Search

The objective was to compare the failure rate of incision and drainage (ID) with LOOP technique versus ID with standard packing technique in adults and children presenting to the emergency department (ED) with subcutaneous abscess.This prospective, randomized controlled trial (NCT03398746) enrolled a convenience sample of patients presenting to two Level 1 trauma centers over 12 months with skin abscesses. Of 256 patients screened, 217 patients were enrolled, 109 randomized to ID with packing (50%) and 108 (50%) to ID with LOOP. The primary outcome was treatment failure defined by admission, IV antibiotics, or repeat drainage within 10-day follow-up. The secondary outcomes included ease of procedure, ease of care, pain, and satisfaction using a 10-point numeric rating scale.There were no differences in patient characteristics between groups. Follow-up data were available in 196 (90%). Treatment failure occurred in 20% (range = 12%-28%) of packing patients and 13% (range = 6%-20%) of LOOP patients (p = 0.25). There were no significant differences in failure rates in adults (p = 0.82), but there was a significant difference in children (age ≤ 18 years) at 21% (range = 8%-34%) in the packing group and 0 (0%) in the LOOP group (p = 0.002). Operators reported no significant differences in ease of procedure between techniques (p = 0.221). There was significantly less pain at follow-up in the LOOP group versus packing (p = 0.004). The wound was much easier to care for over the first 36 hours in the LOOP group (p = 0.002). Patient satisfaction at 10 days postprocedure was significantly higher in the LOOP group (p = 0.005).The LOOP and packing techniques had similar failure rates for treatment of subcutaneous abscesses in adults, but the LOOP technique had significantly fewer failures in children. Overall, pain and patient satisfaction were significantly better in patients treated using the LOOP technique.

Objective The objective was to compare test characteristics of a single serum concentration of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), S-100β, and ubiquitin carboxyl terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1), obtained within 6 hours of head injury, to diagnose mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in head-injured subjects. Methods Adults aged 18 to 80 years who presented to one of seven EDs with a blunt closed head injury underwent head CT within 4 hours of injury and had blood drawn for biomarker analysis within 6 hours of injury were eligible. Subjects were considered to have mTBI if they had an initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) > 13 and met one or more of the following criteria: loss of consciousness (LOC), posttraumatic amnesia, or confusion. Subjects with mTBI and an abnormal head computed tomography (CT) scan were categorized as complicated mTBI; those with a normal head CT were categorized as uncomplicated mTBI; and subjects with a GCS = 15, no LOC, no posttraumatic amnesia, and no confusion were considered to not have a mTBI. Biomarker concentration measurements for GFAP and UCH-L1 were performed using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. S-100β concentration was determined using an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. Median biomarker concentration for each group was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Logistic regression was used to determine area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for each of the three biomarkers. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative and positive likelihood ratios (LRs) for the three biomarkers to differentiate between complicated mTBI, uncomplicated mTBI, and no mTBI were calculated. Results A total of 247 subjects were enrolled and had adequate clinical and biomarker information for analysis. A total of 188 met criteria for mTBI, with 34 (18.1%) having an acute abnormality on CT (complicated mTBI). The mean (±SD) age of the study population was 45.8 (±17.3) years, and 59.9% were male. Median serum concentrations for all biomarkers were significantly different between groups, lowest in the no mTBI group, and progressively increasing in the uncomplicated and complicated mTBI groups (p

Objectives This study examined the performance of serum glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) in detecting traumatic intracranial lesions on computed tomography (CT) scan in children and youth with mild and moderate traumatic brain injury (TBI) and assessed its performance in trauma control patients without head trauma. Methods This prospective cohort study enrolled children and youth presenting to three Level I trauma centers following blunt head trauma with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores of 9 to 15, as well as trauma control patients with GCS scores of 15 who did not have blunt head trauma. The primary outcome measure was the presence of intracranial lesions on initial CT scan. Blood samples were obtained in all patients within 6 hours of injury and measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for GFAP (ng/mL). Results A total of 257 children and youth were enrolled in the study and had serum samples drawn within 6 hours of injury for analysis: 197 had blunt head trauma and 60 were trauma controls. CT scan of the head was performed in 152 patients and traumatic intracranial lesions on CT scan were evident in 18 (11%), all of whom had GCS scores of 13 to 15. When serum levels of GFAP were compared in children and youth with traumatic intracranial lesions on CT scan to those without CT lesions, median GFAP levels were significantly higher in those with intracranial lesions (1.01, interquartile range [IQR] = 0.59 to 1.48) than those without lesions (0.18, IQR = 0.06 to 0.47). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for GFAP in detecting children and youth with traumatic intracranial lesions on CT was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.71 to 0.93). In those presenting with GCS scores of 15, the AUC for detecting lesions was 0.80 (95% CI = 0.68 to 0.92). Similarly, in children under 5 years old the AUC was 0.83 (95% CI = 0.56 to 1.00). Performance for detecting intracranial lesions at a GFAP cutoff level of 0.15 ng/mL yielded a sensitivity of 94%, a specificity of 47%, and a negative predictive value of 98%. Conclusions In children and youth of all ages, GFAP measured within 6 hours of injury was associated with traumatic intracranial lesions on CT and with severity of TBI. Further study is required to validate these findings before clinical application.

ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2012; 19:2–10 © 2012 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Abstract Objectives: This study compared the clinical performance of the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) and the New Orleans Criteria (NOC) for detecting any traumatic intracranial lesion on computed tomography (CT) in patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 15. Also assessed were ability to detect patients with “clinically important” brain injury and patients requiring neurosurgical intervention. Additionally, the performance of the CCHR was assessed in a larger cohort of those presenting with GCS of 13 to 15. Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted in a U.S. Level I trauma center and enrolled a consecutive sample of mildly head-injured adults who presented to the emergency department (ED) with witnessed loss of consciousness, disorientation or amnesia, and GCS 13 to 15. The rules were compared in the group of patients with GCS 15. The primary outcome was prediction of “any traumatic intracranial injury” on CT. Secondary outcomes included “clinically important brain injury” on CT and need for neurosurgical intervention. Results: Among the 431 enrolled patients, 314 patients (73%) had a GCS of 15, and 22 of the 314 (7%) had evidence of a traumatic intracranial lesion on CT. There were 11 of 314 (3.5%) who had “clinically important” brain injury, and 3 of 314 (1.0%) required neurosurgical intervention. The NOC and CCHR both had 100% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI] = 82% to 100%), but the CCHR was more specific for detecting any traumatic intracranial lesion on CT, with a specificity of 36.3% (95% CI = 31% to 42%) versus 10.2% (95% CI = 7% to 14%) for NOC. For “clinically important” brain lesions, the CCHR and the NOC had similar sensitivity (both 100%; 95% CI = 68% to 100%), but the specificity was 35% (95% CI = 30% to 41%) for CCHR and 9.9% (95% CI = 7% to 14%) for NOC. When the rules were compared for predicting need for neurosurgical intervention, the sensitivity was equivalent at 100% (95% CI = 31% to 100%) but the CCHR had a higher specificity at 80.7% (95% CI = 76% to 85%) versus 9.6% (95% CI = 7% to 14%) for NOC. Among all 431 patients with a GCS score 13 to 15, the CCHR had sensitivities of 100% (95% CI = 84% to 100%) for 27 patients with clinically important brain injury and 100% (95% CI = 46% to 100%) for five patients requiring neurosurgical intervention. Conclusions: In a U.S. sample of mildly head-injured patients, the CCHR and the NOC had equivalently high sensitivities for detecting any traumatic intracranial lesion on CT, clinically important brain injury, and neurosurgical intervention, but the CCHR was more specific. A larger cohort will be needed to validate these findings.

The ability of emergency care research (ECR) to produce meaningful improvements in the outcomes of acutely ill or injured patients depends on the optimal configuration, infrastructure, organization, and support of emergency care research networks (ECRNs). Through the experiences of existing ECRNs, we can learn how to best accomplish this. A meeting was organized in Washington, DC, on May 28, 2008, to discuss the present state and future directions of clinical research networks as they relate to emergency care. Prior to the conference, at the time of online registration, participants responded to a series of preconference questions addressing the relevant issues that would form the basis of the breakout session discussions. During the conference, representatives from a number of existing ECRNs participated in discussions with the attendees and provided a description of their respective networks, infrastructure, and challenges. Breakout sessions provided the opportunity to further discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these networks and patterns of success with respect to their formation, management, funding, best practices, and pitfalls. Discussions centered on identifying characteristics that promote or inhibit successful networks and their interactivity, productivity, and expansion. Here the authors describe the current state of ECRNs and identify the strengths, weaknesses, and potential pitfalls of research networks. The most commonly cited strengths of population- or disease-based research networks identified in the preconference survey were access to larger numbers of patients; involvement of physician experts in the field, contributing to high-level study content; and the collaboration among investigators. The most commonly cited weaknesses were studies with too narrow a focus and restrictive inclusion criteria, a vast organizational structure with a risk of either too much or too little central organization or control, and heterogeneity of institutional policies and procedures among sites. Through the survey and structured discussion process involving multiple stakeholders, the authors have identified strengths and weaknesses that are consistent across a number of existing ECRNs. By leveraging the strengths and addressing the weaknesses, strategies can be adopted to enhance the scientific value and productivity of these networks and give direction to future ECRNs.

Objectives: To evaluate the progression in productivity of emergency medicine (EM) residents by post-graduate year, as measured by hourly work in relative value units (RVUs).Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at an Accreditation Council for Graduate MedicalEducation (ACGME)-accredited EM residency with a postgraduate year (PGY) 1-2-3 configuration. A queryof an electronic billing database composed of more than 230,000 visits from academic years July 2003 toDecember 2006, representing at least four classes at each PGY level, was conducted. The main outcomewas change in productivity in RVUs generated per hour, compared by resident PGY level. This measureencompasses not only volume of patients seen but also patient acuity in terms of evaluation and manage-ment services and procedures provided and supported by documentation adequate for coding. Descriptivestatistics and Tukey’s test were used for data analysis.Results: Over the three-year study period, 70 EM residents were assessed at various levels of training. Pro-ductivity, as measured by mean RVUs generated per hour, was 2.51 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.20 to2.82) for PGY-1 residents, 3.51 (95% CI = 3.12 to 3.90) for PGY-2 residents, and 3.61 (95% CI = 3.41 to 3.80)for PGY-3 residents (p < 0.001). Patient acuity (RVUs generated per patient) increased 5%–8% with eachPGY progression: 3.05 (95% CI = 2.96 to 3.13) for PGY-1, 3.20 (95% CI = 3.09 to 3.31) for PGY-2, and 3.46(95% CI = 3.42 to 3.50) for PGY-3 (p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant increase in productivity(p < 0.001) and acuity (p = 0.03) from PGY-1 to PGY-2, with acuity also increasing between PGY-2 andPGY-3 (p < 0.001).Conclusions: Hourly work productivity and acuity increased with experience within this ACGME-accredited EM residency. The progression in workload and acuity by PGY is measurable and commensu-rate with the graduated level of responsibility desired in an EM program.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2007; 14:790–794 a 2007 by the Society for Academic EmergencyMedicineKeywords: productivity, relative value scale, emergency medicine, residency and internship