Michael J. Drescher

Thrombophlebitis and Pseudothrombophlebitis in the ED

The patient presenting to the emergency department (ED) with a painful swollen lower extremity is considered to have deep venous thrombosis (DVT) until this diagnosis can be ruled out. This clinical presentation, however, is far from specific and the differential diagnosis includes symptomatic Bakers cyst, also known as pseudothrombophlebitis syndrome (PTP). This article presents two cases of PTP and reviews the literature relevant to diagnosis of DVT and PTP. Ultrasonography is now the diagnostic test of choice for both DVT and PTP, being safe, accurate, noninvasive, and rapid, and should ideally be available for use in the ED.

Point-of-care testing for coagulation studies in a stroke protocol: a time-saving innovation

STUDY OBJECTIVES Time counts in thrombolytic therapy for stroke. An international normalized ratio (INR) greater than 1.7 may preclude its use. We studied whether the use of point-of-care testing (POCT) for INR in the emergency department (ED) may substitute for the same test done in the central hospital laboratory, thereby reducing time to treatment. METHODS We performed a prospective observational study comparing a POCT analysis of INR (i-STAT-1; Abbott Inc, Abbott Park, Ill) with a simultaneously drawn sample sent to the central laboratory. We tested a convenience sample of adult patients taking warfarin who presented to the ED of a tertiary teaching hospital. RESULTS Thirty-two patients were enrolled. A receiver operator curve analysis was performed. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for laboratory INR cutoff of 1.7. The area under the curve was 0.979 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.843-0.991). When POCT INR was 2.1, the sensitivity for laboratory INR being higher than 1.7 was 100% (CI, 62.9%-100.0%), and the specificity was 90.5 (CI, 69.6-98.5). When POCT INR was 1.8, the specificity for laboratory INR being lower than 1.7 was 100% (CI, 83.7%-100%), and the sensitivity was 62.5% (CI, 24.7%-91.0%). The regression coefficient (r) value was 0.9648. CONCLUSION Correlation of POCT INR with that of the central laboratory and receiver operator curve characteristics are excellent. In general, POCT INR is about 0.3 higher than the laboratory INR. This is not generally of clinical importance, but when using cutoff of 1.7 (central laboratory), it may be. We describe a 3-tiered system for use of POCT INR in determining use of tissue-type plasminogen activator.

Prophylactic Etoricoxib Is Effective in Preventing Yom Kippur Headache: A Placebo-Controlled Double-Blind and Randomized Trial of Prophylaxis for Ritual Fasting Headache

(Headache 2010;50:1328‐1334)

PULMONARY VENOUS AIR EMBOLISM FOLLOWING ACCIDENTAL PATIENT LACERATION OF A HEMODIALYSIS CATHETER

As the number of patients at home with indwelling central venous catheters increases, more complications from their use will present to the emergency department. We report a case of pulmonary venous air embolism after a patient inadvertently severed the distal few centimeters of an indwelling central venous catheter.

Prophylactic etoricoxib is effective in preventing "first of Ramadan" headache: a placebo-controlled double-blind and randomized trial of prophylactic etoricoxib for ritual fasting headache.

Background.— Religious fasting is associated with headache. This has been documented as “Yom Kippur headache” and “first of Ramadan headache.” Etoricoxib, a Cox‐2 inhibitor with a 22‐hour half‐life, has been shown effective in preventing fasting headache when taken just prior to the 25‐hour Yom Kippur fast. We hypothesized that etoricoxib would also be effective in preventing headache during Ramadan, despite the different characteristics of the fast.

