Assessment of clinically significant urolithiasis positivity rate using CT KUB for suspected renal colic.

BACKGROUND: Unenhanced low-dose computed tomography of the kidneys, ureter and bladder (CT KUB) is the gold standard diagnostic imaging modality in the assessment of suspected renal colic. As the radiation dose is not negligible, it is important to monitor the diagnostic yield of CT KUBs. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic yield of CT KUB studies performed for suspected renal colic in patients presenting to the emergency department. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of 500 patients who underwent CT KUB for suspected renal colic over a seven month period from June 2019 to January 2020. Clinical information and imaging was reviewed for each patient. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA). RESULTS: Forty-nine percent of patients in the series were female (248/500) and the mean age was 45. The positivity rate for obstructing ureteral calculus was 34% (169/500). Concerningly, there was a significantly lower positivity rate in females compared to males (19% versus 48%; p < 0.0001) which raises the issue of unnecessary radiation exposure to this cohort. In the 200 female patients who were negative for obstructing urolithiasis, the mean age was 43. Females also had a significantly higher rate of negative CT KUB (62% versus 37%; p < 0.0001) where no underlying alternative pathology was diagnosed. CONCLUSIONS: Women are less likely than men to have obstructing urolithiasis on CT KUB for suspected renal colic. This difference is not accounted for by a higher rate of alternative diagnoses among female patients. The findings of this study should prompt clinicians to exercise caution when considering this imaging modality in this patient cohort.

Development and validation of a data dictionary for a feasibility analysis of emergency department key performance indicators.

OBJECTIVES: The primary study objective was to describe the development of a data dictionary for a feasibility analysis of 11 emergency department (ED) key performance indicators (KPIs). The secondary objective was to internally validate the data dictionary by measuring the inter-observer agreement between data abstractors at participating study sites. METHODS: A list of data variables based on the minimum data set elements relevant to the KPIs was developed by a panel of emergency medicine (EM) specialists and from the EM literature. A summit involving the relevant stakeholders, including ED frontline staff, a health economist, an ED clinical data manager and a health care informatician, was convened. For the feasibility analysis project, each data abstractor was furnished with a copy of the data dictionary and attended a one-hour training session prior to commencing data abstraction. Data was independently abstracted for each KPI by two abstractors at each of 12 participating EDs. Inter-rater agreement between abstractors was calculated using Cohen's kappa and results were reported using the Landis and Koch criteria. RESULTS: A data dictionary was developed by creating clear definitions and establishing abstraction instructions for each variable. A total of 43 data variables were included in the study data dictionary: 4 on patient demographics; 19 time variables; 5 outcome variables; 8 ED service and staffing units and 7 medical definitions. A clear definition and a set of data abstraction instructions including data sources were developed for each variable to aid data abstraction during the feasibility analysis. Overall 9,276 ED patient records were used for data abstraction to internally validate the data dictionary. The median Cohen kappa score ranged between 0.56 to 0.81. CONCLUSION: There is a continued need to standardize definitions of KPIs for the purpose of comparing ED performance and for research purposes. This is a necessary first step in the implementation of valid and reliable ED performance measures. This study successfully developed an internally valid data dictionary that can be used for day-to-day ED operations and for research purposes.

Capturing data for emergency department performance monitoring purposes.

Background: Good-quality data is required for valid and reliable key performance indicators. Little is known of the facilitators and barriers of capturing the required data for emergency department key performance indicators. This study aimed to explore and understand how current emergency department data collection systems relevant to emergency department key performance indicators are integrated into routine service delivery, and to identify the resources required to capture these data elements. Methods: Following pilot testing, we conducted two focus groups with a multi-disciplinary panel of 14 emergency department stakeholders drawn from urban and rural emergency departments, respectively. Focus groups were analyzed using Attride-Stirling's framework for thematic network analysis. Results: The global theme "Understanding facilitators and barriers for emergency department data collection systems" emerged from three organizing themes: "understanding current emergency department data collection systems"; "achieving the ideal emergency department data capture system for the implementation of emergency department key performance indicators"; and "emergency department data capture systems for performance monitoring purposes within the wider context". Conclusion: The pathways to improving emergency department data capture systems for emergency department key performance indicators include upgrading emergency department information systems and investment in hardware technology and data managers. Educating stakeholders outside the emergency department regarding the importance of emergency department key performance indicators as hospital-wide performance indicators underpins the successful implementation of valid and reliable emergency department key performance indicators.

