Guidelines for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department 2 (GRACE-2): Low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department.

This second Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-2) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic "low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department." The multidisciplinary guideline panel applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding four priority questions for adult emergency department patients with low-risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain. The intended population includes adults with multiple similar presentations of abdominal signs and symptoms recurring over a period of months or years. The panel reached the following recommendations: (1) if a prior negative computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) has been performed within 12 months, there is insufficient evidence to accurately identify populations in whom repeat CTAP imaging can be safely avoided or routinely recommended; (2) if CTAP with IV contrast is negative, we suggest against ultrasound unless there is concern for pelvic or biliary pathology; (3) we suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety may be performed during the ED evaluation; and (4) we suggest an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The GRACE-2 writing group developed clinically relevant questions to address the care of adult patients with low-risk, recurrent, previously undifferentiated abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED). Four patient-intervention-comparison-outcome-time (PICOT) questions were developed by consensus of the writing group, who performed a systematic review of the literature and then synthesized direct and indirect evidence to formulate recommendations, following GRADE methodology. The writing group found that despite the commonality and relevance of these questions in emergency care, the quantity and quality of evidence were very limited, and even fundamental definitions of the population and outcomes of interest are lacking. Future research opportunities include developing precise and clinically relevant definitions of low-risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain and determining the scope of the existing populations in terms of annual national ED visits for this complaint, costs of care, and patient and provider preferences.

Abdominal fellowship-trained versus generalist radiologist accuracy when interpreting MR and CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of generalist radiologists working in a community setting against abdominal radiologists working in an academic setting for the interpretation of MR when diagnosing acute appendicitis among emergency department patients. METHODS: This observational study examined MR image interpretation (non-contrast MR with diffusion-weighted imaging and intravenous contrast-enhanced MR) from a prospectively enrolled cohort at an academic hospital over 18 months. Eligible patients had an abdominopelvic CT ordered to evaluate for appendicitis and were > 11 years old. The reference standard was a combination of surgery and pathology results, phone follow-up, and chart review. Six radiologists blinded to clinical information, three each from community and academic practices, independently interpreted MR and CT images in random order. We calculated test characteristics for both individual and group (consensus) diagnostic accuracy then performed Chi-square tests to identify any differences between the subgroups. RESULTS: Analysis included 198 patients (114 women) with a mean age of 31.6 years and an appendicitis prevalence of 32.3%. For generalist radiologists, the sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) were 93.8% (84.6-98.0%) and 88.8% (82.2-93.2%) for MR and 96.9% (88.7-99.8%) and 91.8% (85.8-95.5%) for CT. For fellowship-trained radiologists, the sensitivity and specificity were 96.9% (88.2-99.5%) and 89.6% (82.8-94%) for MR and 98.4% (90.5-99.9%) and 93.3% (87.3-96.7%) for CT. No statistically significant differences were detected between radiologist groups (p = 1.0, p = 0.53, respectively) or when comparing MR to CT (p = 0.21, p = 0.17, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: MR is a reliable, radiation-free imaging alternative to CT for the evaluation of appendicitis in community-based generalist radiology practices. KEY POINTS: • There was no significant difference in MR image interpretation accuracy between generalist and abdominal fellowship-trained radiologists when evaluating sensitivity (p = 1.0) and specificity (p = 0.53). • There was no significant difference in accuracy comparing MR to CT imaging for diagnosing appendicitis for either sensitivity (p = 0.21) or specificity (p = 0.17). • With experience, generalist radiologists enhanced their MR interpretation accuracy as demonstrated by improved interpretation sensitivity (OR 2.89 CI 1.44-5.77, p = 0.003) and decreased mean interpretation time (5 to 3.89 min).

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Suspected Spine Infection.

