Scott T. Wilber

Validation of Cell-Cycle Arrest Biomarkers for Acute Kidney Injury Using Clinical Adjudication

RATIONALE We recently reported two novel biomarkers for acute kidney injury (AKI), tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases (TIMP)-2 and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7 (IGFBP7), both related to G1 cell cycle arrest. OBJECTIVES We now validate a clinical test for urinary [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] at a high-sensitivity cutoff greater than 0.3 for AKI risk stratification in a diverse population of critically ill patients. METHODS We conducted a prospective multicenter study of 420 critically ill patients. The primary analysis was the ability of urinary [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] to predict moderate to severe AKI within 12 hours. AKI was adjudicated by a committee of three independent expert nephrologists who were masked to the results of the test. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Urinary TIMP-2 and IGFBP7 were measured using a clinical immunoassay platform. The primary endpoint was reached in 17% of patients. For a single urinary [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] test, sensitivity at the prespecified high-sensitivity cutoff of 0.3 (ng/ml)(2)/1,000 was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85-98%) with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.06-0.33). Critically ill patients with urinary [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] greater than 0.3 had seven times the risk for AKI (95% CI, 4-22) compared with critically ill patients with a test result below 0.3. In a multivariate model including clinical information, urinary [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] remained statistically significant and a strong predictor of AKI (area under the curve, 0.70, 95% CI, 0.63-0.76 for clinical variables alone, vs. area under the curve, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.80-0.90 for clinical variables plus [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7]). CONCLUSIONS Urinary [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] greater than 0.3 (ng/ml)(2)/1,000 identifies patients at risk for imminent AKI. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01573962).

Ultrasound-assisted internal jugular vein catheterization in the ED☆

A prospective, descriptive study is reported on the use and success of ultrasound-assisted internal jugular central vein catheterization (CVC) in the emergency department (ED). In patients not in cardiac arrest who had an indication for internal jugular CVC, lines were placed by trained ED staff using ultrasound. Data were collected prospectively on age, sex, body habitus, indication, vein visibility, number of punctures and needle passes, and success. There were 40 attempts at internal jugular CVC in 34 patients and ultrasound was used in 32 of the 40 (80%) attempts. Incidences of successful puncture and cannulation using ultrasound were 93.8% (30 of 32) and 81.3% (26 of 32), respectively, compared with 62.5% (5 of 8) and 62.5% (5 of 8) in the landmark group. In 8 patients with no visual or palpable landmarks, cannulation was successful in 100% (7 of 7) using ultrasound and in 0% (0 of 1) using landmark technique. Ultrasound-assisted internal jugular CVC is an easily learned technique that is useful in the ED. It may be especially helpful in patients in whom landmarks are not visible and not palpable.

Geriatric Emergency Department guidelines

INTRODUCTION According to the 2010 Census, more than 40 million Americans were over the age of 65, which was “more people than in any previous census.” In addition, “between 2000 and 2010, the population 65 years and over increased at a faster rate than the total U.S. population.” The census data also demonstrated that the population 85 and older is growing at a rate almost three times the general population. The subsequent increased need for health care for this burgeoning geriatric population represents an unprecedented and overwhelming challenge to the American health care system as a whole and to emergency departments (EDs) specifically. Geriatric EDs began appearing in the United States in 2008 and have become increasingly common. The ED is uniquely positioned to play a role in improving care to the geriatric population. As an ever-increasing access point for medical care, the ED sits at a crossroads between inpatient and outpatient care (Figure 1). Specifically, the ED represents 57% of hospital admissions in the United States, of which almost 70% receive a non-surgical diagnosis. The expertise which an ED staff can bring to an encounter with a geriatric patient can meaningfully impact not only a patient’s condition, but can also impact the decision to utilize relatively expensive inpatient modalities, or less expensive outpatient treatments. Emergency medicine experts recognize similar challenges around the world. Geriatric ED core principles have been described in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, as the initial site of care for both inpatient and outpatient events, the care provided in the ED has the opportunity to “set the stage” for subsequent care provided. More accurate diagnoses and improved therapeutic measures can not only expedite and improve inpatient care and outcomes, but can effectively guide the allocation of resources towards a patient population that, in general, utilizes significantly more resources per event than younger populations. Geriatric ED patients

