Emergency physicians' patterns of treatment for presumed gonorrhea and chlamydia in women: one center's practice.

No indicator reliably predicts if a woman has gonorrhea or chlamydia (sexually transmitted diseases [STDs]) during an Emergency Department (ED) visit. Before culture results return, emergency physicians (EPs) must choose whom to treat. We evaluated EP treatment of STDs within our institution. EPs voluntarily completed anonymous surveys while evaluating women requiring both a pelvic examination and STD cultures, except for sexual assault victims. The questionnaires asked for patients' demographics, history, physical examination, and in-ED laboratory tests, and whether any particular section of the encounter caused treatment. The treated and untreated groups' characteristics, as reported by the examining physicians, were compared. There were 145 questionnaires returned over a 6-month period; 41/145 patients (28%) were treated for presumed STD-28 (68%) based on physical examination, 8 (19.5%) on history, and 5 (12.5%) on in-ED laboratory tests. Comparison of treated vs. untreated groups revealed no difference in patient demographics. The treated group had more historical positives (3.92 vs. 2.84, respectively; p < 0.001) and physical examination findings (3.39 vs. 1.24, respectively; p < 0.001) compared to the untreated group. Eleven patients (7.58%) had positive STD cultures, 4 (9.75%) in the treated group and 7 (6.73%) in the untreated group (p > 0.05). In our institution, EPs chose to treat patients with more historical and physical examination findings, not based on demographics. Our EPs' presumptive STD treatment paradigms do not accurately distinguish patients with positive pelvic culture results from those with negative results, supporting the available literature that describes the difficulty of this diagnosis. Individual EDs must recognize this infection identification problem and, after assessment of their treatment population, institute either a liberal presumptive STD treatment regimen for all comers, or establish reliable and timely follow-up for women left untreated.

Pralidoxime in carbaryl poisoning: an animal model.

INTRODUCTION: Poisoning from organophosphates and carbamates is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Concerns have been expressed over the safety and efficacy of the use of oximes such as pralidoxime (2-PAM) in patients with carbamate poisoning in general, and more so with carbaryl poisoning specifically. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the role of 2-PAM in a mouse model of lethal carbaryl poisoning. METHODS: Female ICR Swiss Albino mice weighing 25-30 g were acclimated to the laboratory and housed in standard conditions. One hundred and ten mice received an LD50 dose of carbaryl subcutaneously. Ten minutes later, they were randomized by block randomization to one of eight treatment groups: normal saline control, atropine alone, 100 mg/kg 2-PAM with and without atropine, 50 mg/kg 2-PAM with and without atropine, and 25 mg/kg 2-PAM with and without atropine. All medications were given intraperitoneally and the atropine dose was constant at 4 mg/kg. The single objective endpoint was defined as survival to 24 hours. Fatalities were compared using a Chi squared or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Following an LD50 of carbaryl, 60% of the animals died. Atropine alone statistically improved survival (15% lethality). High dose 2-PAM with and without atropine was numerically worse, but not statistically different from control. While the middle dose of 2-PAM was no different than control, the addition of atropine improved survival (10% fatality). Low-dose 2-PAM statistically improved survival (25% lethality). Atropine further reduced lethality to 10%. CONCLUSION: When appropriately dosed, 2-PAM alone protects against carbaryl poisoning in mice. Failure to demonstrate this benefit in other models may be the result of oxime overdose.