Spine infection is both a clinical and diagnostic imaging challenge due to its relatively indolent and nonspecific clinical presentation. The diagnosis of spine infection is based upon a combination of clinical suspicion, imaging evaluation and, when possible, microbiologic confirmation performed from blood cultures or image-guided percutaneous or open spine biopsy. With respect to the imaging evaluation of suspected spine infection, MRI without and with contrast of the affected spine segment is the initial diagnostic test of choice. As noncontrast MRI of the spine is often used in the evaluation of back or neck pain not responding to conservative medical management, it may show findings that are suggestive of infection, hence this procedure may also be considered in the evaluation of suspected spine infection. Nuclear medicine studies, including skeletal scintigraphy, gallium scan, and FDG-PET/CT, may be helpful in equivocal or select cases. Similarly, radiography and CT may be appropriate for assessing overall spinal stability, spine alignment, osseous integrity and, when present, the status of spine instrumentation or spine implants. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography and ultrasound for the diagnosis of female pelvic pathology.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging compared with computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) when evaluating for five common pelvic pathologies among women presenting to the emergency department (ED) with right lower quadrant abdominal pain. METHODS: This prospective, single-center study was conducted at an academic ED as a sub-analysis of a direct comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of CT and MR in the evaluation of appendicitis. Patients were eligible for participation in the parent study if they were at least 12 years old and had a CT performed for evaluation of possible appendicitis. In the current study, only female patients who also underwent pelvic US were included. Three radiologists independently interpreted each MR examination specifically for the presence of pelvic pathology, knowing that patients had initially undergone imaging evaluation for possible appendicitis. The determination of an independent expert panel of two radiologists and one emergency physician based on surgical pathology, comprehensive chart review, clinical information, and follow-up phone calls served as the reference standard. Test characteristics of MR, CT, and US were calculated based on this; the main outcome measure was the summary sensitivity and specificity of MR versus CT and US. RESULTS: Forty-one participants were included with a mean age of 27.6 ± 10.8 years. The MR consensus interpretation had an overall sensitivity and specificity of 57.1% (CI 38.8-75.5%) and 97.2% (CI 94.7-99.6%) respectively, for detecting any of the five pelvic pathologies. By comparison, CT exhibited sensitivity and specificity of 66.7% (CI 50.0-83.5%) and 98.3% (CI 96.4-100.0%) while it was 64.3% (CI 46.5-82.0%) and 97.7% (CI 95.6-99.9%) for US, respectively. No significant differences were identified when comparing these modalities. Overall, Fleiss' kappa interrater reliability value for MR interpretation was 0.75, corresponding to substantial agreement between the three readers. CONCLUSIONS: In women who might otherwise undergo multiple imaging tests to evaluate gastrointestinal versus pelvic pathologies, our data suggest that MR may be an acceptable first-line imaging test.

Patient Preferences for Diagnostic Imaging: CTA vs MRA When Diagnosing Pulmonary Embolism.

OBJECTIVE: To identify preferences regarding choice of diagnostic imaging (computed tomographic angiography [CTA] vs magnetic resonance angiography [MRA]) for the evaluation of pulmonary embolism. METHODS: We conducted 4 focus group discussions with residents of 2 Wisconsin cities. Community members ≥18 years old were recruited via telephone using a commercially available telephone database. The discussions were audio recorded and professionally transcribed. Three investigators (a research specialist, emergency physician, and qualitative methodologist) independently analyzed these transcripts using inductive thematic coding to identify the overarching themes and underlying concepts. Intercoder discrepancies were resolved through consensus discussion by the reviewers. RESULTS: Focus groups were held over a 3-month period and included 29 participants (16 female). Ages were well represented: 18-30 (n = 7), 31-40 (n = 8), 41-55 (n = 6), and 56+ (n = 8) years old. Analysis revealed 3 central themes: time, risk, and experience. Participants who preferred CTA commonly cited the need for immediate results in the emergency department. When nonemergent scenarios were discussed, the option to undergo MRA was considered more strongly; participants weighed additional details like radiation and diagnostic accuracy. Regarding risks, discussants expressed concerns from multiple sources, including radiation and intravenous contrast. However, understanding of this risk varied across the groups. Prior experience with medical imaging-both personal and indirect experiences-carried considerable weight. CONCLUSIONS: Preferences regarding imaging choice in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism were mixed, often reliant on vicarious experiences and an exaggerated notion of the difference in timing of imaging results. Participants frequently used incomplete or even incorrect information as the basis for decision-making.

