Articles of the month (June 2017 – #dasSMACC edition)

This month’s articles are a little special. Usually, I pick out the articles that catch my eye, but it’s easy to imagine that my biases filter out a lot of interesting medical literature. As there were a number of experts descending on Berlin this month for SMACC, Casey Parker and I invited a few people to suggest a paper and discuss it with us over a beer for our podcast. The conversation was great, and can be found here. These are the articles that were picked:

Continue reading “Articles of the month (June 2017 – #dasSMACC edition)”

Articles of the month (November 2016)

It’s that time again. Sure, there may be a lot to do during the month of December, but what better way to procrastinate than to grab a mug of hot chocolate, sit down in front of the fire, and read about some evidence based medicine….

(If that doesn’t sound appealing, you could toss in some earphones while you do your holiday shopping and listen to me and Casey ramble about these papers in the audio version on the BroomeDocs podcast.) Continue reading “Articles of the month (November 2016)”

Articles of the month (October 2016)

The end of another month can only mean one thing: I have once again read too many articles, and I feel the need to share them all with you. I think there is an excellent spectrum of really interesting papers this month, and as always I discuss them at length with Casey Parker on the Broome Docs podcast. Continue reading “Articles of the month (October 2016)”

Articles of the Month (August 2016)

The best emergency medicine articles that I came across in August 2016

Welcome to another edition of my favorite emergency medicine articles of the month. Once again, there will be an accompanying podcast with the talented and insightful Dr. Casey Parker on the BroomeDocs website where we briefly discuss these articles. Continue reading “Articles of the Month (August 2016)”

Articles of the month (July 2016)

Another month and another edition of the articles of the month. However, this time I have some very exciting news. I have teamed up with Casey Parker (the brilliant, smooth-talking Australian physician, not the adult film star) to produce an audio version of these summaries. You will be able to find this podcast on http://broomedocs.com/, a great FOAM website that everyone should probably be following anyway. This is the first edition, and we will likely tweak the format with time, so if you have any feedback (hopefully more constructive than, “Justin, you have the perfect voice for silent films”), we would love for you to get in touch. Continue reading “Articles of the month (July 2016)”

Articles of the month (October 2015)

A monthly collection of the most interesting emergency medical literature I have encountered.

Its that time again. Here are my favorite medical reads of the last month – well, actually, last 2 months. There are some really good papers in this edition. I hope you enjoy…

1 good ECG begets another

Riley RF, Newby LK, Don CW, et al. Diagnostic time course, treatment, and in-hospital outcomes for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction presenting with nondiagnostic initial electrocardiogram: a report from the American Heart Association Mission: Lifeline program. Am Heart J. 2013;165:(1)50-6. PMID: 23237133

This is a registry study of 41.560 patients diagnosed with a STEMI. Of those patients, 4,566 had an initial ECG that was non-diagnostic. About ⅓ had converted to STEMI within 30 minutes of their first ECG, and 75% within 90 minutes. The groups were otherwise similar.

Bottom line: About 1/10 STEMIs are not evident on the initial ECG. If the story is good, get repeats.


When should we crack the chest?

Seamon MJ, Haut ER, Van Arendonk K. An evidence-based approach to patient selection for emergency department thoracotomy: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. The journal of trauma and acute care surgery. 79(1):159-73. 2015. PMID: 26091330

This is a systematic review by the EAST group that included 72 studies an 10,238 patients looking to answer the question: should patients who present pulseless after critical injuries undergo emergency department thoracotomy to improve survival and neurologically intact survival?. Their review and recommendations are divided into 6 groups:

  1. Pulseless, signs of life, penetrating thoracic injury
    • Strongly recommend ED thoracotomy (EDT)
    • 182/853 patients survived hospitalization, 53/454 neurologically intact
  2. Pulseless, no signs of life, penetrating thoracic injury
    • Strongly favour EDT
    • 77/920 survived, 25/641 neurologically intact
  3. Pulseless, signs of life, penetrating extrathoracic injury
    • Conditionally recommend EDT
    • 25/160 survived, 14/85 neurologically intact
  4. Pulseless, no signs of life, penetrating extrathoracic injury
    • Conditionally recommend EDT
    • 4/139 survived, 3/6 neurologically intact
  5. Pulseless, signs of life, blunt injury
    • Conditionally recommend EDT
    • 21/454 survived, 7/298 neurologically intact
  6. Pulseless, no signs of life, blunt injury
    • Conditionally DO NOT recommend EDT
    • 7/995 survived, 1/825 neurologically intact

There a definitely a few issues with the data. Systematic reviews are only as good as the studies included, and none of the included studies were great. In case you were wondering, the reason that the denominator for neurologically intact survival and overall survival are different is that some studies didn’t report neurologic status.

Bottom line: This is a procedure we need to be prepared to do in the context of penetrating trauma patients who had signs of life. Even smaller community hospitals should have a plan for these patients before they arrive.


Ultrasound before thoracotomy?

