sinaiem.org

At last, videos of the Dix-Hallpike and Epley maneuvers are discussed, in video form — via McGraw-Hill’s AccessMedicine website (where Tintinalli is also online). Maybe this will cut down on their interchangeability in clinical parlance! Since the audio is horrible, EM Practice has a nice description of the Dix-Hallpike test from their 2001 Dizziness issue (see below):

Read More »

There’s a certain symmetry to starting the first journal club of the year studying d-dimer for dissection (last time around, we looked at the PERC rule and d-dimer for PE). This month, Bing examined a paper by Ohlmann and others, called “Diagnostic and prognostic value of circulating D-Dimers in patients with acute aortic dissection” (Crit Care Med. 2006 May;34(5):1358-64. PMID: 16557157). For background, we also read “D-dimer in ruling out acute aortic dissection: a systematic review and prospective cohort study” (Eur Heart J. 2007 Dec;28(24):3067-75. PMID: 17986466) and got some perspective on D-dimer the with Klompas addition to the JAMA rational clinical exam series: “Does This Patient Have an Acute Thoracic Aortic Dissection?” (JAMA 2002;287(17):2262-2272. PMID: 11980527).

The clinical background was useful in delineating the scope of the problem: acute aortic dissection (AAD) is rare — in some rigorous European surveys, incidence is 3-4 / 100,000 and in EDs, 2-3 of 1000 chest pain patients have AAD (so if you see about 1000 chest pain patients in the course of your residency…). We miss it a lot — Klompas said 39% of patients have a delay in diagnosis of more than 24 hours, 10% of autopsies for show missed dissections, and we only suspect AAD properly less than half the time (as low as 15% of the time).

There are a few key features of dissection that should set off alarm bells for AAD — pulse deficits and blood pressure cuff differences > 20 mmHg (positive likelihood ratio 5.7), focal neuro deficits (LR+ 6-33), and a description of “tearing pain” (LR+ 10.8). But many other signs are sensitive but not that specific, or not even that sensitive (and ‘tearing pain’ is only reported 39% of the time, with focal neuro deficits found just 17% of the time). Chest Xrays have a LR+ of around 2, and are only 60-80% sensitive (though a completely normal CXR — normal width mediastinum and normal aortic knob, have a LR- 0f 0.3).

What’s really needed to diagnose AAD is not-so-standard imaging, like CT, TEE, or MRI (all 98% sensitive or greater, with specificies in the high 90’s as well). So there’s an opportunity for a lab test to step in and help us guide decisionmaking. And d-dimer, a substance released by fibrinolytic activity unleashed when the extrinsic pathway is activated in dissection, in theory could work well as a marker.

Read More »

Thank you to our speakers today — Dr. Richardson on research methods, Dr. Weingart on hypothermia, Bing with his journal club presentation (highlighted here), Abiola with trauma talk on the utility of repeat head CTs for recognizing intracranial hemorrhage, and Suzi for her M+M presentation on burn management.

Bing’s journal club presentation and discussion is summarized here — please feel free to add comments.

As for points from Abiola’s and Suzi’s talks, please see below:

Read More »

Thanks to Bing, Dr. Okuda and Dr. Strother for a wonderful day of sim cases this week. Special thanks to all who had to tolerate my acting.

A few questions came up during the discussions, and, I’ve been trying to research with limited success.

The first question concerned antibiotics for heat illness. Certainly in ambiguous cases, where there is altered mental status with moderately high temperature, antibiotic coverage is mandated. But in our case, of the athlete on a hot day? It was asserted that the heat stress leads to gut flora dissemination, and antibiotics are warranted. But I could find no reference for this, and my usual sources are silent on the issue of prophylactic antibiotics.

The second question revolved around safety factors for emergent sedation. Specifically, I wondered if the risk of aspiration in emergent procedural sedation had been quantified in adults. It turns out there’s a lot of opinion on this matter, but not a lot of data. More below:

Read More »

Guest blogger Marisa has written up an expert review of our recent Journal Club discussion of clevidipine, as presented by Dr. Joshua Kosowsky of Brigham & Women’s Hospital:

Just last week, Clevidipine (Cleviprex) was approved by the FDA, making it the first new IV drug approved for high blood pressure in the past 10 years. Dr Joshua Kosowsky introduced us to Clevidipine when he discussed the VELOCITY (The evaluation of the effect of ultra-short-acting clevidipine in the treatment of patients with severe hypertension) trial as published in the June 2008 Annals of Emergency Medicine (PMID: 18534716), “Clevidipine, an Intravenous Dihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blocker, Is Safe and Effective for the Treatment of Patients With Acute Severe Hypertension” (residents: the PDF of this journal is online). More below:

Read More »

A number of you have asked for a recap on Dr. Hollander’s approach to treating NSTE ACS. You can download the audio from his talk on the Conference website. I’ve gone through it again and have some citations below. His talk is indeed guideline-based (all from the ACC/AHA 2007 NSTEMI / UA guidelines — familiarize yourself with their classes of recommendations and their grading the level of evidence) but also this portion of his talk was explicitly featured in a pharmaceutical-industry sponsored event. So, as always, approach this with a skeptical mind, and please share your findings in the comments section:

Read More »

I wanted to add some pearls from Dr. Strayer on Anita’s case from today:

* The literature and expert consensus have evolved over the past decade to favor anticoagulation for below the knee (distal or calf) DVTs. The classic teaching has been that distal DVTs are benign, so ultrasonographers often do not routinely evaluate the calf veins. Because this is no longer thought to be true, consider requesting calf vein assessment if you are suspicious.

* The finding of superficial venous thrombosis warrants a search for DVT. The treatment of superficial vein thrombosis is controversial and ranges from NSAIDs to compression stockings to anticoagulation. There is no consensus on treatment–the key EM issue is to rule out DVT.

* Patients who are moderate or high risk for DVT should be anticoagulated while awaiting ultrasound. If a DVT precipitant is not clear, consider calling hematology to inquire about hypercoaguable state labs to send before administering heparin.

* Many patients with DVT are optimally managed as an outpatient with daily LMWH shots. Visiting nursing services can help.

* Our interface with outside referring physicians is complex, and navigating their requests is fraught with pitfalls. If you don’t agree with their plan, the best course of action is usually an attempt to harmonize over the phone.

Wise words.

So, lots of big things were discussed today, but I’m going to focus on Dr. Judd Hollander’s talk, as it was crammed with insight on a very common problem – achieving disposition on the 8 million patients we seen annually with chest pain (this is national, not just Sinai). Of these 8 million, 3 million are sent home and so we admit 60-65% of chest pain, of which only 15% have real disease… Cardiologists hate us for this, but is there an alternative? What’s the evidence behind what we do?

Read More »

Longtime followers of this blog may recall a kerfuffle over a year ago, related to a graduating senior’s incendiary journal club discussion, in which he examined a small but well-conducted trial of using dexamethasone in benign headaches. At the Journal Club and in my online review, concluded that a one-time dose of this pretty safe medication would be of value in reducing headache recurrence, and were dismayed when an esteemed reviewer for Journal Watch brushed aside the study as too small and unstructured (her review is reprinted in the blog post comments section).

Several residents complained in the comments section, and the term “nihilism bias” was coined. Months went by, but on the night of St. Patrick’s Day, the editor-in-chief of Journal Watch and a leading figure in EM jumped into the fray and advised us that changing practice based on a single, small study is not the kind of care he teaches or wants to be subjected to.

Steroids in headache, which had been a hot topic at SAEM last year and subject of some additional trials in the interim, was addressed again in Journal Watch this week. The very same editor reviewed a new meta-analysis of dexamethasone for acute migraines (Colman, BMJ 2008 Jun 14; 336:1359) and wrote:

“…The authors conclude that when added to standard acute migraine treatment, a single parenteral dose of dexamethasone is associated with a 26%reduction in headache recurrence within 72 hours. An accompanying editorial notes that patients with diabetes should be treated with caution because of the potential for prolonged elevation of blood sugar…

Despite the limitations of a meta-analysis, these results suggest that a single dose of dexamethasone is a reasonable addition to the treatment of acute migraine episodes that has little downside for patients without contraindications to steroids. Although dexamethasone had no benefit for initial pain relief, the number needed to treat to prevent one recurrence was only 9, suggesting that treatment has significant potential to help patients remain functional and avoid repeat emergency department visits. This study tested only parenteral administration, but an oral dose might be just as effective in nonvomiting patients.”

Perhaps a lot has changed in 18 months, perhaps not so much (the Baden 2006 study that was the basis of our original journal club was the smallest in the meta-analysis, and showed the most favorability of dexamethasone), but one things for sure — you can now order a dose of dex with a clear conscience.