Interobserver agreement for the direct and indirect signs of pulmonary embolism evaluated using contrast enhanced magnetic angiography.

BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) using contrast enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) requires awareness of both the direct and indirect findings of PE. PURPOSE: To evaluate reader agreement of the direct and indirect findings of PE on CE-MRA. METHODS: We evaluated pulmonary artery diameter, right ventricle/left ventricle ratio, and clot/vessel lumen signal intensity ratio. Also, eight direct and eight indirect findings of PE were interpreted twice by two radiologists with different experience levels. The prevalence, and intra- and inter-reader agreement for the direct and indirect findings of PE were recorded. Statistical analysis of the measurements was assessed using intraclass correlation while Cohen's kappa test determined inter- and intra-reader agreement. RESULTS: We reviewed 66 positive CE-MRA exams, 10 of which cases were used for training. The largest PE for each of the remaining 56 cases (40 woman) were included in this analysis (38.9 ± 19.7 (mean age (years) ± S.D.)). The highest interobserver agreement for the direct findings were vessel cutoff (κ = 0.52, 95 % CI = (0.30, 0.74), p < .0001) and bright clot (κ = 0.51, 95 % CI = (0.26, 0.78), p = .0001). The highest interobserver agreement for the indirect findings were for atelectasis (κ = 0.67, 95 % CI = (0.49, 0.87), p < .0001), pleural effusions (κ = 0.56, 95 % CI = (0.32, 0.79), p = 0001) and blank slate sing (κ = 0.56, 95 % CI = (0.18, 0.94), p < .0001). CONCLUSION: The indirect findings of atelectasis and pleural effusion had better interobserver reproducibility than the direct findings of vessel cutoff and bright clot. The intraobserver reproducibility of the direct and indirect findings is dependent on experience level. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Using contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, the indirect findings of atelectasis and pleural effusion had better interobserver reproducibility than the direct findings of vessel cutoff and bright clot.

Training and Interpreting Machine Learning Algorithms to Evaluate Fall Risk After Emergency Department Visits.

BACKGROUND: Machine learning is increasingly used for risk stratification in health care. Achieving accurate predictive models do not improve outcomes if they cannot be translated into efficacious intervention. Here we examine the potential utility of automated risk stratification and referral intervention to screen older adults for fall risk after emergency department (ED) visits. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated several machine learning methodologies for the creation of a risk stratification algorithm using electronic health record data and estimated the effects of a resultant intervention based on algorithm performance in test data. METHODS: Data available at the time of ED discharge were retrospectively collected and separated into training and test datasets. Algorithms were developed to predict the outcome of a return visit for fall within 6 months of an ED index visit. Models included random forests, AdaBoost, and regression-based methods. We evaluated models both by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, also referred to as area under the curve (AUC), and by projected clinical impact, estimating number needed to treat (NNT) and referrals per week for a fall risk intervention. RESULTS: The random forest model achieved an AUC of 0.78, with slightly lower performance in regression-based models. Algorithms with similar performance, when evaluated by AUC, differed when placed into a clinical context with the defined task of estimated NNT in a real-world scenario. CONCLUSION: The ability to translate the results of our analysis to the potential tradeoff between referral numbers and NNT offers decisionmakers the ability to envision the effects of a proposed intervention before implementation.

