Content uploaded by William Kenneth Milne
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by William Kenneth Milne on Jun 18, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Based on the famous earthbound podcast series SEASON 2
Abstract and Figures
Welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to Emergency Medicine (TheSGEM). Meet 'em, greet 'em, treat 'em and street 'em. The goal of the SGEM has always been to cut the knowledge translation (KT) window down from over ten years down to one year. It does this by using social media to provide you with high quality, clinically relevant, critically appraised, evidence based information. The SGEM wants you to have the best evidence so you can provide your patients with the best care. Much of the SGEM content is a result of the Best Evidence in Emergency Medicine (BEEM) process. The BEEM process is a reliable and validated method of selecting relevant emergency medicine articles. BEEM is evidence based medicine worth spreading. You can get the BEEM critical appraisal tools as part of the Free Open Access to Meducation movement. FOAM – Medical education for anyone, anywhere, anytime. The SGEM consists of a weekly podcast on iTunes and blog. It also has a Facebook page, active Twitter feed, Google+ and YouTube channel.
Figures - uploaded by William Kenneth Milne
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by William Kenneth Milne
Content may be subject to copyright.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Background:
Unconscious survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have a high risk of death or poor neurologic function. Therapeutic hypothermia is recommended by international guidelines, but the supporting evidence is limited, and the target temperature associated with the best outcome is unknown. Our objective was to compare two target temperatures, both intended to prevent fever.
Methods:
In an international trial, we randomly assigned 950 unconscious adults after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac cause to targeted temperature management at either 33°C or 36°C. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality through the end of the trial. Secondary outcomes included a composite of poor neurologic function or death at 180 days, as evaluated with the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scale and the modified Rankin scale.
Results:
In total, 939 patients were included in the primary analysis. At the end of the trial, 50% of the patients in the 33°C group (235 of 473 patients) had died, as compared with 48% of the patients in the 36°C group (225 of 466 patients) (hazard ratio with a temperature of 33°C, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 1.28; P=0.51). At the 180-day follow-up, 54% of the patients in the 33°C group had died or had poor neurologic function according to the CPC, as compared with 52% of patients in the 36°C group (risk ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.16; P=0.78). In the analysis using the modified Rankin scale, the comparable rate was 52% in both groups (risk ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.14; P=0.87). The results of analyses adjusted for known prognostic factors were similar.
Conclusions:
In unconscious survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac cause, hypothermia at a targeted temperature of 33°C did not confer a benefit as compared with a targeted temperature of 36°C. (Funded by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation and others; TTM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01020916.).
Azithromycin use is associated with an increased risk of death from cardiovascular causes among patients at high baseline risk. Whether azithromycin confers a similar risk in the unselected general population is unknown.
We conducted a nationwide historical cohort study involving Danish adults (18 to 64 years of age), linking registry data on filled prescriptions, causes of death, and patient characteristics for the period from 1997 through 2010. We estimated rate ratios for death from cardiovascular causes, comparing 1,102,050 episodes of azithromycin use with no use of antibiotic agents (matched in a 1:1 ratio according to propensity score, for a total of 2,204,100 episodes) and comparing 1,102,419 episodes of azithromycin use with 7,364,292 episodes of penicillin V use (an antibiotic with similar indications; analysis was conducted with adjustment for propensity score).
The risk of death from cardiovascular causes was significantly increased with current use of azithromycin (defined as a 5-day treatment episode), as compared with no use of antibiotics (rate ratio, 2.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13 to 7.24). The analysis relative to an antibiotic comparator included 17 deaths from cardiovascular causes during current azithromycin use (crude rate, 1.1 per 1000 person-years) and 146 during current penicillin V use (crude rate, 1.5 per 1000 person-years). With adjustment for propensity scores, current azithromycin use was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death, as compared with penicillin V (rate ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.55). The adjusted absolute risk difference for current use of azithromycin, as compared with penicillin V, was -1 cardiovascular death (95% CI, -9 to 11) per 1 million treatment episodes.
Azithromycin use was not associated with an increased risk of death from cardiovascular causes in a general population of young and middle-aged adults. (Funded by the Danish Medical Research Council.).
The effect of family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on the family members themselves and the medical team remains controversial.