Use of emergency department point-of-care ultrasound in a case of cholecystitis.

A 54-year-old man presented with severe right upper quadrant (RUQ) abdominal pain. He denied any infective symptoms. On clinical examination, he was afebrile and anicteric. His abdomen was soft with tenderness elicited on the RUQ. A point-of-care ultrasound in the emergency department demonstrated a distended gallbladder with a thickened wall and an impacted large gallstone at the neck of the gallbladder. Furthermore, the point-of-care ultrasound also identified a highly reflective echo from the anterior surface of the gallstone and marked posterior acoustic shadowing. A diagnosis of cholecysitis was made after confirmatory ultrasonography performed in the radiology department. The patient had a cholecystostomy performed under interventional radiology and was managed with course of intravenous antibiotics for 7 days. He was discharged from hospital with an elective cholecystectomy planned to be performed 8 weeks posthospital discharge.

It's a cod! Finding Nemo (impacted fishbone) in the emergency department.

A 23-year-old woman presented to the emergency department (ED) with a sensation of a 'fish bone' stuck in her throat after eating cod. On physical examination, while she reported an uncomfortable sensation in her throat, no airway compromise was evident. Clinical examination, including ear, nose and throat (ENT) and oropharyngeal assessment, was unremarkable. A linear opacity consistent with a fishbone was visualised on a soft tissue lateral neck X-ray anterior to the vertebral body of C4-6. One attempt to visualise the fishbone on direct laryngoscopy failed in the ED. The fishbone was later removed the next day via direct visualisation with a flexible endoscope in the operating theatre by the ENT surgical team. The patient's recovery was uneventful.

An economic cost analysis of emergency department key performance indicators in Ireland.

OBJECTIVES: High quality data is fundamental to using key performance indicators (KPIs) for performance monitoring. However, the resources required to collect high quality data are often significant and should usually be targeted at high priority areas. As part of a study of 11 emergency department (ED) KPIs in Ireland, the primary objective of this study was to estimate the relative cost of collecting the additional minimum data set (MDS) elements for those 11 KPIs. METHODS: An economic cost analysis focused on 12 EDs in the Republic of Ireland. The resource use data were obtained using two separate focus group interviews. The number of available MDS elements was obtained from a sample of 100 patient records per KPI per participating ED. Unit costs for all resource use were taken at the midpoint of the relevant staff salary scales. RESULTS: An ED would need to spend an estimated additional &OV0556;3561 per month on average to capture all the MDS elements relevant to the 11 KPIs investigated. The additional cost ranges from 14.8 to 39.2%; this range is 13.9-32.3% for small EDs, whereas the range for medium EDs is 11.7-40%. Regional EDs have a higher additional estimated cost to capture all the relevant MDS elements (&OV0556;3907), compared with urban EDs (&OV0556;3353). CONCLUSION: The additional cost of data collection, contingent on that already collected, required to capture all the relevant MDS elements for the KPIs examined, ranges from 14.8 to 39.2% per KPI, with variation identified between regional and urban hospitals.

Advancing Patient-centered Outcomes in Emergency Diagnostic Imaging: A Research Agenda.

Diagnostic imaging is integral to the evaluation of many emergency department (ED) patients. However, relatively little effort has been devoted to patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) in emergency diagnostic imaging. This article provides background on this topic and the conclusions of the 2015 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference PCOR work group regarding "Diagnostic Imaging in the Emergency Department: A Research Agenda to Optimize Utilization." The goal was to determine a prioritized research agenda to establish which outcomes related to emergency diagnostic imaging are most important to patients, caregivers, and other key stakeholders and which methods will most optimally engage patients in the decision to undergo imaging. Case vignettes are used to emphasize these concepts as they relate to a patient's decision to seek care at an ED and the care received there. The authors discuss applicable research methods and approaches such as shared decision-making that could facilitate better integration of patient-centered outcomes and patient-reported outcomes into decisions regarding emergency diagnostic imaging. Finally, based on a modified Delphi process involving members of the PCOR work group, prioritized research questions are proposed to advance the science of patient-centered outcomes in ED diagnostic imaging.