Prospective evaluation of MRI compared with CT for the etiology of abdominal pain in emergency department patients with concern for appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) is commonly used in the Emergency Department (ED) to evaluate patients with abdominal pain, but exposes them to ionizing radiation, a possible carcinogen. MRI does not utilize ionizing radiation and may be an alternative. PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivity of MRI and CT for acute abdominopelvic ED diagnoses. STUDY TYPE: Prospective, observational cohort. POPULATION: ED patients ≥12 years old and undergoing CT for possible appendicitis. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5 T MRI, including T1 -weighted, T2 -weighted, and diffusion-weighted imaging sequences. ASSESSMENT: Three radiologists independently interpreted each MRI and CT image set separately and blindly, using a standard case report form. Assessments included likelihood of appendicitis, presence of an alternative diagnosis, and likelihood that the alternative diagnosis was causing the patient's symptoms. An expert panel utilized chart review and follow-up phone interviews to determine all final diagnoses. Times to complete image acquisition and image interpretation were also calculated. STATISTICAL TESTS: Sensitivity was calculated for each radiologist and by consensus (≥2 radiologists in agreement) and are reported as point estimates with 95% confidence intervals. Two-sided hypothesis tests comparing the sensitivities of the three image types were conducted using Pearson's chi-squared test with the traditional significance level of P = 0.05. RESULTS: There were 15 different acute diagnoses identified on the CT/MR images of 113 patients. Using individual radiologist interpretations, the sensitivities of noncontrast-enhanced MRI (NCE-MR), contrast-enhanced MR (CE-MR), and CT for any acute diagnosis were 77.0% (72.6-81.4%), 84.2% (80.4-88.0%), and 88.7% (85.5-92.1%). Sensitivity of consensus reads was 82.0% (74.9-88.9%), 87.1% (81.0-93.2%), 92.2% (87.3-97.1%), respectively. There was no difference in sensitivities between CE-MR and CT by individual (P = 0.096) or consensus interpretations (P = 0.281), although NCE-MR was inferior to CT in both modes of analysis (P < 0.001, P = 0.031, respectively). DATA CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of CE-MR was similar to CT when diagnosing acute, nontraumatic abdominopelvic pathology in our cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1651-1658.

Diagnostic accuracy of an abbreviated MRI protocol for detecting radiographically occult hip and pelvis fractures in the elderly.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of an abbreviated, two-sequence MRI protocol using limited pulse sequences for the detection of radiographically occult hip and pelvis fractures in the elderly compared to the complete MRI examination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and eleven consecutive emergency department patients age 65 or older who had undergone MRI to evaluate for clinically suspected hip fracture after negative radiographs were included in the study. The large field-of-view coronal T1 and STIR sequences were isolated from the complete six-sequence MRI protocol and reviewed independently in a blinded fashion by two musculoskeletal fellowship-trained radiologists who recorded presence or absence of fractures of the proximal femora or pelvis, fracture type, and presence or absence of soft tissue injury. Test accuracy was calculated with 95% confidence intervals and accuracy of fracture classification for the abbreviated protocol was compared to that made on the basis of the full exam. RESULTS: For proximal femoral fractures, the abbreviated protocol had a pooled sensitivity and specificity for the two readers of 100 and 97%, respectively. For pelvic fractures, sensitivity was 92% and specificity was 98%. The kappa coefficient for fracture classification was 0.90 for reader 1 and 0.88 for reader 2, indicating excellent agreement for both readers in fracture classification compared to the classification made based on the complete MRI protocol. CONCLUSIONS: An abbreviated MRI protocol that includes only coronal T1 and STIR sequences maintains high sensitivity and specificity for hip and pelvis fracture detection and fracture classification.

'Medical Clearance' of Patients With Acute Mental Health Needs in the Emergency Department: A Literature Review and Practice Recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency departments have seen increasing numbers of patients presenting with acute mental illness. Currently, there is not a standard for assessing the medical stability of these patients prior to transfer to inpatient psychiatric services, which causes unnecessary delays in patient care. OBJECTIVE: Provide a literature review and multidisciplinary expert consensus recommendations to simplify and expedite the medical evaluation of patients requiring admission to inpatient psychiatric facilities. METHODS: A task force with representation from emergency physicians (Wisconsin Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians) and psychiatrists (Wisconsin Psychiatric Association) met to create this position statement. The members reviewed clinical practice guidelines and primary literature sources to develop evidence-based recommendations. RESULTS: Five categories of recommendations were developed: (1) A detailed history and physical exam should constitute the minimum necessary information required for most medical assessments. (2) Clinical information should guide further diagnostic testing; therefore, receiving facility blanket requirements for routine testing should be abandoned. (3) Emergency physicians should understand the limited medical capabilities of institutes of mental disease. Obtaining reasonable diagnostic testing that is not available at these facilities may be appropriate, though this should not delay patient transfer. (4) Structured medical evaluation algorithms should be used to enhance the uniformity of medical assessments for these patients. This task force recommends the Wisconsin SMART Form. (5) Emergency physicians and psychiatrists should communicate more regularly without intermediaries, both at the clinical encounter and beyond. CONCLUSION: The recommendations in this paper are endorsed by the Wisconsin Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Wisconsin Psychiatric Association, which strongly urge affected medical providers to adopt them into routine practice.

