Is Phenobarbital an Effective Treatment for Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome?

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder is associated with a variety of complications, including alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), which may occur in those who decrease or stop alcohol consumption suddenly. AWS is associated with a range of signs and symptoms, which are most commonly treated with GABAergic medications. CLINICAL QUESTION: Is phenobarbital an effective treatment for AWS? EVIDENCE REVIEW: Studies retrieved included two prospective, randomized, double-blind studies and three systematic reviews. These studies provided estimates of the effectiveness and safety of phenobarbital for treatment of AWS. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available literature, phenobarbital is reasonable to consider for treatment of AWS. Clinicians must consider the individual patient, clinical situation, and comorbidities when selecting a medication for treatment of AWS.

Can I Discharge This Adult Patient with Abnormal Vital Signs From the Emergency Department?

BACKGROUND: Vital signs are an essential component of the emergency department (ED) assessment. Vital sign abnormalities are associated with adverse events in the ED setting and may indicate a risk of poor outcomes after ED discharge. CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the risk of adverse events among adult patients with abnormal vital signs at the time of ED discharge? EVIDENCE REVIEW: Studies retrieved included 6 retrospective studies with adult patients discharged from the ED. These studies evaluated adverse outcomes in adult patients discharged from the ED with abnormal vital signs. Hypotension at discharge was associated with the highest odds of adverse events after discharge. Tachycardia was also a key predictor of adverse events after discharge and may be easily missed by ED clinicians. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence, the specific vital sign abnormality and the number of total abnormalities influence the risk of adverse outcomes after discharge. Vital sign abnormalities at the time of discharge also increase the risk of ED revisit. The most common abnormal vital sign at the time of discharge is tachycardia.

Correlation between prehospital and in-hospital hypotension and outcomes after traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Hypotension has a powerful effect on patient outcome after traumatic brain injury (TBI). The relative impact of hypotension occurring in the field versus during early hospital resuscitation is unknown. We evaluated the association between hypotension and mortality and non-mortality outcomes in four cohorts defined by where the hypotension occurred [neither prehospital nor hospital, prehospital only, hospital only, both prehospital and hospital]. METHODS: Subjects ≥10 years with major TBI were included. Standard statistics were used for unadjusted analyses. We used logistic regression, controlling for significant confounders, to determine the adjusted odds (aOR) for outcomes in each of the three cohorts. RESULTS: Included were 12,582 subjects (69.8% male; median age 44 (IQR 26-61). Mortality by hypotension status: No hypotension: 9.2% (95%CI: 8.7-9.8%); EMS hypotension only: 27.8% (24.6-31.2%); hospital hypotension only: 45.6% (39.1-52.1%); combined EMS/hospital hypotension 57.6% (50.0-65.0%); (p < 0.0001). The aOR for death reflected the same progression: 1.0 (reference-no hypotension), 1.8 (1.39-2.33), 2.61 (1.73-3.94), and 4.36 (2.78-6.84), respectively. The proportion of subjects having hospital hypotension was 19.0% (16.5-21.7%) in those with EMS hypotension compared to 2.0% (1.8-2.3%) for those without (p < 0.0001). Additionally, the proportion of patients with TC hypotension was increased even with EMS "near hypotension" up to an SBP of 120 mmHg [(aOR 3.78 (2.97, 4.82)]. CONCLUSION: While patients with hypotension in the field or on arrival at the trauma center had markedly increased risk of death compared to those with no hypotension, those with prehospital hypotension that was not resolved before hospital arrival had, by far, the highest odds of death. Furthermore, TBI patients who had prehospital hypotension were five times more likely to arrive hypotensive at the trauma center than those who did not. Finally, even "near-hypotension" in the field was strongly and independently associated the risk of a hypotensive hospital arrival (<90 mmHg). These findings are supportive of the prehospital guidelines that recommend aggressive prevention and treatment of hypotension in major TBI.

What are the Data for Current Prognostic Tools Used to Determine the Risk of Short-Term Adverse Events in Patients with Acute Heart Failure?

