Effect of Initial Bedside Ultrasonography on Emergency Department Skin and Soft Tissue Infection Management.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We examine the utility of emergency department (ED) ultrasonography in treatment of skin and soft tissue infections. METHODS: We enrolled ED patients with skin and soft tissue infections and surveyed clinicians in regard to their pre-ultrasonography certainty about the presence or absence of an abscess, their planned management, post-ultrasonography findings, and actual management. We determined sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography and clinical evaluation, and assessed appropriateness of management changes based on initial clinical assessment and outcomes through 1-week follow-up. RESULTS: Among 1,216 patients, clinicians were uncertain of abscess presence in 105 cases (8.6%) and certain for 1,111 cases (91.4%). Based on surgical exploration and follow-up through 1 week, sensitivity and specificity for abscess detection by clinical evaluation were 90.3% and 97.7%, and by ultrasonography were 94.0% and 94.1%, respectively. Among 1,111 cases for which the clinician was certain, sensitivity and specificity of clinical evaluation were 96.6% and 97.3% compared with ultrasonographic evaluation sensitivity and specificity of 95.7% and 96.2%, respectively. Of 105 uncertain cases, sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography were 68.5% and 80.4%. Ultrasonography changed management in 13 of 1,111 certain cases (1.2%), appropriately in 10 of 13 (76.9%) and inappropriately in 3 of 13 (23.1%). Of 105 uncertain cases, ultrasonography changed management in 25 (23.8%), appropriately in 21 of 25 (84.0%) and inappropriately in 4 of 25 (16.0%). CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography rarely changed management when clinicians were certain about the presence or absence of an abscess. When they were uncertain, ultrasonography changed drainage decisions in approximately one quarter of cases, of which most (84%) were appropriate.

Inability of polymerase chain reaction, pyrosequencing, and culture of infected and uninfected site skin biopsy specimens to identify the cause of cellulitis.

BACKGROUND: The cause of cellulitis is unclear. Streptococcus pyogenes, and to a lesser extent, Staphylococcus aureus, are presumed pathogens. METHODS: We conducted a study of adults with acute cellulitis without drainage presenting to a US emergency department research network. Skin biopsy specimens were taken from the infected site and a comparable uninfected site on the opposite side of the body. Microbiology was evaluated using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR), pyrosequencing, and standard culture techniques. To determine the cause, the prevalence and quantity of bacterial species at the infected and uninfected sites were compared. RESULTS: Among 50 subjects with biopsy specimens from infected and uninfected sites, culture rarely identified a bacterium. Among 49 subjects with paired specimens from infected and uninfected sites tested with PCR, methicillin-susceptible S. aureus was identified in 20 (41%) and 17 (34%), respectively. Pyrosequencing identified abundant atypical bacteria in addition to streptococci and staphylococci. Among 49 subjects with paired specimens tested by pyrosequencing, S. aureus was identified from 11 (22%) and 15 (31%) and streptococci from 15 (31%) and 20 (41%) of the specimens, respectively. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus was not found by culture or PCR, and S. pyogenes was not identified by any technique. CONCLUSIONS: The bacterial cause of cellulitis cannot be determined by comparing the prevalence and quantity of pathogens from infected and uninfected skin biopsy specimens using current molecular techniques. Methicillin-susceptible S. aureus was detected but not methicillin-resistant S. aureus or S. pyogenes from cellulitis tissue specimens. For now, optimal treatment will need to be guided by clinical trials. Noninfectious causes should also be explored.

Giant hydronephrosis presenting as an acute abdomen.

BACKGROUND: Giant hydronephrosis is a relatively rare condition caused by obstruction of the renal collecting system that can present with a great number of different types of abdominal signs and symptoms. CASE REPORT: A 40-year-old man without past medical history presented to the Emergency Department with diffuse abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. On examination, he was found to have an acute abdomen. Computed tomography scan revealed left giant hydronephrosis secondary to an obstructing renal calculus. The patient had a left percutaneous nephrostomy tube placed, which drained over 7 L of fluid from the dilatated collecting system. CONCLUSION: Giant hydronephrosis is a rare potential cause of abdominal pain, particularly in the context of a patient with known nephrolithiasis, structural urologic abnormalities, or malignancy.

Compression ultrasonography of the lower extremity with portable vascular ultrasonography can accurately detect deep venous thrombosis in the emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Compression ultrasonography of the lower extremity is an established method of detecting proximal lower extremity deep venous thrombosis when performed by a certified operator in a vascular laboratory. Our objective is to determine the sensitivity and specificity of bedside 2-point compression ultrasonography performed in the emergency department (ED) with portable vascular ultrasonography for the detection of proximal lower extremity deep venous thrombosis. We did this by directly comparing emergency physician-performed ultrasonography to lower extremity duplex ultrasonography performed by the Department of Radiology. METHODS: This was a prospective, cross-sectional study and diagnostic test assessment of a convenience sample of ED patients with a suspected lower extremity deep venous thrombosis, conducted at a single-center, urban, academic ED. All physicians had a 10-minute training session before enrolling patients. ED compression ultrasonography occurred before Department of Radiology ultrasonography and involved identification of 2 specific points: the common femoral and popliteal vessels, with subsequent compression of the common femoral and popliteal veins. The study result was considered positive for proximal lower extremity deep venous thrombosis if either vein was incompressible or a thrombus was visualized. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated with the final radiologist interpretation of the Department of Radiology ultrasonography as the criterion standard. RESULTS: A total of 47 physicians performed 199 2-point compression ultrasonographic examinations in the ED. Median number of examinations per physician was 2 (range 1 to 29 examinations; interquartile range 1 to 5 examinations). There were 45 proximal lower extremity deep venous thromboses observed on Department of Radiology evaluation, all correctly identified by ED 2-point compression ultrasonography. The 153 patients without proximal lower extremity deep venous thrombosis all had a negative ED compression ultrasonographic result. One patient with a negative Department of Radiology ultrasonographic result was found to have decreased compression of the popliteal vein on ED compression ultrasonography, giving a single false-positive result, yet repeated ultrasonography by the Department of Radiology 1 week later showed a popliteal deep venous thrombosis. The sensitivity and specificity of ED 2-point compression ultrasonography for deep venous thrombosis were 100% (95% confidence interval 92% to 100%) and 99% (95% confidence interval 96% to 100%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Emergency physician-performed 2-point compression ultrasonography of the lower extremity with a portable vascular ultrasonographic machine, conducted in the ED by this physician group and in this patient sample, accurately identified the presence and absence of proximal lower extremity deep venous thrombosis.