The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine

Date: April 16th, 2021 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Anthony Crocco is the Deputy Chief - McMaster Department of Pediatrics, Acting Head of Pediatric Cardiology, and creator of Sketchy EBM. Reference: Schuh et al. Effect of Nebulized Magnesium vs Placebo Added to Albuterol on Hospitalization Among Children With Refractory Acute Asthma Treated in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Nov 2020 Case: A four-year-old girl with a known history of asthma presents to your emergency department (ED) after a one-day history of runny nose and cough. Her usual triggers are upper respiratory infections and cats. You don the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) wondering if this is COVID. On initial exam she has minimal air entry, has biphasic wheeze, is saturating 92% on room air and has suprasternal retractions. You give her an initial Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM) score of 8 - and consider her to be having a “severe” exacerbation. You give her a dose of oral dexamethasone and start three back-to-back treatments of albuterol and ipatroprium bromide. After one hour she is still working hard to breath and her PRAM has improved somewhat but is still 6 denoting “moderate” asthma. You wonder whether magnesium is indicated now and rather than starting an IV to give it that way, you could just nebulize a dose instead. Background: Asthma is a common presenting complaint for children in the ED. We have covered asthma a few times on the SGEM: You mentioned the PRAM tool in the case scenario. Can you explain this further for those not familiar with the PRAM score? SGEM#52: Breakfast at Glenfield – Asthma, Social Media and Knowledge Translation SGEM#103: Just Breathe – Inhaled Corticosteroids for Asthma Exacerbations SGEM#142: We Need Asthma Education SGEM#194: Highway to the Dexamethasone – For Pediatric Asthma Exacerbations The PRAM score is a tool used to assess the severity of airway obstruction in pediatric patients. The PRAM was published in 2000 (Chalut et al) and validated in 2008 (Ducharme et al). The PRAM consists of five clinical elements: O2 saturation, suprasternal retractions, scalene muscle contraction, air entry and wheezing. A score of 0-3 is considered mild asthma, 4-7 is moderate and 8-12 is severe. The Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS) Guidelines recommends the initial management of pediatric patients with severe asthma exacerbations consists of: keeping oxygen saturations >93%, inhaled beta agonists, inhaled ipatroprium bromide, oral steroids, consider IV steroids, consider continuous aerosolized beta-2 agonists, consider IV magnesium sulphate and keep NPO. For children with severe asthma, IV magnesium has been shown to significantly decrease hospitalization rates though practically these children are rarely sent home after this IV treatment (Cheuk et al 2005, Griffith et al 2016, Su et al 2018 and Liu et al 2016). As IV magnesium requires an intravenous, a painful and often distressing procedure in of itself, and the magnesium itself given IV can cause hypotension, an alternate delivery system would be of benefit. Clinical Question: Does nebulized magnesium prevent hospitalization in children with moderate to severe asthma? Reference: Schuh et al. Effect of Nebulized Magnesium vs Placebo Added to Albuterol on Hospitalization Among Children With Refractory Acute Asthma Treated in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Nov 2020 Population: Children 2 to 17 years of age with a previous diagnosis of asthma presenting to a pediatric ED with moderate to severe asthma after receiving one hour of treatments including 3 x inhaled albuterol treatments, 3 x inhaled ipatropium bromide treatments and oral corticosteroid. Moderate to severe asthma was defined by a PRAM score of greater than 4. Exclusions: Children less than 2 years of age, those requiring immediate airway management, patients who received IV magnesium prior to enrollment, had comorbidities (chronic lung, cardiovascular, kidney, neurologic, or other systemic disease), and those with a known hypersensitivity to magnesium. Intervention: Three consecutive doses of nebulized magnesium sulfate 600mg with albuterol 5mg delivered through AeroNebGo nebulizer with Idehaler holding chamber. Comparison: Three consecutive doses of nebulized placebo with albuterol 5mg delivered through AeroNebGo nebulizer with Idehaler holding chamber Outcome: Primary Outcome: Hospitalization for either persistent respiratory distress or the need for supplemental oxygen Secondary Outcomes: Changes in the PRAM score; respiratory rate and O2 saturation change from baseline at 60/120/180/240 minutes; Changes in blood pressure 20/40/60/120/180/240 minutes; number of albuterol treatments within 240 minutes; Adverse effects. Exploratory: Hospitalizations; unscheduled visits within 72h of discharge; administration of IV magnesium in the ED after experimental intervention. Authors’ Conclusions: “Among children with refractory acute

Date: April 6th, 2021 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Casey Parker is a Rural Generalist from the NW of Australia. He is a GP by training but works in Emergency Department, Anaesthesia, Internal Medicine and Paediatrics. Dr. Parker is currently studying to become a Sonologist. He has a wonderful #FOAMed blog and podcast called Broomedocs and also work with me on the Primary Care RAP team. Reference: Risk of Overcorrection in Rapid Intermittent Bolus vs Slow Continuous Infusion Therapies of Hypertonic Saline for Patients With Symptomatic Hyponatremia: The SALSA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med 2021 Case: A 60-year-old man presents to the emergency department (ED) after his wife found him to be drowsy and confused at home. He had been vomiting that morning. He had a background of hypertension treated with a thiazide diuretic. His wife reports that he had experienced diarrhoea in the week prior to this presentation. On arrival to the ED his vitals are normal aside from a decreased level of consciousness and he is found to have a serum sodium concentration of 118 mmol/L. You are unsure as to the best way to correct his sodium and are aware that rapid overcorrection may lead to an osmotic demyelination syndrome. However, he is also at risk of a seizure and further harm at this level. Background: The most common electrolyte abnormality in clinical practice is a low sodium level (hyponatremia). This imbalance occurs in 14% to 42% of admitted patients. There is a high mortality associated with hyponatremia [1-3]. Symptomatic hyponatremia has traditionally been treated with a careful slow continuous infusion of hypertonic saline. This has been to prevent the horrible adverse event called osmotic demyelination syndrome (ODS). ODS includes both central pontine myelinolysis and extrapontine myelinolysis. In recent times several expert consensus guidelines have recommended the use of rapid, intermittent boluses of hypertonic saline instead of a slow continuous infusion [3,4]. There is very little randomized data to prove the superiority of either strategy prior to the SALSA trial. Most of the trials were done in marathon and ultra-marathon runners whom we do not see very often in the ED [5-7]. Using a fixed bolus has a number of potential benefits [8-9]: Efficacy: Ability to reach rapid partial correction hyponatremia Safety: It can limit the risk of overcorrection that can commonly occur with continuous infusion of hypertonic saline No Math: It omits need for calculations Clinical Question: When treating symptomatic hyponatremia what are the risks of overcorrection in patients using either a slow continuous infusion vs. a rapid intermittent bolus of hypertonic saline strategy? Reference: Risk of Overcorrection in Rapid Intermittent Bolus vs Slow Continuous Infusion Therapies of Hypertonic Saline for Patients With Symptomatic Hyponatremia: The SALSA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med 2021 Population: Patients 18 years of age and older with moderate or severe symptomatic hyponatremia (corrected serum sodium [sNa] of 125 mmol/l or less). Moderate symptoms include nausea, headache, drowsiness, general weakness and malaise. Severe symptoms include vomiting, stupor, seizure, and coma (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score ≤8). Exclusions: Primary polydipsia; pregnant or breastfeeding; anuria, arterial hypotension, liver disease, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus; or had a history of cardiac surgery, acute myocardial infarction, sustained ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, acute coronary syndrome, cerebral trauma, and increased intracranial pressure within 3 months prior to randomization. Intervention: Rapid intermittent bolus (RIB) groups received 2ml/kg of 3% saline over 20 minutes. Patients were dichotomized into moderate or severe hyponatremia. The severely symptomatic patients had 2 separate boluses delivered initially. The 2ml/kg bolus was repeated every 6 hours until the target sNa was achieved and symptoms were relieved. Comparison: Slow continuous infusion (SCI) group received 0.5 ml/ kg/hr in the moderate group and 1ml/kg/hr in the severe group. There was a complicated titration of the infusion rate determined by the monitored sNa changes at each sample point. Outcome: Primary Outcome: Incidence of overcorrection of serum sodium at any given period up to 48 hours. Over correction was defined as an increase in sNa by >12 mmol/L within 24 hours or an increase in sNa by >18 mmol/L within 48 hours Secondary Outcomes: There were nine secondary outcomes measured including: Rapid improvement in symptoms by 24 hours; change in GCS at various time points; a number of laboratory targets; and osmotic demyelination syndrome (ODS) Authors’ Conclusions: “This randomized clinical trial found that both RIB and SIC therapies of hypertonic saline for treating hyponatremia were effective and safe, with no difference in the overcorrection risk. However, RIB had a lower incidence of therapeutic relowering treatment and