Factors Affecting Family Presence During Fracture Reduction in the Pediatric Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: Asking family members to leave during invasive procedures has historically been common practice; however, evidence-based recommendations have altered the trend of family presence during pediatric procedures. The aim of this study was to determine factors related to family members' choice to be present or absent during fracture reductions in a pediatric emergency department (ED), and their satisfaction with that choice. METHODS: We administered role-specific, anonymous surveys to a convenience sample of patients' family members in the ED of a Level I pediatric trauma center. All family members were given a choice of where to be during the procedure. RESULTS: Twenty-five family members of 18 patients completed surveys. Seventeen family members chose to stay in the room. Family member satisfaction with their decision to be inside or outside the room during the procedure (median = very satisfied) was almost uniformly high and not associated with any of the following variables: previous presence during a medical procedure; provider-reported procedure difficulty, or anxiety levels. Family member perception of procedure success (median = extremely well) was also high and not associated with other variables. Location during the procedure was associated with a desire to be in the same location in the future (Fisher's exact test, p=0.001). Common themes found among family members' reasons for their location decisions and satisfaction levels were a desire to support the patient, high staff competence, and their right as parents to choose their location. CONCLUSION: Family members self-select their location during their child's fracture reduction to high levels of satisfaction, and they considered the ability to choose their location as important.

Effectiveness of Outpatient Antibiotics After Surgical Drainage of Abscesses in Reducing Treatment Failure.

BACKGROUND: The optimal approach to outpatient antibiotic use after surgical drainage of abscesses is unclear given conflicting clinical trial results. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of outpatient antibiotic prescribing after surgical drainage of cutaneous abscesses on reducing treatment failure. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study using data extracted from the electronic health record of a single academic health care system. All emergency department (ED) visits that resulted in discharge with a surgical drainage of a cutaneous abscess procedure code were included in the sample. All visits were categorized into having received or not having received an antibiotic prescription at the index visit. Outcome frequencies were compared using Pearson's chi-squared test. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to estimate the odds of treatment failure among those who did and did not receive an antibiotic prescription at their index ED visit. RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 421 index ED visits, of which 303 (72%) received an antibiotic prescription. Treatment with antibiotics after drainage did not significantly reduce the odds of composite treatment failure within 30 days when controlling for sociodemographic and clinical encounter variables (odds ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.23-1.21). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world, comparative effectiveness analysis did not demonstrate any significant reduction in treatment failure with the use of antibiotics after drainage of abscesses in the ED. It is unclear if the clinical benefit observed under controlled trial conditions will carry over to routine clinical practice where varied antibiotic regimens are the norm and local bacterial resistance patterns vary.

MRI of the Nontraumatic Acute Abdomen: Description of Findings and Multimodality Correlation.

Obtaining a specific diagnosis in the nontraumatic acute abdomen can be clinically challenging, because a wide range of disease processes affecting a number of different organ systems may have very similar presentations. Although computed tomography and ultrasound examination are the imaging tests most commonly used to evaluate the acute abdomen, MRI can often offer comparable diagnostic performance, and may be considered when other modalities are equivocal, suboptimal, or contraindicated. In some circumstances, MRI is emerging as an appropriate first-line imaging test.

Clinical outcomes after magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) versus computed tomographic angiography (CTA) for pulmonary embolism evaluation.

