Chloral Hydrate Toxicity

A guide to the first 10 minutes of resuscitation in chloral hydrate toxicity


#1 A 4 year old girl was prescribed chloral hydrate to be taken at home prior to a procedure by her dentist. After a successful procedure, she was monitored for 1 hour, at which point she was described as tired but rousable and she was discharged home. Three hours later her mother finds her unresponsive and calls 911. Paramedics arrive to find a child in respiratory arrest and quickly package her up for the 5 minute drive to your small community hospital… (Nordt 2014)

#2 Later that evening, a 21 old man is transported from a local bar unresponsive after drinking a beer. The monitor reveals a wide complex tachycardia. There is a faint odor of pears on his breath, which triggers a vague recollection from medical trivia night. You have a nurse talk to his friends, and sure enough, they admit to slipping him a “Micky Finn” as a prank…

Continue reading “Chloral Hydrate Toxicity”

Articles of the month (June 2016)

A monthly summary and brief critical appraisal of the best emergency medicine literature I have encountered

Biggest non-news of the month

ATTACH-2 trial: Qureshi AI, Palesch YY, Barsan WG. Intensive Blood-Pressure Lowering in Patients with Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage. The New England journal of medicine. 2016. PMID: 27276234 [free full text]

To date, all the evidence available has indicated no clinically important benefit to lowering blood pressure in people with head bleeds. However, evidence is never enough to stop people from talking about how much an intervention “makes sense”. This is a large, randomized, multi-center, open-label trial that compared intensive blood pressure management (target systolic 110-139) to standard BP management (target 140-179) in 1000 patients with acute intracranial hemorrhage. To get into the trial, you needed at least one systolic blood pressure measurement over 180. Blood pressure was maintained in the target zone for 24 hours after enrollment. The primary outcome was 90 day death or disability, represented by a modified Rankin score of 4-6, and was the same for both groups (38.7% intensive vs 37.7% standard). There were no important differences in secondary outcomes. Despite the excitement for intensive treatment that somewhat inexplicably sprang from previous negative trials, like INTERACT-2, this negative finding is in keeping with all the evidence on this topic to date. Although both groups here were managed to some target, it’s not clear to me that any blood pressure management is really required. As long as you remember to treat their pain, the blood pressure generally normalizes anyway.

Bottom line: There is no need to aggressively manage blood pressure in patients with head bleeds.

You don’t remember INTERACT-2?

Anderson CS, Heeley E, Huang Y. Rapid blood-pressure lowering in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage. The New England journal of medicine. 368(25):2355-65. 2013. PMID: 23713578 [free full text]

This is a multi-center, randomized, partially blinded trial comparing intensive blood pressure control (target of a systolic pressure <140 within 1 hour) to guideline recommended care (to a target systolic <180) in 2794 adult patients with intracerebral hemorrhage within the last 6 hours. It was a negative trial, with the primary outcome of death or disability (modified Rankin score 3-6) at 90 days of 52.0% in the intensive group and 55.6% in guideline group (p=0.06, OR 0.87, 95%CI 0.75-1.01). This is obviously pretty close to statistically significant, and a secondary outcome using the relatively controversial ordinal analysis was statistically significant, so a lot of people seemed to overlook the fact that it was a negative trial. Interpreted in isolation, you might think that this could be a positive result trying to escape our slavish devotion to p values, but in the larger context of the recurrent negative trials, this is just another negative trial.

Bottom line: There is no evidence out there that really supports aggressive blood pressure control in patients with head bleeds.

OK – blood pressure might not help, but surely brains need salt?