Date: March 31st, 2021 Guest Skeptic: Prof Daniel Fatovich is an emergency physician and clinical researcher based at Royal Perth Hospital, Western Australia. He is Head of the Centre for Clinical Research in Emergency Medicine, Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research; Professor of Emergency Medicine, University of Western Australia; and Director of Research for Royal Perth Hospital. Reference: Toyoda et al. MRI-guided thrombolysis (0.6 mg/kg) was beneficial for unknown onset stroke above a certain core size. THAWS RCT Substudy. Stroke 2021 Case: A 74-year-old man presents to the emergency department after waking up with left sided weakness. He was last seen well when going to bed at 10pm the night before. He has a history of hypertension and dyslipidemia. His medications include an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and a statin. The NIHSS score is 7. The MRI shows an occlusion of the right MCA-M2, the DWI-ASPECT is 9, and lesion volume is 3.5ml. Background: We have talked about stroke management a number of times recently including SGEM#297 on the reanalysis of ECASS-3 by Alper et al 2020. The SGEM bottom line was that the "reanalysis of the original ECASS-3 data does not support the potential benefit of tPA given between 3-4.5 hours after onset of stroke symptoms and confirms the known potential harm". There have been 13 foundational trials looking at thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke. Of the 13, eleven failed to show benefit for their primary outcome and four were stopped early due to harm or futility. Only two RCTs claimed benefit for their primary outcome. Those were ECASS-3 in 2008 and the NINDS trial from 1995. Both of those “positive” studies have been reanalyzed and question the potential efficacy while confirming the potential harm. Dr. Jackson We wrote an article together for the Lown Institute summarizing some of the stroke literature. The question asked was: will it take 50 or 100 years to get the right answer about tPA for acute ischemic stroke? One aspect that we did not address was the newer trials that are using advanced imaging techniques like MRI to extend the window beyond 4.5 hours after the onset of stroke symptoms (Extend NEJM 2019 and ECASS-4: Extend 2016). Both of these trials were stopped early which can introduce additional bias towards efficacy. The majority of patients included in the two trials extending the time window past 4.5 hours would now qualify for endovascular therapy (EVT) clot retrieval. EVT does have more robust evidence for efficacy and safety than systemic thrombolysis. A SRMA was published by Mistry et al Stroke 2017. This included 13 studies, three randomized control trials (25% of all patients) and ten observational studies (75% of all patients). Good neurologic outcome was defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2. The number needed to treat (NNT) was 17. However, there was no statistical difference if you only look at the higher quality RCT data and excluded the lower quality observational data. Yang P et al. published a non-inferiority RCT in NJEM 2020 looking at this issue. The primary outcome was mRS at 90 days and found EVT alone was not non-inferior to EVT plus tPA. Two recent RCTs were published in JAMA investigating this issue. Suzuki et al failed to demonstrate non-inferiority while in contrast Zi et al found EVT alone was non-inferior to EVT plus tPA. These two EVT trials are going to be covered on a future episode of the SGEM in the near future. The trial we are reviewing today is a sub analysis of the THAWS (Thrombolysis for Acute Wake-Up and Unclear-Onset Stroke) randomized control trial of using low dose tPA in patients with symptoms on awaking or unknown time of onset. Clinical Question: Is MRI guided thrombolysis (0.6 mg/kg) beneficial for patients with an unknown stroke onset time? Reference: Toyoda et al. MRI-guided thrombolysis (0.6 mg/kg) was beneficial for unknown onset stroke above a certain core size. THAWS RCT Substudy. Stroke 2021. Population: Patients with stroke symptoms on awaking or with unknown time of onset (greater than 4.5 hours since last known well and less than 4.5 hours of symptom recognition). Substudy of THAWS published 2020 (n = 131). Intervention: IV alteplase 0.6 mg/kg (10% bolus followed by 90% infusion over 60 minutes) Comparison: Standard care, not placebo controlled. Standard care was the use of one to three antithrombotic drugs, including oral aspirin (160–300 mg/day), oral clopidogrel (75 mg/day), intravenous argatroban, or intravenous unfractionated heparin, but excluding the combination of argatroban and heparin, according to decisions of the attending physician. (Argatroban is an anticoagulant that is a small molecule direct thrombin inhibitor). In this SUBSTUDY (n= 126), patients were dichotomized by ischemic core size or NIHSS. Outcome: Primary Outcome: Good neurologic function using modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days Secondary Outcomes: Category (ordinal

Date: March 17th, 2021 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Emil Ejersbo Iversen is an emergency medicine resident at the University Hospital of Zealand, Denmark. He currently serves as Vice-Chair of the Danish Society for Emergency Medicine and Chair of the Young Doctors in Emergency Medicine in Denmark. He has a passion for FOAMed and is the creator of the Danish EM platform www.akutmedicineren.dk. Reference: Schuster et al. Spirometry not pain level predicts outcomes in geriatric patients with isolated rib fractures. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020 Case: A 74-year-old woman who suffered a fall earlier today presents to the emergency department (ED) and is found to have five rib fractures to her right thorax, but no other injury. She is otherwise well, and her vitals are stable, but she is in some pain. Recent guidelines recommend admitting the patient to the intensive care unit (ICU), but the patient is eager to return home to her husband who is also well, and whom she claims will be able to help her. Background: Rib fractures are a common injury among the older population and can potentially lead to life-threatening complications such as pneumonia, pneumothorax or decreased inspiratory capacity. Some recent guidelines recommend admitting patients older than 65 years of age with two or more with rib fractures to an intensive care unit (ICU) or other step-down monitored setting [1]. Currently, patients with three or more rib fractures are often admitted for analgesia and monitoring and subsequently discharged without complications. Recent retrospective studies have suggested that early spirometry may be a useful indicator of prognosis in patients with multiple rib fractures [2]. Identifying patients with a good prognosis that could be safely discharged home with analgesia could potentially avoid unnecessary hospitalization. This would likely lower healthcare costs and decrease the risk of hospital-acquired infections. Spirometry includes metrics such as forced vital capacity (FVC), peak expiratory flow (PEF), forced expiratory volume 1 second (FEV1), and negative inspiratory force (NIF). The PEF has not been demonstrated to be closely correlated with patient outcomes [3]. However, FVC has been shown to correlate with patient outcomes and length of stay (LOS) in patients who have multiple rib fractures [4-5] These studies were limited by their retrospective observational nature. Hand grip strength has also been used to measure overall frailty. GeriEM guru Chris Carpenter has done some work in this area over ten years ago. His team found grip strength was weakly correlated with frailty in older ED patients [6]. Future research should confirm this association and assess the correlation of grip strength with other measures of frailty. Multiple other authors have investigated this simple and inexpensive tool for predicting frailty [7-8]. Clinical Question: Can spirometry testing identify patients 60 years and older with at least three rib fractures who can safely be discharged home from the ED? Reference: Schuster et al. Spirometry not pain level predicts outcomes in geriatric patients with isolated rib fractures. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020 Population: Patients 60 years of age and older admitted to hospital with at least three rib fractures within 24 hours of injury Exclusions: Injury occurred >24hrs before presentation, significant additional musculoskeletal injury or cognitive impairment and able to cooperate with testing Exposure: Spirometry measuring (FVC, FEV1 and NIF) Comparison: Hand grip strength and pain assessment (VAS) Outcome: Primary Outcomes: Discharge disposition and length of stay (LOS) Secondary Outcomes:Mortality, pneumonia, intubation, unplanned transfer to higher level of care and readmission (within 30 days) Authors’ Conclusions: “Spirometry measurements early in the hospital stay predict ultimate discharge home, and this may allow immediate or early discharge. The impact of pain control on pulmonary function requires further study.” Quality Checklist for A Prognostic Study: The study population included or focused on those in the ED? Yes The patients were representative of those with the problem? Yes The patients were sufficiently homogenous with respect to prognostic risk? Yes Objective and unbiased outcome criteria were used? Yes/No The follow-up was sufficiently long and complete? Yes/No The effect was large enough and precise enough to be clinically significant? Unsure Result: There were 346 patients over the age of 60 admitted to hospital with isolated rib fractures. Exclusion criteria was met in 260 patients. This resulted in a cohort of 86 patients with a mean age of 77 years and 50% female. Just over half (45/86) were admitted to the step-down unit, 19/86 (22%) were admitted to the ICU and 22/86 (26%) to the surgical floor. The mechanism of injury was a fall (54%), motor vehicle collision (45%) or motorcycle collision (1%). The median number of fractured ribs was five. Pneumothorax was presen

Date: March 16th, 2021 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Corey Heitz is an emergency physician in Roanoke, Virginia. He is also the CME editor for Academic Emergency Medicine. Reference: Westafer et al. Outpatient Management of Patients Following Diagnosis of Acute Pulmonary Embolism. AEM March 2021 Case: You are evaluating a 48-year-old female for pleuritic chest pain. She is low risk by Wells Criteria but PERC Rule positive because of an appendectomy last month. Her d-dimer comes back elevated, so you order a CT-PA to evaluate for pulmonary embolism (PE). The radiologist notes a distal sub-segmental PE on the right. The patient has normal vital signs and no comorbidities. Background: Historically most patients with PEs have been admitted to the hospital in the USA. This is in contrast to Canada where papers in the early 2000 demonstrated the safety of out-patient management of PEs (Kovacs). A study from 2010 showed that half of PE patient from one centre in Ontario were safely being treated as outpatients (Kovacs). Dr. Jeff Kline PE guru, creator of the PERC Rule and Editor-in-Chief of Academic Emergency Medicine, Dr. Jeff Kline, was senior author on a paper that looked at treating VTE with outpatient management using a DOAC (Bean et al AEM 2015). This relatively small study (n=106) reported successfully treating 51% of DVT patients and 27% of PE patients with rivaroxaban (SGEM#126). Literature from the USA reports that 90% of patients diagnosed with PE are admitted (Singer et al 2016). Another study showed less than 10% of PE patients are discharged home from the ED for out-patient therapy (Vinson et al 2017). A couple of international guidelines support the outpatient treatment of ED patients with low-risk PE. This includes the European Cardiology Society (ECS 2019) and the British Thoracic Society (Howard et al 2018). The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) has a clinical policy that addresses this issue (Wolf et al 2018). The ACEP policy give outpatient management of PE patients a Level C recommendation: “Selected patients with acute PE who are at low risk for adverse outcomes as determined by PESI, simplified PESI (sPESI), or the Hestia criteria may be safely discharged from the ED on anticoagulation, with close outpatient follow-up.” PESI (Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index) is a risk stratification tool based upon studies by Donzé et al 2008 and Choi et al 2009. The PESI consists of eleven criteria with a different number of points awarded for each variable. This can be complicated and there is an online calculator to help (MDCalc PESI Score). The PESI score has been made even easier to use with the creation of the Simplified PESI. It only has six criteria, each has only one point and can also be computed online using MDCalc sPESI. The Hestia Criteria is another scoring system to identify low risk PE patients that could be considered for outpatient PE treatment. Like the PESI score it has eleven criteria and an online calculator (MDCalc Hestia Criteria). If all eleven criteria are negative the patient is low risk with a predicted mortality of 0% and VTE recurrence of 2%. However, if any one of the criteria is positive the patient is not low risk. These patients are not considered eligible for outpatient management based on this score and it is recommended they be admitted for inpatient therapy. Clinical Question: What are the current disposition practices, and outcomes, for patients with PE in US hospitals? Reference: Westafer et al. Outpatient Management of Patients Following Diagnosis of Acute Pulmonary Embolism. AEM March 2021 Population: Patients 18 years of age or older between July 2016 and June 2018 presenting to one of 740 acute care hospitals and receiving a diagnosis of PE based upon ICD-10 codes Exclusion: Patients diagnosed with PE in the previous 90 days, and those patients who expired during the ED visit Intervention: Outpatient management Comparison: Inpatient management Outcome: Primary Outcome: Initial disposition from the ED Secondary Outcomes: Costs, return visits to the ED (chest pain, shortness of breath, bleeding) and rehospitalization withing 30 days Dr. Lauren Westafer This is an SGEMHOP episode which means we have the lead author on the show. Dr. Lauren Westafer is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of Massachusetts Medical School – Baystate. She is the cofounder of FOAMcast and is a pulmonary embolism and implementation science researcher. Dr. Westafer serves as the Social Media Editor and a research methodology editor for Annals of Emergency Medicine and is an Associate Editor for the NEJM Journal Watch Emergency Medicine. She is also the newest member of the SGEMHOP faculty. Authors’ Conclusions: “Despite guidelines promoting outpatient management, few patients are currently discharged home in the US; however, practice varies widely across hospitals. Return visit rates were high but most did not result in hospitalization.” Qualit

