Repeat CT Performed Within One Month of CT Conducted in the Emergency Department for Abdominal Pain: A Secondary Analysis of Data From a Prospective Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine both the frequency of repeat CT performed within 1 month after a patient visits the emergency department (ED) and undergoes CT evaluation for abdominal pain and the frequency of worsened or new CT-based diagnoses. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Secondary analysis was performed on data collected during a prospective multicenter study. The parent study included patients who underwent CT in the ED for abdominal pain between 2012 and 2014, and these patients constituted the study group of the present analysis. The proportion of patients who underwent (in any setting) repeat abdominal CT within 1 month of the index CT examination was calculated. For each of these patients, results of the index and repeat CT scans were compared by an independent panel and categorized as follows: no change (group 1); same process, improved (group 2); same process, worse (group 3); or different process (group 4). The proportion of patients in groups 1 and 2 versus groups 3 and 4 was calculated, and patient and ED physician characteristics were compared. RESULTS: The parent study included 544 patients (246 of whom were men [45%]; mean patient age, 49.4 years). Of those 544 patients, 53 (10%; 95% CI, 7.5-13%) underwent repeat abdominal CT. Patients' CT comparisons were categorized as follows: group 1 for 43% of patients (23/53), group 2 for 26% (14/53), group 3 for 15% (8/53), and group 4 for 15% (8/53). New or worse findings were present in 30% of patients (16/53) (95% CI, 19-44%). When patients with findings in groups 1 and 2 were compared to patients with findings in groups 3 and 4, no significant difference was noted in patient age (p = 0.25) or sex (p = 0.76), the number of days between scans (p = 0.98), and the diagnostic confidence of the ED physician after the index CT scan was obtained (p = 0.33). CONCLUSION: Short-term, repeat abdominal CT was performed for 10% of patients who underwent CT in the ED for abdominal pain, and it yielded new or worse findings for 30% of those patients.

Role of CT in the Diagnosis of Nonspecific Abdominal Pain: A Multicenter Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to determine whether specific patient and physician factors-known before CT-are associated with a diagnosis of nonspecific abdominal pain (NSAP) after CT in the emergency department (ED). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data originally collected in a prospective multicenter study. In the parent study, we identified ED patients referred to CT for evaluation of abdominal pain. We surveyed their physicians before and after CT to identify changes in leading diagnoses, diagnostic confidence, and admission decisions. In the current study, we conducted a multiple regression analysis to identify whether the following were associated with a post-CT diagnosis of NSAP: patient age; patient sex; physicians' years of experience; physicians' pre-CT diagnostic confidence; and physicians' pre-CT admission decision if CT had not been available. We analyzed patients with and those without a pre-CT diagnosis of NSAP separately. For the sensitivity analysis, we excluded patients with different physicians before and after CT. RESULTS: In total, 544 patients were included: 10% (52/544) with a pre-CT diagnosis of NSAP and 90% (492/544) with a pre-CT diagnosis other than NSAP. The leading diagnoses changed after CT in a large proportion of patients with a pre-CT diagnosis of NSAP (38%, 20/52). In regression analysis, we found that physicians' pre-CT diagnostic confidence was inversely associated with a post-CT diagnosis of NSAP in patients with a pre-CT diagnosis other than NSAP (p = 0.0001). No other associations were significant in both primary and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: With the exception of physicians' pre-CT diagnostic confidence, the factors evaluated were not associated with a post-CT diagnosis of NSAP.

CT in the Emergency Department: A Real-Time Study of Changes in Physician Decision Making.

PURPOSE: To determine how physicians' diagnoses, diagnostic uncertainty, and management decisions are affected by the results of computed tomography (CT) in emergency department settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board and compliant with HIPAA. Data were collected between July 12, 2012, and January 13, 2014. The requirement to obtain patient consent was waived. In this prospective, four-center study, patients presenting to the emergency department who were referred for CT with abdominal pain, chest pain and/or dyspnea, or headache were identified. Physicians were surveyed before and after CT to determine the leading diagnosis, diagnostic confidence (on a scale of 0% to 100%), alternative "rule out" diagnosis, and management decisions. Primary measures were the proportion of patients for whom the leading diagnosis or admission decision changed and median changes in diagnostic confidence. Secondary measures addressed alternative diagnoses and return-to-care visits (eg, to emergency department) at 1-month follow-up. Regression analysis was used to identify associations between primary measures and site and participant characteristics. RESULTS: Both surveys were completed for 1280 patients by 245 physicians. The leading diagnosis changed in 235 of 460 patients with abdominal pain (51%), 163 of 387 with chest pain and/or dyspnea (42%), and 103 of 433 with headache (24%). Pre-CT diagnostic confidence was inversely associated with the likelihood of a diagnostic change (P < .0001). Median changes in confidence were substantial (increases of 25%, 20%, and 13%, respectively, for patients with abdominal pain, chest pain and/or dyspnea, and headache; P < .0001); median post-CT confidence was high (95% for all three groups). CT helped confirm or exclude at least 95% of alternative diagnoses. Admission decisions changed in 116 of 457 patients with abdominal pain (25%), 72 of 387 with chest pain and/or dyspnea (19%), and 81 of 426 with headache (19%). During follow-up, 70 of 450 patients with abdominal pain (15%), 53 of 387 with chest pain and/or dyspnea (14%), and 49 of 433 with headache (11%) returned for the same indication. In general, changes in leading diagnosis, diagnostic confidence, and admission decisions were not well explained with site or participant characteristics. CONCLUSION: Physicians' diagnoses and admission decisions changed frequently after CT, and diagnostic uncertainty was alleviated.

