Search

Objectives: A bowel diameter threshold of ≥2.5 cm, originally derived from the research using computed tomography, is frequently used for diagnosing small bowel obstruction (SBO) with point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). We sought to determine the optimal bowel diameter threshold for diagnosing SBO using POCUS and its accuracy in predicting surgical intervention., Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis using individual patient-level data from a previous systematic review on POCUS for SBO diagnosis across five academic EDs. Patient data were collected, including imaging results, surgical findings, and final diagnosis. The measured diameter of the small bowel using POCUS was recorded. ROC area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were constructed to determine the optimal threshold for bowel diameter in predicting SBO diagnosis and surgical intervention. Subgroup analyses were performed based on sex and age., Results: A total of 403 patients had individual patient-level data available, with 367 patients included in the final analysis. The most accurate bowel diameter overall for predicting SBO was 2.75 cm (AUC = 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81). A bowel diameter of ≤1.7 cm had 100% sensitivity with no miss rate, while a bowel diameter of ≥4 cm had 90.7% specificity in confirming SBO. Patients under 65 had an optimal threshold of 2.75 cm versus 2.95 cm in patients over 65. Females had an optimal threshold of 2.75 cm, while males had a value of 2.95 cm. There was no significant correlation between bowel diameter thresholds and surgical intervention., Conclusion: A bowel diameter threshold of 2.75 cm on POCUS is more discriminative diagnostic accuracy for diagnosing SBO. Patients' age and sex may impact diagnostic accuracy, suggesting that tailored approaches may be needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest HS, NAJ, GDP, KMD, BB, KB, SL, MS, MC, TJ, and MG report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite approximately 55.9 million annual mild traumatic brain injuries (mTBIs) worldwide, the accurate diagnosis of mTBI continues to challenge clinicians due to symptom ambiguity, reliance on subjective report and presentation variability. Non-invasive fluid biomarkers of mTBI offer a biological measure to diagnose and monitor mTBI without the need for blood draws or neuroimaging. The objective of this study is to systematically review the utility of such biomarkers to diagnose mTBI and predict disease progression., Methods: A systematic review performed in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Science followed by a manual search of references without a specified timeframe. Search strings were generated and run (27 June 2022) by a research librarian. Studies were included if they: (1) included human mTBI subjects, (2) assessed utility of a non-invasive biomarker and (3) published in English. Exclusion criteria were (1) non-mTBI subjects, (2) mTBI not assessed separately from moderate/severe TBI, (3) required intracranial haemorrhage or (4) solely assesses genetic susceptibility to mTBI., Results: A total of 29 studies from 27 subject populations (1268 mTBI subjects) passed the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Twelve biomarkers were studied. Salivary RNAs, including microRNA, were assessed in 11 studies. Cortisol and melatonin were assessed in four and three studies, respectively. Eight salivary and two urinary biomarkers contained diagnostic or disease monitoring capability., Discussion: This systematic review identified several salivary and urinary biomarkers that demonstrate the potential to be used as a diagnostic, prognostic and monitoring tool for mTBI. Further research should examine miRNA-based models for diagnostic and predictive utility in patients with mTBI., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42022329293., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Many academic medical centers (AMC) transfer patients who require admission but not tertiary care to partner community hospitals from their emergency departments (ED). These transfers alleviate ED boarding but may worsen existing healthcare disparities. We assessed whether disparities exist in the transfer of patients from one AMC ED to a community hospital General Medical Service., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study on all patients screened for transfer between April 1 and December 31, 2021. During the screening process, the treating ED physician determines whether the patient meets standardized clinical criteria and a patient coordinator requests patient consent. We collected patient demographics data from the electronic health record and performed logistic regression at each stage of the transfer process to analyze how individual characteristics impact the odds of proceeding with transfer., Results: 5558 patients were screened and 596 (11%) ultimately transferred. 