Date: March 11th, 2021 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Robert Edmonds is an emergency physician in the US Air Force in Ohio. DISCLAIMER: THE VIEWS AND OPINIONS OF THIS PODCAST DO NOT REPRESENT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR THE US AIR FORCE. Reference: Post et al. Ultra-early tranexamic acid after subarachnoid haemorrhage (ULTRA): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2021 Case: You’re working a busy evening shift in your community emergency department (ED) when a 58 year old female presents with a rapid onset terrible intensity headache. She has no significant headache history and you are concerned for subarachnoid hemorrhage so you order a head CT which confirms your suspicions. You page neurosurgery at the bigger ED in town, and while you wait for the page back, you wonder if giving tranexamic acid (TXA) could help improve the patient’s chances for a good outcome given its effects in other bleeding processes. Background: In the case presented, the woman would qualify using the Ottawa SAH Rule because of the rapid onset of an intense headache and her age. We have discussed the incredible work done by Dr. Jeff Perry and his group in the development of the Ottawa SAH Rule. Jeff was actually on the SGEM as the guest skeptic discussing this clinical decision instrument way back in 2013 (SGEM#48). The Ottawa SAH Rule is to be applied to alert patients older than 15 years of age with new severe non-traumatic headache reaching maximum intensity within one hour. It is not meant for patients with new neurologic deficits, previous aneurysms, SAH, brain tumor, or who have a history of recurrent headaches. This is defined as at least three or more episodes over the course of at least six months. Our SGEM Bottom Line eight years ago was that the Ottawa SAH “Tool” was not ready for prime time to rule out low risk patients from investigations. Fast forward to 2018 and the validation of the Ottawa SAH Rule by Dr. Perry and his group. The results of this prospective observational study were that the clinical decision instrument was 100% sensitive (missed no SAH patients) and 13.6% specific. Dr. Chris Carpenter The guest skeptic for SGEM#201 was Dr. Chris Carpenter, who literally wrote the book on diagnostic accuracy of clinical decision instruments in the ED with Dr. Jesse Pines. The SGEM bottom line from the episode was that the Ottawa SAH Rule needs external validation, a meaningful impact analysis performed, and patient acceptability of incorporating this rule into a shared decision-making instrument before being widely adopted. Dr. Perry did publish a prospective implementation of the Ottawa SAH Rule (Stroke 2019). This article was covered on the SGEM with EM Nerd Dr. Rory Spiegel. The results demonstrated that the Ottawa SAH Rule is highly sensitive (100%) but has very poor specificity (13%). It is unclear how it performs against unstructured clinical judgement or in non-urban tertiary care teaching hospitals (SGEM#283). Another issue the case brings up is whether a CT scan is good enough to rule out a SAH. The debate has historically been about whether or not you need to also get a lumbar puncture on these patients after a non-contrast CT head. Dr. Jeff Perry This brings us back to more work done by Jeff Perry. His team published a prospective cohort study that suggested if you got the CT scan done within six hours of headache onset, it was a third generation CT scanner, and it was read by a neuroradiologist, then you did not need to get an LP to rule out a SAH (BMJ 2011). There were some limitations to this observational study. Another study was done in the UK that tried to address this issue of LP post normal CT. This was covered on SGEM#134. It found that the NNTap (number needed to Tap) to diagnose one aneurysm not identified by CT scan was 250. The final issue the case identified was the use of TXA in treating patients with a SAH. We are skeptical given the previous review we did on the topic (SGEM#236). This was a structured critical review of the 2018 TICH trial published in the Lancet. The primary outcome showed no superiority of TXA compared to placebo for the mRS at 90 days. The SGEM bottom line was that TXA does not currently have evidence of improving outcomes in hemorrhagic stroke and routine administration cannot be recommended at this time. However, as good healthy skeptics our positions are tentative and will change when presented with convincing evidence. Just because TXA was not demonstrated to “work” in one RCT does not mean we can claim TXA does not work. The burden of proof is on those making the claim of efficacy. Patients deserve the best care, based on the best evidence. TXA has been discussed on the SGEM numerous times for treating a variety of conditions including: Trauma, isolated traumatic brain injury, gastrointestinal bleeding, post-partum hemorrhage and epistaxis. Although some EM docs would like to believe TXA is one of the universal duct tapes of the ED, it has mixed results. Patients suffering

Date: March 4th, 2021 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Anand Swaminathan is an Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine at St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center in Paterson, NJ. Managing editor of EM:RAP and Associate Editor at REBEL EM. Reference: Reuben A et al. The Use of Tranexamic Acid to Reduce the Need for Nasal Packing in Epistaxis (NoPAC): Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Emerg Med 2021 Case: A 70-year-old man presents with epistaxis. He’s got a history of atrial fibrillation and hypertension. His medications include apixaban, metoprolol and perindopril. He states that the nosebleed started that morning all of a sudden. Vitals are; a blood pressure 145/73 mmHg, heart rate 64 beats/minute, and oxygen saturation 99% on room air. You apply direct pressure for 10 minutes, but the bleeding continues. You administer phenylephrine topically, reapply pressure and, consider the use of tranexamic acid (TXA). Background: Epistaxis is a common Emergency Department (ED) complaint with over 450,000 visits per year and a lifetime incidence of 60% (Gifford 2008, Pallin 2005). The majority of refractory hemorrhages are seen in the elderly and in more than two-thirds of the time no cause for the epistaxis is identified. Standard anterior epistaxis treatment consists of holding pressure, use of local vasoconstrictors, topical application of silver nitrate and placement of an anterior nasal pack. The most common vasoconstrictor used in the US is oxymetazoline. Emergency physicians have multiple tools in the toolbox to address this condition. We covered the topic of epistaxis on SGEM#53: Sunday Bloody Sunday. That episode we discussed 11 questions concerning epistaxis. It is a great review on the management of nosebleeds. The episode included the Dundee protocol for adult epistaxis management from 2012. I searched and could not find an updated version. ED patients with epistaxis often fail conservative management and end up with anterior nasal packs which are uncomfortable. This is even more common in the group of patients who are taking antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants. In recent years, TXA has been added to many physicians’ armamentarium based on a few relatively small studies. We reviewed two of these randomized control trials (RCTs) on the SGEM including the 2018 publication looking at using TXA in patients taking antiplatelet drugs. (SGEM#210). Some of these RCTs looking at TXA for epistaxis have also been reviewed on REBEL EM and other FOAMed sites. The results were encouraging. Topical TXA has minimal safety concerns and is relatively inexpensive. However, the studies did have a number of limitations including, being single centered, relatively small sample sizes and a lack of blinding. The SGEM structured critical review was skeptical of TXA for treating nosebleeds and had a conservative bottom line: Despite some limitations in this un-blinded trial, topical tranexamic acid appears to improve some patient important outcomes in patients who are taking antiplatelet medications who present with epistaxis. Clinical Question: Does the use of topical, intranasal TXA reduce the need for application of anterior nasal packing in ED patients with epistaxis who fail conservative management? Reference: Reuben A et al. The Use of Tranexamic Acid to Reduce the Need for Nasal Packing in Epistaxis (NoPAC): Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Emerg Med 2021 Population: Patients older than 18 years of age presenting with persistent epistaxis after local pressure and/or ice was applied to the bridge of the nose for at least 10 minutes. If bleeding persisted (continued presence of blood on the upper lip after wiping emanating from the nares) patients were treated with cotton wool dental roll soaked with a topical vasoconstrictor and inserted into the affected nostril for 10 minutes. If the bleeding persisted after the removal of the vasoconstrictor dental roll, they were enrolled in the trial. Exclusions: Hemodynamic unstable patients, epistaxis due to trauma, out-of-hospital packing, allergy to TXA, ENT thought should be excluded, nasopharyngeal malignancy, pregnancy, hemophilia, and inability or unwillingness to provide consent. Intervention: Tranexamic acid (TXA) 200 mg in 2 ml applied to a cotton wool dental roll (could packing be repeated once). Dental roll held in place for 10 minutes with pressure. The treatments were done by EM consultants, junior house officers, or emergency nurse practitioners. Control: Cotton wool dental roll soaked in sterile water. Dental roll held in place for 10 minutes with pressure Outcome: Primary Outcome: Use of anterior nasal packing (of any type) during the index ED visit regardless of any other additional treatments (intention to treat analysis) Secondary Outcomes: Hospital admission, need for blood transfusion, recurrent epistaxis, thrombotic events, hospital reattendance within 1 week. Authors’ Conclusions: “In patients presenting to an ED with atraumatic epistaxis that is uncontrolled with simple firs