PURPOSE: To compare patient outcomes following magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) versus computed tomographic angiography (CTA) ordered for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: In this IRB-approved, single-center, retrospective, case-control study, we reviewed the medical records of all patients evaluated for PE with MRA during a 5-year period along with age- and sex-matched controls evaluated with CTA. Only the first instance of PE evaluation during the study period was included. After application of our exclusion criteria to both study arms, the analysis included 1173 subjects. The primary endpoint was major adverse PE-related event (MAPE), which we defined as major bleeding, venous thromboembolism, or death during the 6 months following the index imaging test (MRA or CTA), obtained through medical record review. Logistic regression, chi-square test for independence, and Fisher's exact test were used with a p < 0.05 threshold. RESULTS: The overall 6-month MAPE rate following MRA (5.4%) was lower than following CTA (13.6%, p < 0.01). Amongst outpatients, the MAPE rate was lower for MRA (3.7%) than for CTA (8.0%, p = 0.01). Accounting for age, sex, referral source, BMI, and Wells' score, patients were less likely to suffer MAPE than those who underwent CTA, with an odds ratio of 0.44 [0.24, 0.80]. Technical success rate did not differ significantly between MRA (92.6%) and CTA (90.5%) groups (p = 0.41). CONCLUSION: Within the inherent limitations of a retrospective case-controlled analysis, we observed that the rate of MAPE was lower (more favorable) for patients following pulmonary MRA for the primary evaluation of suspected PE than following CTA.

Downstream Imaging Utilization After MR Angiography Versus CT Angiography for the Initial Evaluation of Pulmonary Embolism.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the proportion of emergency department (ED) patients who undergo subsequent chest CT or MR within 1 year of an initially negative scan for pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: This single-center, retrospective, observational study examined the use of chest CT or MR for ED patients with MR angiography (MRA) negative for PE during April 2008 to March 2013. We compared the 1-year scan utilization for these cases to an age- and sex-matched cohort of patients who underwent CT angiography (CTA). We also calculated time to first follow-up scan and mean radiation dose in each arm. Trained data abstractors used a standardized protocol and electronic case report form to gather all outcomes of interest. Results are reported as means or proportions with their associated confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: In all, 717 ED patients (430 MRAs and 287 CTAs) were included. At 1 year, the proportion undergoing subsequent imaging (MRA 16.7%, CTA 15.3%; difference = 1.4%, 95% CI 4.05%-6.86%) and time to first follow-up scan (difference = 13 days, 95% CI -22.69-48.7) did not differ between arms. Mean radiation dose per patient at 1 year was significantly higher in the CTA arm (9.82 mSv; 95% CI 9.12-10.53) compared with 2.92 mSv (95% CI 1.86-3.98) with MRA. Those with an index MRA were more likely to undergo subsequent MRAs (odds ratio 3.68; 95% CI 1.22-11.12) than those with an index CTA. However, in both arms, the majority (85%) of subsequent scans were CTAs. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing patients initially undergoing MRA versus CTA for the evaluation of PE, there was no difference in downstream chest CT or MR use at 1 year.

Prospective Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of MR Imaging versus CT for Acute Appendicitis.

Purpose To compare the accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with that of computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in emergency department (ED) patients. Materials and Methods This was an institutional review board-approved, prospective, observational study of ED patients at an academic medical center (February 2012 to August 2014). Eligible patients were nonpregnant and 12- year-old or older patients in whom a CT study had been ordered for evaluation for appendicitis. After informed consent was obtained, CT and MR imaging (with non-contrast material-enhanced, diffusion-weighted, and intravenous contrast-enhanced sequences) were performed in tandem, and the images were subsequently retrospectively interpreted in random order by three abdominal radiologists who were blinded to the patients' clinical outcomes. Likelihood of appendicitis was rated on a five-point scale for both CT and MR imaging. A composite reference standard of surgical and histopathologic results and clinical follow-up was used, arbitrated by an expert panel of three investigators. Test characteristics were calculated and reported as point estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Analysis included images of 198 patients (114 women [58%]; mean age, 31.6 years ± 14.2 [range, 12-81 years]; prevalence of appendicitis, 32.3%). The sensitivity and specificity were 96.9% (95% CI: 88.2%, 99.5%) and 81.3% (95% CI: 73.5%, 87.3%) for MR imaging and 98.4% (95% CI: 90.5%, 99.9%) and 89.6% (95% CI: 82.8%, 94.0%) for CT, respectively, when a cutoff point of 3 or higher was used. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 5.2 (95% CI: 3.7, 7.7) and 0.04 (95% CI: 0, 0.11) for MR imaging and 9.4 (95% CI: 5.9, 16.4) and 0.02 (95% CI: 0.00, 0.06) for CT, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that the optimal cutoff point to maximize accuracy was 4 or higher, at which point there was no difference between MR imaging and CT. Conclusion The diagnostic accuracy of MR imaging was similar to that of CT for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