Inaba K, Chouliaras K, Zakaluzny S. FAST Ultrasound Examination as a Predictor of Outcomes After Resuscitative Thoracotomy: A Prospective Evaluation. Annals of surgery. 262(3):512-8. 2015. PMID: 26258320

The criteria for thoracotomy based on ‘signs of life’ always seemed a bit soft to me. Could the omnipresent ultrasound probe help us make the decision to crack the chest? These authors prospectively enrolled all patients at their centre undergoing a resuscitative thoracotomy over the course of 3.5 years. They obtained cardiac views with an ultrasound on all these patients. In total, they performed 187 thoracotomies. 126 patients had cardiac standstill on ultrasound, and ZERO survived. If there was cardiac motion on ultrasound, 9/54 patients survived. The biggest problem with this data is probably the generalizability. 187 thoracotomies in 3 years is A LOT. My guess is these physicians are more skilled at both the thoracotomy (obviously) but also the cardiac ultrasound than I am. Might the ultrasound probe just delay the necessary procedure?

Bottom line: No cardiac activity on ultrasound might be a good reason not to perform a thoracotomy.


Some more trauma: NEXUS CT chest tool

Rodriguez RM, Langdorf MI, Nishijima D. Derivation and Validation of Two Decision Instruments for Selective Chest CT in Blunt Trauma: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study (NEXUS Chest CT). PLoS medicine. 12(10):e1001883. 2015. PMID: 26440607 [free full text]

This is the second attempt at a NEXUS CT chest tool. This paper covers both the derivation and validation studies of the new tool. It total, they prospectively enrolled 11,477 blunt trauma patients over 14 years of age at 8 level 1 trauma centres. They came up with two different instruments: one just for major injuries and another for major and minor injuries. In the validation, the CT-All tool (designed to catch major and minor injuries) had a 99.2% sensitivity and 20.8% specificity for major injury, and a 95.4% sensitivity and 25.5% specificity for all injuries. One major problem is the validation only occurred in patients who actually had CTs (less than half of the cohort) so it is hard to say how it will work when applied to all comers. The authors think this will decrease CT scanning, but like all decision instruments, the implementation should be specifically studied. If applied to lower risk populations, it could actually increase scanning.

Bottom line: If you have ordered a CT chest for blunt trauma, you could check this rule to see if you could safely cancel the scan


Let’s do a couple papers on SVT. First: The Valsalva to rule them all

Appelboam A, Reuben A, Mann C. Randomised Evaluation of modified Valsalva Effectiveness in Re-entrant Tachycardias (REVERT) study. BMJ open. 4(3):e004525. 2014. PMID: 24622951 [free full text]

This one has been talked about a lot since it came out. It is a multi-centre, non-blinded randomized control trial of 428 adult patients with supraventricular tachycardia comparing the standard Valsalva maneuver to a modified Valsalva. The modified Valsalva was performed by forced blowing for 15 seconds in the sitting position (standard Valsalva), but then patients were immediately laid flat and had their legs elevated to 45 degrees for 15 seconds. (A video of the procedure can be seen here.) At one minute after the procedure 17% of the standard Valsalva group and 43% of the modified group were in sinus rhythm (OR 3.7 95%CI 2.3-5.8 NNT=3.8). This translated into 19% fewer patients requiring adenosine (69% vs 50%, p=0.0002, NNT=5.3). The authors say that blowing into a 10ml syringe will replicate the Valsalva they performed with fancier equipment.

Bottom line: This is a simple, free technique that might save our patient uncomfortable medical interventions. Using it until further research is done seems like a no brainer.


SVT #2: Why I never use adenosine


Lim SH, Anantharaman V, Teo WS, Chan YH. Slow infusion of calcium channel blockers compared with intravenous adenosine in the emergency treatment of supraventricular tachycardia. Resuscitation. 80(5):523-8. 2009
. PMID: 19261367

This is a RCT of 206 adult patients with SVT randomized to either adenosine or a calcium channel blocker. The dosing of the CCBs was either verapamil 1mg/min to a max of 20 mg or diltiazem 2.5mg/min to a max of 50mg. Adenosine dosing was 6mg followed by 12 mg if needed. Calcium channel blockers did a better job converting to sinus rhythm (98% vs 86.5% p=0.002). 1 patient in the CCB group developed transient hypotension as compared to none in the adenosine group.

Bottom line: Calcium channel blockers are more effective than adenosine and don’t have the horrible side effects. I always start with a CCB, and my patients have thanked me every single time for not exposing them to the horrors of adenosine.


SVT#3: More adenosine bashing

Holdgate A, Foo A. Adenosine versus intravenous calcium channel antagonists for the treatment of supraventricular tachycardia in adults. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2006. PMID: 17054240

Just to complete the topic, this is the Cochrane review looking at calcium channel blockers versus adenosine in SVT. They found no significant difference in either reversion or relapse. Obviously, minor adverse events (the horrible chest pains, shortness of breath, and headaches) were higher in the adenosine group (10.8 versus 0.6% p<0.001). There was no statistical difference in hypotensive events, but all that occurred were in the calcium channel blocker groups (3/166 patients as compared to 0/171 patients.) There were no major adverse outcomes.