Berger-Pelleiter E, Émond M, Lauzier F, Shields JF, Turgeon AF. Hypertonic saline in severe traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. CJEM. 18(2):112-20. 2016. PMID: 26988719

I have heard hypertonic saline mentioned as a replacement for mannitol for the treatment of intracranial hypertension at numerous conferences since finishing residency. I was under the impression it was becoming the treatment of choice, but there is a reason we practice evidence based medicine. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis that identified 11 RCTs covering 1820 adult patients with traumatic brain injury comparing hypertonic saline to either mannitol (½ the studies) or another solution (often normal saline, or even hypotonic saline.) Hypertonic saline did not decrease mortality (RR 0.96, 95%CI 0.83-1.11). It didn’t lower intracranial pressure (weighted mean difference -0.39, 95%CI -3.78 – 2.99). And it didn’t improve functional outcomes (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92-1.36). Having the same outcomes as mannitol may not be bad, but in ½ these studies hypertonic saline was compared to iso or even hypotonic crystalloids (placebo?) and didn’t perform any better. On the other hand, it doesn’t look any worse than mannitol, so there still may be a role somewhere for it in trauma.

Bottom line: We probably shouldn’t be rushing to change to hypertonic saline in the management of traumatic brain injury.

EDIT: Scott Weingart has pointed out that the individual studies included in this review really weren’t designed to make the conclusions these authors make. (See the comments below). I haven’t read the individual studies yet, but once I do, I will provide an updated post on all the evidence for hypertonic saline. 

We desperately need droperidol back

Meltzer AC, Mazer-Amirshahi M. For Adults With Nausea and Vomiting in the Emergency Department, What Medications Provide Rapid Relief? Annals of emergency medicine. 2016. PMID: 27130801

This is a systematic review of RCTs looking at the treatment of nausea and vomiting in the emergency department. They found 8 trials that covered 952 patients. The ONLY medication that demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in nausea at 30 minutes was droperidol. Metoclopramide, ondansetron, prochlorperazine, and promethazine were all statistically nondifferentiable from placebo, and even if you had larger numbers, the magnitude of change with those drugs is likely clinically insignificant (about 0.5/10 on a VAS). Droperidol decreased nausea by 1.6/10 at 30 minutes.

Bottom line: Once again, droperidol is a very valuable drug, that was taken away from us for no good reason.

Single dose dex for asthma – again

Rehrer MW, Liu B, Rodriguez M, Lam J, Alter HJ. A Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial of Single Dose of Oral Dexamethasone Versus 5 Days of Oral Prednisone in Acute Adult Asthma. Annals of emergency medicine. 2016. PMID: 27117874

Have I beat this one to death yet? A steroid is a steroid is a steroid. However, the previous papers I have covered on this topic were in children – so I’ll throw this in. This is a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial comparing a single dose of dexamethasone (12mg) to a 5 day course of 60mg of prednisone in 376 adult emergency patients with asthma exacerbations. The primary outcome of recidivism at 14 days was essentially the same (12.1% vs 9.8%, 95%CI -4.1 to 8.6%). However, because they defined non-inferiority as 8%, and the confidence interval is relatively wide, they cannot conclude that dexamethasone is noninferior. Personally, I think based on those numbers it probably is going to be, and that this trial was just under powered – but perhaps we should be giving a second dose of dex the next day.

Bottom line: Single dose dexamethasone is probably just as good as 5 days of prednisone in adults with asthma.

Can’t touch this (Stop. Hammer time.)

Ferguson CM, Swaroop MN, Horick N. Impact of Ipsilateral Blood Draws, Injections, Blood Pressure Measurements, and Air Travel on the Risk of Lymphedema for Patients Treated for Breast Cancer. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.34(7):691-8. 2016. PMID: 26644530

Physiologically speaking, I could never quite understand why I was supposed to avoid drawing blood or measuring blood pressures in the arm that a breast cancer patient had axiallry lymph node dissection on. It is supposed to be a disaster resulting in lymphedema, and patients can get very angry if you try – but what exactly was the mechanism of disaster? Well, maybe there isn’t one. This is a prospective study of postoperative breast cancer patients being screened for lymphadenopathy, comparing patients who had blood draws, blood pressure measurement, injections, trauma, and cellulitis in the affected arm to those who didn’t. They also compared number of times on an airplane. The biggest weakness in this data is that although the lymphedema data was collected prospectively, data about the exposures was based on patient report and is therefore subject to recall bias. None of venipuncture, injection, or blood pressure measurements had any association with lymphedema. For patient information, the number of flights and length of flights were also not associated with lymphedema. This data is not enough to prove safety, but given the dubious physiologic explanation, this is reassuring.

