Mythbusting, Improving Outcomes, Radiology, Radiology

Spinal Abscess: The Baystate Review

This is a review of all spinal abscesses at Baystate (total 162), from 2005 – 2015.  They compare 88 randomly selected controls whom had similar ICD-codes less the spinal abscess plus an MRI that was negative for acute infectious process. 

Interesting take home points, much of which is consistent with prior (albeit scant) literature:

-73% of patients are over age 50.

-more likely to have their second visit (50.6% vs 29.6% of controls) – though this 50.6% of patients with a second visit is surprisingly low for me – no word on how many were sent home from the ED, and had an MRI as an outpatient that were not included in this calculation.; or maybe we’re getting better at finding the needle in the haystack?  Or maybe we’re MRI’ing everyone?

-Many received antibiotics within the month: (35.2% vs 6.8% of controls) – this signifies a huge red flag for me.  If a patient revisits the ED and recently had pyelo (or anything infectious really), and now presents with back pain, probe a bit more for the possibility of vertebral osteo or discitis. 

-percentage of patients with history of IVDA: 20.4% vs 4.6% … this number seems low, but also is somewhat in line with prior studies – thus making me wonder how many I’ve missed…

– percentage of patients with alcoholism with a spinal abscess: 19% vs 8% – the more I get interested in ID, the more I realize that alcoholism is basically a form of immunosuppression.

-percentage of spinal abscess patients with obesity 21.6% vs 2.3%; I’m surprised only 2.3% of controls were obese.  Not sure what role this plays as being a diabetic in and of itself was not associated with a higher increased risk in this study.

-fever was present 62.4% in those with a spinal abscess vs 13.6% of those without; this includes self reported fever, which I have to wonder how often we sweep this aside when the patient is afebrile in the ED.

-16% had no identifiable risk factors; a third of the patients  presented with back pain, fever, neurologic deficits vs 6%

-Other symptoms and signs related to potential spinal cord impingement were seen with similar frequencies and of similar durations among cases and controls- meaning, focal deficits seen in both groups.

-noncontiguous co-infection: 53.7% of time (pneumonia, distant osteo, endocarditis… of those with a co-infection, 20% had more than one).

-blood cultures were positive 63.4% of the time, and >75% of the time it was staph Aureus. 

-Majority of lesions were found in the L-spine at 56.2%  – which means almost half are elsewhere!

-while “admits” for spinal abscess were up from 2.5 to 8 in 10,000 admissions from 2005 to 2015, I have to believe that number is somewhat inflated as admits like chest pain, pneumonia and renal colic probably decreased, while MRI became more readily available. 

All in all, this paper is pretty much in line with others on this topic, and strengthens the signal a bit for certain key points: a good number of spinal abscesses are not in the L-spine; many patients are older than you think, and, among other things: its more than just IVDA. 

Standard
Critical Care, Improving Outcomes, Mythbusting

Procalcitonin: Holy Grail, or Holy Sh*t ?

Procalcitonin is marketed as, “a marker of broad routine use, both for differential diagnosis of bacterial infection as well as for antibiotic stewardship.

But is it?  This study looks at 107 ICUs that had >25 sepsis cases in 2012, and had an ability to perform procalcitonin (PCT) levels on their septic patients, and essentially looked to compare the outcomes of those that had PCT ordered and those that did not.  All in all, there were about 17,000 septic patients without a PCT ordered, and about 3800 patients with a slightly lighter wallet and slightly more anemic after their admission than their comparators.

There was little difference in baseline characteristics – save for those having PCT ordered more likely hailing from the West (27.9% of PCT orders vs 12.7% of those not getting PCT ordered) and the opposite holding true for the South (55.3% without vs 49% with PCT).  PCT was slightly less ordered at teaching facilities (37.8% of septic patients without PCT orders vs 31.9% of those with a PCT ordered).  All other OR were <1.25.

There was no difference in length of stay and no differences in mortality.

