Jonathan D. Sonis

Once daily enoxaparin for outpatient treatment of acute venous thromboembolism: a case-control study.

We studied the efficacy and safety of an investigational enoxaparin regimen, 1.5 mg/kg once daily, as a bridge to warfarin for the outpatient treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. We undertook a case-control design. We enrolled 40 acute venous thromboembolism cases prospectively and matched them by age, gender, and location of venous thromboembolism to 80 previously treated controls. All controls had received enoxaparin 1 mg/kg twice daily. The primary end point was recurrent venous thromboembolism. We followed the cases for 30 days. We discontinued enoxaparin after we achieved the target international normalized ratio between 2.0 and 3.0. One case (2.9%) and three controls (3.8%) had recurrent venous thromboembolic events (P = 1.00). There were no major bleeding complications in the case group, compared to 3 (3.8%) in the control group (P = .55). Once daily enoxaparin, 1.5 mg/kg, as a bridge to warfarin was as effective with a similar safety profile as twice daily enoxaparin, 1mg/kg, for initial treatment of acute venous thromboembolism in the outpatient setting. This case-control study provides the rationale for undertaking a randomized controlled trial comparing enoxaparin 1.5 mg/kg once daily versus enoxaparin 1.0 mg/kg twice daily as a bridge to warfarin in outpatients with acute venous thromboembolism.

Implications of iodinated contrast media extravasation in the emergency department

Purpose To characterize the management, outcomes, and emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS) following iodinated contrast media extravasation events in the ED. Methods All ED patients who developed iodinated contrast media extravasation following contrast‐enhanced CT (CECT) from October 2007–December 2016 were retrospectively identified. Medical records were reviewed and management, complications, frequency of surgical consultation, and ED LOS were quantified using descriptive statistics. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare ED LOS in patients who did and did not receive surgical consultation. Results A total of 199 contrast extravasation episodes occurred in ED patients during the 9‐year study period. Of these, 42 patients underwent surgical consultation to evaluate the contrast extravasation event. No patient developed progressive symptoms, compartment syndrome, or tissue necrosis, and none received treatment beyond supportive care (warm/cold packs, elevation, compression). Median ED LOS for patients who did and did not receive surgical consultation was 11.3 h versus 9.0 h, respectively (p < 0.01). Conclusion Close observation and supportive care are sufficient for contrast extravasation events in the ED without concerning symptoms (progressive pain/swelling, altered tissue perfusion, sensory changes, or blistering/ulceration). Routine surgical consultation is likely unnecessary in the absence of these symptoms – concordant with the current American College of Radiology guidelines – and may be associated with longer ED LOS without impacting management.

MR angiography can guide ED management of suspected acute aortic dissection

Background: Aortic dissection is typically evaluated with computed tomography angiography (CTA). However, the feasibility of using magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in the ED is unclear. This study examined the indications and outcomes of MRA in suspected aortic dissection evaluation in the ED. Methods: An IRB approved review identified patients who underwent MRA in the ED for acute thoracic aortic dissection from January 2010 to June 2016. Demographics, clinical assessment, CTA contraindications, outcomes, and ED disposition were analyzed. Results: 50 MRAs were ordered for suspected thoracic aortic dissection. 21 (42%) for iodinated contrast allergy, 21 (42%) for renal insufficiency, 2 (4%) due to both, 2 (4%) to spare ionizing radiation, 2 (4%) for further work‐up after CTA, and 2 (4%) due to prior contrast enhanced CT within 24 h. Median ED arrival to MRA completion time was 311 min. 42 studies were fully diagnostic; 7 were limited. One patient could not tolerate the examination. 49 MRAs were completed: 2 (4%) patients had acute dissection on MRA and 47 (96%) had negative exams. 17 (35%) received gadolinium. 18 (37%) patients were discharged home from the ED with a median length of stay of 643 min. 2 (4%) were admitted for acute dissection seen on MRA and 29 (59%) for further evaluation. Conclusion: MRA has a clear role in the evaluation for acute thoracic aortic dissection in the ED in patients with contraindications to CTA, and can guide management and facilitate safe discharge to home.

Emergency Department Patient Experience: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Introduction: Patient experience with emergency department (ED) care is an expanding area of focus, and recent literature has demonstrated strong correlation between patient experience and meeting several ED and hospital goals. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of existing literature to identify specific factors most commonly identified as influencing ED patient experience. Methods: A literature search was performed, and articles were included if published in peer-reviewed journals, primarily focused on ED patient experience, employed observational or interventional methodology, and were available in English. After a structured screening process, 107 publications were included for data extraction. Result: Of the 107 included publications, 51 were published before 2011, 57% were conducted by American investigators, and 12% were published in nursing journals. The most commonly identified themes included staff-patient communication, ED wait times, and staff empathy and compassion. Conclusion: The most commonly identified drivers of ED patient experience include communication, wait times, and staff empathy; however, existing literature is limited. Additional investigation is necessary to further characterize ED patient experience themes and identify interventions that effectively improve these domains.

