John A Cheek

Accuracy of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE head injury decision rules in children: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND Clinical decision rules can help to determine the need for CT imaging in children with head injuries. We aimed to validate three clinical decision rules (PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE) in a large sample of children. METHODS In this prospective observational study, we included children and adolescents (aged <18 years) with head injuries of any severity who presented to the emergency departments of ten Australian and New Zealand hospitals. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of PECARN (stratified into children aged <2 years and ≥2 years), CATCH, and CHALICE in predicting each rule-specific outcome measure (clinically important traumatic brain injury [TBI], need for neurological intervention, and clinically significant intracranial injury, respectively). For each calculation we used rule-specific predictor variables in populations that satisfied inclusion and exclusion criteria for each rule (validation cohort). In a secondary analysis, we compiled a comparison cohort of patients with mild head injuries (Glasgow Coma Scale score 13-15) and calculated accuracy using rule-specific predictor variables for the standardised outcome of clinically important TBI. This study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12614000463673. FINDINGS Between April 11, 2011, and Nov 30, 2014, we analysed 20 137 children and adolescents attending with head injuries. CTs were obtained for 2106 (10%) patients, 4544 (23%) were admitted, 83 (<1%) underwent neurosurgery, and 15 (<1%) died. PECARN was applicable for 4011 (75%) of 5374 patients younger than 2 years and 11 152 (76%) of 14 763 patients aged 2 years and older. CATCH was applicable for 4957 (25%) patients and CHALICE for 20 029 (99%). The highest point validation sensitivities were shown for PECARN in children younger than 2 years (100·0%, 95% CI 90·7-100·0; 38 patients identified of 38 with outcome [38/38]) and PECARN in children 2 years and older (99·0%, 94·4-100·0; 97/98), followed by CATCH (high-risk predictors only; 95·2%; 76·2-99·9; 20/21; medium-risk and high-risk predictors 88·7%; 82·2-93·4; 125/141) and CHALICE (92·3%, 89·2-94·7; 370/401). In the comparison cohort of 18 913 patients with mild injuries, sensitivities for clinically important TBI were similar. Negative predictive values in both analyses were higher than 99% for all rules. INTERPRETATION The sensitivities of three clinical decision rules for head injuries in children were high when used as designed. The findings are an important starting point for clinicians considering the introduction of one of the rules. FUNDING National Health and Medical Research Council, Emergency Medicine Foundation, Perpetual Philanthropic Services, WA Health Targeted Research Funds, Townsville Hospital Private Practice Fund, Auckland Medical Research Foundation, A + Trust.

Applicability of the CATCH, CHALICE and PECARN paediatric head injury clinical decision rules: pilot data from a single Australian centre

Background Clinical decision rules (CDRs) for paediatric head injury (HI) exist to identify children at risk of traumatic brain injury. Those of the highest quality are the Canadian assessment of tomography for childhood head injury (CATCH), Childrens head injury algorithm for the prediction of important clinical events (CHALICE) and Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) CDRs. They target different cohorts of children with HI and have not been compared in the same setting. We set out to quantify the proportion of children with HI to which each CDR was applicable. Methods Consecutive children presenting to an Australian paediatric Emergency Department with HIs were enrolled. Published inclusion/exclusion criteria and predictor variables from the CDRs were collected prospectively. Using these we determined the frequency with which each CDR was applicable. Results 1012 patients (69.9%) were enrolled with 949 available for analysis. Mean age was 6.8 years (21% <2 years). 95% had initial Glasgow Coma Scale 15. CT rate was 12.8% and neurosurgery rate was 0.7%. No CDR was applicable to all patients. CHALICE was applicable to the most (97%, 95% CI 96% to 98%) and CATCH to the fewest (26%, 95% CI 24% to 29%). PECARN was applicable to 76% (95% CI 70% to 82%) aged <2 years, and 74% (95% CI 71% to 77%) aged 2–<18 years. Conclusions Each CDR is applicable to a different proportion of children with HI. This makes a direct comparison of the CDRs difficult. Prior to selection of any for implementation they should undergo validation outside the derivation setting coupled with an analysis of their performance accuracy, usability and cost effectiveness.