We enrolled 570 relatives of patients who were in cardiac arrest and were given CPR by 15 prehospital emergency medical service units. The units were randomly assigned either to systematically offer the family member the opportunity to observe CPR (intervention group) or to follow standard practice regarding family presence (control group). The primary end point was the proportion of relatives with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-related symptoms on day 90. Secondary end points included the presence of anxiety and depression symptoms and the effect of family presence on medical efforts at resuscitation, the well-being of the health care team, and the occurrence of medicolegal claims.
In the intervention group, 211 of 266 relatives (79%) witnessed CPR, as compared with 131 of 304 relatives (43%) in the control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the frequency of PTSD-related symptoms was significantly higher in the control group than in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 2.5; P=0.004) and among family members who did not witness CPR than among those who did (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.5; P=0.02). Relatives who did not witness CPR had symptoms of anxiety and depression more frequently than those who did witness CPR. Family-witnessed CPR did not affect resuscitation characteristics, patient survival, or the level of emotional stress in the medical team and did not result in medicolegal claims.
Family presence during CPR was associated with positive results on psychological variables and did not interfere with medical efforts, increase stress in the health care team, or result in medicolegal conflicts. (Funded by Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique 2008 of the French Ministry of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01009606.).
Background: Physicians can adhere to the principles of professionalism by practicing high-quality, evidence-based care and advocating for just and cost-effective distribution of finite clinical resources. To promote these principles, the National Physicians Alliance (NPA) initiated a project titled "Promoting Good Stewardship in Clinical Practice" that aimed to develop a list of the top 5 activities in family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics where the quality of care could be improved. Methods: Working groups of NPA members in each of the 3 primary care specialties agreed that an ideal activity would be one that was common in primary care practice, that was strongly supported by the evidence, and that would lead to significant health benefits and reduce risks, harms, and costs. A modification of nominal group process was used to generate a preliminary list of activities. A first round of field testing was conducted with 83 primary care physicians, and a second round of field testing with an additional 172 physicians. Results: The first round of field testing resulted in 1 activity being deleted from the family medicine list. Support for the remaining activities was strong. The second round of field testing showed strong support for all activities. The family medicine and internal medicine groups independently selected 3 activities that were the same, so the final lists reflect 12 unique activities that could improve clinical care. Conclusions: Physician panels in the primary care specialties of family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics identified common clinical activities that could lead to higher quality care and better use of finite clinical resources. Field testing showed support among physicians for the evidence supporting the activities, the potential positive impact on medical care quality and cost, and the ease with which the activities could be performed. We recommend that these "Top 5" lists of activities be implemented in primary care practice across the United States.
Medical record review (MRR) studies have been reported to make up 25% of all scientific studies published in emergency medical (EM) journals. However, unlike other study designs, there are no standards for reporting MRRs and very little literature on the methodology for conducting them. The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with methodological guidance regarding the strengths and weaknesses of these types of studies.
The "BEEM" (best evidence in emergency medicine) rater scale was created for emergency physicians (EPs) to evaluate the physician-derived clinical relevance score of recently published, emergency medicine (EM)-related studies. BEEM therefore is designed to help make EPs aware of studies most likely to confirm or change current clinical practice.
The objective was to validate the BEEM rater score as a predictor of literature citation, using a bibliometric construct of clinical relevance to EM based on author-, document-, and journal-level measures (first and last author h-indices, number of authors including corporate and group authors, citations from date of publication to 2011, and journal impact factor scores) and study characteristics (design, category, and sample size).
Each month from 2007 through 2012, approximately 200 EPs from around the world voluntarily reviewed the titles and conclusions of recently published EM-related studies identified by BEEM faculty via the McMaster Health Information Research Unit. Using the BEEM rater scale, a reliable seven-item instrument that evaluates the clinical relevance of studies, raters independently assigned BEEM scores to approximately 10 to 20 articles each month. Two investigators independently abstracted the bibliometric indices for these articles. A citation rate for each article was calculated by dividing the Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WoS) total citation count by the number of years in publication. BEEM rater scores were correlated with the citation rate using Spearman's rho. The performance of the BEEM rater score was assessed for each article using negative binomial regression with composite citation count as the criterion standard, while controlling for other independent bibliometric variables in three models.