Bottom line: You are unlikely to cause lymphedema by doing simple ED procedures such as injections, blood draws, or blood pressure measurements.

Hippocrates has still got it

St John PD and Montgomery PR. Utility of Hippocrates’ prognostic aphorism to predict death in the modern era: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2014. PMID 25512328 [free full text]

Another gem from the BMJ Christmas edition. One of Hippocrates’s aphorisms was: “It augurs well, if the patient’s mind is sound, and he accepts all food that’s offered him; but, if the contrary conditions do prevail, the chances of recovery are slim”. In other words, good appetite and good cognition make survival more likely. Using data from the Manitoba Study of Health and Aging, a prospective cohort study, these authors tested that theory. Combined, poor appetite and poor cognition predicted death, with a hazard ratio of 2.37. Both components were individually predictive, with poor appetite and cognition having hazard ratios of 1.79 and 2.21 respectively. They conclude, “An aphorism devised by Hippocrates millennia ago can predict death in the modern era.”

Bottom line: Hippocrates was probably a better clinician than all of us. (Also, these are important factors to think about when discussing end of life issues with our patients.)

Reminder: we treat patients, not numbers (times three)

Nakprasert P, Musikatavorn K, Rojanasarntikul D, Narajeenron K, Puttaphaisan P, Lumlertgul S. Effect of predischarge blood pressure on follow-up outcomes in patients with severe hypertension in the ED. The American journal of emergency medicine. 34(5):834-9. 2016. PMID: 26874395

This is a single center prospective observational study looking at 146 consecutive adult emergency department patients with a blood pressure ≥ 180/110 and no acute end-organ damage (the so called “hypertensive urgency”). One exclusion criteria that could be useful to you clinically was if patients had their BP decrease to less than 180 with just 10 minutes of quiet bed rest, which happened in 16/221 (7%) of the patients screened. They compared patients who had a blood pressure less than 180 at the time of discharge (98 patients) to those who still had a pressure over 180 at discharge (48 patients). There were no differences between these two groups. In fact, only 1 patient (0.7%) had a “hypertension related adverse event”, and that was in the group with the lower blood pressure at discharge. (The adverse event was just a patient who returned with an asymptomatic 5cm descending thoracic aortic aneurysm for which no intervention was done.) This trial was nonrandomized, and almost everyone was given antihypertensives, even though we know there is no value and potential harm in asymptomatic patients. Also, it is really hard to draw conclusions from a trial with an event rate of 1. However, we already know that asymptomatic hypertension does not require ED treatment. This study tells you that there is no need to get a lower number recorded on the chart before discharge. The outcomes are the same.

Bottom line: Don’t treat asymptomatic hypertension, even if someone has used the utterly useless label “urgency”

Patel KK, Young L, Howell EH. Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Presenting With Hypertensive Urgency in the Office Setting. JAMA internal medicine. 2016. PMID: 27294333

This is a retrospective, single-center cohort study of 59,535 patients with hypertensive “urgency” (systolic ≥180 and/or diastolic ≥110 but without symptoms) in an outpatient clinic. Apparently only 426 (0.7%) were referred into the emergency department, which either tells you this database is awful or the physicians are excellent. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days were 0.5% in the patients referred to the ED and 0.2% in those sent home (p=0.23). At 6 months, the numbers were 0.9% and 0.8% (p=0.83) respectively. They conclude: “referral to the ED was associated with increased use of health care resources but not better outcomes.”

Bottom line: There is no such thing as hypertensive “urgency”. Stop using the term. Stop treating the number.