Bottom line: Again, similar efficacy but your patients will love you if you shelf the adenosine.


Apneic oxygenation: does it help in critical care?

The FELLOW trial: Semler MW, Janz DR, Lentz RJ. Randomized Trial of Apneic Oxygenation during Endotracheal Intubation of the Critically Ill. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2015. PMID: 26426458

This is a randomized, controlled, non-blinded trial comparing apneic oxygenation during intubation to no apneic oxygenation in 150 adult patients in a single ICU. Apneic oxygen was provided by the addition of oxygen through nasal prongs at 15L/min. The primary outcome, lowest achieved oxygen saturation, was not different between the groups (median of 92% with usual care and 90% with apneic oxygenation). There were no differences in any of the secondary outcomes (incidence of hypoxemia, severe hypoxemia, desaturation, or change in saturation from baseline.) Apneic oxygenation has been shown to work in stable surgical patients – why would it be different here? The big reason is that this was not a comparison of apneic oxygenation to apnea, like would occur in a standard RSI. 73% of patients received either BiPAP or BVM during the apneic period. Of course nasal prongs aren’t adding anything to patients receiving positive pressure ventilation. These patients are not at all like the patients I generally intubate.

Bottom line: I will continue to use apneic oxygenation for standard RSI, but if my patient requires BiPAP or bagging for oxygenation, I will forget the nasal prongs.


A 3 wish program to personalize the death experience

Cook D, Swinton M, Toledo F. Personalizing Death in the Intensive Care Unit: The 3 Wishes Project: A Mixed-Methods Study. Annals of internal medicine. 163(4):271-9. 2015. PMID: 26167721

I think one of medicine’s greatest current failures is the way we deal with death. That is a problem, seeing as death is the only certainty in medicine. This is a qualitative description of a program designed to personalize death in the ICU. To honor each patient, they asked dying patients, their families, and the clinicians to make 3 wishes that might provide dignity for the patient. The wishes were mostly simple, but profound, such as using a patient’s nickname, allowing a mother to lie in bed with her dying son, organizing volunteer work for family members, or celebrating a birthday. There were 5 categories of wishes: 1) humanizing the environment; 2) personal tributes; 3) family reconnections; 4) rituals and observances; and 5) “paying it forward”. The authors thought these added value through three domains: dignifying the dying patient, giving the family a voice, and fostering clinician compassion.

Bottom line: I don’t care much about the evidence here: This is a great idea, and if I end up in your ICU I hope this is the kind of care I receive.

Maybe a better summary of this paper is on of my favorite videos by ZDoggMD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAlnRHicgWs


An end to the low risk chest pain madness?

Mahler SA, Riley RF, Hiestand BC. The HEART Pathway randomized trial: identifying emergency department patients with acute chest pain for early discharge. Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes. 8(2):195-203. 2015. PMID: 25737484

This is a prospective, randomized control trial of 282 adult patients with symptoms of possible ACS without ST elevation, randomized to the use of the HEART pathway or usual care. The HEART pathway is a combination of the HEART score with 0 and 3 hour troponins. It was a relatively low risk group, with 6.4% of patients having an MI at 30 days. Using the HEART pathway reduced the use of cardiac testing from 69% to 57%, and none of the low risk group had any adverse events. The HEART pathway also increased early discharges and decreased length of stay. The two major problems with this study are its small size and the American setting. Although the score allow more patients to be discharged home in a setting where everyone is admitted, the results might be different if your chest pain admission rate is low to begin with, like it is where I work.

Bottom line: The HEART score may help decrease testing in low risk chest pain patients, but more evidence is required


PRP: All the superstar athletes are all using it, so it must work

Filardo G, Di Matteo B, Di Martino A. Platelet-Rich Plasma Intra-articular Knee Injections Show No Superiority Versus Viscosupplementation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. The American journal of sports medicine. 43(7):1575-82. 2015. PMID: 25952818

This is a randomized, double blind, controlled trial comparing platelet rich plasma (PRP) injections to injections of hyaluronic acid for knee osteoarthritis. Each group got three weekly injections of their study medication. Symptoms and function were identical between the groups at 2,6 and 12 months. Considering that hyaluronic acid has been shown to have essentially no clinically relevant benefit, this comparison may as well have been with placebo. As a side note, it drives me nuts that so many people refer to this as “platelet rich plasma therapy”. “Therapy” implies to patients that it might actually do some good and skews the process of informed choice. So far, there is nothing therapeutic about platelet rich plasma.

Bottom line: Platelet rich plasma therapy sounded good in theory, but it looks like it will be another fruitless intervention.


The “gold standard” for PE isn’t so gold.

Hutchinson BD et al. Overdiagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism by Pulmonary CT Angiography. Am J Roentgenol. 2015; 205(2): 271-7. PMID: 6204274

The patient was low risk, but you decided to order the CT anyway. Thank goodness you did, because it is positive for a PE. Well, not so fast. This is a retrospective look at 937 CTPAs for PE over 1 year at a single center. They had 3 blinded radiologists review each study, using their consensus as the gold standard. Of the 174 studies that were initially read as positive, these radiologists disagreed with that read (thought it was a false positive) in 45 cases (25.9%). This is consistent with multiple other studies.