Altered Mental Status in Older Patients in the Emergency Department

Altered mental status is a common chief compliant among older patients in the emergency department (ED). Acute changes in mental status are more concerning and are usually secondary to delirium, stupor, and coma. Although stupor and coma are easily identifiable, the clinical presentation of delirium can be subtle and is often missed without actively screening for it. For patients with acute changes in mental status the ED evaluation should focus on searching for the underlying etiology. Infection is one of the most common precipitants of delirium, but multiple causes may exist concurrently.

Research priorities for high-quality geriatric emergency care: medication management, screening, and prevention and functional assessment.

BACKGROUND Geriatric adults represent an increasing proportion of emergency department (ED) users and can be particularly vulnerable to acute illnesses. Health care providers have recently begun to focus on the development of quality indicators (QIs) to define a minimal standard of care. OBJECTIVES The original objective of this project was to develop additional ED-specific QIs for older patients within the domains of medication management, screening and prevention, and functional assessment, but the quantity and quality of evidence were insufficient to justify unequivocal minimal standards of care for these three domains. Accordingly, the authors modified the project objectives to identify key research opportunities within these three domains that can be used to develop QIs in the future. METHODS Each domain was assigned one or two content experts who created potential QIs based on a systematic review of the literature, supplemented by expert opinion. Candidate QIs were then reviewed by four groups: the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Geriatric Task Force, the SAEM Geriatric Interest Group, and audiences at the 2008 SAEM Annual Meeting and the 2009 American Geriatrics Society Annual Meeting, using anonymous audience response system technology as well as verbal and written feedback. RESULTS High-quality evidence based on patient-oriented outcomes was insufficient or nonexistent for all three domains. The participatory audiences did not reach a consensus on any of the proposed QIs. Key research questions for medication management (three), screening and prevention (two), and functional assessment (three) are presented based on proposed QIs that the majority of participants accepted. CONCLUSIONS In assessing a minimal standard of care by which to systematically derive geriatric QIs for medication management, screening and prevention, and functional assessment, compelling clinical research evidence is lacking. Patient-oriented research questions that are essential to justify and characterize future QIs within these domains are described.

The Six-item Screener to Detect Cognitive Impairment in Older Emergency Department Patients

BACKGROUND Cognitive impairment due to delirium or dementia is common in older emergency department (ED) patients. To prevent errors, emergency physicians (EPs) should use brief, sensitive tests to evaluate older patients mental status. Prior studies have shown that the Six-Item Screener (SIS) meets these criteria. OBJECTIVES The goal was to verify the performance of the SIS in a large, multicenter sample of older ED patients. METHODS A prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted in three urban academic medical center EDs. English-speaking ED patients > or = 65 years old were enrolled. Patients who received medications that could affect cognition, were too ill, were unable to cooperate, were previously enrolled, or refused to participate were excluded. Patients were administered either the SIS or the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), followed by the other test 30 minutes later. An MMSE of 23 or less was the criterion standard for cognitive impairment; the SIS cutoff was 4 or less for cognitive impairment. Standard operator characteristics of diagnostic tests were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and a receiver operating characteristic curve was plotted. RESULTS The authors enrolled 352 subjects; 111 were cognitively impaired by MMSE (32%, 95% CI = 27% to 37%). The SIS was 63% sensitive (95% CI = 53% to 72%) and 81% specific (95% CI = 75% to 85%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.77 (95% CI = 0.72 to 0.83). CONCLUSIONS The sensitivity of the SIS was lower than in prior studies. The reasons for this lower sensitivity are unclear. Further study is needed to clarify the ideal brief mental status test for ED use.