African tick-bite fever in a returning traveler.

BACKGROUND: African tick bite fever (ATBF) is an emerging infection endemic to sub-Saharan Africa and increasingly noted in travelers to the region. CASE REPORT: We present a case of ATBF in a 63-year-old man who presented with complaints of a rash and fever to the emergency department. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Rickettsial diseases are increasingly common and are seen on every continent except Antarctica. Many factors are contributing to their prevalence, and they have become the second most common cause of fever behind malaria in the traveler returning from Africa. Due to the global distribution of rickettsial diseases, as well as increasing international travel, emergency physicians might encounter ill and febrile travelers. A careful travel history and examination will enable the emergency physician to consider spotted fever group rickettsial diseases in their differential diagnosis for single and multiple eschars.

Clinical trial: comparative effectiveness of cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole versus cephalexin alone for treatment of uncomplicated cellulitis: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Community-associated methicillin-resistant S. aureus (CA-MRSA) is the most common organism isolated from purulent skin infections. Antibiotics are usually not beneficial for skin abscess, and national guidelines do not recommend CA-MRSA coverage for cellulitis, except purulent cellulitis, which is uncommon. Despite this, antibiotics targeting CA-MRSA are prescribed commonly and increasingly for skin infections, perhaps due, in part, to lack of experimental evidence among cellulitis patients. We test the hypothesis that antibiotics targeting CA-MRSA are beneficial in the treatment of cellulitis. METHODS: We performed a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial from 2007 to 2011. We enrolled patients with cellulitis, no abscesses, symptoms for <1 week, and no diabetes, immunosuppression, peripheral vascular disease, or hospitalization (clinicaltrials.gov NCT00676130). All participants received cephalexin. Additionally, each was randomized to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or placebo. We provided 14 days of antibiotics and instructed participants to continue therapy for ≥1 week, then stop 3 days after they felt the infection to be cured. Our main outcome measure was the risk difference for treatment success, determined in person at 2 weeks, with telephone and medical record confirmation at 1 month. RESULTS: We enrolled 153 participants, and 146 had outcome data for intent-to-treat analysis. Median age was 29, range 3-74. Of intervention participants, 62/73 (85%) were cured versus 60/73 controls (82%), a risk difference of 2.7% (95% confidence interval, -9.3% to 15%; P = .66). No covariates predicted treatment response, including nasal MRSA colonization and purulence at enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients diagnosed with cellulitis without abscess, the addition of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole to cephalexin did not improve outcomes overall or by subgroup. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT00676130.

Are cervical spine radiograph examinations useful in patients with low clinical suspicion of cervical spine fracture? An experience with 254 cases.

Trauma patients with low clinical suspicion of cervical spine fracture are often examined with a plain X-ray cervical spine series rather than with cervical spine computed tomography (CT). The authors have been concerned by the absence of fractures in the group of patients examined with plain X-ray. The objective of this investigation was to determine the usefulness of plain X-ray examinations in suspected cases of cervical spine fracture compared to CT. A retrospective review was performed of all trauma patients undergoing imaging for suspected cervical spine fracture in our Emergency Department over a one-year period (January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007). During the study period, 254 cervical spine plain X-ray and 3,080 cervical spine CT examinations were performed. Of the 254 plain X-ray examinations, 237 were interpreted as negative for fracture, 11 were suboptimal examinations, and six were interpreted as possible fractures (later ruled out by further imaging). Of the 3,080 CT examinations, 2,884 were interpreted as negative for fracture and 196 as positive. The overall positivity rates for acute cervical spine fracture were 0.0% in plain X-ray and 6.4% in CT examinations. These data confirm the authors' concern that plain X-ray imaging for patients with low clinical suspicion for cervical spine trauma in our hospital may have too low a yield to justify its use. However, the 6.4% positivity rate in the group of patients selected for CT examination justifies its use in this group.

Assessment of a clinical performance evaluation tool for use in a simulator-based testing environment: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: This study assessed a clinical performance evaluation tool for use in a simulator-based testing environment. METHOD: Twenty-three subjects were evaluated during five standardized encounters using a patient simulator (six emergency medicine students, seven house officers, ten chief resident-fellows). Performance in each 15-minute session was compared with performance on an identical number of oral objective-structured clinical examination (OSCE) sessions used as controls. Each was scored by a faculty rater using a scoring system previously validated for oral certification examinations in emergency medicine (eight skills rated 1-8; passing = 5.75). RESULTS: On both simulator exams and oral controls, chief resident-fellows earned (mean) "passing" scores [sim = 6.4 (95% CI: 6.0-6.8), oral = 6.4 (95% CI: 6.1-6.7)]; house officers earned "borderline" scores [sim = 5.6 (95% CI: 5.2-5.9), oral = 5.5 (95% CI: 5.0-5.9)]; and students earned "failing" scores [sim = 4.3 (95% CI: 3.8-4.7), oral = 4.5 (95% CI: 3.8-5.1)]. There were significant differences among mean scores for the three cohorts, for both oral and simulator test arms (p <.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot, a standardized oral OSCE scoring system performed equally well in a simulator-based testing environment.