1999 (36%) patients were Black or Hispanic, 698 (12%) had a preferred language other than English, and 956 (17%) were on Medicaid or uninsured. A greater proportion of Black and Hispanic patients were deemed eligible for interhospital transfer compared to White patients and a greater proportion of Hispanic patients completed transfer to the community hospital (p < 0.017 after Bonferroni correction). After accounting for other demographic variables, patients older than 50 (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.04-1.40), with a preferred language other than English (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00-1.62), and from a priority neighborhood (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.18-1.61) were more likely to be eligible for transfer, while patients who were male (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.10-2.05) and younger than 50 (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.20-2.78) were more likely to consent to transfer (p < 0.05)., Conclusion: Health disparities exist in the screening process for our interfacility transfer program. Further investigation into why these disparities exist and mitigation strategies should be undertaken., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in identifying small bowel obstruction (SBO) and to investigate the impact of clinician experience level and body mass index (BMI) on POCUS performance for diagnosing SBO in the Emergency Department., Methods: We systematically searched PubMed and Cochrane databases from January 2011-2022. We performed a meta-analysis using individual patient-level data from prospective diagnostic accuracy studies from which we obtained data from the corresponding authors. Overall test characteristics and subgroup analysis across clinician experience levels and a range of BMI were calculated. The primary outcome was SBO as the final diagnosis during hospitalization., Results: We included Individual patient data from 433 patients from 5 prospective studies. Overall, 33% of patients had a final diagnosis of SBO. POCUS had 83.0% (95%CI 71.7%-90.4%) sensitivity and 93.0% (95%CI 55.3%-99.3%) specificity; LR+ was 11.9 (95%CI 1.2-114.9) and LR- was 0.2 (95%CI 0.1-0.3). Residents had exhibited a sensitivity of 73.0% (95%CI 56.6%-84.9%) and specificity of 88.2% (95%CI 58.8%-97.5%), whereas attendings had demonstrated a sensitivity of 87.7% (95%CI 71.1%-95.4%) and specificity of 91.4% (95%CI 57.4%-98.8%). Among those patients with BMI<30 kg/m 2 , POCUS showed a sensitivity of 88.6% (95%CI 79.5%-94.7%) and a specificity of 84.0% (95%CI 75.3%-90.6%), while patients with BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2 exhibited a sensitivity of 72.0% (95%CI 50.6%-87.9%) and specificity of 89.5% (95%CI 75.2%-97.1%)., Conclusions: POCUS correctly identified those patients with SBO with high sensitivity and specificity. Diagnostic accuracy was slightly reduced when performed by resident physicians and among patients with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2 ., Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022303598., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Emergency departments (ED) function as a health and social safety net, regularly taking care of patients with high social risk and need. Few studies have examined ED-based interventions for social risk and need., Methods: Focusing on ED-based interventions, we identified initial research gaps and priorities in the ED using a literature review, topic expert feedback, and consensus-building. Research gaps and priorities were further refined based on moderated, scripted discussions and survey feedback during the 2021 SAEM Consensus Conference. Using these methods, we derived six priorities based on three identified gaps in ED-based social risks and needs interventions: 1) assessment of ED-based interventions; 2) intervention implementation in the ED environment; and 3) intercommunication between patients, EDs, and medical and social systems., Results: Using these methods, we derived six priorities based on three identified gaps in ED-based social risks and needs interventions: 1) assessment of ED-based interventions, 2) intervention implementation in the ED environment, and 3) intercommunication between patients, EDs, and medical and social systems. Assessing intervention effectiveness through patient-centered outcome and risk reduction measures should be high priorities in the future. Also noted was the need to study methods of integrating interventions into the ED environment and to increase collaboration between EDs and their larger health systems, community partners, social services, and local government., Conclusion: The identified research gaps and priorities offer guidance for future work to establish effective interventions and build relationships with community health and social systems to address social risks and needs, thereby improving the health of our patients.

Introduction: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is a complication of assisted reproductive technology (ART) for infertility. Given the potential for significant morbidity, it is important for emergency medicine (EM) residents to be able to recognize and initiate treatment for this disorder., Methods: A high-fidelity human patient simulator was used, with availability of bedside ultrasound. PGY 1-4 EM residents participated in this case of a 28-year-old female patient undergoing treatment for infertility who presented to the emergency department with shortness of breath and near syncope. Workup revealed a diagnosis of OHSS. After the simulation, we surveyed residents on their knowledge of OHSS prior to participation in the simulation. We also asked about their confidence in caring for a patient with OHSS pre- and postsimulation based on a 5-point Likert scale., Results: A total of 24 EM residents completed this simulation case. Prior to participating in the simulation experience, 62% of residents reported that they had heard of OHSS, and 17% of residents had previously managed a patient with OHSS. After participating in the simulation, residents' comfort with managing a patient with OHSS increased from 1.7 to 3.7 points (1 = not at all comfortable, 5 = extremely comfortable ; p < .001)., Discussion: OHSS is a rare but important complication of ART that many EM residents have not treated in the clinical environment. As the presenting symptoms may mimic other diagnoses, obtaining a detailed history and utilizing bedside ultrasonography are essential to diagnosing and correctly treating these patients., (© 2022 Wittels et al.)