Date: February 18th, 2021 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Chris Bond is an emergency medicine physician and assistant Professor at the University of Calgary. He is also an avid FOAM supporter/producer through various online outlets including TheSGEM. Reference: Brichko et al. Rapid Administration of Methoxyflurane to Patients in the Emergency Department (RAMPED): A Randomised controlled trial of Methoxyflurane vs Standard care. AEM Feb 2021. Case: A 46-year-old female presents to the emergency department (ED) with sudden onset, severe right flank pain. She is pacing around at triage in tears and says she has a history of kidney stones. She is asking for something to help with her pain, but the department is very busy, and it will be some time before she can get into a treatment space. Background: Pain is the primary reason patients present to the emergency in many cases (1-6). Oligoanalgesia is the term used to describe poor pain management through the under use of analgesia (7-11). Effective pain management is an important indicator of the quality of patient care (12). Multiple factors have been thought to contribute to oligoanalgesia (overcrowding, language barriers, age, gender, ethnicity, insurance status) (13-16). Delays in providing adequate analgesia leads to poorer patient outcomes, prolonged ED length of stay and reduced patient satisfaction (17, 18). It can take a long time for someone in severe pain to receive an analgesic in the ED. Previous research in Australia has shown that the median time can be between 40-70 minutes for analgesia administration (19, 20). Delays are not unique to Australia and a study done in the USA reported a mean of 116 minutes for patients presenting to the ED with pain to receive analgesia (21). To minimize delays, different strategies have been implemented to address the problem (advanced protocols, provision of oral analgesics at triage, and the use of novel analgesic agents that do not require intravenous access) (22). Recently, there has been increased interest in using methoxyflurane (Penthrox), an inhaled non-opioid analgesic, to provide rapid short-term analgesia (23, 24). In Australia, Methoxyflurane has been widely used at sub-anesthetic doses for analgesia in the pre-hospital setting since 1975. Its use has become more global in recent years and at low doses, it has a very reassuring safety profile. Furthermore, there have been no reports of addiction or abuse related to these inhaler devices (25-28). The majority of studies of methoxyflurane for pain focus on traumatic pain, this study aimed to assess its effectiveness in treatment of both traumatic and non-traumatic pain. Clinical Question: What is the effectiveness of methoxyflurane versus standard care for the initial management of severe pain among adult ED patients? Reference: Brichko et al. Rapid Administration of Methoxyflurane to Patients in the Emergency Department (RAMPED): A Randomised controlled trial of Methoxyflurane vs Standard care. AEM Feb 2021. Population: Adult patients aged 18-75 years with severe pain defined as an initial Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain score greater than or equal to 8. Exclusion criteria: Transferred patients, HR <40 or >140 bpm, SBP <90 or >180 mmHg, RR <6 or >36/min, GCS <15, possible ACS, headache, pregnancy, breastfeeding, known renal or hepatic failure, previous malignant hyperthermia, known sensitivity to fluorinated anesthetics, or agitated/aggressive per nursing staff. Intervention: Inhaled Methoxyflurane 3 mL Comparison: Standard analgesic care which could include paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tramadol and oral oxycodone or IV morphine Outcome: Primary Outcome: Proportion of patients that had at least a 50% reduction in their pain score at 30 minutes Secondary Outcomes: Median pain score at 15, 30, 60 and 90 minutes, and the proportion of patients that achieved a >2 point drop in their pain score on the NRS. Additional secondary outcomes included data pertaining to adverse effects, both minor and major. Dr. Lisa Brichko This is an SGEMHOP episode which means we have the lead author on the show. Dr Lisa Brichko is an emergency physician working in a combination of private and public tertiary hospital Emergency Departments in Melbourne Australia. She has authored 24 peer-reviewed emergency medicine research publications primarily focusing on projects promoting safe and efficient patient care. This interest in improving the quality of care we can provide our emergency department patients has previously been developed through undertaking a Masters Degree in Health Management, attaining Associate Fellowship with the Royal Australasian College of Medical Administrators and her current role as Quality Improvement Manager on the emergency department leadership team for Cabrini Hospital. Authors’ Conclusions: “Initial management with inhaled methoxyflurane in the ED did not achieve the pre-specified substantial reduction in p

Date: February 19th, 2021 This is an SGEM Xtra episode. I had the honour of presenting at the Lehigh Valley Health Network Grand Rounds on February 4th, 2021. The title of the talk "Dogmalysis: Five Medical Myths in Emergency Medicine". The presentation is available to listen to on iTunes and GooglePlay and all the slides can be downloaded using this LINK. Five Medical Myths in Emergency Medicine Myth #1: The use of non-selective NSAIDs will cause a nonunion in long bone fractures Myth #2: Topical anesthetics will cause blindness if used in simple corneal abrasions for less than 48 hours Myth #3: Mild paediatric gastroenteritis is best treated with expensive oral electrolyte solutions Myth #4: Tranexamic acid (TXA) has been proven to saves lives and results in good neurologic function in patients with isolated traumatic brain injuries (TBI) Myth #5: Epinephrine in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) results in better patient-oriented outcomes (POOs) Each of the five myths is presented with some background information and the PICO (population, intervention/exposure, comparison and outcome). Key results are provided with a number of the study limitations (dog leash) identified. There is an SGEM bottom line and a link to the original SGEM episode to provide more results and critical appraisal. There is also a link to the original article for people to read the primary literature for themselves. Myth #1: The use of non-selective NSAIDs will cause a nonunion in long bone fractures When bones break, they usually heal with either surgical or non-surgical management. Sometimes the healing process can take longer than usual (delayed union), does not heal (non-union) or in poor alignment (malunion). Non-union is defined as “a failure of the fracture-healing process” and occurs in up to 1 in 10 fractures. Several risk factors have been associated with increased risk of delayed or non-union: issues about the fracture (open/closed, displacement, location, etc) tobacco use, older age, severe anemia, alcohol intake, diabetes, low vitamin D levels, hypothyroidism, poor nutrition, infection, open fracture and certain medications (ex. steroids). One class of medication that has been implicated in negatively impacting bone healing is NSAIDs. Non-selective NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors. There have been multiple studies investigating this issue with mixed results. The final cohort consisted of 339,864 patients identified in over 15 years. Less than 1% were diagnosed with a nonunion (2,996/339,864). The mean age was in the 50’s and around 60% were female. The most common fractures were radius, neck of the femur and humerus. Key Result: Patients who filled prescriptions for selective COX-2 inhibitors and opioids but not non-selective NSAIDs were associated with an increased risk of nonunion. SGEM Bottom Line: There is no high-quality evidence to support the claim that non-selective NSAIDS cause an increased risk of nonunion. SGEM#317: Dese bones gonna heal again, with or without a non-selective NSAID Reference: George et al. Risk of Nonunion with Nonselective NSAIDs, COX-2 Inhibitors, and Opioids. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Myth #2: Topical anesthetics will cause blindness if used in simple corneal abrasions for less than 48 hours Even small corneal abrasions can cause significant pain because the cornea is highly innervated. The first documented use of topical ophthalmologic anesthetics was in 1818. A cocaine derivative was employed to effectively block nerve conduction in the superficial cornea and conjunctiva (Rosenwasser). A number of proposed dangers have limited the use of topical anesthetic agents for the treatment of corneal abrasion associated pain. These dangers include delayed healing secondary to mitosis inhibition and decreased corneal sensation. The latter issue is of concern because of the potential for the abrasion to progress to an ulcer without the patient noticing. Additionally, these agents may have direct toxicity to corneal epithelium with prolonged use, leading to increased corneal thickness, opacification, stromal infiltration, and epithelial defects. The fear of these complications has led to the pervasive teaching that topical anesthetics should never be used for outpatient management of corneal abrasions. This is reflected in the condemnation of their use in major Emergency Medicine textbooks, including Rosen’s and Tintinalli’s. Some of the evidence used to support the claim of local anesthetics causing corneal harm comes from case reports, animal models or local anesthetic injected directly into the anterior chamber of the eye for cataract surgery. More information on the where the no topical anesthetic use on corneal abrasions come from can be found on a REBEL EM blog post. They enrolled 118 patients into the trial. The median age was in the mid 30’s and 60% were male. Baseline NRS for pain was 7 out of 10. Just over 10% had a metallic foreign body and more than ¼ had another foreign

Date: February 12th, 2021 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Dennis Ren is a paediatric emergency medicine fellow at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC. Reference: Mintegi S et al. Clinical Prediction Rule for Distinguishing Bacterial from Aseptic Meningitis. Pediatrics 2020 Case: A 4-year-old immunized girl presents to the emergency department (ED) with a fever and rhinorrhea for the past four days. Her parents report that she has been complaining of a headache and seems more tired and sleepy in the past day. On exam, she is febrile to 38.5 ºC, appears tired, with meningismus on examination but answers questions appropriately. She does not have any petechiae or purpura on skin exam. You explain that you must obtain some blood for laboratory work and perform a lumbar puncture (LP) because you are concerned that she has meningitis. Her nervous parents agree to the LP. Her cerebrospinal fluid appears clear and preliminary cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) results show a pleocytosis with 16 white blood cells per µL without any red blood cells. Her parents ask you whether or not she will have to stay in the hospital or receive antibiotics. Background: Vaccines cause adults. Supporting this position is that since the introduction of conjugate vaccines the incidence of life-threatening bacterial meningitis has decreased. The first conjugate vaccine introduced was the haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine. This vaccine has a reported efficacy of 98% (Makwana and Riordan 2007). The success of conjugate vaccines is that most cases of pediatric meningitis are now aseptic (viral cause). It is important to distinguish between bacterial vs aseptic meningitis. This is because bacterial meningitis is associated with serious morbidity and mortality and requires prompt antibiotic treatment; aseptic meningitis is self-limited and requires only supportive care. Patients with suspected bacterial meningitis require hospital admission with empiric antibiotics pending culture results (Sáez-Llorens and McCracken 2003). There is no single variable that can help discriminate between bacterial vs. aseptic meningitis. Combinations of variables have been tried in the past as part of clinical scoring systems such as the Bacterial Meningitis Score (BMS) to identify children with CSF pleocytosis at low risk for bacterial meningitis (Nigrovic et al 2002). However, BMS did not take into account C-reactive protein and procalcitonin levels that have shown promise in risk stratifying febrile children at risk for bacterial infection (Van den Bruel et al 2011). Additionally, BMS has missed a few cases of bacterial meningitis. Specifically, 2 out of 1714 patients categorized as very low risk for bacterial meningitis had bacterial meningitis (sensitivity 98.3%, NPV 99.9%). Both patients missed were younger than 2 months old (Nigrovic et al 2007). The study we are reviewing today aimed to develop and validate a more accurate scoring system called the Meningitis Score for Emergencies (MSE) to distinguish between bacterial vs. aseptic meningitis in children 29 days to 14 years old with CSF pleocytosis based on four objective lab criteria. Clinical Question: Can a clinical decision tool using laboratory data help distinguish between bacterial from aseptic meningitis in children 29 days to 14 years old with cerebrospinal fluid pleocytosis? Pleocytosis- CSF WBC ≥10 cells per µL. Corrected for presence of CSF RBCS (1:500 leukocytes to erythrocytes in peripheral blood) and CSF protein (every 1000-cell increase on CSF RBCs per mm3, CSF protein increased by 1.1 mg/dL) Bacterial meningitis defined as patient with either identification of bacterial pathogen in CSF culture and/or Neisseria meningitides or Streptococcus pneumoniae on polymerase chain reaction and either positive blood culture or blood PCR result for N meningitides or S pneumoniae Aseptic meningitis defined as CSF pleocytosis and negative CSF and blood bacterial cultures and negative Neisseria meningitidesor Streptococcus pneumoniae on polymerase chain reaction Reference: Mintegi S et al. Clinical Prediction Rule for Distinguishing Bacterial from Aseptic Meningitis. Pediatrics 2020 Population: Children between 29 days and 14 years old with a diagnosis of meningitis across 25 Spanish emergency departments. Exclusion: Children <29 days old, critically ill, with purpura, not previously healthy or treated with antibiotics within 72 hours before lumbar puncture. Intervention: Retrospective derivation and prospective validation of Meningitis Score for Emergencies (MSE) for distinguishing bacterial vs. aseptic meningitis using procalcitonin >1.2 ng/mL, CSF protein >80 mg/L, CSF absolute neutrophil count >1000 cells per mm3, and C-reactive protein >40 mg/L. The four laboratory components were given different points if present and zero points if absent. So, if the procalcitonin was elevated you got 3 points, 1 point for elevated CRP, 1 point for elevated ANC and 2 points for elevated CSF protein