There was an increase in days of antibiotic treatment for those in whom a PCT was ordered (relative risk increase 1.17), and with that an accompanying increase in Cdiff (OR 1.42) .  Of course, 1 PCT begets another (33% of the time, and about 3 days later).  Patients with serial PCT orders had higher rates of antibiotic use, higher Cdiff, and again, no mortality benefit.

Stop the madness.  Indiscriminately ordering tests that will not change management should not be done.  And they certainly should not be repeated.

Standard
Mythbusting

TXA’s post-partum fragility

Warning: An American on TXA.

The WOMAN trial was an international randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial across 193 hospitals in 21 countries looking at TXA use for morbidity and mortality for post-partum hemorrhage.

First off, this was a massive undertaking as this was an enormous trial – about 10,000 patients in each treatment arm, with fantastic follow up- only 31 of about 20,060 total patients were lost to follow up. If the treating provider was unclear as to the utility of TXA for post-partum hemorrhage control, the patient was randomized 1:1 to placebo or 1g of TXA, and if the bleeding continued after 30 min or stopped and restarted within 24 hours of the first dose, a second dose (1g TXA) or placebo was given. Baseline characteristics were quite similar between the placebo and TXA arms.

So since social media is clamoring, and since this is published in the Lancet, there must be a mortality benefit, right?

This is where I point out three things:

1) there was no difference in mortality (2.3% vs 2.6% – favoring placebo)

2) TXA had 0.4% fewer patients who experienced death due to post-partum hemorrhage

3) this was accompanied by a p value of 0.045, and a fragility index of…..

Screen Shot 2017-04-27 at 10.58.18 PM

 

A study of 20,000+ patients, and a p-value of 0.045, and a fragility index of zero.  And again, the most patient-centered outcome possible- mortality – favored placebo.

TXA is not the magic bullet in this instance.  There is a weak signal of benefit if you are proceeding to laparotomy for bleeding – particularly for caesaean delivery (1.5% vs 2.4% mortality benefit, fragility index of 4), but that is an exploratory analysis needing further review, otherwise, this is a flimsy trial.  While TXA remains inexpensive, it is worth a go- particularly in low-resource areas after laparotomy (provided TXA is still inexpensive there), but by no means does a clinician not giving it deserve to be chided – the evidence is incredibly fragile and not worthy of social media’s  “life-saving” claims – at least for post-partum hemorrhage.

Standard
Cardiology, Cardiology, Critical Care, Improving Outcomes, Improving Throughput, Mythbusting, Pulmonary, Radiology, Radiology

Probing the dyspneic patient.

For undifferentiated dyspnea, how would you like to have an accurate diagnosis in 24 minutes?

I love this study.

Basically, for all dyspneic patients (not trauma related, and over age 18), 10 EP’s were given an H&P, vital signs, and an EKG, as well as access to a Chest X-Ray, Chest CT, cardiologist performed echo, and labs including an ABG.

These same 2,683 patients, in tandem, had point of care ultrasound testing (lung, IVC, echo). Here’s the catch – the ultrasonographers were only provided the H&P, vital signs, and EKG then asked to make a diagnosis. The treating provider was blinded to POCUS diagnosis.

These numbers for diagnostic accuracy of POCUS are astounding.

+LR for acute HF? 22 (-LR 0.12)

+LR for ACS? 105 !!!

+LR for pneumonia? 10.5 (-LR 0.13)

+LR for pleural effusion? 95 (-LR 0.23)

+LR for pericardial effusion? 325!!! (-LR 0.14)

+LR for COPD/asthma? 22 (-LR 0.14)

+LR for PE? 345!!!

+LR for pneumothorax? 4635!!! (-LR 0.12)

+LR for ARDS? 90

Yes, for certain things like pneumonia, the difference in p-values between tradition means and POCUS diagnosis was not significantly different, but what about volume status? I cant imagine blindly giving 30 cc/kg would benefit the patient with a plethoric IVC and pleural effusion. There is some elegance a play here.

Additionally, sure, ED diagnosis for ACS had a higher LR, but they also had a cardiologist performing and interpreting echos in the ED (a rather rare siting in a US ED I would imagine) – without much improvement in their -LR (0.53 vs 0.48). For PE, the -LR of POCUS was predictably mediocre if not outright bad (0.6), while the -LR for ED diagnosis of PE, with the benefit of chest CT, was -0.10.