The BEEM raters evaluated 605 articles with a mean (±SD) BEEM score of 3.84 (±0.7) and a median BEEM score of 3.85 (interquartile range = 3.38 to 4.30). Articles were primarily therapeutic (59%) and diagnostic (27%), with various designs, including 37% systematic reviews, 32% randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 30% observational designs. The citation rate and BEEM rater score correlated positively (0.144), while the BEEM rater score and the Journal Citation Report (JCR) impact factor score were minimally correlated (0.053). In the first model, the BEEM rater score significantly predicted WoS citation rate (p < 0.0001) with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.106 to 1.402). In subsequent models adjusting for the JCR impact factor score, the h-indices of the first and last authors, number of authors, and study design, the BEEM rater score was not significant (p = 0.08).
To the best of our knowledge, the BEEM rater score is the only known measure of clinical relevance. It has a high interrater reliability and face validity and correlates with future citations. Future research should assess this instrument against alternative constructs of clinical relevance.
Epistaxis is a common problem in the emergency department (ED). Sixty percent of people experience it at least once in their life. There are different kinds of treatment for epistaxis. This study intended to evaluate the topical use of injectable form of tranexamic acid vs anterior nasal packing with pledgets coated with tetracycline ointment.
Topical application of injectable form of tranexamic acid (500 mg in 5 mL) was compared with anterior nasal packing in 216 patients with anterior epistaxis presented to an ED in a randomized clinical trial. The time needed to arrest initial bleeding, hours needed to stay in hospital, and any rebleeding during 24 hours and 1 week later were recorded, and finally, the patient satisfaction was rated by a 0-10 scale.
Within 10 minutes of treatment, bleedings were arrested in 71% of the patients in the tranexamic acid group, compared with 31.2% in the anterior nasal packing group (odds ratio, 2.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-3.09; P < .001). In addition, 95.3% in the tranexamic acid group were discharged in 2 hours or less vs 6.4% in the anterior nasal packing group (P < .001). Rebleeding was reported in 4.7% and 11% of patients during first 24 hours in the tranexamic acid and the anterior nasal packing groups, respectively (P = .128). Satisfaction rate was higher in the tranexamic acid compared with the anterior nasal packing group (8.5 ± 1.7 vs 4.4 ± 1.8, P < .001).
Topical application of injectable form of tranexamic acid was better than anterior nasal packing in the initial treatment of idiopathic anterior epistaxis.
Background:
Whether rapid lowering of elevated blood pressure would improve the outcome in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage is not known.
Methods:
We randomly assigned 2839 patients who had had a spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage within the previous 6 hours and who had elevated systolic blood pressure to receive intensive treatment to lower their blood pressure (with a target systolic level of <140 mm Hg within 1 hour) or guideline-recommended treatment (with a target systolic level of <180 mm Hg) with the use of agents of the physician's choosing. The primary outcome was death or major disability, which was defined as a score of 3 to 6 on the modified Rankin scale (in which a score of 0 indicates no symptoms, a score of 5 indicates severe disability, and a score of 6 indicates death) at 90 days. A prespecified ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin score was also performed. The rate of serious adverse events was compared between the two groups.
Results:
Among the 2794 participants for whom the primary outcome could be determined, 719 of 1382 participants (52.0%) receiving intensive treatment, as compared with 785 of 1412 (55.6%) receiving guideline-recommended treatment, had a primary outcome event (odds ratio with intensive treatment, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.01; P=0.06). The ordinal analysis showed significantly lower modified Rankin scores with intensive treatment (odds ratio for greater disability, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.00; P=0.04). Mortality was 11.9% in the group receiving intensive treatment and 12.0% in the group receiving guideline-recommended treatment. Nonfatal serious adverse events occurred in 23.3% and 23.6% of the patients in the two groups, respectively.
Conclusions:
In patients with intracerebral hemorrhage, intensive lowering of blood pressure did not result in a significant reduction in the rate of the primary outcome of death or severe disability. An ordinal analysis of modified Rankin scores indicated improved functional outcomes with intensive lowering of blood pressure. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; INTERACT2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00716079.).
Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) is a condition characterized by cyclical vomiting without other identifiable cause in patients with chronic cannabis use. Patients with CHS report that compulsive bathing and hot showers are the only reliable treatments to improve symptoms. Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome is usually unresponsive to conventional pharmacologic antiemetics, and patients often require hospital admission. We report a case of CHS that improved significantly after treatment with haloperidol in the emergency department.