(If any primary care physicians that end up reading this: asymptomatic patients DO NOT need to be sent to the emergency department because of high blood pressure, no matter what the number.)


Driver BE, Olives TD, Bischof JE, Salmen MR, Miner JR. Discharge Glucose Is Not Associated With Short-Term Adverse Outcomes in Emergency Department Patients With Moderate to Severe Hyperglycemia. Annals of emergency medicine. 2016. PMID: 27353284

This is another retrospective, single-center study looking at all patients presenting to the emergency department with a glucose above 22mmol/L (400mg/dL) and subsequently discharged. Patients with type 1 diabetes were excluded. They found 422 patients with 566 encounters for the chart review. Looking at the blood glucose level at the time of discharge, there was no difference in adverse events (primarily re-visits for hyperglycemia, without any consequence) whether you got the glucose level down during the visit or not. In fact, the mean discharge glucose level was lower in patients that had subsequent adverse events than those without (17.6mmol/L vs 18.6mmol/L). Only 2 patients had glucose related adverse events (0.4%), both DKA. Overall, the discharge glucose level was not associated with return visits, ED usages, or hospitalization.

Bottom line: We need to rule out underlying pathology in hyperglycemic patients, but there is no value in temporarily lowering glucose and getting a better number on the chart. These patients just need close follow-up.

How about a shot in the arm?

Kashani P, Asayesh Zarchi F, Hatamabadi HR, Afshar A, Amiri M. Intra-articular lidocaine versus intravenous sedative and analgesic for reduction of anterior shoulder dislocation. Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine. 16(2):60-64. 2016. [free full text]

This is a randomized, controlled trial of 104 emergency department patients with anterior shoulder dislocations comparing intra-articular lidocaine (20ml of 1% lidocaine, landmark based) to intravenous procedural sedation for reduction. (The biggest weakness of the study is that they used midazolam (0.05mg/kg) and fentanyl (1mcg/kg) as their sedation agents, which most people don’t use any more, and have been shown to have a higher complication rate. The reductions were attempted 15 minutes after the shoulder injection. Pain scores were less during the reduction in the intra-articular lidocaine group (0.3/10 versus 3/10, p<0.001). Pain scores were the same post-reduction (1/10 in both groups). However, there were 9 patients in the injection group who were “completely dissatisfied” with their care, as compared to 0 in the sedation group. Adverse events were higher in the sedation group: there were 0 adverse events with the injections, versus 11% apnea and 10% hypoxia with the sedation. Those numbers are really high, and good reasons not to use the fentanyl/midaz combo. I have used intra-articular lidocaine a number of times, primarily ultrasound guided, and I like it – but I would still personally rather be sedated if my shoulder was out. I had been using this for post-reduction pain, but that was unchanged in this study.

Bottom line: Intra-articular lidocaine can definitely be used to reduce shoulder dislocations, but its exact role as compared to sedation still isn’t clear

Read more here:

LEMONS is a lemon?

Norskov AK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of anaesthesiologists’ prediction of difficult airway management in daily clinical practice: a cohort study of 188 064 patients registered in the Danish Anaesthesia Database. Anaesthesia 2014. PMID: 25511370 [free full text]

We all know how to assess patients to predict a difficult airway – the classic LEMONS assessment – but are those assessments any good? This is a database study, looking at a cohort of 188,064 Danish anesthesia cases. There were 3391 difficult intubations, and 3154 (93%) were unanticipated. In 929 cases the anesthesiologists predicted difficult intubation, and it was only actually difficult in 229 (25%). Similarly, difficult bag valve mask ventilation was unanticipated in 808/857 (94%) of cases, and predictions of difficulty were only correct in 49/218 (22%).

Bottom line: We cannot predict difficult airways. Be prepared and have a set algorithm you are going to follow for every airway, no matter how easy you think it is going to be.