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure (AHF) is a common condition evaluated in the emergency department (ED). Patients may present with a wide range of signs and symptoms, comorbidities, exacerbating factors, and ability to follow-up. Having a decision tool to objectively assess the risk of near-term events would help guide disposition decisions in these patients. CLINICAL QUESTION: What are the data for current tools used to determine the short-term risk of adverse events of patients with AHF in the ED setting? EVIDENCE REVIEW: Studies retrieved included six prospective studies and three retrospective cohort studies that evaluated the following five different risk scores that may predict the risk of serious adverse events in those with AHF: Ottawa Heart Failure Risk Score (OHFRS), Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade (EHMRG), EHMRG at 30 days with addition of an ST depression variable (EHMRG30-ST), Multiple Estimation of Risk Based on the Emergency Department Spanish 40 Score in Patients with AHF Score (MEESSI-AHF), and the Improving Heart Failure Risk Stratification in the ED (STRATIFY) tool. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available literature, risk scores, including the OHFRS; EHMRG; EHMRG30-ST; MEESSI-AHF; and STRATIFY, can help identify short-term risk of adverse events, but are insufficient in isolation. Clinicians should use these tools in conjunction with other factors, such as the patient's symptom trajectory, hemodynamics, and access to follow-up care.

Optimal Out-of-Hospital Blood Pressure in Major Traumatic Brain Injury: A Challenge to the Current Understanding of Hypotension.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the out-of-hospital blood pressure ranges associated with optimal outcomes in traumatic brain injuries (TBI). Our objective was to evaluate the associations between out-of-hospital systolic blood pressure (SBP) and multiple hospital outcomes without assuming any predefined thresholds for hypotension, normotension, or hypertension. METHODS: This was a preplanned secondary analysis from the Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care (EPIC) TBI study. Among patients (age ≥10 years) with major TBIs (Barell Matrix type 1 and/or Abbreviated Injury Scale-head severity ≥3) and lowest out-of-hospital SBPs of 40 to 299 mmHg, we utilized generalized additive models to summarize the distributions of various outcomes as smoothed functions of SBP, adjusting for important and significant confounders. The subjects who were enrolled in the study phase after the out-of-hospital TBI guideline implementation were used to validate the models developed from the preimplementation cohort. RESULTS: Among 12,169 included cases, the mortality model revealed 3 distinct ranges: (1) a monotonically decreasing relationship between SBP and the adjusted probability of death from 40 to 130 mmHg, (2) lowest adjusted mortality from 130 to 180 mmHg, and (3) rapidly increasing mortality above 180 mmHg. A subanalysis of the cohorts with isolated TBIs and multisystem injuries with TBIs revealed SBP mortality patterns that were similar to each other and to that of the main analysis. While the specific SBP ranges varied somewhat for the nonmortality outcomes (hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, discharge to skilled nursing/inpatient rehabilitation, and hospital charges), the patterns were very similar to that of mortality. In each model, validation was confirmed utilizing the postimplementation cohort. CONCLUSION: Optimal adjusted mortality was associated with a surprisingly high SBP range (130 to 180 mmHg). Below this level, there was no point or range of inflection that would indicate a physiologically meaningful threshold for defining hypotension. Nonmortality outcomes showed very similar patterns. These findings highlight how sensitive the injured brain is to compromised perfusion at SBP levels that, heretofore, have been considered adequate or even normal. While the study design does did not allow us to conclude that the currently recommended treatment threshold (<90 mmHg) should be increased, the findings imply that the definition of hypotension in the setting of TBI is too low. Randomized trials evaluating treatment levels significantly higher than 90 mmHg are needed.

American Board of Emergency Medicine Report on Residency and Fellowship Training Information (2021-2022).

The American Board of Emergency Medicine gathers extensive background information on the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education-accredited emergency medicine residency and fellowship programs, as well as the residents and fellows training in those programs. We present the 2022 annual report on the status of physicians training in Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education-accredited emergency medicine training programs in the United States.

Can I Send This Patient With Atrial Fibrillation Home From the Emergency Department?

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most common dysrhythmias managed in the emergency department (ED) setting. Due to the variety of patient presentations and disease severity, most patients in the United States are admitted to the hospital. CLINICAL QUESTION: In patients who present with AF, is there a reliable decision tool that clinicians can use to predict the risk of adverse outcome and determine who may be appropriate for discharge? EVIDENCE REVIEW: Studies retrieved included two prospective observational cohort studies and four retrospective observational studies. These studies evaluate the use of risk decision tools in predicting adverse outcomes in patients with AF. CONCLUSION: Based on the available literature, RED-AF, AFFORD, and the AFTER (complex, modified, and pragmatic) scores demonstrate modest predictive discrimination in predicting adverse events, but further validation is recommended.

Do All Adult Psychiatric Patients Need Routine Laboratory Evaluation and an Electrocardiogram?

