Mamata V. Kene

Bleeding complications of central venous catheterization in septic patients with abnormal hemostasis.

OBJECTIVES Central venous catheterization (CVC) is thought to be relatively contraindicated in patients with thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy. We measured the 24-hour incidence of bleeding in septic emergency department (ED) patients undergoing CVC. METHODS This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included septic ED patients undergoing CVC with one of the following: platelets less than 100,000/μL, international normalized ratio at least 1.3, or partial thromboplastin time at least 35 seconds. Major bleeding included radiographically confirmed intrathoracic, mediastinal, or internal neck hemorrhage or line-related bleeding causing hemodynamic compromise. Minor bleeding included local oozing or superficial hematoma. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to determine the association between candidate variables and hemorrhagic complications. RESULTS Of the 936 cases, mean age was 68.1 years; 535 (57.2%) were male. Two or more qualifying laboratory abnormalities were present in 204 cases (21.8%). The proceduralists were predominately attendings (790; 84.4%). The initial veins were the internal jugular (n = 800; 85.5%), subclavian (n = 123; 13.1%), and femoral (n = 13; 1.4%). Initial access was successful in 872 cases (93.2%). We found one case (95% upper confidence limit: 0.6%) of major bleeding and 37 cases (4.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8%-5.4%) of minor bleeding. Only failed access at the initial site was independently associated with hemorrhagic outcomes: adjusted odds ratio 8.2 (95% CI, 3.7-18.0). CONCLUSIONS Major bleeding from CVC in ED patients with abnormal hemostasis is rare. Minor bleeding is uncommon and infrequently requires intervention. Successful catheterization on the initial attempt is associated with fewer hemorrhagic complications. These results can inform the risk/benefit calculus for CVC in this population.

In-hospital mortality following treatment with red blood cell transfusion or inotropic therapy during early goal-directed therapy for septic shock: a retrospective propensity-adjusted analysis

IntroductionWe sought to investigate whether treatment of subnormal (<70%) central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) with inotropes or red blood cell (RBC) transfusion during early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) for septic shock is independently associated with in-hospital mortality.MethodsRetrospective analysis of a prospective EGDT patient database drawn from 21 emergency departments with a single standardized EGDT protocol. Patients were included if, during EGDT, they concomitantly achieved a central venous pressure (CVP) of ≥8 mm Hg and a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of ≥65 mm Hg while registering a ScvO2 < 70%. Treatment propensity scores for either RBC transfusion or inotrope administration were separately determined from independent patient sub-cohorts. Propensity-adjusted logistic regression analyses were conducted to test for associations between treatments and in-hospital mortality.ResultsOf 2,595 EGDT patients, 572 (22.0%) met study inclusion criteria. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 20.5%. Inotropes or RBC transfusions were administered for an ScvO2 < 70% to 51.9% of patients. Patients were not statistically more likely to achieve an ScvO2 of ≥70% if they were treated with RBC transfusion alone (29/59, 49.2%, P = 0.19), inotropic therapy alone (104/226, 46.0%, P = 0.15) or both RBC and inotropic therapy (7/12, 58.3%, P = 0.23) as compared to no therapy (108/275, 39.3%). Following adjustment for treatment propensity score, RBC transfusion was associated with a decreased adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of in-hospital mortality among patients with hemoglobin values less than 10 g/dL (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.97, P = 0.04) while inotropic therapy was not associated with in-hospital mortality among patients with hemoglobin values of 10 g/dL or greater (aOR 1.16, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.96, P = 0.57).ConclusionsAmong patients with septic shock treated with EGDT in the setting of subnormal ScvO2 values despite meeting CVP and MAP target goals, treatment with RBC transfusion may be independently associated with decreased in-hospital mortality.

Risk stratifying emergency department patients with acute pulmonary embolism: Does the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index perform as well as the original?

INTRODUCTION The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) is a validated prognostic score to estimate the 30-day mortality of emergency department (ED) patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). A simplified version (sPESI) was derived but has not been as well studied in the U.S. We sought to validate both indices in a community hospital setting in the U.S. and compare their performance in predicting 30-day all-cause mortality and classification of cases into low-risk and higher-risk categories. MATERIALS AND METHODS This retrospective cohort study included adults with acute objectively confirmed PE from 1/2013 to 4/2015 across 21 community EDs. We evaluated the misclassification rate of the sPESI compared with the PESI. We assessed accuracy of both indices with regard to 30-day mortality. RESULTS Among 3006 cases of acute PE, the 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 4.4%. The sPESI performed as well as the PESI in identifying low-risk patients: both had similar sensitivities, negative predictive values, and negative likelihood ratios. The sPESI, however, classified a smaller proportion of patients as low risk than the PESI (27.5% vs. 41.0%), but with similar low-risk mortality rates (<1%). Compared with the PESI, the sPESI overclassified 443 low-risk patients (14.7%) as higher risk, yet their 30-day mortality was 0.7%. The sPESI underclassified 100 higher-risk patients (3.3%) as low risk who also had a low mortality rate (1.0%). CONCLUSIONS Both indices identified patients with PE who were at low risk for 30-day mortality. The sPESI, however, misclassified a significant number of low-mortality patients as higher risk, which could lead to unnecessary hospitalizations.