Generation of Evidence and Translation Into Practice: Lessons Learned and Future Directions.

The generation, validation, and then translation of definitive evidence to bedside evidence-based practice is inconsistent and presents many challenges to emergency department (ED) researchers and clinicians. This is particularly true for diagnostic imaging in the ED, where benefits and drawbacks may be difficult to assess in the chaotic ED setting. This article describes, in large part, the experience of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) in deriving and validating the traumatic brain injury prediction rules and how PECARN is translating these prediction rules into clinical practice. Furthermore, we discuss the potential for patient/parent shared decision-making with a focus on patient-centered outcomes in ED research and the role this shared decision-making may play in enhancing knowledge translation and implementation of evidence-based care in the ED.

The use of propofol for procedural sedation in emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that propofol is efficacious and safe for procedural sedation (PS) in the emergency department (ED) setting. However, propofol has a narrow therapeutic window and lacks of a reversal agent. The aim of this review was to cohere the evidence base regarding the efficacy and safety profile of propofol when used in the ED setting for PS. OBJECTIVES: To identify and evaluate all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing propofol with alternative drugs (benzodiazepines, barbiturates, etomidate and ketamine) used in the ED setting for PS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1950 to September week 2 2013) and EMBASE (1980 to week 2 2013). We searched the Current Controlled Trials metaRegister of Clinical Trials (compiled by Current Science) (September 2013). We checked the reference lists of trials and contacted trial authors. We imposed no language restriction. We re-ran the search in February 2015. We will deal with the one study awaiting classification when we update the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing propofol to alternative drugs (benzodiazepines, barbiturates, etomidate and ketamine) used in the ED setting for PS in participants of all ages. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed data extraction. Two authors performed trial quality assessment. We used mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to measure effect sizes. Two authors independently assessed and rated the methodological quality of each trial using The Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies (813 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Two studies only included participants 18 years and younger; six studies only included participants 18 years and older; one study included participants between 16 and 65 years of age and one study included only adults but did not specify the age range. Eight of the included studies had a high risk of bias. The included studies were clinically heterogeneous. We undertook no meta-analysis.The primary outcome measures of this review were: adverse effects (as defined by the study authors) and participant satisfaction (as defined by the study authors). In one study comparing propofol/fentanyl with ketamine/midazolam, delayed adverse reactions (nightmares and behavioural change) were noted in 10% of the ketamine/midazolam group and none in the propofol/fentanyl group. Seven individual studies reported no evidence of a difference in adverse effects between intravenous propofol, with and without adjunctive analgesic agents, and alternative interventions. Three individual studies reported no evidence of a difference in pain at the injection site between intravenous propofol and alternative interventions. Four individual studies reported no evidence of a difference in participant satisfaction between intravenous propofol, with and without adjunctive analgesic agents, and alternative interventions (ketamine, etomidate, midazolam). All the studies employed propofol without the use of an adjunctive analgesic and all, except one, were small (fewer than 100 participants) studies. The quality of evidence for the adverse effects and participant satisfaction outcomes was very low.Nine included studies (eight comparisons) reported all the secondary outcome measures of the review except mortality. It was not possible to pool the results of the included studies for any of the secondary outcome measures because the comparator interventions were different and the measures were reported in different ways. Seven individual studies reported no evidence of difference in incidence of hypoxia between intravenous propofol, with and without adjunctive analgesic agents, and alternative interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No firm conclusions can be drawn concerning the comparative effects of administering intravenous propofol, with or without an adjunctive analgesic agent, with alternative interventions in participants undergoing PS in the ED setting on adverse effects (including pain at the injection site) and participant satisfaction. The review was limited because no two included studies employed the same comparator interventions, and because the number of participants in eight of the included studies were small (fewer than 100 participants).

Are two penicillins better than one? A systematic review of oral flucloxacillin and penicillin V versus oral flucloxacillin alone for the emergency department treatment of cellulitis.