BACKGROUND: Acute psychiatric presentations account for a significant number of emergency department (ED) visits. These patients require assessment by the emergency physician and often need further evaluation by a psychiatrist, who may request routine laboratory evaluation and an electrocardiogram (ECG). CLINICAL QUESTION: Do all adult psychiatric patients need routine laboratory evaluation and an ECG? EVIDENCE REVIEW: Studies retrieved included 2 prospective, observational studies and 7 retrospective studies. These studies evaluate the utility of laboratory analysis in all patients presenting a psychiatric complaint and its impact on patient management and disposition. CONCLUSION: Based upon the available literature, routine laboratory analysis and ECG for all patients presenting with a psychiatric complaint are not recommended. Clinicians should consider the individual patient, clinical situation, and comorbidities when deciding to obtain further studies such as laboratory analysis. © 2022 Elsevier Inc.

What is the Best Agent for Rate Control of Atrial Fibrillation With Rapid Ventricular Response?

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common dysrhythmia associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although many patients have stable AF, some patients can present with a rapid ventricular response (RVR). In these patients, it is important to lower their heart rate. However, there are several options available for rate control in the emergency department setting. CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the most effective agent for rate control for the patient with AF in RVR? EVIDENCE REVIEW: Studies retrieved included two prospective, randomized, double-blind studies and six retrospective cohort studies. These studies provide estimates of the efficacy and safety of calcium channel blockers and ß-blockers for rate control in those with AF with RVR. CONCLUSION: Based upon the available literature, diltiazem likely achieves rate control faster than metoprolol, though both agents seem safe and effective. Clinicians must consider the individual patient, clinical situation, and comorbidities when selecting a medication for rate control.

Effect of Implementing the Out-of-Hospital Traumatic Brain Injury Treatment Guidelines: The Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care for Children Study (EPIC4Kids).

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the effect of implementing the out-of-hospital pediatric traumatic brain injury guidelines on outcomes in children with major traumatic brain injury. METHODS: The Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care for Children study is the preplanned secondary analysis of the Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care study, a multisystem, intention-to-treat study using a before-after controlled design. This subanalysis included children younger than 18 years who were transported to Level I trauma centers by participating out-of-hospital agencies between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2015, throughout Arizona. The primary and secondary outcomes were survival to hospital discharge or admission for children with major traumatic brain injury and in 3 subgroups, defined a priori as those with moderate, severe, and critical traumatic brain injury. Outcomes in the preimplementation and postimplementation cohorts were compared with logistic regression, adjusting for risk factors and confounders. RESULTS: There were 2,801 subjects, 2,041 in preimplementation and 760 in postimplementation. The primary analysis (postimplementation versus preimplementation) yielded an adjusted odds ratio of 1.16 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.92) for survival to hospital discharge and 2.41 (95% confidence interval 1.17 to 5.21) for survival to hospital admission. In the severe traumatic brain injury cohort (Regional Severity Score-Head 3 or 4), but not the moderate or critical subgroups, survival to discharge significantly improved after guideline implementation (adjusted odds ratio = 8.42; 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 100+). The improvement in survival to discharge among patients with severe traumatic brain injury who received positive-pressure ventilation did not reach significance (adjusted odds ratio = 9.13; 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 100+). CONCLUSION: Implementation of the pediatric out-of-hospital traumatic brain injury guidelines was not associated with improved survival when the entire spectrum of severity was analyzed as a whole (moderate, severe, and critical). However, both adjusted survival to hospital admission and discharge improved in children with severe traumatic brain injury, indicating a potential severity-based interventional opportunity for guideline effectiveness. These findings support the widespread implementation of the out-of-hospital pediatric traumatic brain injury guidelines.

Is a Lumbar Puncture Required to Rule Out Atraumatic Subarachnoid Hemorrhage in Emergency Department Patients With Headache and Normal Brain Computed Tomography More Than Six Hours After Symptom Onset?

BACKGROUND: Atraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is a deadly condition that most commonly presents as acute, severe headache. Controversy exists concerning evaluation of SAH based on the time from onset of symptoms, specifically if the headache occurred > 6 h prior to patient presentation. CLINICAL QUESTION: Do patients undergoing evaluation for atraumatic SAH who have a negative computed tomography (CT) scan of the head obtained more than 6 h after symptom onset require a subsequent lumbar puncture to rule out the diagnosis? EVIDENCE REVIEW: Studies retrieved included a retrospective cohort study, two prospective cohort studies, and a case-control study. These studies provide estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of head CT imaging obtained > 6 h from symptom onset and diagnostic test characteristics of subsequent lumbar puncture. CONCLUSION: The probability of SAH above which emergency clinicians should perform a lumbar puncture is 1.0%. This threshold is essentially the same as the estimated probability of SAH in patients with a negative head CT obtained more than 6 h from symptom onset. Emergency physicians might reasonably decide to either perform or forego this procedure. Consequently, we contend that the decision whether to perform lumbar puncture in these instances is an excellent candidate for shared decision-making.