Family History Is a Predictor for Appendicitis in Adults in the Emergency Department

Introduction: A family history of appendicitis has been reported to increase the likelihood of the diagnosis in children and in a retrospective study of adults. We compare positive family history with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in a prospective sample of adults. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of a convenience sample of 428 patients. We compared patients with surgically proven appendicitis to a group without appendicitis. The latter were further grouped by their presenting symptoms: those presenting with a chief complaint of abdominal pain and those with other chief complaints. Participants answered questions regarding their family history of appendicitis. Family history was then compared for the appendicitis group versus the nonappendicitis group as a whole, and then versus the subgroup of patients without appendicitis but with abdominal pain. The primary analysis was a χ2 test of proportions and the calculation of odds ratio (OR) for the relationship between final diagnosis of appendicitis and family history. Results: Of 428 patients enrolled, 116 had appendicitis. Of those with other diagnoses, 158 had abdominal pain and 154 had other complaints. Of all patients with appendicitis, 37.9% (confidence interval [Cl] = 29.1–46.8) had positive family history. Of those without appendicitis, 23.7% (Cl = 19.0–28.4) had positive family history. In the subgroup without appendicitis but with abdominal pain, 25.9% (Cl = 19.1–32.8) had positive family history. Both comparisons were significant (P = 0.003; OR = 1.97; 95% Cl = 1.2–3.1; and P=0.034; OR = 1.74; 95% Cl = 1.04–2.9, respectively). By multivariate logistic regression analysis across the full sample, family history was a significant independent predictor (P = 0.011; OR = 1.883) of appendicitis. Conclusion: Adults presenting to the emergency department with a known family history of appendicitis are more likely to have this disease than those without.

Knowledge Translation of the PERC Rule for Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: A Blueprint for Reducing the Number of CT Pulmonary Angiograms

Introduction Computerized decision support decreases the number of computed tomography pulmonary angiograms (CTPA) for pulmonary embolism (PE) ordered in emergency departments, but it is not always well accepted by emergency physicians. We studied a department-endorsed, evidence-based clinical protocol that included the PE rule-out criteria (PERC) rule, multi-modal education using principles of knowledge translation (KT), and clinical decision support embedded in our order entry system, to decrease the number of unnecessary CTPA ordered. Methods We performed a historically controlled observational before-after study for one year pre- and post-implementation of a departmentally-endorsed protocol. We included patients > 18 in whom providers suspected PE and who did not have a contraindication to CTPA. Providers entered clinical information into a diagnostic pathway via computerized order entry. Prior to protocol implementation, we provided education to ordering providers. The primary outcome measure was the number of CTPA ordered per 1,000 visits one year before vs. after implementation. Results CTPA declined from 1,033 scans for 98,028 annual visits (10.53 per 1,000 patient visits (95% CI [9.9–11.2]) to 892 scans for 101,172 annual visits (8.81 per 1,000 patient visits (95% CI [8.3–9.4]) p<0.001. The absolute reduction in PACT ordered was 1.72 per 1,000 visits (a 16% reduction). Patient characteristics were similar for both periods. Conclusion Knowledge translation clinical decision support using the PERC rule significantly reduced the number of CTPA ordered.

Can emergency medicine practitioners predict disposition of psychiatric patients based on a brief medical evaluation

Objective Emergency medicine practitioners (EMPs) often provide ‘medical clearance’ before evaluation by a psychiatry practitioner (PP). We set out to determine the level of agreement between EMP impression and disposition as determined by PPs. Patients and methods This was a prospective observational study in an urban tertiary teaching hospital emergency department. We collected data from February to April 2011. We used a convenience sample of patient encounters evaluated by EMPs and subsequent referral for psychiatric evaluation. We asked EMPs whether they thought the patients would be admitted or discharged following psychiatric evaluation, and if discharged, whether to outpatient psychiatric follow-up or to no follow-up. EMPs were asked to base their opinion upon their general impression following their brief medical evaluation. They were not given guidelines on which to base their decision. The EMPs were blind to PP decisions. The &kgr;-statistic was used to calculate agreement between the EMP’s impression and disposition decision by the PP. We excluded patients who were acutely intoxicated, in police custody, or lived in an extended care facility. Results We included 156 patient encounters over the study period and had complete data for 152 encounters. Of these, 86 (55%) were admitted, 46 (30%) were discharged with no specific psychiatric follow-up, and 20 (13%) were discharged with a follow-up plan. EMPs predicted the exact disposition in 77/152 (51%) cases (&kgr;=0.264, 95% confidence interval 0.77–0.333). Agreement was higher for admitted patients, with EMPs predicting inpatient admission for 57/86 (66%) of these patients. Other factors associated with higher agreement scores were years in emergency medicine practice by the EMP and suicidal ideation by the patient. Conclusion EMPs did not reliably predict psychiatric disposition decisions based on clinical ‘gestalt’. Future research will focus on clinical guidelines to help EMPs better independently assess need for emergency psychiatric services.