Emergency Physician Attitudes, Preferences, and Risk Tolerance for Stroke as a Potential Cause of Dizziness Symptoms

Introduction We evaluated emergency physicians’ (EP) current perceptions, practice, and attitudes towards evaluating stroke as a cause of dizziness among emergency department patients. Methods We administered a survey to all EPs in a large integrated healthcare delivery system. The survey included clinical vignettes, perceived utility of historical and exam elements, attitudes about the value of and requisite post-test probability of a clinical prediction rule for dizziness. We calculated descriptive statistics and post-test probabilities for such a clinical prediction rule. Results The response rate was 68% (366/535). Respondents’ median practice tenure was eight years (37% female, 92% emergency medicine board certified). Symptom quality and typical vascular risk factors increased suspicion for stroke as a cause of dizziness. Most respondents reported obtaining head computed tomography (CT) (74%). Nearly all respondents used and felt confident using cranial nerve and limb strength testing. A substantial minority of EPs used the Epley maneuver (49%) and HINTS (head-thrust test, gaze-evoked nystagmus, and skew deviation) testing (30%); however, few EPs reported confidence in these tests’ bedside application (35% and 16%, respectively). Respondents favorably viewed applying a properly validated clinical prediction rule for assessment of immediate and 30-day stroke risk, but indicated it would have to reduce stroke risk to <0.5% to be clinically useful. Conclusion EPs report relying on symptom quality, vascular risk factors, simple physical exam elements, and head CT to diagnose stroke as the cause of dizziness, but would find a validated clinical prediction rule for dizziness helpful. A clinical prediction rule would have to achieve a 0.5% post-test stroke probability for acceptability.

False negative interpretations of cranial computed tomography in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage

OBJECTIVES Prior studies examining the sensitivity of cranial computed tomography (CT) for the detection of subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) have used the final radiology report as the reference standard. However, optimal sensitivity may have been underestimated due to misinterpretation of reportedly normal cranial CTs. This study aims to estimate the incidence of missed CT evidence of SAH among a cohort of patients with aneurysmal SAH (aSAH). METHODS We performed a retrospective chart review of emergency department (ED) encounters within an integrated health delivery system between January 2007 and June 2013 to identify patients diagnosed with aSAH. All initial noncontrast CTs from aSAH cases diagnosed by lumbar puncture (LP) and angiography following a reportedly normal noncontrast cranial CT (CT-negative aSAH) were then reviewed in a blinded, independent fashion by two board-certified neuroradiologists to assess for missed evidence of SAH. Reviewers rated the CT studies as having definite evidence of SAH, probable evidence of SAH, or no evidence of SAH. Control patients who underwent a negative evaluation for aSAH based on cranial CT and LP results were also included at random in the imaging review cohort. RESULTS A total of 452 cases of aSAH were identified; 18 (4%) were cases of CT-negative aSAH. Of these, seven (39%) underwent cranial CT within 6 hours of headache onset, and two (11%) had their initial CTs formally interpreted by board-certified neuroradiologists. Blinded independent CT review revealed concordant agreement for either definite or probable evidence of SAH in nine of 18 (50%) cases overall and in five of the seven (71%) CTs performed within 6 hours of headache onset. Inter-rater agreement was 83% for definite SAH and 72% for either probable or definite SAH. CONCLUSIONS CT evidence of SAH was frequently present but unrecognized according to the final radiology report in cases of presumed CT-negative aSAH. This finding may help explain some of the discordance between prior studies examining the sensitivity of cranial CT for SAH.

Sensitivity of a Clinical Decision Rule and Early Computed Tomography in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

Introduction Application of a clinical decision rule for subarachnoid hemorrhage, in combination with cranial computed tomography (CT) performed within six hours of ictus (early cranial CT), may be able to reasonably exclude a diagnosis of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). This study’s objective was to examine the sensitivity of both early cranial CT and a previously validated clinical decision rule among emergency department (ED) patients with aSAH and a normal mental status. Methods Patients were evaluated in the 21 EDs of an integrated health delivery system between January 2007 and June 2013. We identified by chart review a retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with aSAH in the setting of a normal mental status and performance of early cranial CT. Variables comprising the SAH clinical decision rule (age ≥40, presence of neck pain or stiffness, headache onset with exertion, loss of consciousness at headache onset) were abstracted from the chart and assessed for inter-rater reliability. Results One hundred fifty-five patients with aSAH met study inclusion criteria. The sensitivity of early cranial CT was 95.5% (95% CI [90.9–98.2]). The sensitivity of the SAH clinical decision rule was also 95.5% (95% CI [90.9–98.2]). Since all false negative cases for each diagnostic modality were mutually independent, the combined use of both early cranial CT and the clinical decision rule improved sensitivity to 100% (95% CI [97.6–100.0]). Conclusion Neither early cranial CT nor the SAH clinical decision rule demonstrated ideal sensitivity for aSAH in this retrospective cohort. However, the combination of both strategies might optimize sensitivity for this life-threatening disease.