Bottom line: We are likely harming many patients with unnecessary lifelong anticoagulation. In borderline cases, it might be worth asking for a second opinion on the read of the CT.


How normal is normal saline?

SPLIT trial: Young P, Bailey M, Beasley R. Effect of a Buffered Crystalloid Solution vs Saline on Acute Kidney Injury Among Patients in the Intensive Care Unit: The SPLIT Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2015. PMID: 26444692

We have been hearing for a while now that normal saline, because of the large excess of chloride and resultant acidosis, is bad for sick patients. This is a multi-centre blinded, randomized trial of 2278 adult ICU patients comparing normal saline to a balanced solution (plasmalyte 148). There was no difference in the primary outcome of acute kidney injury (9.6% with plasmalyte and 9.2% with saline, p=0.77). There was also no difference in renal replacement therapy, ICU days, mechanical ventilation, or mortality. A few weaknesses of this study were that the median amount of fluid given was only 2L per patient and most patients received fluid prior to enrollment, a lot of which was balanced solution. The biggest problem for emergency medicine is that 70% of patients went to the ICU after elective surgeries, so these results are probably not generalizable to our septic patients who start out significantly acidotic.

Bottom line: Despite a lot of theory, there is still no good evidence that we should be giving up on normal saline.


Are delayed antibiotics truly a death sentence?

Sterling SA, Miller WR, Pryor J, Puskarich MA, Jones AE. The Impact of Timing of Antibiotics on Outcomes in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Critical care medicine. 43(9):1907-15. 2015. PMID: 26121073

People have been quoting a 7% increased mortality with every hour antibiotics are delayed for a long time. Unfortunately, this is based off a single study, and we seemed to forget somewhere along the line that association does not equal causation. This is a meta-analysis of 11 studies covering 16,178 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. There was no difference in mortality comparing early and late antibiotics groups. Of course, all of these studies are observational, as no severe sepsis patients are being randomized to delayed antibiotics.

Bottom line: Obviously, give antibiotics if you know a patient has an infection – but there is reason to fight with administrators and government agencies if they try to make time to antibiotics a quality metric.


Turning down the heat: can acetaminophen save lives?

HEAT trial: Young P, Saxena M, Bellomo R. Acetaminophen for Fever in Critically Ill Patients with Suspected Infection. The New England journal of medicine. 2015. PMID: 26436473 [free full text]

For some reason, people just love to hate on fever. It is present when people are sick, so it must be bad, right? We better rush to treat it. This is a randomized, double blind trial of 690 adult ICU patients with a fever and suspected infection, comparing acetaminophen 1 gram IV every 6 hours to placebo. Not surprisingly (unless you actually believed treating fever was helping patients) there was no difference in the primary outcome of ICU free days. There was also no difference in mortality at 28 or 90 days.

Bottom line: Tylenol is great, but it isn’t needed for febrile patients


Dopamine is having a tough run

Ventura AM, Shieh HH, Bousso A. Double-Blind Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of Dopamine Versus Epinephrine as First-Line Vasoactive Drugs in Pediatric Septic Shock. Critical care medicine. 43(11):2292-302. 2015. PMID: 26323041

Sure, it’s a small trial – but it was looking at small patients, so that’s OK. This is a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of 120 pediatric patients with severe sepsis comparing epinephrine to dopamine as the first line vasopressor. The study was stopped early due to increased mortality in the dopamine group (20.6% versus 7%). They also note decreased mortality when epinephrine was given early through a peripheral IV or an IO. Mortality was not the primary outcome, and the trial was small, so I wouldn’t be shocked to see contradictory results in the future.

Bottom line: It’s rare to get this kind of RCT in pediatrics – this is definitely enough for me to shelf dopamine for epinephrine for the time being.


Ultrasound for CHF

Pivetta E, Goffi A, Lupia E. Lung Ultrasound-Implemented Diagnosis of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure in the ED: A SIMEU Multicenter Study. Chest. 148(1):202-10. 2015. PMID: 25654562

This is a multicentre, prospective cohort of 1005 ED patients looking to see if lung ultrasound could add to clinical judgement in the diagnosis of acute heart failure. The gold standard of heart failure was determined by a review of the final chart by a cardiologist and an emergency physician. This isn’t perfect, but there isn’t really a better option for CHF, and they were blinded to the ultrasound results and agreed with each other 97% of the time. Physician judgement alone for CHF is really good, with a sensitivity of 85.3% and a specificity of 90%. If you add ultrasound to this physician judgment, the sensitivity rose to 97% (95% CI, 95%-98.3%) and specificity to 97.4% (95% CI, 95.7%-98.6%), translating into positive and negative likelihood ratios of 22.3 and 0.03 respectively. The biggest caveat is that these were non-consecutive patients, because there had to be a doctor around with enough ultrasound skill (>40 scans) to get enrolled.

