Correction: Correction to 'Clinical Policy: Critical Issues in the Evaluation and Management of Adult Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Seizures' [Annals of Emergency Medicine 63 (2014) 437-447.e15].

Due to a miscommunication during the process of transferring this manuscript from our editorial team to Production, the Members of the American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Policies Committee (Oversight Committee) were not properly indexed in PubMed. This has now been corrected online. The publisher would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.

Correction: Correction to 'Clinical Policy: Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in the Emergency Department' [Annals of Emergency Medicine 63 (2014) 247-258.e18].

Due to a miscommunication during the process of transferring this manuscript from our editorial team to Production, the Members of the American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Policies Committee (Oversight Committee) were not properly indexed in PubMed. This has now been corrected online. This has now been corrected online. The publisher would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.

Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with seizures.

This clinical policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians is the revision of a 2004 policy on critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients with seizures in the emergency department. A writing subcommittee reviewed the literature to derive evidence-based recommendations to help clinicians answer the following critical questions: (1) In patients with a first generalized convulsive seizure who have returned to their baseline clinical status, should antiepileptic therapy be initiated in the emergency department to prevent additional seizures? (2) In patients with a first unprovoked seizure who have returned to their baseline clinical status in the emergency department, should the patient be admitted to the hospital to prevent adverse events? (3) In patients with a known seizure disorder in which resuming their antiepileptic medication in the emergency department is deemed appropriate, does the route of administration impact recurrence of seizures? (4) In emergency department patients with generalized convulsive status epilepticus who continue to have seizures despite receiving optimal dosing of a benzodiazepine, which agent or agents should be administered next to terminate seizures? A literature search was performed, the evidence was graded, and recommendations were given based on the strength of the available data in the medical literature.

Clinical policy: procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department.

This clinical policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians is the revision of a 2005 clinical policy evaluating critical questions related to procedural sedation in the emergency department.1 A writing subcommittee reviewed the literature to derive evidence-based recommendations to help clinicians answer the following critical questions: (1) In patients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department,does preprocedural fasting demonstrate a reduction in the risk of emesis or aspiration? (2) In patients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department, does the routine use of capnography reduce the incidence of adverse respiratory events? (3) In patients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department, what is the minimum number of personnel necessary to manage complications? (4) Inpatients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department, can ketamine, propofol, etomidate, dexmedetomidine, alfentanil and remifentanil be safely administered? A literature search was performed, the evidence was graded, and recommendations were given based on the strength of the available data in the medical literature.

Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients in the emergency department with asymptomatic elevated blood pressure.

This clinical policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians is the revision of a 2006 policy on the evaluation and management of adult patients with asymptomatic elevated blood pressure in the emergency department.1 A writing subcommittee reviewed the literature to derive evidence-based recommendations to help clinicians answer the following critical questions: (1) In emergency department patients with asymptomatic elevated blood pressure, does screening for target organ injury reduce rates of adverse outcomes? (2) In patients with asymptomatic markedly elevated blood pressure, does emergency department medical intervention reduce rates of adverse outcomes? A literature search was performed, the evidence was graded, and recommendations were given based on the strength of the available data in the medical literature.

Cardiac injury due to accidental discharge of nail gun.

BACKGROUND: Since 1991, the incidence of injuries associated with pneumatic and explosive powered nail guns has steadily been rising due to increasing use of these devices by the untrained consumer. The vast majority of injuries involve the extremities, but injuries have been reported to occur in virtually every area of the body. OBJECTIVE: Discuss the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management of penetrating cardiac nail gun injuries. CASE REPORT: A 33-year-old man sustained a penetrating cardiac injury from accidental discharge of a nail gun. The patient had successful repair of a laceration to his right ventricle. CONCLUSIONS: Penetrating cardiac injuries from pneumatic nail guns are rare and have mortality similar to stab wounds. Improved safety mechanisms and training are the keys to prevention. Consideration also should be given to implementing legislation restricting the sale of nail guns.

Clinical policy: Critical issues in the initial evaluation and management of patients presenting to the emergency department in early pregnancy.

This clinical policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians is the revision of the 2003 Clinical Policy: Critical Issues in the Initial Evaluation and Management of Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department in Early Pregnancy.(1) A writing subcommittee reviewed the literature to derive evidence-based recommendations to help clinicians answer the following critical questions: (1) Should the emergency physician obtain a pelvic ultrasound in a clinically stable pregnant patient who presents to the emergency department (ED) with abdominal pain and/or vaginal bleeding and a beta human chorionic gonadotropin (ß-hCG) level below a discriminatory threshold? (2) In patients who have an indeterminate transvaginal ultrasound, what is the diagnostic utility of ß-hCG for predicting possible ectopic pregnancy? (3) In patients receiving methotrexate for confirmed or suspected ectopic pregnancy, what are the implications for ED management? Evidence was graded and recommendations were developed based on the strength of the available data in the medical literature. A literature search was also performed for a critical question from the 2003 clinical policy.(1) Is the administration of anti-D immunoglobulin indicated among Rh-negative women during the first trimester of pregnancy with threatened abortion, complete abortion, ectopic pregnancy, or minor abdominal trauma? Because no new, high-quality articles were found, the management recommendations from the previous policy are discussed in the introduction.

A new electrocardiographic criteria for emergent reperfusion therapy.