Obsessive twitter users beware

Alim-Marvasti A, Bi W, Mahroo OA, Barbur JL, Plant GT. Transient Smartphone “Blindness”. The New England journal of medicine. 374(25):2502-4. 2016. PMID: 27332920

I just found this case report interesting. They present 2 patients with transient monocular blindness. They had normal workups, but both patients experienced this after looking at their smartphones while lying in bed. They think that the blindness was the result of one eye being blocked by the pillow, so that it was dark-adapted, while the other was looking at the bright screen and therefore became light-adapted. When the phone was turned off, and both eyes were used in the dark room, the light-adapted eye was perceived as being blind for a number of minutes.

Bottom line: Physiology can still be interesting

Chest compressions can’t circulate blood you don’t have

Bowles F, Rawlinson K. BET 3: The efficacy of chest compressions in paediatric traumatic arrest. Emergency medicine journal : EMJ. 33(5):368. 2016. PMID: 27099381

Cardiac arrest means push hard and push fast. That has been branded into our grey matter. However, most trauma experts I have spoken with don’t think that there is much of a role for chest compressions in traumatic cardiac arrest. They just get in the way of what you really need to be doing, if there is any chance of salvage, which is opening the chest. However, my experience in community hospitals is that this distinction between traumatic and non-traumatic arrests is not well known. This is a review looking for evidence of the benefit of chest compressions in pediatric traumatic arrests. There is no evidence, so it’s not much of a paper. They just conclude that you should follow local guidelines. I see no reason that children should be different from adults in this scenario, but there also isn’t great evidence in adults.

Bottom line: We have no idea whether we should be doing chest compressions in traumatic cardiac arrest. Just make sure that your compressions don’t result in injuries to staff trying to perform important procedures.

The authors’ title is best: Docusate: A placebo pill for soft poops

Carbon J and Kolber M. Docusate: A placebo pill for soft poops. Tools for practice. Alberta College of Family Physicians. April 25, 2016. [free full text]

This review looked at whether docusate sodium (Colace) or docusate calcium (Surfak) are effective for prevention or treatment of constipation. They identified 3 RCTs of docusate versus placebo in functional or medication induced constipation, and all were negative. One RCT compared docusate to polyethylene glycol, and the polyethylene glycol resulted in a bowel movement 1-2 days earlier. Biggest limitation: these trials were not in emergency department patients.

Bottom line: There is probably no role for docusate in the management of constipation.

I know a number of people who like to chase their drugs with a good fatty meal – and now we can give it to them intravenously

Lam SH, Majlesi N, Vilke GM. Use of Intravenous Fat Emulsion in the Emergency Department for the Critically Ill Poisoned Patient. The Journal of emergency medicine. 2016. PMID: 26972018

This is a review, but not surprisingly, considering that it is a toxicology paper, they only found 1 RCT. The majority of the ‘evidence’ is from 4 retrospective cohorts, and 79 case reports. In other words, there really is no evidence – but we still need to know what to do, so here is what they suggest. They think intralipid therapy is ‘probably’ beneficial for all local anesthetic toxicity. (I reviewed that topic here.) There is a long list of drugs that they conclude may have a ‘possible benefit’, including amitriptyline, calcium channel blockers, cocaine, and beta-blockers – based entirely off low quality case reports. They suggest it should be used if the patient is hemodynamically unstable and not responding to standard resuscitation, and that the dose is 20% intravenous fatty emulsion as a 1.5 ml/kg bolus, then an effusion of 0.25ml/kg/min for up to 60 minutes. The bolus could be repeated once at 5 minutes.

Bottom line: In the dying tox patient, this might be worth a try. I would definitely use it with local anesthetic toxicity, but otherwise would probably speak with poison control.

Cheesy joke of the month

Doctor: Sir, were you using a condom during the last time you had sex?

Patient: Doctor, what do you mean by “the last time”!?

Thanks for reading. If you find these monthly summaries useful, or you know anyone else who might find them useful, please spread the word. I love doing this, but it is really only valuable if the information reaches people who might use it. On the other hand, if you have any suggestions for improvement or come across any articles that you think should be included, please feel free to contact me.

