to societal interactions with industry and felt that industry-sponsored lectures could be fair and unbiased (52% vs. 29%). Faculty with fee-for-service money mirrored those with research money. They were also more likely to believe that industry-sponsored research produces fair and unbiased results (61% vs. 45%) and less likely to believe that honoraria biased speakers (49% vs. 69%).Conclusion: Accepting money for either service or research identified a distinct population defined by their opinions. Faculty engaged in industry-sponsored research benefitted socially (collaborations), academically (publications), and financially from the relationship. [West J Emerg Med. 2010; 11(2):126-132.

Intravenous Cetirizine Versus Intravenous Diphenhydramine for the Treatment of Acute Urticaria: A Phase III Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Acute urticaria is a frequent presentation in emergency departments (EDs), urgent care centers, and other clinical arenas. Treatment options are limited if diphenhydramine is the only intravenous antihistamine offered because of its short duration of action and well-known adverse effects. We evaluate cetirizine injection, the first second-generation injectable antihistamine, for acute urticaria in this multicenter, randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 clinical trial. METHODS: Adult patients presenting to EDs and urgent care centers with acute urticaria requiring an intravenous antihistamine were randomized to either intravenous cetirizine 10 mg or intravenous diphenhydramine 50 mg. The primary endpoint was the 2-hour pruritus score change from baseline, with time spent in treatment center and rate of return to treatment centers as key secondary endpoints. Frequency of sedation and anticholinergic adverse effects were also recorded. RESULTS: Among 262 enrolled patients, the 2-hour pruritus score change from baseline for intravenous cetirizine was statistically noninferior to that for intravenous diphenhydramine (-1.6 versus -1.5; 95% confidence interval -0.1 to 0.3), and in favor of cetirizine. Treatment differences also favored cetirizine for mean time spent in treatment center (1.7 versus 2.1 hours; P=.005), return to treatment center (5.5% versus 14.1%; P=.02), lower change from baseline sedation score at 2 hours (0.1 versus 0.5; P=.03), and adverse event rate (3.9% versus 13.3%). CONCLUSION: Intravenous cetirizine is an effective alternative to intravenous diphenhydramine for treating acute urticaria, with benefits of less sedation, fewer adverse events, shorter time spent in treatment center, and lower rates of revisit to treatment center

Prehospital Tibial Intraosseous Drug Administration is Associated with Reduced Survival Following Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A study for the CARES Surveillance Group

BACKGROUND: Recent reports have questioned the efficacy of intraosseous (IO) drug administration for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation. Our aim was to determine whether prehospital administration of resuscitative medications via the IO route was associated with lower rates of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to hospital discharge than peripheral intravenous (IV) infusion in the setting of OHCA. METHODS: We obtained data on all OHCA patients receiving prehospital IV or IO drug administration from the three most populous counties in Michigan over three years. Data was from the Michigan Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) database. The association between route of drug administration and outcomes was tested using a matched propensity score analysis. RESULTS: From a total of 10,626 OHCA patients, 6869 received parenteral drugs during their prehospital resuscitation (37.8% by IO) and were included in analysis. Unadjusted outcomes were lower in patients with IO vs. IV access: 18.3% vs. 23.8% for ROSC (p \u3c 0.001), 3.2% vs. 7.6% for survival to hospital discharge (p \u3c 0.001), and 2.0% vs. 5.8% for favorable neurological function (p \u3c 0.001). After adjustment, IO route remained associated with lower odds of sustained ROSC (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.81, p \u3c 0.001), hospital survival (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37-0.62, p \u3c 0.001), and favorable neurological outcomes (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.30-0.57, p \u3c 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of OHCA patients, the use of prehospital IO drug administration was associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes

Situs Inversus: Inferior-Lateral ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction on Right-Sided Electrocardiogram

Dextrocardia is a rare anatomical anomaly in which the heart is located in the patient\u27s right hemithorax with its apex directed to the right. Although it usually does not pose any serious health risks, patients with undiagnosed dextrocardia present a diagnostic challenge especially in those presenting with chest pain. Traditional left-sided electrocardiograms (ECG) inadequately capture the electrical activity of a heart positioned in the right hemithorax, which if unnoticed could delay or even miss an acute coronary syndrome diagnosis. Here, we present a case of a patient with dextrocardia presenting with chest pain and diagnosed with ST-elevation myocardial infarction using a right-sided ECG

Situs Inversus: Inferior-Lateral ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction on Right-Sided Electrocardiogram.