Using the Hendrich II Inpatient Fall Risk Screen to Predict Outpatient Falls After Emergency Department Visits.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the utility of routinely collected Hendrich II fall scores in predicting returns to the emergency department (ED) for falls within 6 months. DESIGN: Retrospective electronic record review. SETTING: Academic medical center ED. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 65 and older seen in the ED from January 1, 2013, through September 30, 2015. MEASUREMENTS: We evaluated the utility of routinely collected Hendrich II fall risk scores in predicting ED visits for a fall within 6 months of an all-cause index ED visit. RESULTS: For in-network patient visits resulting in discharge with a completed Hendrich II score (N = 4,366), the return rate for a fall within 6 months was 8.3%. When applying the score alone to predict revisit for falls among the study population the resultant receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plot had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.64. In a univariate model, the odds of returning to the ED for a fall in 6 months were 1.23 times as high for every 1-point increase in Hendrich II score (odds ratio (OR)=1.23 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.19-1.28). When included in a model with other potential confounders or predictors of falls, the Hendrich II score is a significant predictor of a return ED visit for fall (adjusted OR=1.15, 95% CI=1.10-1.20, AUC=0.75). CONCLUSION: Routinely collected Hendrich II scores were correlated with outpatient falls, but it is likely that they would have little utility as a stand-alone fall risk screen. When combined with easily extractable covariates, the screen performs much better. These results highlight the potential for secondary use of electronic health record data for risk stratification of individuals in the ED. Using data already routinely collected, individuals at high risk of falls after discharge could be identified for referral without requiring additional screening resources.

Sepsis Survivors Admitted to Skilled Nursing Facilities: Cognitive Impairment, Activities of Daily Living Dependence, and Survival.

OBJECTIVE: Severe sepsis survivors frequently experience cognitive and physical functional impairment. The degree of impairment and its association with mortality is understudied, particularly among those discharged to a skilled nursing facility. Our objective was to quantify the cognitive and physical impairment among severe sepsis survivors discharged to a skilled nursing facility and to investigate the relationship between impairment and long-term mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: United States. SUBJECTS: Random 5% sample of Medicare patients discharged following severe sepsis hospitalization, 2005-2009 (n = 135,370). MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Medicare data were linked with the Minimum Data Set; Minimum Data Set-Cognition Scale was used to assess cognitive function, and the Minimum Data Set activities of daily living hierarchical scale was used to assess functional dependence. Associations were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox proportional hazards regression. Of 66,540 beneficiaries admitted to a skilled nursing facility following severe sepsis, 34% had severe or very severe cognitive impairment, and 72.5% had maximal, dependence, or total dependence in activities of daily living. Median survival was 19.4 months for those discharged to a skilled nursing facility without having been in a skilled nursing facility in the preceding 1 year and 10.4 months for those discharged to a skilled nursing facility who had spent time in a skilled nursing facility in the prior year. The adjusted hazard ratio for death was 3.1 for those with very severe cognitive impairment relative to those who were cognitively intact (95% CI, 2.9-3.2; p < 0.001) and 4.3 for those with "total dependence" in activities of daily livings relative to those who were independent (95% CI, 3.8-5.0; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Discharge to a skilled nursing facility following severe sepsis hospitalization among Medicare beneficiaries was associated with shorter survival, and cognitive impairment and activities of daily living dependence were each strongly associated with shortened survival. These findings can inform decision-making by patients and physicians and underscores high palliative care needs among sepsis survivors discharged to skilled nursing facility.