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:

Articles of the month (March 2015)

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

Magnesium the wonder drug, now for migraines

Shahrami A et al. Comparison of therapeutic effects of magnesium sulfate vs. dexamethasone/metoclopramide on alleviating acute migraine headache. J Emerg Med 2015; 48(1): 69-76. PMID 25278139

In this RCT, they compared IV magnesium (1 gram) to the combination of metoclopramide 10mg IV and dexamethasome 8mg IV. Magnesium was more effective at 20min, 1 and 2 hours. I would note, that although metoclopramide is what we generally have to use now because of drug shortages or silly rules, prochlorperazine (Stemetil) and droperidol are both better for migraine. Also, previous studies of metoclopramide in migraine have used a 20mg dose, although 10mg is what tends to be ordered.

Bottom line: Intravenous magnesium might be a useful tool in the treatment of migraines


This PROMISEs to be the biggest paper of the month

The ProMISe trial. Mouncey et al. Trial of Early, Goal-Directed Resuscitation for Septic Shock. NEJM. 2015 (Ahead of print). PMID: 25776532

This is the third and final large trial of early goal directed therapy for septic shock, and shockingly it tells us pretty much the same thing the first two did: EGDT adds nothing to usual care. This is an open label, multi-center RCT from the UK with a total of 1260 patients. Patients were randomized to receive the classic EGDT protocol or ‘usual care’. There was no difference in mortality, (29% at 90 days). Of course, ‘usual care’ may look a lot more like EGDT than it used to.

Bottom line: Septic patients need antibiotics, fluids, and most importantly someone to care about them. Ditch the high tech stuff.


Emergency doctors are ECG experts, we don’t need a second opinion next week

Proano L et al. Cardiology electrocardiogram overreads rarely influence patient care outcome. Am Jour Emerg Med 2014;32(11):1311-14. PMID: 25200503

This is a retrospective review at a single teaching hospital over 21 months, with 38,490 ECGs reviewed. Of the 16,011 patients that were discharged, 22 patients required follow up for discordant readings (0.1%). Of those 22, after review only 2 were determined to require a change in management. The remainder were considered ‘non specific’ or the ED doc turned out to be right. Of the 2 with changed management, one was for ‘possible ACS’ who ultimately had a completely negative workup. The other was a missed atrial flutter, but nothing changed about their management except also getting a negative workup.

Bottom line: Having cardiology over read ED ECGs results in a change of management in somewhere between 0 and 0.01% of patients (and adds a bunch of false positives).


We don’t listen to our own literature (ACLS still doesn’t work)

Sanghavi BS et al. Outcomes After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Treated by Basic vs Advanced Life Support. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(2):196-204. PMID: 25419698

We already know this, because it has been over a decade since OPALS (in Ontario) proved that ACLS doesn’t work. This is an observational cohort study of American medicare patients with out of hospital cardiac arrest, based on whether they were treated by an ACLS or BLS crew. Survival to hospital discharge was better with BLS (13.1% vs 9.2%). Survival at 90 days was better with BLS (8.0% vs 5.4%).

Bottom line: ACLS doesn’t work. Stop wasting time with IVs and drugs. And most importantly, can we please remove any kind of ACLS training from my hospital credentialing requirements?


Related: Less is also more for airway management in cardiac arrest

McMullan J et al. Airway management and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcome in the CARES registry. Resuscitation 2014, 85(5):617-622. PMID: 24561079

This is a retrospective registry review of 10,691 out of hospital cardiac arrests that demonstrated that patients that did not have advanced airways placed during the initial resuscitation were more likely to survive to hospital discharge with good neurological outcomes (OR 4.24 95% CI 3.26-5.20). The use of supraglottic airways was associated with worse outcomes than endotracheal intubation. Of course, these are just associations in a very complex scenario with multiple confounders.

Bottom line: Use good technique and provide slow ventilations with a bag valve mask, unless you believe there is a good reason to do something more advanced.