Dextrocardia is a rare anatomical anomaly in which the heart is located in the patient\u27s right hemithorax with its apex directed to the right. Although it usually does not pose any serious health risks, patients with undiagnosed dextrocardia present a diagnostic challenge especially in those presenting with chest pain. Traditional left-sided electrocardiograms (ECG) inadequately capture the electrical activity of a heart positioned in the right hemithorax, which if unnoticed could delay or even miss an acute coronary syndrome diagnosis. Here, we present a case of a patient with dextrocardia presenting with chest pain and diagnosed with ST-elevation myocardial infarction using a right-sided ECG

Situs Inversus: Inferior-Lateral ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction on Right-Sided Electrocardiogram

Dextrocardia is a rare anatomical anomaly in which the heart is located in the patient’s right hemithorax with its apex directed to the right. Although it usually does not pose any serious health risks, patients with undiagnosed dextrocardia present a diagnostic challenge especially in those presenting with chest pain. Traditional left-sided electrocardiograms (ECG) inadequately capture the electrical activity of a heart positioned in the right hemithorax, which if unnoticed could delay or even miss an acute coronary syndrome diagnosis. Here, we present a case of a patient with dextrocardia presenting with chest pain and diagnosed with ST-elevation myocardial infarction using a right-sided ECG

Review of patient care at the TCF Center Alternative Care Facility during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background and Objectives: The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in The U.S. was on January 19, 2020 and by the end of March, COVID-19 was in all 50 states. In Michigan, the first confirmed case was on March 10 and later that day a state of emergency was declared. Given the exponential growth of the pandemic, and with concern that hospital resources would be overwhelmed, local hospitals determined that the TCF Center (local convention center) in Detroit, MI would function as a site for an Alternative Care Facility. Methods: Admission criteria included patients accepted as transfers from local hospitals, must be inpatient \u3e48 hours, hemodynamically stable, \u3e14 days from symptom onset (later reduced to 10 days) and requiring no more than 4L NC. The TCF Center was equipped to administer oxygen, IV fluids, perform ACLS, and send iSTAT and POC glucose labs, but there were no imaging capabilities, telemetry, consultants or critical care providers. Results: 39 patients were admitted (one patient twice and another four times for total of 43 admissions). 23 were male and 16 were female, range of ages were 33-95 with an average of 66. The highest census was 21 patients. 14 patients required oxygen, and 25 did not. Length of stay (LOS) ranged from 1-19 days with an average LOS of 7.2 days. Of the 43 admissions, 13 were discharged to a private home, 1 to a homeless shelter, 14 to a nursing home, and 15 were sent back to the hospital. Of these 15 patients transferred back to a hospital reasons included fever (3) and chest pain (2) as the most common reasons. Other reasons include inability to take oral meds, dehydration, lethargy, atrial fibrillation, worsening dyspnea, falls, hyperkalemia, anemia and altered mental status. Conclusion: The TCF Center had a capacity of 970 patients, but only admitted 39, much fewer than anticipated. At the time of design and construction of the facility, the COVID-19 pandemic was in an exponential growth phase and the facility was designed for a surge that never materialized. This may be due to difficulty of scientific models in predicting a novel pandemic course, the ability of hospitals to better care for a larger number of COVID-19 patients than anticipated due to an unprecedented decrease in routine hospital volume, and the beneficial effects of social distancing. Apart from the Javits Center in New York City, which saw 1,095 patients, other field hospitals throughout the country built in response to the COVID-19 pandemic saw equally few patients