Short-term Functional Decline and Service Use in Older Emergency Department Patients With Blunt Injuries

BACKGROUND Injuries are a common reason for emergency department (ED) visits by older patients. Although injuries in older patients can be serious, 75% of these patients are discharged home after their ED visit. These patients may be at risk for short-term functional decline related to their injuries or treatment. OBJECTIVES The objectives were to determine the incidence of functional decline in older ED patients with blunt injuries not requiring hospital admission for treatment, to describe their care needs, and to determine the predictors of short-term functional decline in these patients. METHODS This institutional review board-approved, prospective, longitudinal study was conducted in two community teaching hospital EDs with a combined census of 97,000 adult visits. Eligible patients were > or = 65 years old, with blunt injuries <48 hours old, who could answer questions or had a proxy. We excluded those too ill to participate; skilled nursing home patients; those admitted for surgery, major trauma, or acute medical conditions; patients with poor baseline function; and previously enrolled patients. Interviewers collected baseline data and the used the Older Americans Resources and Services (OARS) questionnaire to assess function and service use. Potential predictors of functional decline were derived from prior studies of functional decline after an ED visit and clinical experience. Follow-up occurred at 1 and 4 weeks, when the OARS questions were repeated. A three-point drop in activities of the daily living (ADL) score defined functional decline. Data are presented as means and proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Logistic regression was used to model potential predictors with functional decline at 1 week as the dependent variable. RESULTS A total of 1,186 patients were evaluated for eligibility, 814 were excluded, 129 refused, and 13 were missed, leaving 230 enrolled patients. The mean (+/-SD) age was 77 (+/-7.5) years, and 70% were female. In the first week, 92 of 230 patients (40%, 95% CI = 34% to 47%) had functional decline, 114 of 230 (49%, 95% CI = 43% to 56%) had new services initiated, and 76 of 230 had an unscheduled medical contact (33%, 95% CI = 27% to 39%). At 4 weeks, 77 of 219 had functional decline (35%, 95% CI = 29% to 42%), 141 of 219 had new services (65%, 95% CI = 58% to 71%), and 123 of 219 had an unscheduled medical contact (56%, 95% CI = 49% to 63%), including 15% with a repeated ED visit and 11% with a hospital admission. Family members provided the majority of new services at both time periods. Significant predictors of functional decline at 1 week were female sex (odds ratio [OR] = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.1 to 4.5), instrumental ADL dependence (IADL; OR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.3 to 4.8), upper extremity fracture or dislocation (OR = 5.5, 95% CI = 2.5 to 11.8), lower extremity fracture or dislocation (OR = 4.6, 95% CI = 1.4 to 15.4), trunk injury (OR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.1 to 5.3), and head injury (OR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.23 to 1.0). CONCLUSIONS Older patients have a significant risk of short-term functional decline and other adverse outcomes after ED visits for injuries not requiring hospitalization for treatment. The most significant predictors of functional decline are upper and lower extremity fractures.

Prehospital Electrocardiographic Computer Identification of ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Abstract Background. Identifying ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMIs) in the field can decrease door-to-balloon times. Paramedics may use a computer algorithm to help them interpret prehospital electrocariograms (ECGs). It is unknown how accurately the computer can identify STEMIs. Objectives. To Determine the sensitivity and specificity of prehospital ECGs in identifying patients with STEMI. Methods. Retrospective cross-sectional study of 200 prehospital ECGs acquired using Lifepak 12 monitors and transmitted by one of more than 20 emergency medical services (EMS) agencies to the emergency department (ED) of a Summa Akron City Hospital, a level 1 trauma center between January 1, 2007, and February 18, 2010. The ED sees more than 73,000 adult patients and treats 120 STEMIs annually. The laboratory performs 3,400 catheterizations annually. The first 100 patients with a diagnosis of STEMI and cardiac catheterization laboratory activation from the ED were analyzed. For comparison, a control group of 100 other ECGs from patients without a STEMI were randomly selected from our Medtronic database using a random-number generator. For patients with STEMI, an accurate computer interpretation was “acute MI suspected.” Other interpretations were counted as misses. Specificity and sensitivity were calculated with confidence intervals (CIs). The sample size was determined a priori for a 95% CI of ±10%. Results. Zero control patients were incorrectly labeled “acute MI suspected.” The specificity was 100% (100/100; 95% CI 0.96–1.0), whereas the sensitivity was 58% (58/100; 95% CI 0.48–0.67). This would have resulted in 42 missed cardiac catheterization laboratory activations, but zero inappropriate activations. The most common incorrect interpretation of STEMI ECGs by the computer was “data quality prohibits interpretation,” followed by “abnormal ECG unconfirmed.” Conclusions. Prehospital computer interpretation is not sensitive for STEMI identification and should not be used as a single method for prehospital activation of the cardiac catheterizing laboratory. Because of its high specificity, it may serve as an adjunct to interpretation.