BACKGROUND: Flucloxacillin either alone or combined with penicillin V is still the first-line antibiotic drug of choice for the treatment of cellulitis in emergency departments (EDs) in Ireland. The rationale for this antibiotic regimen is their anti-staphylococcal and anti-streptococcal activity. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical efficacy, tolerability and safety of oral flucloxacillin alone (monotherapy) compared with a combination of flucloxacillin with penicillin V (dual therapy) in the ED-directed outpatient treatment of cellulitis. METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE (1950 to August 2011), EMBASE (1980 to August 2011), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue), OpenGrey, Current Controlled Trials metaRegister of Clinical Trials (August 2011) and reference lists and websites of potential trials. We performed cross-referencing from the reference lists of major articles on the subject. We imposed no language restriction. RESULTS: Despite a comprehensive literature search to identify relevant studies, no randomized-controlled trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were found. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its common use, there are no published randomized-controlled trials comparing flucloxacillin monotherapy with a combination of flucloxacillin and penicillin V in the ED management of cellulitis. We discuss existing European and North American prescribing rationale and current guidelines.

Mannitol for acute traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Mannitol is sometimes effective in reversing acute brain swelling, but its effectiveness in the ongoing management of severe head injury remains unclear. There is evidence that, in prolonged dosage, mannitol may pass from the blood into the brain, where it might cause increased intracranial pressure. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different mannitol therapy regimens, of mannitol compared to other intracranial pressure (ICP) lowering agents, and to quantify the effectiveness of mannitol administration given at other stages following acute traumatic brain injury. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S) and PubMed. We checked reference lists of trials and review articles, and contacted authors of trials. The search was updated on the 20th April 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of mannitol, in patients with acute traumatic brain injury of any severity. The comparison group could be placebo-controlled, no drug, different dose, or different drug. We excluded cross-over trials, and trials where the intervention was started more than eight weeks after injury. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently rated quality of allocation concealment and extracted the data. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each trial on an intention to treat basis. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four eligible randomised controlled trials. One trial compared ICP-directed therapy to 'standard care' (RR for death = 0.83; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.46). One trial compared mannitol to pentobarbital (RR for death = 0.85; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38). One trial compared mannitol to hypertonic saline (RR for death = 1.25; 95% CI 0.47 to 3.33). One trial tested the effectiveness of pre-hospital administration of mannitol against placebo (RR for death = 1.75; 95% CI 0.48 to 6.38). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Mannitol therapy for raised ICP may have a beneficial effect on mortality when compared to pentobarbital treatment, but may have a detrimental effect on mortality when compared to hypertonic saline. ICP-directed treatment shows a small beneficial effect compared to treatment directed by neurological signs and physiological indicators. There are insufficient data on the effectiveness of pre-hospital administration of mannitol.

