FOCUS may detect wall motion abnormalities in patients with ACS.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is a common presentation to the Emergency Department (ED) with roughly 6 million visits a year. The primary diagnostic modality for the identification of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is the electrocardiogram (ECG), which is used to screen for electrocardiographic findings representing acute coronary occlusion. It is known that the ischemia generated by an acutely occluded coronary vessel generates a wall motion abnormality which can be visualized by echocardiogram; however, emergency physician-performed focused cardiac ultrasound (FOCUS) currently does not have a formal role in the diagnosis of OMI within the emergency department. PURPOSE: We sought to define the characteristics of FOCUS performed by emergency physicians of variable training levels in the identification of RWMA in patients presenting to the emergency department with high suspicion for ACS before undergoing cardiac catheterization or formal echocardiography. We also explored whether RWMA was associated with OMI in these patients. METHODS: We performed a structured, retrospective review of adult patients presenting to a large, academic, tertiary care center with suspected ACS from July 1st, 2019, and October 24th, 2020. Patients were included if they underwent FOCUS in the ED during the time-period above for suspected ACS looking for RWMA and FOCUS images were stored and reviewable in our middleware software. The primary outcome was the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of FOCUS compared to formal echocardiography for the detection of RWMA. Secondary outcomes were sensitivity of FOCUS compared to formal echocardiography for detection of RWMA in patients with and without cardiac catheterization proven OMI and sensitivity and specificity of FOCUS operators based on training. RESULTS: FOCUS for RWMA performed by emergency physicians had a sensitivity of 94% (95% CI, 82-98), specificity 35% (95% CI, 15-61), and overall accuracy of 78% (95% CI, 66-87). Of all subjects, 82% underwent urgent or emergency coronary angiography, of which 71% had OMI at the time of coronary angiography of the procedure. FOCUS identified RWMA in 87% of patients with coronary angiography proven OMI. Residents (PGY-1 - PGY-3) (n = 31) were able to detect RWMA with a sensitivity of 86% (95% CI, 64-96), a specificity of 56% (95% CI, 23-85%), and an accuracy of 77 (95% CI, 58-90%). Emergency ultrasound fellows and attendings (n = 34) were able to detect RWMA with a sensitivity of 85% (95% CI, 64-95%), a specificity of 75% (95% CI, 36-96%), and an accuracy of 82% (95% CI, 65-93%). CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective study concludes FOCUS performed by emergency physicians may be used to detect RWMA in patients with high concern for acute coronary syndrome. This may have its greatest utility in patients presenting without STEMI where the ECG is felt to be equivocal, but the clinician has high concern for OMI, in which the presence of RWMA might result in emergent cath lab activation, though this requires further study. The presence of RWMA in such cases may help to rule in OMI as a cause; however, the absence of RWMA should exclude OMI. Further research is necessary to confirm these findings.

Blueprint for the development of resuscitation and emergency critical care fellowships.

The volume of critically ill patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) is increasing rapidly. Continued growth will likely further stress an already strained U.S. health care system. Numerous studies have demonstrated an association with worsened outcomes for critically ill patients boarding in the ED. To address the increasing volume and complexity of critically ill patients presenting to EDs nationwide, resuscitation and emergency critical care (RECC) fellowships were developed. RECC programs teach a general approach to the management of the undifferentiated critically ill patient, advanced management of critically ill patients by disease presentation, and ongoing supportive care of the critically ill patient boarding in the ED. The result is critical care training beyond that of a typical emergency medicine (EM) residency with a focus on the unique features and challenges of caring for critically ill patients in the ED not normally found in critical care fellowships. Graduates from RECC fellowships are well suited to practicing in any ED practice model and may be especially well prepared for EDs that distinguish acuity between zones (e.g., resuscitative care units, ED-based intensive care units). In addition to further developing clinical acumen, RECC fellowships provide graduates with a niche in EM education, research, and administration. In this article, we describe the philosophical principles and practical components necessary for the creation of future RECC fellowships.

Value analysis of postoperative staging imaging for asymptomatic, early-stage breast cancer: implications of clinical variation on utility and cost.

BACKGROUND: Routine staging imaging for early-stage breast cancer is not recommended. Despite this, there is clinical practice variation with imaging studies obtained for asymptomatic patients with a positive sentinel node (SN+). We characterize the utility, cost, and clinical implications of imaging studies obtained in asymptomatic SN+ patients. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of asymptomatic, clinically node-negative patients who were found to have a positive sentinel node after surgery. The type of imaging, subsequent tests/interventions, frequency of additional malignancy detected, and costs were recorded. RESULTS: From April 2009 to April 2013, a total of 50 of 113 (44%) asymptomatic patients underwent staging imaging for a positive sentinel node; 11 (22%) patients had at least 1 subsequent imaging study or diagnostic intervention. No instance of metastatic breast cancer was identified, with a total cost of imaging calculated at $116,905. CONCLUSIONS: Staging imaging for asymptomatic SN+ breast cancer demonstrates clinical variation. These tests were associated with low utility, increased costs, and frequent false positives leading to subsequent testing/intervention. Evidence-based standardization may help increase quality by decreasing unnecessary variation and cost.