Date: January 20th, 2021 Guest Skeptics: Dr. Thorben Doll and Dr. Johannes Pott. They are both fourth year resident doctors in anesthesiology, intensive care and emergency care in St. Bernward Hospital in Hildesheim, Germany. Thorben and Johannes have a knowledge translation project called Pin-Up-Docs. It is a German emergency medicine and intensive care podcast. Their mission is to share knowledge with paramedics, nurses, medical student and also young doctors as they take their first steps in the field of emergency medicine. Each month they post new content and focus two main topics, the medical therapy of the month as well as tricks for dealing with complex emergencies. All of their shared information is based on the latest medical studies and data. Additionally, they host selected guests for special episodes, and publish blogs dedicated to more advanced medical questions or topics. Reference: Ruberto et al. Intravenous Haloperidol Versus Ondansetron for Cannabis Hyperemesis Syndrome (HaVOC): A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Annals of EM 2020. Case: A 32-year-old male patient presents to your emergency department (ED) with severe nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. He reports the symptoms have been continuous for 4 or 5 hours. Over-the-counter medications like acetaminophen (paracetamol) and ibuprofen have not helped. His flatmate (roommate) says he only gets relief by taking really long, hot showers. On examination, his vital signs are normal, and he is afebrile. The abdomen exam shows no peritoneal sign and normal bowel sounds are heard. Laboratory values are unremarkable. An ultrasound does not show any free fluids or any signs of an Ileus, appendicitis or gallbladder disease. His pain and nausea are difficult to control with standard medications. You admit him to hospital and the next day he undergoes gastroscopy which is unremarkable. In the afternoon the patient is seen by a nurse when he is smoking “weed” (cannabis) in the garden of the hospital. He admits to being a heavy cannabis user and his symptoms do seem to get worse when smoking weed. You suspect he has cannabis hyperemesis syndrome and discharge him home with the recommendation to stop smoking as much weed. Background: Chronic marijuana use was recognized by Allen el al in 2004 to cause cyclical vomiting in patients from South Australia. Roche and Foster quickly reported in 2005 that this was not an isolated problem to the Adelaide Hills of South Australia. The medical condition became known as cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome. We covered this on SGEM#46: Don’t Pass the Dutchie Cannabis stimulates two receptors: CB1 and CB2. CB1 is also expressed in the GI-system and reduces motility and relaxes the esophageal sphincter tonus. If you conduct chronical cannabis abuse, it seems that the anti-nausea effect of cannabis vanishes and there is a continuous hyperstimulation of CB1. That’s why you have abdominal pain and nausea with continuous vomiting. There are some criteria proposed for the diagnosis of cannabinoid hyperemesis. An essential feature is long term cannabis use (often daily). There are five major features for the diagnosis and five supportive features for the diagnosis. These are listed in the table. Clinical Question: Can haloperidol effectively treat patients with cannabis hyperemesis syndrome? Reference: Ruberto et al. Intravenous Haloperidol Versus Ondansetron for Cannabis Hyperemesis Syndrome (HaVOC): A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Annals of EM 2020. Population: Adult patients 18 years of age and older presenting to the ED with a working diagnosis of hyperemesis cause by cannabis who had at least two hours of ongoing, witnessed emesis or retching. Patients needed to report at least three episodes of emesis in a cyclic pattern separated by greater than one month during the preceding two years, and near-daily to daily use of cannabis by inhalation for at least six months. Exclusion: Daily opioid users, allergic to or intolerant of either study drug, deemed unreliable for follow-up, or unlikely to return for crossover, pregnant or received an antiemetic, anticholinergic or antipsychotic agent intravenously (other than up to 100mg of dimenhydrinate) in the previous 24 hours. Intervention: Haloperidol low-dose (0.05mg/kg) or high-dose (0.1 mg/kg) Comparison: Ondansetron 8mg IV Outcome: Primary Outcomes: Average reduction from baseline in abdominal pain and nausea scores measured on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS) at two hours after treatment Secondary Outcomes: Changes in either abdominal pain or nausea score over time, treatment success (ie, both abdominal pain and nausea <2 cm at !2 hours), being discharge ready at two hours, use of rescue antiemetics before discharge, time to discharge readiness, length of stay (LOS) greater than 12 hours, and unscheduled return visits within seven days. Any adverse events potentially related to the study drug and specifically any acute dystonia or moderate to severe akathisia. Authors’ Co

Date: January 22nd, 2021 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Steve Joseph. Steve completed his Sport Medicine fellowship training with the Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic in 2017. He served with the Canadian Forces as a Medical Officer and Flight Surgeon. Steve is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at Western University (London, Ontario) working at the Fowler Clinic and the Roth McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre. Reference: George et al. Risk of Nonunion with Nonselective NSAIDs, COX-2 Inhibitors, and Opioids. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Case: A healthy 55-year-old woman was out for a walk and had a FOOSH (fall on outstretched hand) of her dominant arm. The X-ray demonstrates a fracture of the distal radius that is in an acceptable position and does not require a reduction. You immobilize her in a below elbow splint which provides significant pain relief and refer her to the local orthopedic fracture clinic. Upon discharge she asks what she should take for pain because she read somewhere that anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen can prevent bone healing. She currently takes thyroid replacement therapy and has no known drug allergies. Background: There are conflicting studies about fracture healing and the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) in humans. It remains a controversial topic in the orthopaedic specialty. When bones break, they usually heal with either surgical or non-surgical management. Sometimes the healing process can take longer than usual (delayed union), does not heal (non-union) or in poor alignment (malunion). Non-union is defined as "a failure of the fracture-healing process” and occurs in up to 1 in 10 fractures. Several risk factors have been associated with increased risk of delayed or non-union. These factors include: Use of tobacco products, older age, severe anemia, alcohol intake, diabetes, low vitamin D levels, hypothyroidism, poor nutrition, infection, open fracture and certain medications (ex. steroids). The top risk factors for non-union according to a study by Santolini et al were open method of fracture reduction, open fracture, presence of post-surgical fracture gap, smoking, infection, wedge or comminuted types of fracture, high degree of initial fracture displacement, lack of adequate mechanical stability provided by the implant used, fracture location in the poor zone of vascularity of the affected bone, and a fractured tibia [1]. One class of medication that has been implicated in negatively impacting bone healing is NSAIDs. Non-selective NSAIDs block cyclooxygenase (COX)-1 and 2 while selective NSAIDs only inhibit COX-2. There have been multiple studies investigating this issue with mixed results. Clinical Question: Is there increased risk for fracture non-union with certain classes of NSAIDs? Reference: George et al. Risk of Nonunion with Nonselective NSAIDs, COX-2 Inhibitors, and Opioids. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Population: Adults (18 years and older) inpatient or outpatients with a diagnosis of certain long bone fractures (neck of femur/tibia/fibula/tibia and fibula/radius/ulna/humerus/clavicle) based on ICD-9 codes. Excluded: Patients less than 18 years of age, multiple fractures, metastatic disease, history of malunion fracture in the year prior or within 90 days Exposure: Filled prescription for a non-selective NSAIDs, selective COX-2 inhibitor and/or opioid within 30 days of the fracture Comparison: Not filling a prescription for a non-selective NSAIDs, selective COX-2 inhibitor and/or opioid within 30 days of the fracture Outcomes: Primary Outcome: Diagnosis of non-union within the 91 to 365 days post fracture. This was based on two definitions. The primary definition used ICD-9 code for nonunion with a procedure to treat nonunion within 30 days of the nonunion diagnosis. The secondary definition was an inpatient or outpatient diagnosis of nonunion. Authors’ Conclusion: “COX-2 inhibitors, but not non-selective NSAIDs, were associated with a greater risk of non-union after fracture. Opioids were also associated with non-union risk, although patients filling prescriptions for opioids may have had more severe fractures.” Quality Checklist for Observational Study: Did the study address a clearly focused issue? Yes Did the authors use an appropriate method to answer their question? Yes Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way? Unsure Was the exposure accurately measured to minimize bias? No Was the outcome accurately measured to minimize bias? Unsure Have the authors identified all-important confounding factors? Unsure Was the follow up of subjects complete enough? Yes How precise are the results? Fairly precise Do you believe the results? Yes Can the results be applied to the local population? Yes Do the results of this study fit with other available evidence? Yes Key Results: The final cohort consisted of 339,864 patients identified in over 15 years. Less than 1% were diagnosed with a nonunion (2,996/339,864). Th

