Deficits in blood culture collection in the emergency department if sepsis is suspected: results of a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Blood cultures (BCs) are key for pathogen detection in septic patients. We investigated the extent to which sampling was performed and what factors were associated with the absence of general or inadequate BC sampling. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients with sepsis admitted to one of three EDs in 2018. Primary outcome was the extent of general BC collection of at least 1 set. Secondary outcome was the extent of adequate BC sampling, defined as ≥ 2 sets before antibiotic therapy (AT). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with deficits in both outcomes. RESULTS: 1143 patients were analyzed. BCs were collected from 946 patients. Single BCs were taken from 520 patients, ≥ 2 sets from 426 patients. Overall, ≥ 2 BCs were taken from 349 patients before AT. BC sampling before AT occurred significantly more frequently when ≥ 2 BC sets were taken rather than a single one (81.9%, versus 68.4%, p < 0.001) and this also led to the highest pathogen detection rate in our cohort (65.6%). A body temperature of ≥ 38 °C was the a supporting factor for general and adequate BC collection in all three EDs. Retrospective analysis of 533 patients showed that the qSOFA score had no influence on general or adequate BC collection. CONCLUSION: Data on everyday clinical practice in the pre-analytical phase of microbiological diagnostics shows considerable deficits and indicates the need for more implementation of best practice. The variations identified in BC sampling between EDs should be further investigated.

S2k guideline diagnosis and treatment of carbon monoxide poisoning.

Carbon monoxide (CO) can occur in numerous situations and ambient conditions, such as fire smoke, indoor fireplaces, silos containing large quantities of wood pellets, engine exhaust fumes, and when using hookahs. Symptoms of CO poisoning are nonspecific and can range from dizziness, headache, and angina pectoris to unconsciousness and death. This guideline presents the current state of knowledge and national recommendations on the diagnosis and treatment of patients with CO poisoning. The diagnosis of CO poisoning is based on clinical symptoms and proven or probable exposure to CO. Negative carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) levels should not rule out CO poisoning if the history and symptoms are consistent with this phenomenon. Reduced oxygen-carrying capacity, impairment of the cellular respiratory chain, and immunomodulatory processes may result in myocardial and central nervous tissue damage even after a reduction in COHb. If CO poisoning is suspected, 100% oxygen breathing should be immediately initiated in the prehospital setting. Clinical symptoms do not correlate with COHb elimination from the blood; therefore, COHb monitoring alone is unsuitable for treatment management. Especially in the absence of improvement despite treatment, a reevaluation for other possible differential diagnoses ought to be performed. Evidence regarding the benefit of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is scant and the subject of controversy due to the heterogeneity of studies. If required, HBOT should be initiated within 6 h. All patients with CO poisoning should be informed about the risk of delayed neurological sequelae (DNS).

Computed Tomography Imaging in Simulated Ongoing Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: No Need to Switch Off the Chest Compression Device during Image Acquisition.

Computed tomography (CT) represents the current standard for imaging of patients with acute life-threatening diseases. As some patients present with circulatory arrest, they require cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Automated chest compression devices are used to continue resuscitation during CT examinations, but tend to cause motion artifacts degrading diagnostic evaluation of the chest. The aim was to investigate and evaluate a CT protocol for motion-free imaging of thoracic structures during ongoing mechanical resuscitation. The standard CT trauma protocol and a CT protocol with ECG triggering using a simulated ECG were applied in an experimental setup to examine a compressible thorax phantom during resuscitation with two different compression devices. Twenty-eight phantom examinations were performed, 14 with AutoPulse® and 14 with corpuls cpr®. With each device, seven CT examinations were carried out with ECG triggering and seven without. Image quality improved significantly applying the ECG-triggered protocol (p < 0.001), which allowed almost artifact-free chest evaluation. With the investigated protocol, radiation exposure was 5.09% higher (15.51 mSv vs. 14.76 mSv), and average reconstruction time of CT scans increased from 45 to 76 s. Image acquisition using the proposed CT protocol prevents thoracic motion artifacts and facilitates diagnosis of acute life-threatening conditions during continuous automated chest compression.

Development and Validation of a Simplified Probability Assessment Score Integrated With Age-Adjusted d-Dimer for Diagnosis of Acute Aortic Syndromes.

