Risk factors for blunt cerebrovascular injury in the pediatric patient: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: While blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI) is a rare complication of blunt trauma, it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In the pediatric population, unique anatomy and development require screening criteria that accurately diagnose these injuries while limiting unwarranted radiation. METHODS: We searched Medline OVID, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for studies that investigated the risk factors of BCVI in individuals younger than 18 years of age. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and assessed the quality of each study using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We compared key characteristics of the papers, including incidence of BCVI, incidence of risk factors, and statistical significance of risk factors. RESULTS: Of 1304 studies, 16 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 15 were retrospective cohort studies and one was a retrospective case control study. Most of the studies included all pediatric blunt trauma admissions, but four only included those which underwent imaging, one only included those with cervical seatbelt sign, and one excluded those who did not survive 24-h post-admission. The ages included as pediatric varied between papers. Papers examined different risk factors and reported differing statistical significances. Though no single risk factor was found to be statistically significant in every study, cervical spine and skull fractures were found to be significant by most. Maxillofacial fractures, depressed GCS score, and stroke were found to be statistically significant by multiple studies. Twelve studies examined cervical soft tissue injury, and none found it to be statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The risk factors most found to be statistically significant for BCVI were cervical spine fracture (10/16 studies), skull fracture (9/16), maxillofacial fractures (7/16), depressed GCS score (5/16), and stroke (5/16). There is a need for prospective studies on this topic. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Systematic Review.

Diagnosis of cancer in the Emergency Department: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The Emergency Department (ED) plays a key role in the identification and care of acute medical conditions, including cancer. In this scoping review, we aimed to determine the role of the ED in the acute diagnosis of cancer. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of articles according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) using PubMed and Google Scholar. We screened studies of adults with a new diagnosis of cancer in the ED. We included randomized control trials, prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional observational studies, and case reports published in English since 2000. We grouped the articles into categories based on their objectives and findings. RESULTS: Of the 4459 articles, we included 47 in the review. The identified studies fell into three major categories: (1) studies describing the incidental diagnosis of cancer in the ED (n = 11, 23%), (2) studies characterizing the acute initial presentation of cancer in the ED (n = 19, 41%), and (3) studies describing the ED as a pathway to cancer diagnosis in the healthcare system (n = 17, 36%). Across the studies, cancer diagnoses in the ED were more likely in patients with higher comorbidities, occurred at later stages, and resulted in worse survival rates. CONCLUSIONS: The ED plays a prominent role in the initial diagnosis of cancer. Efforts must be made to integrate the ED within the cancer care continuum.

Prehospital airway management in the pediatric patient: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill children may require airway management to optimize delivery of oxygen and ventilation during resuscitation. We performed a systematic review of studies comparing the use of bag-valve-mask ventilation (BVM), supraglottic airway devices (SGA), and endotracheal intubation (ETI) in pediatric patients requiring prehospital airway management. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for papers that compared SGA or ETI to BVM use in children, including studies that reported survival outcomes. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We compared key characteristics of the candidate papers, including inclusion criteria, definitions of airway interventions, and association with outcomes. RESULTS: Of 773 studies, eight met criteria for inclusion. Only one study was a randomized controlled trial; the other seven studies were observational. Four studies compared ETI to BVM, two studies compared SGA to BVM, one study compared ETI to SGA, and two studies compared advanced airway management (AAM) to BVM. Primary outcomes varied, ranging from overall mortality and 24-h mortality to 1-month survival, hospital survival, and neurologically favorable survival. Four of the studies found no difference in survival with the use of ETI, and four found increased mortality with the use of ETI. Associations with outcomes could not be assessed by meta-analysis due to limited number of studies and the wide variation in the design, population, interventions, and outcome measures of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, studies of prehospital pediatric airway management varied in scope, design, and conclusions. There was insufficient evidence to evaluate efficacy of pediatric prehospital airway management; however, the current research suggests that there are equal or worse outcomes with the use of ETI compared to other airway techniques. Additional clinical trials are needed to assess the merits of this practice.