Off-label and unlicenced medicine administration to paediatric emergency department patients.

To determine the prevalence and nature of off‐label and unlicenced (off‐label/unlicenced) medicine administration to paediatric ED patients.

Accuracy of Clinician Practice Compared With Three Head Injury Decision Rules in Children: A Prospective Cohort Study

Study objective: Three clinical decision rules for head injuries in children (Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network [PECARN], Canadian Assessment of Tomography for Childhood Head Injury [CATCH], and Children’s Head Injury Algorithm for the Prediction of Important Clinical Events [CHALICE]) have been shown to have high performance accuracy. The utility of any of these in a particular setting depends on preexisting clinician accuracy. We therefore assess the accuracy of clinician practice in detecting clinically important traumatic brain injury. Methods: This was a planned secondary analysis of a prospective observational study of children younger than 18 years with head injuries at 10 Australian and New Zealand centers. In a cohort of children with mild head injuries (Glasgow Coma Scale score 13 to 15, presenting in <24 hours) we assessed physician accuracy (computed tomography [CT] obtained in emergency departments [EDs]) for the standardized outcome of clinically important traumatic brain injury and compared this with the accuracy of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE. Results: Of 20,137 children, 18,913 had a mild head injury. Of these patients, 1,579 (8.3%) received a CT scan during the ED visit, 160 (0.8%) had clinically important traumatic brain injury, and 24 (0.1%) underwent neurosurgery. Clinician identification of clinically important traumatic brain injury based on CT performed had a sensitivity of 158 of 160, or 98.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95.6% to 99.8%) and a specificity of 17,332 of 18,753, or 92.4% (95% CI 92.0% to 92.8%). Sensitivity of PECARN for children younger than 2 years was 42 of 42 (100.0%; 95% CI 91.6% to 100.0%), and for those 2 years and older, it was 117 of 118 (99.2%; 95% CI 95.4% to 100.0%); for CATCH (high/medium risk), it was 147 of 160 (91.9%; 95% CI 86.5% to 95.6%); and for CHALICE, 148 of 160 (92.5%; 95% CI 87.3% to 96.1%). Conclusion: In a setting with high clinician accuracy and a low CT rate, PECARN, CATCH, or CHALICE clinical decision rules have limited potential to increase the accuracy of detecting clinically important traumatic brain injury and may increase the CT rate.

Nasogastric Hydration in Infants with Bronchiolitis Less Than 2 Months of Age

OBJECTIVES To determine whether nasogastric hydration can be used in infants less than 2 months of age with bronchiolitis, and characterize the adverse events profile of these infants compared with infants given intravenous (IV) fluid hydration. STUDY DESIGN A descriptive retrospective cohort study of children with bronchiolitis under 2 months of age admitted for hydration at 3 centers over 3 bronchiolitis seasons was done. We determined type of hydration (nasogastric vs IV fluid hydration) and adverse events, intensive care unit admission, and respiratory support. RESULTS Of 491 infants under 2 months of age admitted with bronchiolitis, 211 (43%) received nonoral hydration: 146 (69%) via nasogastric hydration and 65 (31%) via IV fluid hydration. Adverse events occurred in 27.4% (nasogastric hydration) and 23.1% (IV fluid hydration), difference of 4.3%; 95%CI (-8.2 to 16.9), P = .51. The majority of adverse events were desaturations (21.9% nasogastric hydration vs 21.5% IV fluid hydration, difference 0.4%; [-11.7 to 12.4], P = .95). There were no pulmonary aspirations in either group. Apneas and bradycardias were similar in each group. IV fluid hydration use was positively associated with intensive care unit admission (38.5% IV fluid hydration vs 19.9% nasogastric hydration; difference 18.6%, [5.1-32.1], P = .004); and use of ventilation support (27.7% IV fluid hydration vs 15.1% nasogastric hydration; difference 12.6 [0.3-23], P = .03). Fewer infants changed from nasogastric hydration to IV fluid hydration than from IV fluid hydration to nasogastric hydration (12.3% vs 47.7%; difference -35.4% [-49 to -22], P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Nasogastric hydration can be used in the majority of young infants admitted with bronchiolitis. Nasogastric hydration and IV fluid hydration had similar rates of complications.