Bottom line: In trained physicians, lung ultrasound can help rule in and rule out acute CHF.


The new ACLS guidelines are out

The multiple AHA guidelines are in this issue of Circulation

The ERC guidelines are in Resuscitation

There is too much to go through in this format. The quickest summary is that there is nothing really game changing in these guidelines, so keep providing the high quality care you already do, and don’t rush to waste your money on a new ACLS course. If you want more information, I wrote a post about the biggest changes here: https://first10em.com/2015/10/21/acls-2015/



Cheesy Joke of the Month

Patient: Doctor, I broke my arm in 3 places. What should I do?
Doctor: Stop going to those places


#FOAMed of the month

I was incredibly impressed with the capacity for knowledge translation demonstrated by the free, open access medical education community this month when the new ACLS guidelines came out. Within a week, the internet was awash in summaries, podcasts, and infographics. If my quick summary wasn’t enough for you, here are a few other amazing resources:

BoringEM came up with a great series of infographics

EMCases interviewed a couple authors of the guidelines

REBELCast came up with a top 5 list of their own

Articles of the month (May 2015)

A monthly collection of the most interesting emergency medical literature I have encountered

Here are my favorite reads from this month. It is a little longer than usual, because apparently what I enjoy doing while sitting pool-side in paradise is catching up on the medical literature. I am sure there is room in the next iteration of the DSM for that.

 

Myth: Wound eversion magically eliminates scarring

Kappel S, Kleinerman R, King TH, et al. Does wound eversion improve cosmetic outcome?: Results of a randomized, split-scar, comparative trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;72:(4)668-73. PMID: 25619206

This is a prospective, randomized trial of post-op skin surgery patients where they closed half of the wound using wound eversion and the other half using basic planar approximation. The patients and 2 assessors were blinded and there was no significant difference in appearance at 3 or 6 months. This is in clean surgical wounds, so external validity to the ED is questionable. However, the authors looked for science supporting the dogma of wound eversion, and not surprisingly: there is none.

Bottom line: This is enough for me to stop dogmatically teaching wound eversion – though with only one study, I am always ready to change my mind.


“Therapeutic” hypothermia

Mark DG, Vinson DR, Hung YY, et al. Lack of improved outcomes with increased use of targeted temperature management following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Resuscitation. 2014;85:(11)1549-56. PMID: 25180922

A retrospective, before and after study of 1119 patients in a system where therapeutic hypothermia for out of hospital cardiac arrest was implemented in 2009. Despite the fact that you would expect improved outcomes just because of improved medical care over the half decade the study ran, there was no difference in mortality or neurologic outcomes whether or not you were cooled.

Bottom line: Thanks to TTM, we already know that cooling is not necessary. We should remember that fever avoidance is currently only a theory without significant evidence basis.


Kids don’t like being cold either

Moler FW, Silverstein FS, Holubkov R, et al. Therapeutic Hypothermia after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Children. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:(20)1898-1908. PMID: 25913022 

You probably would have been fine applying the TTM data to children, as they are just little adults, but we now have some pediatric specific data. This is a multicentre RCT of pediatric (2 days to 18 years) out of hospital cardiac arrest, comparing 33.0 with 36.8 degree Celsius targets. As you might expect, there was no difference in survival or functional outcomes up to one year. However, the raw numbers were better in the hypothermic children, despite being non-statistically significant.

Bottom line: There is no reason to put kids on ice outside of the context of further clinical trials.


Rate control in atrial fibrillation cage match: the cardiology approach (beta blockers) versus the emergency medicine approach (calcium channel blockers)

Martindale JL, et al. β-Blockers versus calcium channel blockers for acute rate control of atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response: a systematic review. Eur J Emerg Med. 2015;22:(3)150-4. PMID: 25564459

This is a systematic review of calcium channel blocker versus beta blockers for acute rate control of atrial fibrillation. They could only find 2 quality studies, which were very small. In these studies, diltiazem was better than metoprolol (RR 1.8 95% CI 1.2-2.6) for rate control.

Bottom line: The very limited evidence seems to fit with clinical experience: calcium channels blockers are more likely to get patients controlled in the ED.


The toughest question in the resus room? Maybe if a.fib is the cause of or the result of hemodynamic instability

Scheuermeyer FX, Pourvali R, Rowe BH, et al. Emergency Department Patients With Atrial Fibrillation or Flutter and an Acute Underlying Medical Illness May Not Benefit From Attempts to Control Rate or Rhythm. Ann Emerg Med. 2015;65:(5)511-522.e2. PMID: 25441768

This is a retrospective chart review (well done, but a chart review) of 416 patients with atrial fibrillation and an acute medical illness, out of British Columbia. They compared those patients who had their atrial fibrillation actively managed, versus those in whom the focus was only in treating the underlying condition. No one died in this study. Patients who had either rate or rhythm control had significantly increased rates of major adverse events, primarily increased requirement for pressors and increased intubations.