Optimal older adult emergency care: introducing multidisciplinary geriatric emergency department guidelines from the American College of Emergency Physicians, American Geriatrics Society, Emergency Nurses Association, and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

In the United States and around the world, effective, efficient, and reliable strategies to provide emergency care to aging adults is challenging crowded emergency departments (EDs) and strained healthcare systems. In response, geriatric emergency medicine clinicians, educators, and researchers collaborated with the American College of Emergency Physicians, American Geriatrics Society, Emergency Nurses Association, and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine to develop guidelines intended to improve ED geriatric care by enhancing expertise, educational, and quality improvement expectations, equipment, policies, and protocols. These Geriatric Emergency Department Guidelines represent the first formal society‐led attempt to characterize the essential attributes of the geriatric ED and received formal approval from the boards of directors of each of the four societies in 2013 and 2014. This article is intended to introduce emergency medicine and geriatric healthcare providers to the guidelines while providing recommendations for continued refinement of these proposals through educational dissemination, formal effectiveness evaluations, cost‐effectiveness studies, and eventually institutional credentialing.

Summary of NIH Medical-Surgical Emergency Research Roundtable Held on April 30 to May 1, 2009

STUDY OBJECTIVE In 2003, the Institute of Medicine Committee on the Future of Emergency Care in the United States Health System convened and identified a crisis in emergency care in the United States, including a need to enhance the research base for emergency care. As a result, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) formed an NIH Task Force on Research in Emergency Medicine to enhance NIH support for emergency care research. Members of the NIH Task Force and academic leaders in emergency care participated in 3 roundtable discussions to prioritize current opportunities for enhancing and conducting emergency care research. The objectives of these discussions were to identify key research questions essential to advancing the scientific underpinnings of emergency care and to discuss the barriers and best means to advance research by exploring the role of research networks and collaboration between the NIH and the emergency care community. METHODS The Medical-Surgical Research Roundtable was convened on April 30 to May 1, 2009. Before the roundtable, the emergency care domains to be discussed were selected and experts in each of the fields were invited to participate in the roundtable. Domain experts were asked to identify research priorities and challenges and separate them into mechanistic, translational, and clinical categories. After the conference, the lists were circulated among the participants and revised to reach a consensus. RESULTS Emergency care research is characterized by focus on the timing, sequence, and time sensitivity of disease processes and treatment effects. Rapidly identifying the phenotype and genotype of patients manifesting a specific disease process and the mechanistic reasons for heterogeneity in outcome are important challenges in emergency care research. Other research priorities include the need to elucidate the timing, sequence, and duration of causal molecular and cellular events involved in time-critical illnesses and injuries, and the development of treatments capable of halting or reversing them; the need for novel animal models; and the need to understand why there are regional differences in outcome for the same disease processes. Important barriers to emergency care research include a limited number of trained investigators and experienced mentors, limited research infrastructure and support, and regulatory hurdles. The science of emergency care may be advanced by facilitating the following: (1) training emergency care investigators with research training programs; (2) developing emergency care clinical research networks; (3) integrating emergency care research into Clinical and Translational Science Awards; (4) developing emergency care-specific initiatives within the existing structure of NIH institutes and centers; (5) involving emergency specialists in grant review and research advisory processes; (6) supporting learn-phase or small, clinical trials; and (7) performing research to address ethical and regulatory issues. CONCLUSION Enhancing the research base supporting the care of medical and surgical emergencies will require progress in specific mechanistic, translational, and clinical domains; effective collaboration of academic investigators across traditional clinical and scientific boundaries; federal support of research in high-priority areas; and overcoming limitations in available infrastructure, research training, and access to patient populations.