PREDICT prioritisation study: establishing the research priorities of paediatric emergency medicine physicians in Australia and New Zealand

Background The Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT) performs multicentre research in Australia and New Zealand. Research priorities are difficult to determine, often relying on individual interests or prior work. Objective To identify the research priorities of paediatric emergency medicine (PEM) specialists working in Australia and New Zealand. Methods Online surveys were administered in a two-stage, modified Delphi study. Eligible participants were PEM specialists (consultants and senior advanced trainees in PEM from 14 PREDICT sites). Participants submitted up to 3 of their most important research questions (survey 1). Responses were collated and refined, then a shortlist of refined questions was returned to participants for prioritisation (survey 2). A further prioritisation exercise was carried out at a PREDICT meeting using the Hanlon Process of Prioritisation. This determined the priorities of active researchers in PEM including an emphasis on the feasibility of a research question. Results One hundred and six of 254 (42%) eligible participants responded to survey 1 and 142/245 (58%) to survey 2. One hundred and sixty-eight (66%) took part in either or both surveys. Two hundred forty-six individual research questions were submitted in survey 1. Survey 2 established a prioritised list of 35 research questions. Priority topics from both the Delphi and Hanlon process included high flow oxygenation in intubation, fluid volume resuscitation in sepsis, imaging in cervical spine injury, intravenous therapy for asthma and vasopressor use in sepsis. Conclusion This prioritisation process has established a list of research questions, which will inform multicentre PEM research in Australia and New Zealand. It has also emphasised the importance of the translation of new knowledge.

Accuracy of NEXUS II head injury decision rule in children: a prospective PREDICT cohort study

Objective The National Emergency X-Radiography Utilisation Study II (NEXUS II) clinical decision rule (CDR) can be used to optimise the use of CT in children with head trauma. We set out to externally validate this CDR in a large cohort. Methods We performed a prospective observational study of patients aged <18 years presenting with head trauma of any severity to 10 Australian/New Zealand EDs. In a planned secondary analysis, we assessed the accuracy of the NEXUS II CDR (with 95% CI) to detect clinically important intracranial injury (ICI). We also assessed clinician accuracy without the rule. Results Of 20 137 total patients, we excluded 28 with suspected penetrating injury. Median age was 4.2 years. CTs were obtained in ED for 1962 (9.8%), of whom 377 (19.2%) had ICI as defined by NEXUS II. 74 (19.6% of ICI) patients underwent neurosurgery. Sensitivity for ICI based on the NEXUS II CDR was 379/383 (99.0 (95% CI 97.3% to 99.7%)) and specificity was 9320/19 726 (47.2% (95% CI 46.5% to 47.9%)) for the total cohort. Sensitivity in the CT-only cohort was similar. Of the 18 022 children without CT in ED, 49.4% had at least one NEXUS II risk criterion. Sensitivity for ICI by the clinicians without the rule was 377/377 (100.0% (95% CI 99.0% to 100.0%)) and specificity was 18 147/19 732 (92.0% (95% CI 91.6% to 92.3%)). Conclusions NEXUS II had high sensitivity, similar to the derivation study. However, approximately half of unimaged patients were positive for NEXUS II risk criteria; this may result in an increased CT rate in a setting with high clinician accuracy.