Date: January 20th, 2021 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Lauren Westafer an Assistant Professor in the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of Massachusetts Medical School – Baystate. She is the cofounder of FOAMcast and a pulmonary embolism and implementation science researcher. Dr. Westafer serves as the Social Media Editor and research methodology editor for Annals of Emergency Medicine and as an Associate Editor for the NEJM Journal Watch Emergency Medicine. Reference: Pines et al. Emergency Physician and Advanced Practice Provider Diagnostic Testing and Admission Decisions in Chest Pain and Abdominal Pain. AEM January 2021 Case: A 50-year-old male presents to the Emergency Department (ED) with left lower quadrant abdominal pain. The patient is seen by an advanced practice provider (APP). He wants to know if being seen by an APP alters his chance of diagnostic testing or hospital admission. Background: We covered the use of advanced practice providers (APPs) on the SGEM#308. That SGEMHOP episode asked how the productivity of APPs compare to emergency physicians and what is its impact on ED operations? The key result from that study of 13 million ED visits across 94 states was that physicians were more productive than PAs and NPs. The SGEM bottom line was that increasing APP coverage has minimal effect on ED flow and safety outcomes based on the data. Over the past two decades, the use of APPs has increased. APPs have a significantly truncated medical training (about 2 years of training) and practice experience compared with the traditional 4 years of medical school and 3-4 years of residency for emergency physicians. There has been a concern about post-graduate training of NPs and PAs in the ED. A joint statement on the issue was published in 2020 by AAEM/RSA, ACEP, ACOEP/RSO, CORD, EMRA, and SAEM/RAMS. The American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) has a position statement on what they refer to as non-physician practitioners that was recently updated. The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) also has a number of documents discussing APPs in the ED. The difference in training between and emergency medicine physician and APPs is well recognized. A concern is that some APPs may compensate for this training gap by increased testing. Clinical Question: Is ED evaluation by an APP associated with higher test utilization and hospitalization compared with evaluation by a physician? Reference: Pines et al. Emergency Physician and Advanced Practice Provider Diagnostic Testing and Admission Decisions in Chest Pain and Abdominal Pain. AEM January 2021 Population: All ED patients with a chief complaint of chest pain or abdominal pain triaged as an Emergency Severity Index (ESI) 2,3, or 4 who were seen independently by either an APP or emergency physician Excluded: Patients who left without treatment or against medical advice, those who were dead on arrival or died in the ED. They also excluded those with a triage level ESI 1 or 5, as these are less common, as well as those with a final diagnosis of injury or poisoning – as in those cases the diagnosis would generally be apparent. Intervention: Evaluated by an APP Comparison: Evaluated a physicial Outcome: Primary Outcomes: Laboratory tests, ECGs, imaging studies as well as hospital admissions (including transfer to other hospitals and observation admissions) Secondary Outcomes: Testing based on evidence-based practice Dr. Jesse Pines This is an SGEMHOP episode which means we have the lead author on the show. Jesse Pines MD is the National Director for Clinical Innovation at US Acute Care Solutions and a Professor of Emergency Medicine at Drexel University. In this role, he focuses on developing and implementing new care models including telemedicine, alternative payment models, and also leads the USACS opioid programs. Authors’ Conclusions: “We demonstrate that the care delivered in the ED by advanced practice providers and emergency physicians for patients matched on complexity and acuity presenting with chest pain or abdominal pain chief complaints is largely similar with respect to diagnostic test utilization and admission decisions. Future research should continue to explore the optimal use of advanced practice providers in the ED and the best ways to deploy this expanding part of the U.S. ED workforce". Quality Checklist for Observational Study: Did the study address a clearly focused issue? Yes Did the authors use an appropriate method to answer their question? Yes Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way? Unsure Was the exposure accurately measured to minimize bias? Unsure Was the outcome accurately measured to minimize bias? Yes Have the authors identified all-important confounding factors? No Was the follow up of subjects complete enough? Yes How precise are the results? Fairly precise Do you believe the results? Yes Can the results be applied to the local population? Unsure Do the results of this study fit with other available evid

Date: January 5th, 2021 Reference: Shipman et al. Short-Term Topical Tetracaine Is Highly Efficacious for the Treatment of Pain Caused by Corneal Abrasions: A Double-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial. Annals of EM 2020 Dr. Glaucomflecken Guest Skeptic: Dr. Will Flanary is an ophthalmologist, writer, and comedian who moonlights in his free time as “Dr. Glaucomflecken” on Twitter and TikTok. Effortlessly blending humor with education, Dr. Glaucomflecken has spent the last five years informing audiences on a wide range of topics, like navigating the confusing world of over-the-counter eyedrops, the horrifying consequences of sleeping in contact lenses, and his recent experiences as a patient in the medical system. Case: A 32-year-old healthy man presents with left eye pain. He was giving his 9-month-old a hug and got poked in the eye with a sharp little fingernail. His visual acuity is 20/20 bilaterally and he doesn’t wear corrective lenses or contact lenses. He tried some over-the-counter red eye drops that did not seem to work. In the emergency department (ED), tetracaine drops are applied prior to slit lamp examination and the pain is completely resolved. On examination, you see a vertical corneal abrasion with no evidence of ulceration and no foreign body. You prescribe antibiotic drop and prepare to discharge him home when he asks, “can I get some of those numbing drops to use at home”? Background: Even small corneal abrasions can cause significant pain because the cornea is highly innervated. The first documented use of topical ophthalmologic anesthetics was in 1818. A cocaine derivative was employed to effectively block nerve conduction in the superficial cornea and conjunctiva (Rosenwasser). A number of proposed dangers have limited the use of topical anesthetic agents for the treatment of corneal abrasion associated pain. These dangers include delayed healing secondary to mitosis inhibition and decreased corneal sensation. The latter issue is of concern because of the potential for the abrasion to progress to an ulcer without the patient noticing. Additionally, these agents may have direct toxicity to corneal epithelium with prolonged use, leading to increased corneal thickness, opacification, stromal infiltration, and epithelial defects. The fear of these complications has led to the pervasive teaching that topical anesthetics should never be used for outpatient management of corneal abrasions. This is reflected in the condemnation of their use in major Emergency Medicine textbooks, including Rosen’s and Tintinalli’s. Some of the evidence used to support the claim of local anesthetics causing corneal harm comes from case reports, animal models or local anesthetic injected directly into the anterior chamber of the eye for cataract surgery. More information on the where the no topical anesthetic use on corneal abrasions come from can be found on a REBEL EM blog post. We covered and randomized control trial by Waldman et al on topical tetracaine for simple corneal abrasions on SGEM#83. The bottom line from that episode was that tetracaine appears safe for uncomplicated corneal abrasions and provides more effective pain relief than saline eye drops. We also did a critical appraisal of a systematic review by Swaminathan et al looking at topical anesthetics for these types eye injuries on SGEM#145. The SGEM bottom line from that review was that the best evidence we currently have demonstrates that dilute topical anesthetic drops of either proparacaine or tetracaine are safe for use in ED patients with simple corneal abrasions to provide analgesia. The studies are small, but the data contained in them is far superior to the case series published 50 years ago which led to the dogma that using them is dangerous. Clinical Question: What is the efficacy of topical tetracaine in the treatment of simple corneal abrasions? Reference: Shipman et al. Short-Term Topical Tetracaine Is Highly Efficacious for the Treatment of Pain Caused by Corneal Abrasions: A Double-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial. Annals of EM 2020 Population: Adults 18 years to 80 years of age with suspected acute cornea abrasion Exclusions: Contact lens wearer, previous corneal surgery or transplant in the affected eye, injury greater than 36 hours old, had a grossly contaminated foreign body, or had coexisting ocular infection. Intervention: Tetracaine 0.5% one drop every 30 minutes as needed for pain for a maximum of 24 hours plus topical antibiotics (polymyxin B sulfate/ trimethoprim sulfate, two drops every four hours into the affected eye) and oral analgesic (hydrocodone/acetaminophen 7.5/325 mg, one or two tablets as needed every six hours) Comparison: Placebo (balanced artificial tear solution) one drop every 30 minutes as needed for pain for a maximum of 24 hours plus topical antibiotics (polymyxin B sulfate/ trimethoprim sulfate, two drops every four hours into the affected eye) and oral analgesic (hydrocodone/acetaminophen 7.5/325 mg, one

Date: January 5th, 2021 Reference: Grunau et al. Association of Intra-arrest Transport vs Continued On-Scene Resuscitation With Survival to Hospital Discharge Among Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest. JAMA 2020 Guest Skeptic: Mike Carter is a former paramedic and current PA practicing in pulmonary and critical care as well as an adjunct professor of emergency medical services at Tacoma Community College. Case: During a busy emergency department (ED) shift the paramedic phone rings. On the other end of the line is one of your local crews who have responded to a 54-year-old male with a witnessed cardiac arrest. CPR is currently in progress with a single shock having been delivered. The crew is asking if they should transport the patient with resuscitation ongoing? Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is something we have covered extensively on the SGEM over the years. This has included things like therapeutic hypothermia (SGEM#54, SGEM#82, SGEM#183 and SGEM#275), supraglottic devices (SGEM#247), crowd sourcing CPR (SGEM#143 and SGEM#306), and epinephrine (SGEM#238). One aspect we have not looked at is the “load and go” vs. “stay and play” approach for OHCA. Different countries have different approaches to this problem. There is the European model that is physician led and provides more care in the field while the North American model tends to scoop and run. However, there is a fair bit of heterogeneity between EMS systems even in the US. In patients with OHCA, some EMS agencies transport almost all patients regardless of ROSC, while others rarely transport if ROSC is not achieved. It is unclear from the existing literature which practice is superior to the other in providing patient-oriented benefit to among adult patients in refractory arrest who have suffered an OHCA. Clinical Question: What is the association of intra-arrest transport compare to continued on-scene resuscitation in regards to survival to hospital discharge in adult patients with an OHCA? Reference: Grunau et al. Association of Intra-arrest Transport vs Continued On-Scene Resuscitation With Survival to Hospital Discharge Among Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest. JAMA 2020 Population: Adults 18 years and older with non-traumatic OHCA between 2011 and 2015treated by 192 EMS agencies in the USA. EMS. OHCA was defined as persons found apneic and without a pulse who underwent either external defibrillation (bystanders or EMS) or chest compressions. Exclusions: Age less than 18 years, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order being discovered, transport prior to cardiac arrest, missing data to classify as intra-arrest or to classify the primary outcome, missing variables required for propensity score analysis Intervention: Intra-arrest transport prior to any episode of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) defined as palpable pulse for any duration Comparison: Continued on-scene resuscitation Outcome: Primary Outcome: Survival to hospital discharge Secondary Outcomes: Survival with favorable neurologic outcome defined as a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of less than 3 mRS is categorized to 7 different levels, with 0 being no disability and 6 being death. A 3 is defined as moderate disability requiring some help, but able to walk without assistance Authors’ Conclusions: “Among patients experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, intra-arrest transport to hospital compared with continued on-scene resuscitation was associated with lower probability of survival to hospital discharge. Study findings are limited by potential confounding due to observational design.” Quality Checklist for Observational Study: Did the study address a clearly focused issue? Yes Did the authors use an appropriate method to answer their question? Yes Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way? Yes Was the exposure accurately measured to minimize bias? Unsure Was the outcome accurately measured to minimize bias? Yes Have the authors identified all-important confounding factors? Unsure Was the follow up of subjects complete enough? Yes How precise are the results? Fairly precise Do you believe the results? Yes [1,2] Can the results be applied to the local population? Unsure Do the results of this study fit with other available evidence? Yes [3,4] Key Results: The entire cohort consisted of 43,969 patients with a median age of 67 years, 1/3 were female and ½ were bystander or EMS witnessed. Of these OHCAs, 22% had an initial shockable rhythm and ¼ underwent intra-arrest transport. The probability of survival was greater with continuous on-scene resuscitation compared to intra-arrest transport in adults with OHCAs. 1) Association: The biggest limitation of study design is its observational nature. This means we can only conclude an association, not causation. Propensity score matching can help but is not able to eliminate unmeasured confounders that could bias the results. There were some details that should be explained about propensity matching.