Patients don’t understand us

Shif Y et al. What CPR means to surrogate decision makers of ICU patients. Resuscitation 2015 (In print). PMID: 25711518

This is qualitative research on communication and understanding of CPR by surrogate decision makers in the ICU. (I love this stuff, but probably mostly because my master’s was based in qualitative research and communication. Realistically, this study probably just states the obvious.) Less than half of surrogate decision makers identified cardiac arrest as the indication for CPR. Only 8% could identify the major components of CPR (although the technical details probably don’t matter that much.) Mostly importantly, 72% thought that the survival rate post CPR is greater than 75%.

Bottom line: It takes a lot of time, but we really do need to teach our patients about medicine.


Ketamine will not make your head explode (although, if my head did explode, I would probably be grateful to be in the K-hole)

Cohen L et al. The effect of ketamine on intracranial and cerebral perfusion pressure and health outcomes: a systematic review. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2015; 65(1):45-51. PMID: 25064742

This systematic review found a total of 10 studies, all in the ICU or OR as they were actually measuring ICPs. Mostly ketamine didn’t change ICP or CPP. In two studies, ICP actually decreased with ketamine. In two studies it did go up, but by 2-4 mmHg, so clinically meaningless. There were no changes in neurological outcomes, ICU length of stay, or mortality.

Bottom line: Ketamine is a wonder drug that can do anything, possibly even solve our boarding crisis, so go ahead and use it whenever you want.


Also, tetracaine is not going to melt your eyeballs

Waldman N et al. Topical tetracaine used for 24 h is safe and rated highly effective by patients for the treatment of pain caused by corneal abrasions: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Acad Emerg Med 2014; 21:374-382. PMID: 24730399

This is a prospective double blind RCT in which patients with corneal abrasions were allowed to use tetracaine 1% q30min PRN for pain after simple corneal abrasions (versus saline placebo). This is not the first study to look at this, and the dogma is based on a handful of ridiculous case reports. There were no complications (to be fair 116 patient trial is not big enough to be sure it is safe.) It is a weird trial, because pain scores didn’t go down, but patients were more satisfied with their care if they were given tetracaine.

Bottom line: Patients with painful conditions deserve good pain control. If I had a corneal abrasion, you can be sure I would be using a topical anesthetic.


One day we may not radiate our patients at all – apparently you can use ultrasound to look for bowel obstruction?

Jang TB etl al. Bedside ultrasonography for the detection of small bowel obstruction in the emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2011;28(8):676-8. PMID: 20732861

A prospective study of 76 patients with suspected SBO, all of who had a CT scan done. Residents were given a 10 training session on using bedside ultrasound to assess for bowel obstruction. The bedside ultrasound had a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 84% compared to the CT gold standard. Compare that to abdominal plain films, which had a sensitivity of 46% and a specificity of 67%.

Bottom line: Ultrasound is much better than plain films for the assessment of SBO.


Yet another reason not to order urine tox screens

Felton at al. 13-Year-Old Girl With Recurrent, Episodic, Persistent Vomiting: Out of the Pot and Into the Fire. Pediatrics 2015 (Ahead of print). PMID: 25733759

OK, this is only a case report and only gets in because I have an axe to grind. I hate urine toxicology screens and believe they should never be ordered in the ED. But it does raise an interesting tidbit to keep in mind: apparently pantoprozole can cause a false positive urine tox screen for marijuana.

Bottom line: Never rely on a urine tox screen.


NPO time irrelevant for procedural sedation

Godwin SA et al. Clinical policy: procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2014;63(2):247-58. PMID: 24438649

As part of the ACEP clinical policy process, they did a systematic review. They found 5 studies that cover thousands of patients, and found no evidence that fasting decreased aspiration or other adverse events. The official policy is “Level B: Do not delay procedural sedation in adults or pediatrics in the ED based on fasting time. Preprocedural fasting for any duration has not demonstrated a reduction in the risk of emesis or aspiration when administering procedural sedation and analgesia.”