Family History is a Predictor for Appendicitis in Adults Presenting to the Emergency Department - eScholarship

Introduction: A family history of appendicitis has been reported to increase the likelihood of the diagnosis in children and in a retrospective study of adults. We compare positive family history with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in a prospective sample of adults. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of a convenience sample of 428 patients. We compared patients with surgically proven appendicitis to a group without appendicitis. The latter were further grouped by their presenting symptoms: those presenting with a chief complaint of abdominal pain and those with other chief complaints. Participants answered questions regarding their family history of appendicitis. Family history was then compared for the appendicitis group versus the nonappendicitis group as a whole, and then versus the subgroup of patients without appendicitis but with abdominal pain. The primary analysis was a χ2 test of proportions and the calculation of odds ratio (OR) for the relationship between final diagnosis of appendicitis and family history. Results: Of 428 patients enrolled, 116 had appendicitis. Of those with other diagnoses, 158 had abdominal pain and 154 had other complaints. Of all patients with appendicitis, 37.9% (confidence interval [Cl] = 29.1–46.8) had positive family history. Of those without appendicitis, 23.7% (Cl = 19.0–28.4) had positive family history. In the subgroup without appendicitis but with abdominal pain, 25.9% (Cl = 19.1–32.8) had positive family history. Both comparisons were significant (P = 0.003; OR = 1.97; 95% Cl = 1.2–3.1; and P=0.034; OR = 1.74; 95% Cl = 1.04–2.9, respectively). By multivariate logistic regression analysis across the full sample, family history was a significant independent predictor (P = 0.011; OR = 1.883) of appendicitis. Conclusion: Adults presenting to the emergency department with a known family history of appendicitis are more likely to have this disease than those without.

Family History is a Predictor for Appendicitis in Adults Presenting to the Emergency Department

Introduction: A family history of appendicitis has been reported to increase the likelihood of the diagnosis in children and in a retrospective study of adults. We compare positive family history with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in a prospective sample of adults. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of a convenience sample of 428 patients. We compared patients with surgically proven appendicitis to a group without appendicitis. The latter were further grouped by their presenting symptoms: those presenting with a chief complaint of abdominal pain and those with other chief complaints. Participants answered questions regarding their family history of appendicitis. Family history was then compared for the appendicitis group versus the nonappendicitis group as a whole, and then versus the subgroup of patients without appendicitis but with abdominal pain. The primary analysis was a χ2 test of proportions and the calculation of odds ratio (OR) for the relationship between final diagnosis of appendicitis and family history. Results: Of 428 patients enrolled, 116 had appendicitis. Of those with other diagnoses, 158 had abdominal pain and 154 had other complaints. Of all patients with appendicitis, 37.9% (confidence interval [Cl] = 29.1–46.8) had positive family history. Of those without appendicitis, 23.7% (Cl = 19.0–28.4) had positive family history. In the subgroup without appendicitis but with abdominal pain, 25.9% (Cl = 19.1–32.8) had positive family history. Both comparisons were significant (P = 0.003; OR = 1.97; 95% Cl = 1.2–3.1; and P=0.034; OR = 1.74; 95% Cl = 1.04–2.9, respectively). By multivariate logistic regression analysis across the full sample, family history was a significant independent predictor (P = 0.011; OR = 1.883) of appendicitis. Conclusion: Adults presenting to the emergency department with a known family history of appendicitis are more likely to have this disease than those without.