Search

Importance: Acute vertigo can be disabling. Antihistamines and benzodiazepines are frequently prescribed as "vestibular suppressants," but their efficacy is unclear., Objective: To assess the efficacy of antihistamines and benzodiazepines in the treatment of acute vertigo from any underlying cause., Data Sources: We searched the PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from inception to January 14, 2019, without language restrictions. Bibliographies of the included studies and relevant reviews were also screened., Study Selection: We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing antihistamine or benzodiazepine use with another comparator, placebo, or no intervention for patients with a duration of acute vertigo for 2 weeks or less. Studies of healthy volunteers, prophylactic treatment, or induced vertigo were excluded, as were studies that compared 2 medications from the same class., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by 2 authors independently for each study. Data were pooled using a random-effects model., Main Outcomes and Measures: The predefined primary outcome was change in 10- or 100-point vertigo or dizziness visual analog scale (VAS) scores at 2 hours after treatment. Secondary outcomes included change in nausea VAS scores at 2 hours, use of rescue medication at 2 hours, and improvement or resolution of vertigo at 1 week or 1 month., Results: Of the 27 trials identified in the systematic review, 17 contributed to the quantitative meta-analysis and involved a total of 1586 participants. Seven trials with a total of 802 participants evaluated the primary outcome of interest: single-dose antihistamines resulted in significantly more improvement on 100-point VAS scores compared with benzodiazepines (difference, 16.1 [95% CI, 7.2 to 25.0]) but not compared with other active comparators (difference, 2.7 [95% CI, -6.1 to 11.5]). At 1 week and 1 month, neither daily benzodiazepines nor antihistamines were reported to be superior to placebo. RCTs comparing the immediate effects of medications (at 2 hours) after a single dose generally had a low risk of bias, but those evaluating 1-week and 1-month outcomes had a high risk of bias., Conclusions and Relevance: Moderately strong evidence suggests that single-dose antihistamines provide greater vertigo relief at 2 hours than single-dose benzodiazepines. Furthermore, the available evidence did not support an association of benzodiazepine use with improvement in any outcomes for acute vertigo. Other evidence suggested that daily antihistamine use may not benefit patients with acute vertigo. Larger randomized trials comparing both antihistamines and benzodiazepines with placebo could better clarify the relative efficacy of these medications.

Case Presentation: A previously healthy 45-year-old man presented to the emergency department with bilateral knee pain and inability to extend his knees after a slip and fall on ice. The clinical diagnosis of bilateral quadriceps tendon rupture was confirmed by computed tomography (CT) of bilateral knees. The patient underwent successful operative repair the following day., Discussion: Bilateral quadriceps tendon rupture is rare and can be difficult to diagnose due to the impossibility of comparing the affected to the unaffected limb. Plain radiographs are usually not helpful, but ultrasound, CT, and magnetic resonance imaging may be used to confirm the clinical diagnosis.

Importance: Endotracheal intubation of critically ill patients is a high-risk procedure. Checklists have been advocated to improve outcomes., Objective: To assess whether the available evidence supports an association of use of airway checklists with improved clinical outcomes in patients undergoing endotracheal intubation., Data Sources: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed (OVID), Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, and SCOPUS were searched without limitations using the Medical Subject Heading terms and keywords airway; management; airway management; intubation, intratracheal; checklist; and quality improvement to identify studies published between January 1, 1960, and June 1, 2019. A supplementary search of the gray literature was performed, including conference abstracts and clinical trial registries., Study Selection: Full-text reviews were performed to determine final eligibility for inclusion. Included studies were randomized clinical trials or observational human studies that compared checklist use with any comparator for endotracheal intubation and assessed 1 of the predefined outcomes., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction and quality assessment were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized clinical trials. Study results were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model. Reporting of this study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included first-pass success and known complications of endotracheal intubation, including esophageal intubation, hypoxia, hypotension, and cardiac arrest., Results: The search identified 1649 unique citations of which 11 (3261 patients) met the inclusion criteria. One randomized clinical trial and 3 observational studies had a low risk of bias. Checklist use was not associated with decreased mortality (5 studies [2095 patients]; relative risk, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.80-1.18; I2 = 0%). Checklist use was associated with a decrease in hypoxic events (8 studies [3010 patients]; relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95; I2 = 33%) but no other secondary outcomes. Studies with a low risk of bias did not demonstrate decreased hypoxia associated with checklist use., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that use of airway checklists is not associated with improved clinical outcomes during and after endotracheal intubation, which may affect practitioners' decision to use checklists in this setting.

Importance: Diagnosing posterior chamber ocular abnormalities typically requires specialist assessment. Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) performed by nonspecialists, if accurate, could negate the need for urgent ophthalmologist evaluation., Objective: This meta-analysis sought to define the diagnostic test characteristics of emergency practitioner-performed ocular POCUS to diagnose multiple posterior chamber abnormalities in adults., Data Sources: PubMed (OVID), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, and SCOPUS were searched from inception through June 2019 without restrictions. Conference abstracts and trial registries were also searched. Bibliographies of included studies and relevant reviews were manually searched, and experts in the field were queried., Study Selection: Included studies compared ocular POCUS performed by emergency practitioners with a reference standard of ophthalmologist evaluation. Pediatric studies were excluded. All 116 studies identified during abstract screening as potentially relevant underwent full-text review by multiple authors, and 9 studies were included., Data Extraction and Synthesis: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, multiple authors extracted data from included studies. Results were meta-analyzed for each diagnosis using a bivariate random-effects model. Data analysis was performed in July 2019., Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes of interest were diagnostic test characteristics of ocular POCUS for the following diagnoses: retinal detachment, vitreous hemorrhage, vitreous detachment, intraocular foreign body, globe rupture, and lens dislocation., Results: Nine studies (1189 eyes) were included. All studies evaluated retinal detachment, but up to 5 studies assessed each of the other diagnoses of interest. For retinal detachment, sensitivity was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.88-0.97) and specificity was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.85-0.98). Sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (95% CI, 0.65-0.98) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.75-0.98), respectively, for vitreous hemorrhage and were 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51-0.81) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.53-0.98), respectively, for vitreous detachment. Sensitivity and specificity were high for lens dislocation (0.97 [95% CI, 0.83-0.99] and 0.99 [95% CI, 0.97-1.00]), intraocular foreign body (1.00 [95% CI, 0.81-1.00] and 0.99 [95% CI, 0.99-1.00]), and globe rupture (1.00 [95% CI, 0.63-1.00] and 0.99 [95% CI, 0.99-1.00]). Results were generally unchanged in sensitivity analyses of studies with low risk of bias., Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that emergency practitioner-performed ocular POCUS is an accurate test to assess for retinal detachment in adults. Its utility in diagnosing other posterior chamber abnormalities is promising but needs further study.