Can I Send This Syncope Patient Home From the Emergency Department?

BACKGROUND: Syncope is a common presentation to the emergency department (ED). A significant minority of these patients have potentially life-threatening pathology. Reliably identifying that patients require hospital admission for further workup and intervention is imperative. CLINICAL QUESTION: In patients who present with syncope, is there a reliable decision tool that clinicians can use to predict the risk of adverse outcome and determine who may be appropriate for discharge? EVIDENCE REVIEW: Four articles were reviewed. The first retrospective study found no difference in mortality or adverse events in patients admitted for further evaluation rather than discharged home with primary care follow-up. The next two articles examined the derivation and validation of the Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS). After validation with an admission threshold score of -1, the sensitivity and specificity of the CSRS was 97.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 93.8-99.6%) and 44.3% (95% CI 42.7-45.9%), respectively. The last article looked at the derivation of the FAINT score, a recently developed score to risk stratify syncope patients. A FAINT score of ≥ 1 (any score 1 or higher should be admitted) had a sensitivity of 96.7% (95% CI 92.9-98.8%) and specificity 22.2% (95% CI 20.7-23.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Syncope remains a difficult chief symptom to disposition from the ED. The CSRS is modestly effective at establishing a low probability of actionable disease or need for intervention. However, CSRS might not reduce unnecessary hospitalizations. The FAINT score has yet to undergo validation; however, the initial derivation study offers less diagnostic accuracy compared with the CSRS.

Can D-Dimer in Low-Risk Patients Exclude Aortic Dissection in the Emergency Department?

BACKGROUND: Aortic dissection (AD) is a challenging diagnosis associated with severe mortality. However, acute AD is a rare clinical entity and can be overevaluated in the emergency department. D-dimer, both alone and in combination with the Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score (ADD-RS), has been studied as a tool to evaluate for AD. CLINICAL QUESTION: Can a negative D-dimer in low-risk patients exclude AD in the emergency department? EVIDENCE REVIEW: Retrieved studies included three systematic review and meta-analyses and two prospective cohort studies. D-dimer was found to be highly sensitive for acute AD, with a sensitivity of 98.0%. The ADD-RS was also highly sensitive (95.7%) for AD. Two meta-analyses reported a combination of a negative D-dimer and ADD-RS < 1 to have a pooled sensitivity of 99.9% and 100% for acute aortic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Neither D-dimer nor the ADD-RS alone provides adequate sensitivity to exclude acute AD. However, a negative D-dimer combined with an ADD-RS < 1 is likely sufficient to rule out AD. Even with these findings, physicians must place clinical judgment above laboratory testing or scoring systems when deciding whether to pursue a diagnosis of acute AD.

American Board of Emergency Medicine Report on Residency and Fellowship Training Information (2019-2020).

The American Board of Emergency Medicine gathers extensive background information on Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited emergency medicine residency and fellowship programs, as well as the residents and fellows training in those programs. We present the 2020 annual report on the status of physicians training in ACGME-accredited emergency medicine training programs in the United States.

American Board of Emergency Medicine Report on Residency and Fellowship Training Information (2018-2019).

The American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) gathers extensive background information on emergency medicine-sponsored residency and fellowship programs, residents and fellows training in those programs, and all fellows for whom ABEM issues subspecialty certifications. We present the 2019 annual report on the status of US emergency medicine training programs.

American Board of Emergency Medicine Report on Residency and Fellowship Training Information (2017-2018).

The American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) gathers extensive background information on emergency medicine-sponsored residency and fellowship programs, as well as the residents and fellows training in those programs. We present the 2018 annual report on the status of US emergency medicine training programs.

Do Orthostatic Vital Signs Have Utility in the Evaluation of Syncope?

BACKGROUND: Syncope is a common presentation in the emergency department (ED). The differential diagnosis is long and includes benign conditions as well as acute life threats, such as dysrhythmias or pulmonary embolism. OBJECTIVE: The specific goals of this review are twofold: 1) to define the diagnostic utility of orthostatic vital signs (OVS) as a test for orthostatic syncope, and 2) to determine whether OVS help diagnose or exclude life-threatening causes of syncope in ED patients. METHODS: Three prospective cohort studies plus 2017 national guidelines for syncope management were identified, reviewed, and critically appraised. RESULTS: This literature review found that orthostatic hypotension is common among ED patients with syncope and is often diagnosed as the cause of syncope. CONCLUSIONS: OVS measurements do not, in isolation, reliably diagnose or exclude orthostatic syncope, nor do they appear to have value in ruling out life-threatening causes of syncope.