Background When acute aortic syndromes (AASs) are suspected, pretest clinical probability assessment and d-dimer (DD) testing are diagnostic options allowing standardized care. Guidelines suggest use of a 12-item/3-category score (aortic dissection detection) and a DD cutoff of 500 ng/mL. However, a simplified assessment tool and a more specific DD cutoff could be advantageous. Methods and Results In a prospective derivation cohort (n=1848), 6 items identified by logistic regression (thoracic aortic aneurysm, severe pain, sudden pain, pulse deficit, neurologic deficit, hypotension), composed a simplified score (AORTAs) assigning 2 points to hypotension and 1 to the other items. AORTAs≤1 and ≥2 defined low and high clinical probability, respectively. Age-adjusted DD was calculated as years/age × 10 ng/mL (minimum 500). The AORTAs score and AORTAs≤1/age-adjusted DD rule were validated in 2 patient cohorts: a high-prevalence retrospective cohort (n=1035; 22% AASs) and a low-prevalence prospective cohort (n=447; 11% AASs) subjected to 30-day follow-up. The AUC of the AORTAs score was 0.729 versus 0.697 of the aortic dissection detection score (P=0.005). AORTAs score assessment reclassified 16.6% to 25.1% of patients, with significant net reclassification improvement of 10.3% to 32.7% for AASs and -8.6 to -17% for alternative diagnoses. In both cohorts, AORTAs≥2 had superior sensitivity and slightly lower specificity than aortic dissection detection ≥2. In the prospective validation cohort, AORTAs≤1/age-adjusted DD had a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 48.6%, and an efficiency of 43.3%. Conclusions AORTAs is a simplified score with increased sensitivity, improved AAS classification, and minor trade-off in specificity, amenable to integration with age-adjusted DD for diagnostic rule-out.

Incidence of acute type A aortic dissection in emergency departments.

Due to the symptoms, patients with acute type A aortic dissection are first seen by the ambulance service and diagnosed at the emergency department. How often an aortic dissection occurs in an emergency department per year has been studied. The incidence in the emergency department may be used as a quality marker of differential diagnostics of acute chest pain. A multi-institutional retrospective study with the municipal Berlin hospital chain Vivantes and its Department of Pathology and the Charité - University Medicine Berlin was performed. From the Berlin Hospital Society, the annual numbers of publicly insured emergency patients were obtained. Between 2006 and 2016, 631 aortic dissections were identified. The total number of patients treated in the emergency departments (n = 12,790,577) was used to calculate the "emergency department incidence." The autopsy data from six clinics allowed an estimate on how many acute type A aortic dissections remained undetected. Across all Berlin hospitals, the emergency department incidence of acute type A aortic dissection was 5.24 cases in 100,000 patients per year. In tertiary referral hospitals and, particularly, in university hospitals the respective incidences were markedly higher (6.7 and 12.4, respectively). Based on the autopsy results, about 50% of the acute type A aortic dissection may remain undetected, which would double the reported incidences. Among different hospital types the emergency department incidences of acute type A aortic dissection vary between 5.93/100,000 and 24.92/100,000. Aortic dissection; Incidence; Emergency Department; Epidemiology.

Integration of transthoracic focused cardiac ultrasound in the diagnostic algorithm for suspected acute aortic syndromes.