Bottom line: In sick medical patients who happen to have atrial fibrillation, focus on basic resuscitation over rate/rhythm control.


The new angioedema meds

Bas M et al. A randomized trial of icatibant in ACE-inhibitor-induced angioedema. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015;372(5):418-25. PMID: 25629740

This is one of a few new, very expensive treatments for hereditary angioedema. It is a selective bradykinin B2 receptor antagonist. This was a phase 2 RCT of 30 patients who either received Icatibant or standard therapy of steroids and anti-histamines for patients with ACE inhibitor induced angioedema. The icatibant group responded quicker (8 hours versus 27 hours) and had more complete resolution of their symptoms. The biggest concern with this study (aside from the tiny size and industry involvement) is that, although the standard therapy group probably represents usual care, ideal care might involve use of FFP instead.

Bottom line: In a very small study, icatibant seems to decrease angioedema a lot quicker than ‘usual care’.


Lots of Os up the nose

Frat JP, Thille AW, Mercat A, et al. High-Flow Oxygen through Nasal Cannula in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure. N Engl J Med. 2015. PMID: 25981908

This is a multi-centre randomized, open label study of high flow, humidified nasal oxygen, versus standard oxygen face mask, versus non-invasive positive pressure ventilation in adult, hypoxic patients. (CHF and exacerbations of asthma or chronic respiratory failure was excluded, so in other words this is primarily pneumonia patients.) There was no difference in their primary outcome of need for intubation, although they powered the study to detect a 20% difference, which is probably larger than the clinically important difference. This biggest news is that 90 day mortality was decreased in the high flow oxygen group (12%, versus 23% with standard oxygen and 28% in NIPPV), but this is a secondary outcome so should be interpreted with caution.

Bottom line: High flow nasal oxygen seems to be at least as good as NIPPV or facemask oxygen (in this select group of patients). This is enough for me to try this with alert pneumonia patients who don’t obviously need intubation.


More evidence PPIs aren’t completely safe

Antoniou T et al. Proton pump inhibitors and the risk of acute kidney injury in older patients: a population-based cohort study. CMAJ Open 2015;3(2):E166-71. (Free full text here)

Using the Ontario Drug Benefit database, these authors compared the cohort of patients with newly prescribed PPIs with a propensity matched group as a control. They excluded anyone also prescribed known nephrotoxic drugs, or with basically any other renal risk factors. People on PPIs were more likely to develop acute kidney injury, with a hazard ratio of 2.52 (95% CI 2.27-2.79). Out of 290,000 patients studied, 1787 were admitted to hospital with AKI – about 8 more than controls for every 1000 patient years on PPIs.

Bottom line: No medication is without side effects, but we treat some like they are water. Early studies will always emphasize benefits and downplay harms.


You don’t need fancy lenses and mirrors to see the retina

Vrablik ME et al. The diagnostic accuracy of bedside ocular ultrasonography for the diagnosis of retinal detachment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med 2015; 65(2):199-203. PMID: 24680547

This meta-analysis attempted to determine the accuracy of ultrasound for diagnosis of retinal detachment in the hands of emergency physicians. In population with a prevalence of detachment between 15% and 38%, they found a sensitivity of ultrasound of 97-100% and a specificity of 83-100%. Of course, these studies are often done with experienced ultrasonographers or after specific training.

Bottom line: I think this definitely has a place in the ED.

Bonus: This castlefest lecture is a great resource for ocular ultrasound, with free CME


A little more diagnostic technology: iPhone otoscopes

Richards JR, Gaylor KA, Pilgrim AJ. Comparison of traditional otoscope to iPhone otoscope in the pediatric ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2015. PMID:  25979304

These authors compared a traditional otoscope with a new one that attaches to your iphone and gives you a video display. There was reasonable agreement between the new one and the old one, although residents and attendings still disagreed about the findings a lot. They claim that the iPhone scope changed the final diagnosis a number of times, but without a clear gold standard I wouldn’t focus on that result.

Bottom line: I am not sure how important it is to treat anything they found here, which limits the value of the tool – but this could be a great way to teach students otoscopy.


Can the D-Dimer be improved? (Well, it can’t get any worse, can it?)

Jaconelli Y and Crane S. Towards evidence based emergency medicine: best BETs from the Manchester Royal Infirmary. BET 2: Should we use an age adjusted D-dimer threshold in managing low risk patients with suspected pulmonary embolism? Emerg Med J 2015;32(4):335-7. PMID: 25804861

This is a systematic review (published before last month’s paper, and so not including it) that found 13 papers addressing the use of an age adjusted d-dimer (less than age x 10). Most of the studies were retrospective, so not of high quality. The authors conclusion is “In older patients suspected of having a PE, with a low pretest possibility, an age-adjusted D-dimer increases specificity with minimal change in the sensitivity, thereby increasing the number of patients who can be safely discharged without further investigations.”

Bottom line: It is looking like the age adjusted d-dimmer in low pre-test probability patients will result in a post-test probability below the test threshold, while increasing specificity.