Now look, I get that these EP’s were quite sono-savvy. They all had 2+ years of experience, over 80 hours of ultrasound lessons & training, with at least 150 lung and 150 ED echo’s under their belt. The diagnosis was made in 24 minutes with POCUS in comparison to 186 minutes for traditional means. And while most of us can not do a year+ ultrasound fellowship, and neither can we all be as savvy with the probe as these authors (or Matt, Mike, Jacob, Resa, Laleh, etc) – it does not mean we shouldnt try. You can still greatly increase your yield just by practicing. To boot, the cognitive offload you experience by saving yourself a few hours by (correctly!) knowing which direction you are heading with a patient is an immense boon to both your mental heath & your patients well being.

Standard
Improving Throughput, Mythbusting

More No-Value Care: pre-procedure INR for cirrhotics

You have a cirrhotic patient in front of you. They need a procedure. You reflexively order a cbc, comprehensive metabolic panel, and PT/INR because you’d like to know about their platelets/ liver enzymes / coagulation ability.

Or maybe it’s a consultant who refuses to do a procedure the patient needs until you order these tests.

And then the platelets come back at 40; or maybe the INR returns at 1.4. Now what?

Do we need to transfuse platelets or FFP? Well, this case series looked at 852 consecutive cirrhotics from Jan ’11 – March ’14 who needed an invasive procedure the decision to transfuse PLT / FFP at attending discretion. Here’s a breakdown of their patient demographics:

screen-shot-2017-02-18-at-7-47-52-pm

And the number of complications:

screen-shot-2017-02-18-at-7-48-04-pm

Now, sadly, despite discussing the World Health Organization classification for bleeding events, they did not really get into the severity of bleeding events. With that said, complications were unrelated to platelet count, INR, CHILD classes, and MELD score. Only 1 in 379 paracentesis had a bleeding event, and only 2 of 228 TIPS/ CVC/ PICC/ hemodialysis/ I&D procedures had an event.

Perhaps most importantly, while attempts to normalized PLT and INR values, PLT/FFP transfusions barely affected the corresponding abnormalities, the scheduled invasive investigations were carried out in the presence of still subnormal parameters- with no or only a few bleeding complications.

Ergo, I agree with the authors, – “we have verified clinically the futility of this recommendation.”

Standard
Improving Throughput, Mythbusting, Pediatrics

Inching closer to discharging an ICH from the ED?

A few years ago, I was with an attending who was discharged a pediatric patient.  Staff in general seemed hesitant, but this was a well-loved doc who’s reply was somewhere along the lines of, “this kid looks great! Do you know how many times my kids probably had a bleed and did fine? We over CT these young things! And if he has a bleed, what are they really going to do anyway besides charge a lot of money for no appreciable intervention?”

And with that, comes this retrospective single center study of 202 children 0-18 years of age with an acute CHI, an abnormal CT (defined as both nondepressed and depressed skull fractures, subdurals, epidurals, subarachnoids, intraparenchymal hemorrhage, and intraventricular hemorrhage), and a GCS 14 or higher.

Essentially, the question is, can these patients be safely treated in an obs unit?

Exclusions were multisystem trauma, nonaccidental trauma, prior neurosurgical conditions and coagulopaths were excluded as well.   86% of patients were 5 years of age and under, and only half of all patients presented to the ED in under 6 hours.  My first reaction to this was “huh?” –  but the authors go on to state the 73% of patients had a hematoma, 11% had LOC, 30% vomited, 28% had a change in behavior, etc… so I guess it makes sense that there was a delayed presentation since parents may have initially thought their child was alright, only to later to suspect something was afoot (or perhaps patients were transferred to their ED from outside facilities?).

Fun sidenote: 17% of patients had no exam findings, so I gotta ask – why were they scanned?  To put it another way, much like the aforementioned doc had asked- how many kids have we discharged without a head CT with clinically insignificant ICH?