AIMS: The diagnosis of acute aortic syndromes (AASs) is challenging and requires integrated strategies. Transthoracic focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) is endorsed by guidelines as a first-line/triage tool allowing rapid bedside assessment of the aorta. However, the performance of FoCUS in the European Society of Cardiology-recommended workup of AASs awaits validation. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a prespecified subanalysis of the ADvISED multicentre prospective study. Patients with suspected AAS underwent FoCUS for detection of direct/indirect signs of AAS. Clinical probability assessment was performed with the aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS). Case adjudication was based on advanced imaging, surgery, autopsy, or 14-day follow-up. An AAS was diagnosed in 146 (17.4%) of 839 patients. Presence of direct FoCUS signs had a sensitivity and specificity of 45.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 37-53.6%] and 97.4% (95% CI 95.9-98.4%), while presence of any FoCUS sign had a sensitivity and specificity of 89% (95% CI 82.8-93.6%) and 74.5% (95% CI 71-77.7%) for AAS. The additive value of FoCUS was most evident within low clinical probability (ADD-RS ≤1). Herein, direct FoCUS signs were identified in 40 (4.8%) patients (P < 0.001), including 29 with AAS. ADD-RS ≤1 plus negative FoCUS for AAS rule-out had a sensitivity of 93.8% (95% CI 88.6-97.1%) and a failure rate of 1.9% (95% CI 0.9-3.6%). Addition of negative D-dimer led to a failure rate of 0% (95% CI 0-1.2%). CONCLUSION: FoCUS has additive value in the workup of AASs. Direct FoCUS signs can rapidly identify patients requiring advanced imaging despite low clinical probability. In integrated bundles, negative FoCUS is useful for rule-out of AASs.

Integrated Use of Conventional Chest Radiography Cannot Rule Out Acute Aortic Syndromes in Emergency Department Patients at Low Clinical Probability.

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines recommend chest radiography (CR) in the workup of suspected acute aortic syndromes (AASs) if the pretest clinical probability is low. However, the diagnostic impact of CR integration for the rule-in and rule-out of AASs is unknown. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the ADvISED multicenter study. Emergency department outpatients were eligible if an AAS was clinically suspected. Clinical probability was defined with the aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS). CR was evaluated blindly by a radiologist, who judged on mediastinum enlargement (ME) and other signs. RESULTS: In 2014 through 2016, a total of 1,129 patients were enrolled and 1,030 were analyzed, including 48 (4.7%) with AASs. ADD-RS/ME and ADD-RS/any CR sign (aCRs) integration were more accurate than ADD-RS alone (area under the curve = 0.8 and 0.78 vs. 0.66, p < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of the integrated strategies were 66.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 51.5% to 79.9%) and 82.5% (95% CI = 79.9% to 84.8%) for ADD-RS/ME and 68.8% (95% CI = 53.6% to 80.9%) and 76.5% (95% CI = 73.7% to 79.1%) for ADD-RS/aCRs, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of CR per se were 54.2% (95% CI = 39.2% to 68.6%) and 92.4% (95% CI = 90.5% to 93.9%) for ME and 60.4% (95% CI = 45.3% to 74.2%) and 85.2% (95% CI = 82.9% to 87.4%) for aCRs. The agreement (κ) between attending physicians and radiologists for ME was 0.44 (95% CI = 0.35 to 0.54). ADD-RS/ME rule-in (ADD-RS ≤ 1 and ME-present, or ADD-RS > 1) applied to 204 versus 130 patients with ADD-RS > 1, including 14 with AAS and 60 false-positives (FP). ADD-RS/aCRs rule-in (ADD-RS ≤ 1 and aCRs-present, or ADD-RS > 1) applied to 264 patients, including 15 with AAS and 119 FP. ADD-RS/ME rule-out (ADD-RS ≤ 1 and ME-absent) applied to 826 (80.2%) patients, including 16 with AAS (33.3% of cases). ADD-RS/aCRs rule-out (ADD-RS ≤ 1 and aCRs-absent) applied to 766 patients (74.4%), including 15 with AAS (31.3% of cases). CONCLUSIONS: CR integration with clinical probability assessment showed modest rule-in efficiency and insufficient sensitivity for conclusive rule-out.