Speaking of PE testing, the CTPA is not a perfect test

Miller WT, Marinari LA, Barbosa E, et al. Small Pulmonary Artery Defects Are Not Reliable Indicators of Pulmonary Embolism. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015. PMID: 25961445

In this study, they took all of the CT scans that were read as positive for PE in one radiology system, and had the scan review by 4 subspeciality thoracic radiologists. 15% of scans read as showing a subsegmental PE by community radiologists were thought to be false positives by the specialists. Another 27% were thought to be indeterminate. This only represents disagreement among radiologists and not the inherent false positives of the test itself.

Bottom line: A positive CT scan is not an objective finding. Before subjecting patients to lifelong anticoagulation, a second opinion on the read might be warranted.


PEs come from the legs – those IVC filters make sense, right?

Mismetti P, Laporte S, Pellerin O, et al. Effect of a retrievable inferior vena cava filter plus anticoagulation vs anticoagulation alone on risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;313:(16)1627-35. PMID: 25919526

Prosecptive RCT with blinded outcome assessors, but unblinded patients and treating physicians, randomized 399 patients with PE plus a DVT plus a marker of severity to either anticoagulation alone or anticoagulation plus a retrievable IVC filter. Recurrent PE occurred in 3% of the filter group (all fatal) and 1.5% of the no filter group (2 of 3 fatal) for a non statistically significant relative risk of 2.0 (95% CI 0.51 – 7.89).

Bottom line: IVC filter don’t decrease the rate of PE in patients than can be anticoagulated.


Medications don’t cure kidney stones

Pickard R et al. Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015. PMID: 25998582

Flomax was pushed for renal stones based on a number a small studies with horrible methods and a few meta-analyses of those horrible studies. There has already been one large RCT with excellent methods demonstrating that Flomax doesn’t work. This should be the nail in the coffin. This is a multicentre placebo controlled RCT of 1167 adult patients with CT confirmed renal stones. They were randomized to either tamsulosin 0.4mg, nifedipine 30mg, or placebo. There was no difference between any of the groups in the number of patients requiring urologic intervention. (About 80% of the patients passed spontaneously, and 20% required an intervention in all groups.)

Bottom line: There is no role for medical expulsive therapy in renal colic.


Antibiotics don’t work for diverticulitis? Is nothing sacred?

Shabanzadeh DM, Wille-Jørgensen P. Antibiotics for uncomplicated diverticulitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD009092. PMID: 23152268

This is a Cochrane systematic review that was able to identify 3 RCTs looking at the use of antibiotics for uncomplicated diverticulitis. Only one compared antibiotics to no antibiotics, the other two compared different types and courses of antibiotics. There was no difference in any of the regimens. In other words, no antibiotics was the same as antibiotics.

Bottom line: Not enough to change my practice, but it is good to know that we have minimal footing to our current practice.


Antibiotics in appendicitis? The right side of the bowel is different from the left, right?

Varadhan KK, Humes DJ, Neal KR, Lobo DN. Antibiotic therapy versus appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2010;34:(2)199-209. PMID: 20041249

This meta-analysis concludes surgery may have a lower risk of complications than antibiotics (RR 0.43 95% CI 0.16-1.18). A little more than 30% of patients treated with antibiotics will actually require surgery. The authors seem to think biases in current study favour the antibiotics group, so real outcomes might be worse.

Bottom line: We don’t really get to make this decision anyway, but surgery is probably still the gold standard.


One last one on antibiotics: If you are going to treat with oral (which you probably should in most cases) don’t give a dose IV in the department

Haran JP, Hayward G, Skinner S, et al. Factors influencing the development of antibiotic associated diarrhea in ED patients discharged home: risk of administering IV antibiotics. Am J Emerg Med. 2014;32:(10)1195-9. PMID: 25149599

This is a prospective cohort study of 247 patients, all of whom were being treated with outpatient oral antibiotics. They compared those who received an IV dose in the ED to those who did not. 25.7% of the IV group developed antibiotic associated diarrhea versus 12.3% in the no IV group (a number needed to harm of 7.5).

Bottom line: Unnecessary IV antibiotics harm our patients.


The best drugs are probably those they keep away from us

Calver L, Page CB, Downes MA, et al. The Safety and Effectiveness of Droperidol for Sedation of Acute Behavioral Disturbance in the Emergency Department. Ann Emerg Med. 2015. PMID: 25890395

This is a prospective observational study of 1009 patients in Australia, all of whom received 10mg of droperidol for sedation of acute behavioral disturbances, and second dose at 15 min as needed. Out of those 1009 patients, 13 developed a long QT, and 7 of those had other contributing causes such as methdone or amiodarone. There were no incidences of tosades de pointes.

Bottom line: The black box warning against droperidol is likely without scientific merit. I would use it if it were available to me. Given how useful this medication is, it might be worth fighting for.


Let’s do two on poo

Gerding DN, Meyer T, Lee C, et al. Administration of spores of nontoxigenic Clostridium difficile strain M3 for prevention of recurrent C. difficile infection: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;313:(17)1719-27. PMID: 25942722

We are all colonized with C.diff., so we should be experts in getting rid of it. This is a new one to me. They took patients who completed their treatment for C.diff. and infected them C.diff. Only, this strain of C.diff does not form toxins. This reduced recurrence of clinical infection from 30% to 11%.