Association of Out-of-Hospital Hypotension Depth and Duration With Traumatic Brain Injury Mortality.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Out-of-hospital hypotension has been associated with increased mortality in traumatic brain injury. The association of traumatic brain injury mortality with the depth or duration of out-of-hospital hypotension is unknown. We evaluated the relationship between the depth and duration of out-of-hospital hypotension and mortality in major traumatic brain injury. METHODS: We evaluated adults and older children with moderate or severe traumatic brain injury in the preimplementation cohort of Arizona's statewide Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care study. We used logistic regression to determine the association between the depth-duration dose of hypotension (depth of systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg integrated over duration [minutes] of hypotension) and odds of inhospital death, controlling for significant confounders. RESULTS: There were 7,521 traumatic brain injury cases included (70.6% male patients; median age 40 years [interquartile range 24 to 58]). Mortality was 7.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.2% to 8.5%) among the 6,982 patients without hypotension (systolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg) and 33.4% (95% CI 29.4% to 37.6%) among the 539 hypotensive patients (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg). Mortality was higher with increased hypotension dose: 0.01 to 14.99 mm Hg-minutes 16.3%; 15 to 49.99 mm Hg-minutes 28.1%; 50 to 141.99 mm Hg-minutes 38.8%; and greater than or equal to 142 mm Hg-minutes 50.4%. Log2 (the logarithm in base 2) of hypotension dose was associated with traumatic brain injury mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.19 [95% CI 1.14 to 1.25] per 2-fold increase of dose). CONCLUSION: In this study, the depth and duration of out-of-hospital hypotension were associated with increased traumatic brain injury mortality. Assessments linking out-of-hospital blood pressure with traumatic brain injury outcomes should consider both depth and duration of hypotension.

The Effect of Combined Out-of-Hospital Hypotension and Hypoxia on Mortality in Major Traumatic Brain Injury.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Survival is significantly reduced by either hypotension or hypoxia during the out-of-hospital management of major traumatic brain injury. However, only a handful of small studies have investigated the influence of the combination of both hypotension and hypoxia occurring together. In patients with major traumatic brain injury, we evaluate the associations between mortality and out-of-hospital hypotension and hypoxia separately and in combination. METHODS: All moderate or severe traumatic brain injury cases in the preimplementation cohort of the Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care study (a statewide, before/after, controlled study of the effect of implementing the out-of-hospital traumatic brain injury treatment guidelines) from January 1, 2007, to March 31, 2014, were evaluated (exclusions: <10 years, out-of-hospital oxygen saturation ≤10%, and out-of-hospital systolic blood pressure <40 or >200 mm Hg). The relationship between mortality and hypotension (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg) or hypoxia (saturation <90%) was assessed with multivariable logistic regression, controlling for Injury Severity Score, head region severity, injury type (blunt versus penetrating), age, sex, race, ethnicity, payer, interhospital transfer, and trauma center. RESULTS: Among the 13,151 patients who met inclusion criteria (median age 45 years; 68.6% men), 11,545 (87.8%) had neither hypotension nor hypoxia, 604 (4.6%) had hypotension only, 790 (6.0%) had hypoxia only, and 212 (1.6%) had both hypotension and hypoxia. Mortality for the 4 study cohorts was 5.6%, 20.7%, 28.1%, and 43.9%, respectively. The crude and adjusted odds ratios for death within the cohorts, using the patients with neither hypotension nor hypoxia as the reference, were 4.4 and 2.5, 6.6 and 3.0, and 13.2 and 6.1, respectively. Evaluation for an interaction between hypotension and hypoxia revealed that the effects were additive on the log odds of death. CONCLUSION: In this statewide analysis of major traumatic brain injury, combined out-of-hospital hypotension and hypoxia were associated with significantly increased mortality. This effect on survival persisted even after controlling for multiple potential confounders. In fact, the adjusted odds of death for patients with both hypotension and hypoxia were more than 2 times greater than for those with either hypotension or hypoxia alone. These findings seem supportive of the emphasis on aggressive prevention and treatment of hypotension and hypoxia reflected in the current emergency medical services traumatic brain injury treatment guidelines but clearly reveal the need for further study to determine their influence on outcome.