Serum GFAP and UCH-L1 for prediction of absence of intracranial injuries on head CT (ALERT-TBI): a multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: More than 50 million people worldwide sustain a traumatic brain injury (TBI) annually. Detection of intracranial injuries relies on head CT, which is overused and resource intensive. Blood-based brain biomarkers hold the potential to predict absence of intracranial injury and thus reduce unnecessary head CT scanning. We sought to validate a test combining ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), at predetermined cutoff values, to predict traumatic intracranial injuries on head CT scan acutely after TBI. METHODS: This prospective, multicentre observational trial included adults (≥18 years) presenting to participating emergency departments with suspected, non-penetrating TBI and a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 9-15. Patients were eligible if they had undergone head CT as part of standard emergency care and blood collection within 12 h of injury. UCH-L1 and GFAP were measured in serum and analysed using prespecified cutoff values of 327 pg/mL and 22 pg/mL, respectively. UCH-L1 and GFAP assay results were combined into a single test result that was compared with head CT results. The primary study outcomes were the sensitivity and the negative predictive value (NPV) of the test result for the detection of traumatic intracranial injury on head CT. FINDINGS: Between Dec 6, 2012, and March 20, 2014, 1977 patients were recruited, of whom 1959 had analysable data. 125 (6%) patients had CT-detected intracranial injuries and eight (<1%) had neurosurgically manageable injuries. 1288 (66%) patients had a positive UCH-L1 and GFAP test result and 671 (34%) had a negative test result. For detection of intracranial injury, the test had a sensitivity of 0·976 (95% CI 0·931-0·995) and an NPV of 0·996 (0·987-0·999). In three (<1%) of 1959 patients, the CT scan was positive when the test was negative. INTERPRETATION: These results show the high sensitivity and NPV of the UCH-L1 and GFAP test. This supports its potential clinical role for ruling out the need for a CT scan among patients with TBI presenting at emergency departments in whom a head CT is felt to be clinically indicated. Future studies to determine the value added by this biomarker test to head CT clinical decision rules could be warranted. FUNDING: Banyan Biomarkers and US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command.

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score Plus D-Dimer for Acute Aortic Syndromes: The ADvISED Prospective Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Acute aortic syndromes (AASs) are rare and severe cardiovascular emergencies with unspecific symptoms. For AASs, both misdiagnosis and overtesting are key concerns, and standardized diagnostic strategies may help physicians to balance these risks. D-dimer (DD) is highly sensitive for AAS but is inadequate as a stand-alone test. Integration of pretest probability assessment with DD testing is feasible, but the safety and efficiency of such a diagnostic strategy are currently unknown. METHODS: In a multicenter prospective observational study involving 6 hospitals in 4 countries from 2014 to 2016, consecutive outpatients were eligible if they had ≥1 of the following: chest/abdominal/back pain, syncope, perfusion deficit, and if AAS was in the differential diagnosis. The tool for pretest probability assessment was the aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS, 0-3) per current guidelines. DD was considered negative (DD-) if <500 ng/mL. Final case adjudication was based on conclusive diagnostic imaging, autopsy, surgery, or 14-day follow-up. Outcomes were the failure rate and efficiency of a diagnostic strategy for ruling out AAS in patients with ADD-RS=0/DD- or ADD-RS ≤1/DD-. RESULTS: A total of 1850 patients were analyzed. Of these, 438 patients (24%) had ADD-RS=0, 1071 patients (58%) had ADD-RS=1, and 341 patients (18%) had ADD-RS >1. Two hundred forty-one patients (13%) had AAS: 125 had type A aortic dissection, 53 had type B aortic dissection, 35 had intramural aortic hematoma, 18 had aortic rupture, and 10 had penetrating aortic ulcer. A positive DD test result had an overall sensitivity of 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.6-98.6) and a specificity of 64% (95% CI, 61.6-66.4) for the diagnosis of AAS; 8 patients with AAS had DD-. In 294 patients with ADD-RS=0/DD-, 1 case of AAS was observed. This yielded a failure rate of 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1-1.9) and an efficiency of 15.9% (95% CI, 14.3-17.6) for the ADD-RS=0/DD- strategy. In 924 patients with ADD-RS ≤1/DD-, 3 cases of AAS were observed. This yielded a failure rate of 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1-1) and an efficiency of 49.9% (95% CI, 47.7-52.2) for the ADD-RS ≤1/DD- strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of ADD-RS (either ADD-RS=0 or ADD-RS ≤1) with DD may be considered to standardize diagnostic rule out of AAS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02086136.