Bottom line: You can treat Clostridium difficile with Clostridium difficile. Maybe we should infect ourselves prophylactically?

Drekonja D, Reich J, Gezahegn S, et al. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Clostridium difficile Infection: A Systematic Review. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:(9)630-8. PMID: 25938992

A systematic review, but there are only 2 RCTs to include. In one RCT, fecal trasplant led to 81% of patients having symptom resolution, versus only 31% in the vancomycin group. In another, they demonstrated no difference between NG and rectal routes for the transplant, with about 70% resolution of symptoms. (I’d choose the rectal route, thanks.)

Bottom line: Still really not enough science to warrant a bottom line, but if C.Diff is turning your life to sh*t, consider someone else’s sh*t: it might make you feel better.


Apparently science is useless for xanthrochromia.

Chu K, Hann A, Greenslade J, Williams J, Brown A. Spectrophotometry or visual inspection to most reliably detect xanthochromia in subarachnoid hemorrhage: systematic review. Ann Emerg Med. 2014;64:(3)256-264.e5. PMID: 24635988

This is a systematic review of 10 studies comparing visual inspection to spectrophotometry for detection of xanthrochromia. Visual inspection: sensitivity 83.3% and specificity 95.7%. Spectrophotometry: sensitivity 86.5% and 85.8%. (The gold standard varied from angiography to clinical follow-up.)

Bottom line: There is no clear difference between the two, but neither seem great. Isn’t there some way for the lab to test for the chemical that makes the fluid yellow?


1 + 1 + 1 = 3?

Angus DC, Barnato AE, Bell D, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of early goal-directed therapy for septic shock: the ARISE, ProCESS and ProMISe Investigators. Intensive Care Med. 2015. PMID: 25952825

Surprise. The meta analysis of three trials that said the same thing, says the same thing: EGDT is not superior to usual care in 2015. What is worth mentioning is that this is a very good meta-analysis because the investigators of all three trials went out of their way to ensure they were using the same definitions and outcomes before starting.

Bottom line: We can be very confident that we don’t need to be following the protocols of the original EGDT study.


Game changer (x2) for neonatal resuscitation?

Gruber E, Oberhammer R, Balkenhol K, et al. Basic life support trained nurses ventilate more efficiently with laryngeal mask supreme than with facemask or laryngeal tube suction-disposable–a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Resuscitation. 2014;85:(4)499-502. PMID: 24440666

A prospective, RCT comparing ventilation with facemask vs the LMA supreme (LMA-S) vs the laryngeal tube suction-disposable (LTS-D) device in neonatal resuscitation. A lot of the outcomes were of questionable relevance, but ventilation failed in 34% of patients with facemask, 22% with the LTS-D, and 2% with the LMA-S. Higher tidal volumes were delivered with both the LTS-D and the LMA-S than the facemask (470ml vs 240ml). All these resuscitations were run by nurses, so external validity may be questionable.

Trevisanuto et al. Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway versus Face Mask during Neonatal Resuscitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2015. PMID: 26003882

This is another prospective randomized trial (neither of these could be blinded) of LMA-S versus facemask in 142 neonatal resuscitations of infants greater than 34 weeks or 1500 grams. The LMA resulted in higher 5 minute APGAR scores, less intubations, and lower admissions to NICU.

Overall bottom line: These two prospective studies paint a picture of better ventilation as well as improved patient important outcomes, such as intubations and NICU admissions, when an LMA is used over standard facemask ventilation for neonatal resuscitation. This might cause some culture shock when we run upstairs, but I think this is worth instituting.


Another myth: The subglottic area is the narrowest area of the pediatric airway

Dalal PG, Murray D, Messner AH, Feng A, McAllister J, Molter D. Pediatric laryngeal dimensions: an age-based analysis. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:(5)1475-9. PMID: 19372324

These authors measured the cross sectional area of the airways of 153 children (6months to 13 years) using video bronchoscopy under general anesthesia, and they found that it is the glottis not the cricoid that is the narrowest portion of the airway.

Bottom line: Probably shouldn’t change your daily practice, still pick a tube small enough to pass the cords, but just remember that a lot of what we “know” and teach is wrong. Always keep an open mind in medicine.


Cheesy Joke of the Month

As the doctor completed an examination of the patient, he said, “I can’t find a cause for your complaint. Frankly, I think it’s due to drinking.”

“In that case,” said the patient, “I’ll come back when you’re sober”


FOAMed Resource of the Month

Its not actually up an running yet, but I am really excited about the idea, so its more something to keep an eye out for. If anyone has played around with Coursera or EdX, you know there is a lot of incredible high quality education available for free in just about any subject. These are called MOOCs (massive open online courses). Well, there will soon be an equivalent for emergency medicine education, created for ALiEM: http://www.aliem.com/sneak-peak-aliemu/