Date: January 7th, 2021 Happy New Years to all the SGEMers. I know 2020 has been a bit of a dumpster fire. We have all faced challenges During the COVID19 global pandemic. I tried not to contribute to the large volume of information coming out on Sars-Cov2. There were only four episodes that directly addressed COVID19: SGEM Xtra: Mask4All Debate SGEM#229: Learning to Test for COVID19 SGEM Xtra: CAEP National Grand Rounds - COVID19 Treatments SGEM#309: That’s All Joe Asks of You – Wear a Mask There have been many other FOAMed resources (REBEL EM, First10EM, EM Cases, St. Emlyn's, and others) that have done a great job covering the pandemic. This is an SGEM Xtra episode to announce a few exciting new things for 2021. SGEM Continuing Medical Education Credits The BIG news is that the SGEM will now be offering Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits for all SGEM episodes. Click on this LINK to find out more. The Skeptics' Guide to Emergency Medicine (SGEM) is part of the Free Open Access to Meducation movement (FOAMed). The SGEM tries to cut the knowledge translation window down from over ten years to less than one year with the power of social media. The ultimate goal is for patients to get the best care, based on the best evidence. The FOAMed philosophy is that the information should be available to anyone, anytime, anywhere at no cost. This is similar to the philosophy of emergency medicine. It is the light in the house of medicine that is always on for anyone, at anytime, for anything. The SGEM has been free since it started in 2012 and will always be free open access. Many of you have asked about getting CME credits for listening to the SGEM podcast and reading the SGEM blog. We know physicians (MD and DO), Nurse Practitioners (NP) and Physician Assistants (PA) have to collect so many CME credit hours for their respective professional organizations. This can be more challenging with the cancelation of in-person conferences and meetings. The SGEM Hot Off the Press (SGEMHOP) episodes which are published once a month do offer CME credits. However, you can only claim these credits if you are a member of the Society of Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM). This new initiative will allow anyone to claim CME credits for all of the SGEM episodes. Getting CME credits for the weekly SGEM episodes is something I have been wanting to do for years. The barriers to getting CME credits for the SGEM before now was that it takes a lot of time and costs a lot of money to get accreditation. The cancellation of in-person conferences due to COVID19 has been the push I needed to finally get this service added to the SGEM. This project has been made possible through a partnership with a Legend of Emergency Medicine, Dr. Richard Bukata, and his Center for Medical Education (CCME) company. CCME has been providing providing medical education in the form of audio programs and conferences since 1977. They have the infrastructure to provide this type of service. They also have an arrangement to get the CME credits at a very reasonable price. Sign up by January 31st, 2021: There can be only one... The SGEM CME program offers up to 26 credits (1 credit hour per SGEM episode) over 6 months for only $195. If you sign up before January 31st, 2021 we will also give you 26 credits for free. This will be the previous six months of SGEM content that has already been approved for CME credits. Basically it is a 50% off promotion to kick start the SGEM CME program. Signing up for your education credits is easy. This is because "there can be only one" subscription option. You can earn up to 26 credit hours in six months. The price is $195 ($7.50/credit hour) for the six months. Again, those that sign up by January 31st, 2021 will receive a bonus 26 CME credits for free. That makes it only $3.75 for every credit hour of SGEM content!. It is as easy as 1-2-3 to start earning your CME credit today. Just click on the picture of the Highlander for all the details. SGEM Season#7 Book The SGEM continues to grow and has approximately 51,000 subscribers. It would not be so successful without the wonderful people like you who listen to the podcast and read the blog every week. I would also like to thank the SGEMHOP Team (Drs. Bond, Heitz and Morgenstern), PaperinaPic creator (Dr. Challen), all the guest skeptics and my best friend Chris Carpenter. The SGEM Season#7 book was put together with the help of my daughter Sage Milne. She came up with the steam punk theme and drew all the artwork for the book. The cover art was inspired by the 1982 movie TRON. She knows very well how much I like 1980's movies and music. Sage is currently doing doing a degree in Global Health Studies at Huron University College. Here are links to all six season of the SGEM as PDF books. You can download each season by clicking on the link: Season#1, Season#2, Season#3, Season #4, Season#5 and Season#6 If you are looking for the amazing theme music that help

Date: January 4th, 2021 This is an SGEM Xtra episode. I had the honour of presenting at the McGill University Emergency Medicine Academic Grand rounds. They titled the talk "Evidence-Based Medicine Master Class". The presentation is available to watch on YouTube, listen to on iTunes and all the slides can be downloaded (McGill 2020 Part 1 and McGill 2020 Part 2). Five Objectives: Look at the burden of proof and talk about what is science Discuss EBM and give a five step process of critical appraisal Talk about biases and logical fallacies Do a check list for randomized control trials Record a live episode of the SGEM 1) Who has the Burden of Proof and What is Science? Those making the claim have the burden of proof. It is called a burden because it hard - not because it is easy. We start with the null hypothesis (no superiority). Evidence is presented to convince us to reject the null and accept there is superiority to their claim. If the evidence is convincing we should reject the null. If the evidence is not convincing we need to accept the null hypothesis. It is a logical fallacy to shift the burden of proof onto those who say they do not accept the claim. They do not have to prove something wrong but rather not be convinced that the claim is valid/“true” and this is an important distinction in epistemology. What is science? It is the most reliable method for exploring the natural world. There are a number of qualities of science: Iterative, falsifiable, self-correcting and proportional. What science isn’t is “certain”. We can have confidence around a point estimate of an observed effect size and our confidence should be in part proportional to the strength of the evidence. Science also does not make “truth” claims. Scientists do make mistakes, are flawed and susceptible to cognitive biases. Physicians took on the image of a scientist by co-opting the white coat. Traditionally, scientists wore beige and physicians wore black to signify the somber nature of their work (like the clergy). Then came along the germ theory of disease and other scientific knowledge. It was the Flexner Report in 1910 that fundamentally changed medical education and improved standards. You could get a medical degree in only one year before the Flexner Report. The white coat was now a symbol of scientific rigour separating physicians from “snake oil salesman”. Many medical schools still have white coat ceremonies. However, only 1 in 8 physicians still report wearing a white lab coat today (Globe and Mail). Science is usually iterative. Sometimes science takes giants leaps forward, but usually it takes baby steps. You probably have heard the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants"? In Greek mythology, the blind giant Orion carried his servant Cedalion on his shoulders to act as the giant's eyes. The more familiar expression is attributed to Sir Isaac Newton, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” It has been suggested that Newton may have been throwing shade at Robert Hooke. Hooke was the first head of the Royal Society in England. Hooke was described as being a small man and not very attractive. The rivalry between Newton and Hooke is well documented. The comments about seeing farther because of being on the shoulders of giants was thought to be a dig at Hooke's short stature. However, this seems to be gossip and has not been proven. Science is also falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable it is outside the realm/dominion of science. This philosophy of science was put forth by Karl Popper in 1934. A great example of falsifiability was the claim that all swans are white. All it takes is one black swan to falsify the claim. There are some philosophers that refute Popper's claim about falsifiability. Science is self-correcting. Because science is iterative and falsifiable it is also self correcting. Science gets updated. We hopefully learn and get closer to the “truth” over time. Medical reversal is a thing and there is a great book and by Drs. Prasad and Cifu on this issue called Ending Medical Reversal: Improving Outcomes, Saving Lives. The evidence required to accept a claim should be in part proportional to the claim itself. The classic example was given by the famous scientist Carl Sagan (astronomer, astrophysicist and science communicator). Did the TV series Cosmos and wrote a number of popular science books (The Dragons of Eden). Sagan made the claim that there was a “fire-breathing dragon that lives in his garage”. The quality of evidence to convince you of something should be in part proportional to the claim being asserted. The summary is the famous quote by Carl Sagan that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Science does not make claims about the truth. It gives an approximation of the the best point estimate of the observed effect. It’s the best known method for exploring the natural world. Science has no agency but rath

Date: December 18th, 2020 Reference: Hulme et al. Mortality among patients with frequent emergency department use for alcohol-related reasons in Ontario: a population-based cohort study. CMAJ 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Hasan Sheikh is an emergency and addictions physician in Toronto and a lecturer at the University of Toronto. He holds a Masters in Public Administration from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Hasan was on an SGEM Xtra last year discussing the Canadian Association of Emergency Physician's (CAEP) position statement on Dental care in Canada. "The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians believes that every Canadian should have affordable, timely, and equitable access to dental care." CAEP has put out other position statements. The most recent is on sick notes for minor illness. For a list of other positions statements from CAEP click on this LINK. Case: A 45-year-old male with no fixed address is found by a bystander with decreased level of consciousness (LOC) on the street. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is called, and the patient is brought to the emergency department (ED). An empty bottle of vodka is found on the patient, and the decreased LOC is suspected to be due to alcohol intoxication. It is the patient’s fifth visit to the ED in the last two weeks with a similar presentation. The patient is observed over many hours, their LOC improves, and they are discharged after demonstrating that they can ambulate safely. Background: A leading driver of morbidity and mortality worldwide is alcohol (1). Alcohol consumption is attributed to approximately 5% of all global deaths. This works out to an estimated 3 million deaths due to alcohol (2). Alcohol was the single greatest risk factor for ill health worldwide among people aged 15–49 years according to the 2016 Global Burden of Disease Study (3). There are more hospital admissions in Canada for alcohol-attributable conditions than for myocardial infarction (4). There is a cost associated with alcohol related harms. In Canada, that number is around $14.6 billion a year with $3.3 billion in health care costs (5). Alcohol related ED visits has also increased more than four times greater than the overall rate of ED visits (6). This trend of increasing alcohol related ED visits is not unique to Canada. It has also been reported in England, Australia and the US (7-9). Clinical Question: What is the one-year overall mortality rate for adults with frequent visits to the ED for alcohol related reasons? Reference: Hulme et al. Mortality among patients with frequent emergency department use for alcohol-related reasons in Ontario: a population-based cohort study. CMAJ 2020 Population: Adults aged 16-105 years of age who made frequent ED visits for alcohol related reasons (two or more ED visits in a year). Excluded: Data inconsistencies, not Ontario residents, Age < 16 or > 105 or death at discharge Exposure: Patients with ED visits for alcohol-related mental and behavioural disorders, using the ICD-10-CA code of F10. This includes simple intoxication and withdrawal Comparison: Comparisons were made between groups of frequent ED users for alcohol-related reasons, including those that visited the ED twice in a year, 3-4 times in a year, and greater than four times in a year Outcome: Primary Outcome: One-year mortality, adjusted for age, sex, income, rural residence, and presence of co-morbidities Secondary Outcomes: Mental and behavioural disorders, diseases of the circulatory system, diseases of the digestive system, and external causes of morbidity and mortality (e.g., accidents, including accidental poisoning, accidental injuries, injuries, intentional self-harm, assault) with frequency >5%. Cause of death using alcohol-attributable ICD-10-CA codes as well as ICD-10-CA codes for death by suicide. Authors’ Conclusions: “We observed a high mortality rate among relatively young, mostly urban, lower-income people with frequent emergency department visits for alcohol-related reasons. These visits are opportunities for intervention in a high-risk population to reduce a substantial mortality burden.” Quality Checklist for Observational Study: Did the study address a clearly focused issue? Yes Did the authors use an appropriate method to answer their question? Yes Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way? Yes Was the exposure accurately measured to minimize bias? Unsure Was the outcome accurately measured to minimize bias? Yes Have the authors identified all-important confounding factors? Unsure Was the follow up of subjects complete enough? Yes How precise are the results? Fairly precise Do you believe the results? Yes Can the results be applied to the local population? Unsure Do the results of this study fit with other available evidence? Yes Key Results: They identified 160,170 alcohol-related ED visits that had at least one more alcohol-related visit in the 1-year time frame. This represented a cohort of 25,813 patients. T