 

So what did the authors find?  ZERO children were intubated, required neurosurgical intervention, PICU admission, or died.  All were discharged within 72 hours, and 86% of patients with >1 CT finding were discharged within 24 hours!   Surprisingly, this is actually somewhat consistent with prior studies.

 

Ultimately, before starting this at your institute, note that there are some subtleties in the data- like that 25% epidurals with a repeat CT (3 of 12) showed a larger bleed. But really, looking at the data on patients that were admitted, I have to ask – which of these *really* needed an admission? None had an intervention aside from continued analgesia / anti-emetics.

 

Of note, this hospitals EDOU had an admission rate of 3-4 % – wayyyyy below national average of 15-20% – so either they’re sending home a ton of kids from obs unnecessarily, their ED is placing way too many in obs, or the rest of us have it wrong.  Which leads me to agree with the authors on the following:

“For those well-appearing children in whom CT abnormalities are visualized, an EDOU is still an appropriate place for these patients, or should early discharge with home observation also be considered?”

 

Will we see a time when certain types of head bleeds are treated like low risk chest pain – accelerated protocols and an abundance of EBM suggesting early discharge? Or arranging for telemedicine to circumvent many of these transfers to tertiary care centers?

Standard
Mythbusting

PA’s- making Ada Plumer Proud.

Many years ago, nursing was not allowed to place IVs. Now, in some places, they place ultrasound guided PICCs, and in a handful of places, ultrasound guided central lines.   Nursing can titrate vasopressors, and in some facilities, they run ACLS during codes.

 

So…. Have you ever experienced or asked “for the doctor (or consultant)?”

Have you ever been concerned and wondered do PA’s provide appropriate care in the ED?

This study is done at the world famous Our Lady of Lourdes in Camden,NJ, with none other than the EM famous Al Sacchetti- and should aim to answer some of these concerns, at least in the pediatric population

Over a 24 month period, over 10,000 patients age 6 or younger were restrospectively evaluated for bounce back rates and broken down into 3 groups based on their provider: attending only care, PA only care, or co-evaluation by both EP and PA.  Here’s the twist- in this department, policy permits PA’s to evaluate treat and discharge patients of any age independent of the attending physician.  There are no specific protocols for assigning specific patients to specific providers, though they do state that PA’s do not perform LP’s in the study department, and that febrile infants <8 weeks were brought to the immediate attention of the attending physician by the triage nurse.  Essentially, the PA seemingly functions at a high level and fairly autonomous.

So what’d they find?  Are you more likely to “bounceback” based on who you’re seen by?

Well, as one would likely expect, a higher percentage of higher acuity patients were seen by the attending physician (85% ESI-2, 70% ESI-3, 60% ESI 4/5.), and the younger the patient, the more likely they were an “attending only” case.

Bounce backs?  Only 0.4% of PA only cases vs 0.6% of attending only cases bounced back and were admitted – not statistically significant – and below the national average of 0.83%.  Only 0.9% of PA only cases were admitted vs 4.1% of attending only cases (and 3.4% of PA/MD cases.  This was statistically significant, and likely reflects higher acuity of the cases the MD is involved in.  There was a higher rate of return visits in MD only cases – 8% vs 6.8% (statistically significant) – but the rate of return for combined MD/PA cases was highest – 9.3%.

Amongst ESI 2,3, & 4s, bounceback rates for EP only eval was consistently higher than PA only eval, and bounceback rates for MD/PA co-evaluation was consistently higher than both PA only and MD only eval.

So, what’s the take home?  For one, its that PA’s can provide high level care without a significant drop off in care… and that in order for medicine to progress, we have to cognitively offload to expand our boundaries.  This may include expanding services to nursing or PAs (as discussed above)…

And here is the most important message:

Dont be that person – if someone (nursing, PCA’s, PA/NP’s, etc) comes to you with a concern – go see a patient.  We’re all on the same team.  Take it as a compliment – as evidenced by this paper it’s likely a complex or clinically ambiguous case with a higher bounceback rate, and who doesnt like a challenge!

 

Standard