Nitrates for acute heart failure syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Current drug therapy for acute heart failure syndromes (AHFS) consists mainly of diuretics supplemented by vasodilators or inotropes. Nitrates have been used as vasodilators in AHFS for many years and have been shown to improve some aspects of AHFS in some small studies. The aim of this review was to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of nitrate vasodilators in AHFS. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect of different nitrate preparations (isosorbide dinitrate and nitroglycerin) and the effect of route of administration of nitrates on clinical outcome, and to evaluate the safety and tolerability of nitrates in the management of AHFS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to July week 2 2011) and EMBASE (1980 to week 28 2011). We searched the Current Controlled Trials MetaRegister of Clinical Trials (compiled by Current Science) (July 2011). We checked the reference lists of trials and contacted trial authors. We imposed no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing nitrates (isosorbide dinitrate and nitroglycerin) with alternative interventions (frusemide and morphine, frusemide alone, hydralazine, prenalterol, intravenous nesiritide and placebo) in the management of AHFS in adults aged 18 and over. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed data extraction. Two authors performed trial quality assessment. We used mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to measure effect sizes. Two authors independently assessed and rated the methodological quality of each trial using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies (634 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Two of the included studies included only patients with AHFS following acute myocardial infarction (AMI); one study excluded patients with overt AMI; and one study included participants with AHFS with and without acute coronary syndromes.Based on a single study, there was no significant difference in the rapidity of symptom relief between intravenous nitroglycerin/N-acetylcysteine and intravenous frusemide/morphine after 30 minutes (fixed-effect MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.05), 60 minutes (fixed-effect MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.25), three hours (fixed-effect MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.67) and 24 hours (fixed-effect MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.31). There is no evidence to support a difference in AHFS patients receiving intravenous nitrate vasodilator therapy or alternative interventions with regard to the following outcome measures: requirement for mechanical ventilation, systolic blood pressure (SBP) change after three hours and 24 hours, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) change after 30, 60 and 90 minutes, heart rate change at 30 minutes, 60 minutes, three hours and 24 hours, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP) change after three hours and 18 hours, cardiac output (CO) change at 90 minutes and three hours and progression to myocardial infarction. There is a significantly higher incidence of adverse events after three hours with nitroglycerin compared with placebo (odds ratio 2.29, 95% CI 1.26 to 4.16) based on a single study. There was no consistent evidence to support a difference in AHFS patients receiving intravenous nitrate vasodilator therapy or alternative interventions with regard to the following secondary outcome measures: SBP change after 30 and 60 minutes, heart rate change after 90 minutes, and PAOP change after 90 minutes. None of the included studies reported healthcare costs as an outcome measure. There were no data reported by any of the studies relating to the acceptability of the treatment to the patients (patient satisfaction scores).Overall there was a paucity of relevant quality data in the included studies. Assessment of overall risk of bias in these studies was limited as three of the studies did not give sufficient detail to allow assessment of potential risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be no significant difference between nitrate vasodilator therapy and alternative interventions in the treatment of AHFS, with regard to symptom relief and haemodynamic variables. Nitrates may be associated with a lower incidence of adverse effects after three hours compared with placebo. However, there is a lack of data to draw any firm conclusions concerning the use of nitrates in AHFS because current evidence is based on few low-quality studies.

Pop goes the O2: a case of popper-induced methaemoglobinamia.

A 39-year-old man presented to the emergency department after falling downstairs after he consumed a large quantity of alcohol. On examination, he had altered mental state (GCS 14), central cyanosis and low oxygen saturation of 86%, despite 100% oxygen being administered. His arterial blood gas confirmed diagnosis of methaemoglobinaemia with a methaemoglobin percentage of 14.08. He was treated successfully with methylthioninium chloride. The patient later admitted to use of recreational poppers (amyl nitrates) the previous evening. The emergency physician is challenged by the presentation of a patient with altered mental state and unexplained low oxygen saturation with concurrent alcohol intoxication but must have a high index of suspicion for methaemoglobinaemia particularly with a history of recreational drug ingestion.

Intra-articular lignocaine versus intravenous analgesia with or without sedation for manual reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation in adults.

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence regarding the use of intra-articular lignocaine injection for the closed manual reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocations. A systematic review may help cohere the conflicting evidence. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of intra-articular lignocaine and intravenous analgesia (with or without sedation) for reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2010), and EMBASE (1980 to March 2010). We searched Current Controlled Trials metaRegister of Clinical Trials (compiled by Current Science) (March 2010). We imposed no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing intra-articular lignocaine (IAL) with intravenous analgesia with or without sedation (IVAS) in adults aged 18 years and over for reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Where possible, data were pooled and relative risks (RR) and mean differences (MD), each with 95% confidence intervals (CI), were computed using the Cochrane Review Manager statistical package (RevMan). MAIN RESULTS: Of 1041 publications obtained from the search strategy, we examined nine studies. Four studies were excluded, and five studies with 211 participants were eligible for inclusion. There was no difference in the immediate success rate of IAL when compared with IVAS in the closed manual reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.10). There were significantly fewer adverse effects associated with IAL compared with IVAS (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.43). The mean time spent in the emergency department was significantly less with IAL compared with IVAS (MD 109.46 minutes; 95% CI 84.60 to 134.32). One trial reported significantly less time for reduction with IVAS (105 seconds; 95% CI 84.0 to 126.1) compared with IAL (284.6 seconds; 95% CI 185.3 to 383.9). One trial reported no joint infection associated with intra-articular lignocaine injection and no mortality associated with either IAL or IVAS. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We observed no significant difference between IAL and IVAS with regard to the immediate success rate of reduction, pain during reduction, post-reduction pain relief and reduction failure. Compared to IVAS, IAL may be less expensive and may be associated with fewer adverse effects and a shorter recovery time.