Development and validation of a dispatcher identification algorithm for stroke emergencies.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recent innovations such as CT installation in ambulances may lead to earlier start of stroke-specific treatments. However, such technically complex mobile facilities require effective methods of correctly identifying patients before deployment. We aimed to develop and validate a new dispatcher identification algorithm for stroke emergencies. METHODS: Dispatcher identification algorithm for stroke emergencies was informed by systematic qualitative analysis of the content of emergency calls to ambulance dispatchers for patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack (N=117) and other neurological (N=39) and nonneurological (N=51) diseases (Part A). After training of dispatchers, sensitivity and predictive values were determined prospectively in patients admitted to Charité hospitals by using the discharge diagnosis as reference standard (Part B). RESULTS: Part A: Dysphasic/dysarthric symptoms (33%), unilateral symptoms (22%) and explicitly stated suspicion of stroke (47%) were typically identified in patients with stroke but infrequently in nonstroke cases (all <10%). Convulsive symptoms (41%) were frequent in other neurological diseases but not strokes (3%). Pain (26%) and breathlessness (31%) were often expressed in nonneurological emergencies (6% and 7% in strokes). Part B: Between October 15 and December 16, 2010, 5774 patients were admitted by ambulance with 246 coded with final stroke diagnoses. Sensitivity of dispatcher identification algorithm for stroke emergencies for detecting stroke was 53.3% and positive predictive value was 47.8% for stroke and 59.1% for stroke and transient ischemic attack. Of all 275 patients with stroke dispatcher codes, 215 (78.5%) were confirmed with neurological diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Using dispatcher identification algorithm for stroke emergencies, more than half of all patients with stroke admitted by ambulance were correctly identified by dispatchers. Most false-positive stroke codes had other neurological diagnoses.

Comparison of intraosseous versus central venous vascular access in adults under resuscitation in the emergency department with inaccessible peripheral veins.

INTRODUCTION: Current European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines recommend intraosseous (IO) vascular access, if intravenous (IV) access is not readily available. Because central venous catheterisation (CVC) is an established alternative for in-hospital resuscitation, we compared IO access versus landmark-based CVC in adults with difficult peripheral veins. METHODS: In this prospective observational study we investigated success rates on first attempt and procedure times of IO access versus central venous catheterisation (CVC) in adults (≥ 18 years of age) with inaccessible peripheral veins under trauma or medical resuscitation in a level I trauma centre emergency department. RESULTS: Forty consecutive adults under resuscitation were analysed, each receiving IO access and CVC simultaneously. Success rates on first attempt were significantly higher for IO cannulation than CVC (85% versus 60%, p=0.024) and procedure times were significantly lower for IO access compared to CVC (2.0 versus 8.0 min, p<0.001). As for complications, failure of IO access was observed in 6 patients, while 2 or more attempts of CVC were necessary in 16 patients. No other relevant complications like infection, bleeding or pneumothorax were observed. CONCLUSIONS: IO vascular access is a reliable bridging method to gain vascular access for in-hospital adult patients under resuscitation with difficult peripheral veins. Moreover, IO access is more efficacious with a higher success rate on first attempt and a lower procedure time compared to landmark-based CVC.

Pathway analysis in microarray data: a comparison of two different pathway analysis devices in the same data set.

Oligonucleotide microarray technology has been developed to a very powerful and favorable biotechnique. However, it is an explicit challenge to judge the potential biological meaning of such extensive amounts of data. There are various-commercially available or free-software applications for pathway analyses on microarray data on the market. The aim of the present study was to test whether pathway analyses on the same data set using different commercially available devices lead to roughly comparable or massively diverging results and, if so, to give potential explanations. Two different commercially available pathway analysis programs (GeneGo and Pathway Studio 6) have been elected. The programs have been compared concerning their different analyses tools, underlying databases, database constructions, and network-building algorithms. The same data set has been uploaded into two different programs. Pathway analysis was performed according to the following three criteria: the five top networks, the five top diseases, and the five top canonical networks that are associated with the uploaded gene list. The different programs differ in extracting their information from the literature, in database construction, and network-building algorithms. The "top networks," as suggested by the programs as to be "most important," substantially differ from each other and share only one same gene. Concerning the most represented diseases in the data set, there are certain overlaps but no uniform results in the different applications. Pathway analyses of microarray data using preformed software devices offer valuable options for investigating on the biological relevance and function of a focus gene set. However, there is no standard in constructing such programs. This leads to substantial differences when investigating on the same data set using different devices. The intention of this work is to sensitize for the potentialities and also pitfalls doing pathway analysis using automated software tools.