Opportunity to reduce transfer of patients with mild traumatic brain injury and intracranial hemorrhage to a Level 1 trauma center

Objective: Current guidelines do not address the disposition of patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) and resultant intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Emergency medicine clinicians working in hospitals without neurosurgery coverage typically transfer patients with both to a trauma center with neurosurgery capability. Evidence is accruing which demonstrates that the risk of neurologic decompensation depends on the type of ICH and as a result, not every patient may need to be transferred. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for admission among patients with mild TBI and ICH who were transferred from a community hospital to the emergency department (ED) of a Level 1 trauma center. Methods: Study subjects were patients ≥ 18 years of age who were transferred from a community hospital to the ED of an urban, academic Level 1 trauma center between April 1, 2015 and March 31, 2016, and with an isolated traumatic ICH. Patients who had an epidural hematoma, were deemed to require a trauma centers level of service, were found to have non‐traumatic ICHs, or had a Glasgow Coma Scale of < 13 were excluded. Using a multivariable logistic regression model, we sought to determine patient factors and Computed Tomography (CT) findings which were associated with admission (to the floor, intensive care unit, or operating room with neurosurgery) of the Level 1 trauma center. Results: 644 transferred patients were identified; 205 remained eligible after exclusion criteria. Presence of warfarin (odds ratio [OR] 4.09, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.64, 10.25, p = 0.0026) and a subdural hematoma (SDH) ≥ 1 cm (OR 6.28, 95% CI 1.24, 31.71, p = 0.0263) were independently statistically significant factors predicting admission. Age, sex, GCS, presence of neurologic deficit, aspirin use, clopidogrel use, SDH < 1 cm, IPH, and SAH were each independently not significant predictive factors of an admission. Conclusions: After controlling for factors, transferred patients with mild TBI with a SDH ≥ 1 cm or on warfarin have a higher odds ratio of requiring inpatient admission to a Level 1 trauma center. While these patients may require admission, there may be opportunities to develop and study a low risk traumatic intracranial hemorrhage protocol, which keeps a subgroup of patients with a mild TBI and resultant ICH at community hospitals with access to a nearby Level 1 trauma center.

A Conceptual Model for Emergency Department Patient Experience

Emergency department (ED) patient experience continues to be a growing area of focus for ED physicians, administrators, and regulatory agencies. Recent literature has suggested a strong correlation between positive ratings of patient experience and important health system goals, including improved clinical outcomes and care quality, increased staff satisfaction, and reduced medicolegal risk. However, given the myriad of factors driving ED patient experience, identifying effective and synergistic interventions can present a challenge, especially in the setting of limited ED resources. Utilizing the themes identified in a recent systematic review of the ED patient experience literature, we developed a conceptual “logic model” of ED patient experience in order to provide a broadly applicable framework for practical intervention and to guide further study of ED patient experience interventions. The logic model was modified in an iterative fashion through review by local patient and staff groups as well as a national interest group until arriving at the current, comprehensive version. Here, we describe the creation of the logic model and, with the aim of providing a framework for readers to develop similar models for their practice settings, provide a case discussion of its use by an ED medical director.

Calling on the Patient’s Perspective in Emergency Medicine: Analysis of 1 Year of a Patient Callback Program

Background: Patient-centered approaches in the evaluation of patient experience are increasingly important priorities for quality improvement in health-care delivery. Our objective was to investigate common themes in patient-reported data to better understand areas for improvement in the emergency department (ED) experience. Methods: A large urban, tertiary-care ED conducted phone interviews with 2607 patients who visited the ED during 2015. Patients were asked to identify one area that would have significantly improved their visit. Transcripts were analyzed using content analysis, and the results were summarized with descriptive statistics. Results: The most commonly cited themes for improvement in the patient experience were wait time (49.4%) and communication (14.6%). Related, but more nuanced, themes emerged around the perception of ED crowding and compassionate care as additional important contributors to the patient experience. Other frequently cited factors contributing to a negative experience were the discharge process and inability to complete follow-up plan (8.0%), environmental factors (7.9%), perceived competency of providers in the evaluation or treatment (7.4%), and pain management (7.4%). Conclusions: Wait times and perceptions of ED crowding, as well as provider communication and compassionate care, are significant factors identified by patients that affect their ED experience.