Removal of ENT foreign bodies in children

Many different foreign bodies have been discovered in the aural and nasal cavities of children presenting to the ED. These include food (particularly peas and corn), beads, toys, cotton tips, paper, jewellery and insects. Live insects in the ear are particularly distressing, and should be initially killed by instillation of oil (mineral oil or olive oil) or lignocaine solution. Button batteries also deserve specific mention, due to their potential to cause rapid tissue damage and significant complications. As a result, urgent removal is required.

Vomiting With Head Trauma and Risk of Traumatic Brain Injury

This is a prospective study of vomiting in children with head injury presenting to pediatric EDs and delineated factors that increase the risk of traumatic brain injury. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of traumatic brain injuries in children who vomit after head injury and identify variables from published clinical decision rules (CDRs) that predict increased risk. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the Australasian Paediatric Head Injury Rule Study. Vomiting characteristics were assessed and correlated with CDR predictors and the presence of clinically important traumatic brain injury (ciTBI) or traumatic brain injury on computed tomography (TBI-CT). Isolated vomiting was defined as vomiting without other CDR predictors. RESULTS: Of the 19 920 children enrolled, 3389 (17.0%) had any vomiting, with 2446 (72.2%) >2 years of age. In 172 patients with ciTBI, 76 had vomiting (44.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 36.9%–51.7%), and in 285 with TBI-CT, 123 had vomiting (43.2%; 95% CI 37.5%–49.0%). With isolated vomiting, only 1 (0.3%; 95% CI 0.0%–0.9%) had ciTBI and 2 (0.6%; 95% CI 0.0%–1.4%) had TBI-CT. Predictors of increased risk of ciTBI with vomiting by using multivariate regression were as follows: signs of skull fracture (odds ratio [OR] 80.1; 95% CI 43.4–148.0), altered mental status (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.0–5.5), headache (OR 2.3; 95% CI 1.3–4.1), and acting abnormally (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.0–3.4). Additional features predicting TBI-CT were as follows: skull fracture (OR 112.96; 95% CI 66.76–191.14), nonaccidental injury concern (OR 6.75; 95% CI 1.54–29.69), headache (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.52–4.27), and acting abnormally (OR 1.83; 95% CI 1.10–3.06). CONCLUSIONS: TBI-CT and ciTBI are uncommon in children presenting with head injury with isolated vomiting, and a management strategy of observation without immediate computed tomography appears appropriate.

External validation of the PediBIRN clinical prediction rule for abusive head trauma

In this study, we externally validate a CPR aiding detection of AHT in admitted young children. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A 4-variable abusive head trauma (AHT) clinical prediction rule (CPR) for use in the PICU was derived and validated for children <3 years of age by the Pediatric Brain Injury Research Network (PediBIRN). We aimed to externally validate PediBIRN as designed (PICU only) as well as using broader inclusion criteria (admitted children with head injuries). METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter study of pediatric head injuries at 5 Australian and New Zealand tertiary pediatric centers. Possible AHT was identified by clinician suspicion, epidemiology codes, or a high-risk group (<3 years of age, admitted, abnormal neuroimaging results). At 1 center, we additionally reviewed head injuries in the forensic database. We designated patients as positive for AHT, negative for AHT, or having indeterminate outcome after multidisciplinary review and applied the PediBIRN CPR, blinded to outcome, to PICU admissions only, and any head injury admissions. CPR accuracy was calculated by using 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-one patients were admitted with abnormal neuroimaging results. Twenty-eight (20%) were positive for AHT, 94 (67%) were negative for AHT, and 19 (13%) had indeterminate outcome. Excluding indeterminate cases, in the PICU (n = 28), the CPR was 100% (75%–100%) sensitive and 11% (0%–48%) specific; in all admitted patients (n = 141), sensitivity was 96% (82%–100%) and specificity of 43% (32%–53%). CONCLUSIONS: This validation revealed high sensitivity and low specificity for PICU patients. Specificity was improved but moderate in a broader group of admitted head injury patients.