Outpatient Management of Emergency Department Patients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Variation, Patient Characteristics, and Outcomes

Study objective: Outpatient management of emergency department (ED) patients with acute pulmonary embolism is uncommon. We seek to evaluate the facility‐level variation of outpatient pulmonary embolism management and to describe patient characteristics and outcomes associated with home discharge. Methods: The Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism (MAPLE) study is a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute pulmonary embolism undertaken in 21 community EDs from January 2013 to April 2015. We gathered demographic and clinical variables from comprehensive electronic health records and structured manual chart review. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association between patient characteristics and home discharge. We report ED length of stay, consultations, 5‐day pulmonary embolism–related return visits and 30‐day major hemorrhage, recurrent venous thromboembolism, and all‐cause mortality. Results: Of 2,387 patients, 179 were discharged home (7.5%). Home discharge varied significantly between EDs, from 0% to 14.3% (median 7.0%; interquartile range 4.2% to 10.9%). Median length of stay for home discharge patients (excluding those who arrived with a new pulmonary embolism diagnosis) was 6.0 hours (interquartile range 4.6 to 7.2 hours) and 81% received consultations. On adjusted analysis, ambulance arrival, abnormal vital signs, syncope or presyncope, deep venous thrombosis, elevated cardiac biomarker levels, and more proximal emboli were inversely associated with home discharge. Thirteen patients (7.2%) who were discharged home had a 5‐day pulmonary embolism–related return visit. Thirty‐day major hemorrhage and recurrent venous thromboembolism were uncommon and similar between patients hospitalized and those discharged home. All‐cause 30‐day mortality was lower in the home discharge group (1.1% versus 4.4%). Conclusion: Home discharge of ED patients with acute pulmonary embolism was uncommon and varied significantly between facilities. Patients selected for outpatient management had a low incidence of adverse outcomes.

Validation of cerebrospinal fluid findings in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage

BACKGROUND Recently proposed cutoff criteria for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analyses might safely exclude a diagnosis of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to examine the sensitivity of a CSF red blood cell (RBC) count greater than 2000 × 10(6)/L (ie, 2000 RBCs per microliter) or the presence of visible CSF xanthochromia in identifying patients with aSAH. METHODS We identified a retrospective case series of patients diagnosed with aSAH after lumbar puncture (LP) in an integrated health delivery system between January 2000 and June 2013 by chart review. All identified patients had at least 1 cerebral aneurysm that was treated with a neurosurgical or endovascular intervention during the index hospitalization. The lowest CSF RBC count was used for validation analysis. Cerebrospinal fluid color was determined by visual inspection. Xanthochromia was defined as pink, orange, or yellow pigmentation of CSF supernatant. RESULTS Sixty-four patients met study inclusion criteria. Of these, 17 (33%) of 52 underwent LP within 12 hours of headache onset, and 49 (84%) of 58 exhibited CSF xanthochromia. The median CSF RBC count was 63250 × 10(6)/L. The sensitivity of a CSF RBC count of greater than 2000 × 10(6)/L in identifying aSAH was 96.9% (95% confidence interval, 89.3%-99.1%). Additional consideration of CSF xanthochromia resulted in a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval, 94.3%-100%). CONCLUSIONS All patients in this case series of patients with aSAH had either a CSF RBC count greater than 2000 × 10(6)/L or visible CSF xanthochromia, increasing the likelihood that this proposed cutoff strategy may safely identify patients who warrant further investigation for an aneurysmal cause of subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Development and validation of a novel pediatric appendicitis risk calculator (pARC)

In this study, we develop and validate a new score that can be used to accurately quantify risk for appendicitis. OBJECTIVES: We sought to develop and validate a clinical calculator that can be used to quantify risk for appendicitis on a continuous scale for patients with acute abdominal pain. METHODS: The pediatric appendicitis risk calculator (pARC) was developed and validated through secondary analyses of 3 distinct cohorts. The derivation sample included visits to 9 pediatric emergency departments between March 2009 and April 2010. The validation sample included visits to a single pediatric emergency department from 2003 to 2004 and 2013 to 2015. Variables evaluated were as follows: age, sex, temperature, nausea and/or vomiting, pain duration, pain location, pain with walking, pain migration, guarding, white blood cell count, and absolute neutrophil count. We used stepwise regression to develop and select the best model. Test performance of the pARC was compared with the Pediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS). RESULTS: The derivation sample included 2423 children, 40% of whom had appendicitis. The validation sample included 1426 children, 35% of whom had appendicitis. The final pARC model included the following variables: sex, age, duration of pain, guarding, pain migration, maximal tenderness in the right-lower quadrant, and absolute neutrophil count. In the validation sample, the pARC exhibited near perfect calibration and a high degree of discrimination (area under the curve: 0.85; 95% confidence interval: 0.83 to 0.87) and outperformed the PAS (area under the curve: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.75 to 0.80). By using the pARC, almost half of patients in the validation cohort could be accurately classified as at <15% risk or ≥85% risk for appendicitis, whereas only 23% would be identified as having a comparable PAS of <3 or >8. CONCLUSIONS: In our validation cohort of patients with acute abdominal pain, the pARC accurately quantified risk for appendicitis.