Training to Improve Communication Quality: An Efficient Interdisciplinary Experience for Emergency Department Clinicians

Patient–provider communication has been recognized as a critical area of focus for improved health care quality, with a mounting body of evidence tying patient satisfaction and provider communication to important health care outcomes. Despite this, few programs have been studied in the emergency department (ED) setting. The authors designed a communication curriculum and conducted trainings for all ED clinical staff. Although only 72% of clinicians believed the course would be a valuable use of their time before taking it, 97% reported that it was a valuable use of their time after (P < .001). Pre-course self-evaluation of knowledge, skill, and ability were high. Despite this, post-course self-efficacy improved statistically significantly. This study suggests that it is possible, in a brief training session, to deliver communication content that participants felt was relevant to their practice, improved their skills and knowledge, changed their attitude, and was perceived to be a valuable use of their time.

Allergic-like contrast reactions in the ED: Incidence, management, and impact on patient disposition.

Purpose: Determine the incidence, management, and impact on patient disposition of allergic‐like contrast reactions (ALCR) to intravenous iodinated contrast in the emergency department (ED). Methods: All ED patients who developed an ALCR following contrast‐enhanced CT (CECT) from June 2011–December 2016 were retrospectively identified. Medical records were reviewed and reaction severity, management, and disposition were quantified using descriptive statistics. The total number of consecutive CECTs performed in the ED were available from June 2011–March 2016 and were used to derive ALCR incidence over that time period. Results: A total of 90 patients developed an ALCR during the study period. An ALCR incidence of 0.2% was derived based on 74 ALCRs occurring out of 47,059 consecutive contrast injections in ED patients from June 2011–April 2016. Reaction severity was mild in 63/90 (70%) and moderate in 27/90 (30%) cases; no patient developed a severe reaction by American College of Radiology criteria. The most commonly administered treatments were diphenhydramine in 67/90 (74%), corticosteroid in 24/90 (27%), and epinephrine in 13/90 (14%); symptoms subsequently resolved in all cases. No patient required inpatient admission for contrast reaction alone, and 5 patients were sent to the ED observation unit for post‐epinephrine monitoring and subsequently discharged. Conclusion: ALCR among ED patients undergoing CECT are rare, generally of mild severity, respond well to pharmacologic management, and do not alter patient disposition in most cases. Familiarity with symptoms, management, and prevention strategies is increasingly relevant to the emergency physician given the ubiquity of CECT.

Death or revascularization among nonadmitted ED patients with low-positive vs negative troponin T results☆

STUDY OBJECTIVE Compare outcomes among emergency department (ED) patients with low-positive (0.01-0.02 ng/mL) vs negative troponin T. METHODS Retrospective cohort study of nonadmitted ED patients with troponin testing at a tertiary-care hospital. Trained research assistants used a structured tool to review charts from all nonadmitted ED patients with troponin testing, 12/1/2009 to 11/30/2010. Outcomes of death and coronary revascularization were assessed at 30 days and 6 months via medical record review, Social Security Death Index searches, and patient contact. RESULTS There were 57596 ED visits; with 33388 (58%) discharged immediately, 6410 (11%) assigned to the observation unit, and 17798 (31%) admitted or other. Troponin was measured in 2684 (6.7%) of the nonadmitted cases. Troponin was negative in 2523 (94.0%), low positive in 78 (2.9%), and positive (≥0.03 ng/mL) in 83 (3.1%). Of troponin-negative cases, 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4-1.1%) died or were revascularized by 30 days, vs 2.8% (95% CI, 0.0-6.7%) of low-positive cases (risk difference [RD], 2.0%; 95% CI, -1.8 to 5.9%). At 6 months, the rates were 1.7% (95% CI, 1.1-2.2%) and 12.9% (95% CI, 5.0-20.7%) (RD, 11%; 95% CI, 3.3-19.1%). Death alone at 30 days occurred in 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1-0.6%) vs 1.3% (95% CI, 0.0-3.8%) (RD, 0.9%; 95% CI, -1.6 to 3.4%). Death at 6 months occurred in 1.2% (95% CI, 0.8-1.6%) vs 11.7% (95% CI, 4.5-18.9%) (RD, 10%; 95% CI, 3.3-17.7%). CONCLUSION Among patients not initially admitted, rates of death and coronary revascularization differed insignificantly at 30 days but significantly at 6 months. Detailed inspection of our results reveals that the bulk of the added risk at 6 months was due to non-cardiac mortality.