The benefit of emergency reperfusion therapy with fibrinolytics or primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation (STE) acute myocardial infarction (MI) is well known. However, what is not well known are which subgroups of MI patients with ST-segment depression (STD) on the 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) may benefit from emergent reperfusion therapy. Current clinical guidelines recommend against administering emergent reperfusion therapy to MI patients with STD on the ECG unless a true posterior MI is suspected. Overlooked subgroups of patients with STD on the initial ECG who may potentially benefit from emergent reperfusion therapy are patients with multilead STD with coexistent STE in lead aVR. This finding has been reported in MI patients with occlusion of the left main artery, occlusion of the proximal left anterior descending artery, and MI in the presence of severe multivessel coronary artery disease. Because these patients have a higher mortality in the setting of MI, we believe that this ECG finding be considered a STEMI equivalent and that patients with this finding receive consideration for emergent reperfusion therapy preferably at a center with both primary percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting capability. In this report, we present 3 such patients to heighten the awareness of the emergency physician to this phenomenon.

Improving risk stratification in patients with chest pain: the Erlanger HEARTS3 score.

BACKGROUND: The HEART score uses elements from patient History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin to obtain a risk score on a 0- to 10-point scale for predicting acute coronary syndromes (ACS). This investigation seeks to improve on the HEART score by proposing the HEARTS(3) score, which uses likelihood ratio analysis to give appropriate weight to the individual elements of the HEART score as well as incorporating 3 additional "S" variables: Sex, Serial 2-hour electrocardiogram, and Serial 2-hour delta troponin during the initial emergency department valuation. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively acquired database consisting of 2148 consecutive patients with non-ST-segment elevation chest pain. Interval analysis of likelihood ratios was performed to determine appropriate weighting of the individual elements of the HEART(3) score. Primary outcomes were 30-day ACS and myocardial infarction. RESULTS: There were 315 patients with 30-day ACS and 1833 patients without ACS. Likelihood ratio analysis revealed significant discrepancies in weight of the 5 individual elements shared by the HEART and HEARTS(3) score. The HEARTS(3) score outperformed the HEART score as determined by comparison of areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for myocardial infarction (0.958 vs 0.825; 95% confidence interval difference in areas, 0.105-0.161) and for 30-day ACS (0.901 vs 0.813; 95% confidence interval difference in areas, 0.064-0.110). CONCLUSION: The HEARTS(3) score reliably risk stratifies patients with chest pain for 30-day ACS. Prospective studies need to be performed to determine if implementation of this score as a decision support tool can guide treatment and disposition decisions in the management of patients with chest pain.

Critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected pulmonary embolism.

This clinical policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians is the revision of a 2003 clinical policy on the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE).(1) A writing subcommittee reviewed the literature to derive evidence-based recommendations to help clinicians answer the following critical questions: (1) Do objective criteria provide improved risk stratification over gestalt clinical assessment in the evaluation of patients with possible PE? (2) What is the utility of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) in the evaluation of patients with suspected PE? (3)What is the role of quantitative D-dimer testing in the exclusion of PE? (4) What is the role of computed tomography pulmonary angiogram of the chest as the sole diagnostic test in the exclusion of PE? (5) What is the role of venous imaging in the evaluation of patients with suspected PE? (6) What are the indications for thrombolytic therapy in patients with PE? Evidence was graded and recommendations were given based on the strength of the available data in the medical literature.

Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with acute blunt abdominal trauma.

This clinical policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians is an update of the 2004 clinical policy on the critical issues in the evaluation of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with acute blunt abdominal trauma. A writing subcommittee reviewed the literature as part of the process to develop evidence-based recommendations to address 4 key critical questions: (1) In a hemodynamically unstable patient with blunt abdominal trauma, is ultrasound the diagnostic modality of choice? (2) Does oral contrast improve the diagnostic performance of computed tomography (CT) in blunt abdominal trauma? (3) In a clinically stable patient with isolated blunt abdominal trauma, is it safe to discharge the patient after a negative abdominal CT scan result? (4) In patients with isolated blunt abdominal trauma, are there clinical predictors that allow the clinician to identify patients at low risk for adverse events who do not need an abdominal CT? Evidence was graded and recommendations were based on the available data in the medical literature related to the specific clinical question.

Utilization of ST-segment deviation sum and change scores to identify acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: No information is currently available regarding the optimal cutoff values of the baseline ST-segment deviation sum (STDsum(baseline)) and 60-minute ST-segment deviation change (STDchange(60 min)) for predicting acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: A retrospective study was performed in 783 admitted patients with chest pain who had suspected acute coronary syndrome and absence of left ventricular hypertrophy or bundle branch block on the initial electrocardiogram (ECG). The STDsum(baseline) was defined as the sum in millimeters (1 mm = 0.1 mV) of the absolute value of ST-segment deviations in all 12 leads at the initiation of continuous 12-lead ECG monitoring session. The STDchange(60 min) was defined as the absolute value of the difference between the baseline and 60-minute STDsum. Three cutoff values are reported and represent the smallest values in which the positive likelihood ratio (+LR) for AMI was greater than or equal to 5, 10, and 20, respectively. RESULTS: Acute myocardial infarction occurred in 162 (20.7%) patients. The smallest cutoff value of the STDsum(baseline) for AMI with a +LR equal to or greater than 5, 10, and 20 was 9.6, 12.4, and 14.1 mm, respectively. In the subset of 699 patients without ST-segment elevation AMI on initial ECG, the smallest cutoff value of the STDchange(60 min) for AMI with a +LR equal to or greater than 5, 10, and 20 was 2.4, 3.5, and 7.9 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical studies need to be performed to determine if STDsum and STDchange, in conjunction with physician pretest probability of AMI, can be used to select patients who may benefit from emergent reperfusion therapy and other aggressive medical management strategies.