Bottom line: Just make sure they actually take the Doritos out of their mouth before starting.


GCS 8, just wait

Duncan R and Thakore S. Decreased Glasgow Coma Scale does not mandate endotracheal intubation in the emergency department. J Emerg Med 2009;37(4):451-5. PMID: 19272743

An older paper that came across my desk that I think is worth including because I know practice varies wildly in this regard, and I have debated this point with multiple folks. This is a prospective study of 73 overdose patients with decreased LOC who were watched, not intubated (GCS ranged from 3 to 14). No patient with a GCS under 8 worsened, required intubation, or aspirated.

Bottom line: GCS under 8 shouldn’t be an automatic intubation in tox patients


Best way to avoid the pain of an ABG – don’t do one. Second best way: use an insulin needle?

Ibrahim I et al. Arterial Puncture Using Insulin Needle Is Less Painful Than With Standard Needle: A Randomized Crossover Study. Acad Emerg Med 2015 (Ahead of print). PMID: 25731215

Although I don’t think ABGs are very helpful most of the time, you might want to calculate an A-a gradient or something some day. This was a randomized study of healthy volunteers comparing a standard 23 gauge to an insulin needle for arterial stabs. Not surprisingly, both pain and complications were lower with the smaller needle. However, hemolysis went up, so not great if you really want a K – but why do you want to know the arterial K?

Bottom line: If you really feel like doing an ABG, use a smaller needle.


Infomercials in the Lancet?

Goldstein JN et al. Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate versus plasma for rapid vitamin K antagonist reversal in patients needing urgent surgical or invasive interventions: a phase 3b, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial. Lancet 2015 (ahead of print). PMID: 25728933

This is an open label RCT of 181 patients comparing PCC (Beriplex) to FFP before an ‘urgent surgery or procedure’. Based on rated ‘effective hemostasis’ being achieved in 90% of the PCC group and 75% of the FFP group, the authors conclude that PCC is superior to FFP. Sadly, this article appears to have been written directly by the drug company (if you read the funding statement), had protocol changes as it went, and relies on reporting of a surrogate end point. Despite all that, the treatments were actually identical. Difference in surgical blood loss between the two groups: 12 ml. Total number of units of blood transfused – identical in both groups.

Bottom line: This trial will be used to push an expensive medication, but it should be interpreted as the opposite: never use PCC just to get someone to surgery.


Hepatic encephalopathy is treated with diarrhea (lactulose is not special)

Rahimi RS et al. Lactulose vs polyethylene glycol 3350-electrolyte solution for treatment of overt hepatic encephalopathy: the HELP randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174(11):1727-1733. PMID: 25243839

This is a small RCT comparing PEG 3350 to lactulose for patients with hepatic encephalopathy. PEG 3350 resulted in more rapid resolution of symptoms than lactulose.

Bottom line: PEG 3350 might be better, but certainly isn’t worse than lactulose for the treatment of hepatic encephalpathy.


Your kid is allergy prone? Feed him peanuts

Du Toit et al. Randomized trial of peanut consumption in infants at risk for peanut allergy. NEJM 2015; 372:802-813. PMID: 25705822

This is the RCT to show anyone who ever tells you that there some are things we just can’t study. They took 640 children at risk of developing peanut allergy because they already had an egg allergy or severe eczema and randomized them to either eat or not a peanut based snack. The results are relatively astounding. If you didn’t have a positive skin test at the beginning of the study, being exposed to peanuts decreased your chance of developing a peanut allergy by 12% (NNT = 8). If you had a positive skin test at the outset, being exposed to peanut protein decreased your allergy rate by 25% (NNT =4)!

Bottom line: More of a general interest than emergency medicine specific paper. This is strong support for the cleanliness hypothesis of increasing allergies – if you want to avoid allergy, increase antigen exposure in kids.

Cheesy Joke of the Month

I went to a zoo recently, and the only animal there was a dog…

It was a shitzu