Date: December 21st, 2020 Professor Tim Caulfield This is a SGEM Xtra book review. I had the pleasure of interviewing Professor Timothy Caulfield. Tim is a Canadian professor of law at the University of Alberta, the Research Director of its Health Law Institute, and current Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy. His area of expertise is in legal, policy and ethical issues in medical research and its commercialization. Tim came on the SGEM and discussed his new book called Relax, Dammit! A User's Guide to the Age of Anxiety. Listen to the podcast to hear us discuss his new book, skepticism, and science communication in general. The SGEM has a global audience with close to 45,000 subscribers. Many of the SGEMers live in the US and Tim's book has a different title in America. It is called Your Day Your Way: The Facts and Fictions Behind Your Daily Decisions. Tim gives some insight on the podcast why there is a different title in Canada and the US. Tim and I met in 2015 at the Canadian Associate of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) Annual Conference in Edmonton. He was a keynote speaker and discussed his previous book Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong about Everything? How the Famous Sell Us Elixirs of Health, Beauty & Happiness. Tim gave a fantastic presentation. I was in Edmonton talking nerdy as part of the CAEP TV initiative. We have been in contact via social media ever since trying to improve science communication. Besides writing books, Tim has stared in his own Netflix series called: A User guide to Cheating Death. He has also collaborated Dr. Jennifer Gunter who wrote the book The Vagina Bible. Dr. Gunter visited BatDoc a few years ago for an SGEM Xtra extra episode. A Few of Professor Caulfield's academic publications: Commentary: the law, unproven CAM and the two‐hats fallacy. Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies, 17: 4-8. Stem cell hype: Media portrayal of therapy translation. Science Translational Medicine.11 Mar 2015: Vol. 7, Issue 278, pp. 278ps4 Injecting doubt: responding to the naturopathic anti-vaccination rhetoric. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Volume 4, Issue 2, August 2017, Pages 229–249 COVID-19 and ‘immune boosting’ on the internet: a content analysis of Google search. BMJ Open 2020;10:e040989. Previous books reviewed on the SGEM: Jeanne Lenzer The Danger Within Us: America's Untested, Unregulated Medical Device Industry and One Man's Battle to Survive It. Dr. Steven Novella Skeptics Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake. Dr. Brian Goldman The Power of Kindness: Why Empathy is Essential in Everyday Life Tim's new book Relax Dammit! is organized into the day in the life of Tim Caulfield. It discusses the science behind our daily activities. On the podcast Tim provides five examples that he thinks might be interesting to the SGEM audience. This includes: Breakfast, coffee, commuting to work, napping and raw milk. I hope you like this type of SGEM Xtra. Let me know what you think and I will consider doing more book reviews with authors if the feedback is positive. The SGEM will be back episode with a structured critical review of a recent publication trying to cut the knowledge translation window down from over ten years to less than one year. Remember to be skeptical of anything you learn, even if you heard it on the Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine.

Date: December 16th, 2020 Reference: Butler et al. Oseltamivir plus usual care versus usual care for influenza-like illness in primary care: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Justin Morgenstern is an emergency physician and the creator of the #FOAMed project called First10EM.com. He has a great new blog post about how we are failing to protect our healthcare workers during COVID-19. Case: A 45-year-old female presents to her primary care clinician complaining of fever, sore throat and muscle aches. She did not get a flu shot this year. You diagnose her with an influenza-like illness (ILI). She wants to know if taking an anti-viral like oseltamivir (Tamiflu) will help? Background: We covered oseltamivir six years ago in SGEM#98. This is still the longest Cochrane review (300+ pages) I have ever read (Jefferson et al 2014a). The overall bottom line was when balancing potential risks and potential benefits, the evidence does not support routine use of neuraminidase inhibitors like oseltamivir for the treatment or prevention of influenza in any individual. There has been some controversy around oseltamivir. It was approved by licensing agencies and promoted by the WHO based on unpublished trials. None of those agencies had actually looked at the unpublished data. In fact, the primary authors of key oseltamivir trials had never been given access to the data – Roche just told them what the data supposedly said. Other papers were ghost-written (Cohen 2009). The BMJ was involved in a legal battle with Roche for half a decade trying to get access to that information. When they finally got their hands on the data, the conclusions of the reviews suddenly changed. After countries had spent billions stockpiling the drug, it turned out that oseltamivir had no effect on influenza complications, was not effective in prophylaxis, and had significantly more harms than originally reported (Jefferson 2014a; Jefferson 2014b). You can read more details about this controversy in the BMJ. The oseltamivir issue is a great example of the problems with conflicts of interest (COI) in medical research. This is something I have spoken about often. It is not an ad hominem attack on any of the authors. Our current system of medical research involves industry funding. COIs are just another data point that needs to be considered. This is because the evidence shows COIs can introduce bias into RCTs, SRMA and Clinical Practice Guidelines. When I use the term bias I am referring to something that systematically moves us away from the “truth”. There is specific evidence of bias in the oseltamivir literature. Dunn and colleagues looked at 37 assessments done in 26 systematic reviews and then compared their conclusions to the financial conflicts of interest of the authors. Among eight assessments where the authors had conflicts, seven (88%) had favourable conclusions about neuraminidase inhibitors. However, among the 29 assessments that were made by authors without conflicts, only five (17%) were positive (Dunn et al 2014). The current best evidence shows that oseltamivir (Jefferson et al 2014a): Decreased time to first alleviation of symptoms by less than one day Does not statistically change hospital admission rate (1.7% vs 1.8%) Does increase nausea (NNH 28) and vomiting (NNH 22) Does increase neuropsychiatric events (NNH 94) Does increase headaches (NNH 32) Clinical Question: Does oseltamivir improve time to recovery in patients presenting to their primary care clinician with an influenza-like illnesses? Reference: Butler et al. Oseltamivir plus usual care versus usual care for influenza-like illness in primary care: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 2020. Population: Patients from 15 European countries over three influenza seasons who were one year of age and older and who presented to their primary care clinician with symptoms of influenza-like illness (ILI). ILI was defined as a “sudden onset of self-reported fever, with at least one respiratory symptom (cough, sore throat, or running or congested nose) and one systemic symptom (headache, muscle ache, sweats or chills, or tiredness), with symptom duration of 72 h or less during a seasonal influenza epidemic.” Exclusions: Chronic renal failure, substantial impaired immunity, patients in whom the treating clinician thought Tamiflu or admission to hospital was required, allergy, planned general anesthesia in the next two weeks, life expectancy less than six months, severe hepatic impairment, requirement for any live viral vaccine in the next seven days, and in some jurisdictions pregnant or lactating women. Intervention: Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) 75 mg by mouth twice daily for five days in adults and children more than 40 kg. For children (13 years or younger), oral suspension was given according to weight (children weighing 10–15 kg received 30 mg, >15–23 kg received 45 mg, >23–40 kg received 60 mg, and

Date: December 10th, 2020 Reference: Ladde et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial of Novel Loop Drainage Technique Versus Drainage and Packing in the Treatment of Skin Abscesses. AEM December 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Kirsty Challen (@KirstyChallen) is a Consultant in Emergency Medicine and Emergency Medicine Research Lead at Lancashire Teaching Hospitals Trust (North West England). She is Chair of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine Women in Emergency Medicine group and involved with the RCEM Public Health and Informatics groups. Kirsty is also the creator of the wonderful infographics called #PaperinaPic. Case: A 52-year-old previously healthy woman presents to your emergency department (ED) with an abscess on her left forearm. She is systemically well and there is no sign of tracking, so you decide to perform incision and drainage in the ED. When you ask your nursing colleague to set up the equipment, he wants to know if you will be using standard packing or a vessel loop drainage technique. Background: We have covered the issue of abscesses multiple times on the SGEM. Way back in 2012 we looked at packing after incision and drainage (I&D) on SGEM#13 and concluded routine packing might not be necessary. Another topic covered was whether irrigating after I&D was superior to not irrigating (SGEM#156). The bottom line from that critical appraisal was that irrigation is probably not necessary. Chip Lange (PA) The use of antibiotics after I&D is another treatment modality that has been debated over the years. Chip Lange and I interviewed Dr. David Talan about his very good NEJM randomized control trial on SGEM#164. The bottom line was that the addition of TMP/SMX to the treatment of uncomplicated cutaneous abscesses represents an opportunity for shared decision-making. One issue that has not been covered yet is the loop technique. This is when one or multiple vessel loops are put through the abscess cavity. This is done by making a couple of small incisions. An advantage to this technique over packing (which is not necessary) is that the Vessel loops do not need to be changed or replaced. Clinical Question: In uncomplicated abscesses drained in the ED, does the LOOP technique reduce treatment failure? Reference: Ladde et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial of Novel Loop Drainage Technique Versus Drainage and Packing in the Treatment of Skin Abscesses. AEM December 2020 Population: Patients of any age undergoing ED drainage of skin abscesses Exclusions: Patient with abscess located on hand, foot, or face or if they required admission and/or operative intervention. Intervention: LOOP technique where a vessel tie is left in situ Comparison: Standard packing with sterile ribbon gauze Outcome: Primary Outcome: Treatment failure (need for a further procedure, IV antibiotics or operative intervention), assessed at 36 hours. Secondary Outcomes: Ease of procedure, pain at the time of treatment, ease of care at 36 hours, pain at 36 hours. Dr. Ladde This is an SGEMHOP episode which means we have the lead author on the show. Dr. Ladde is in an active academic emergency physician working at Orlando Regional Medical Center serving as core faculty and Senior Associate Program Director. Jay also has the rank Professor of Emergency Medicine for University of Central Florida College of Medicine. Authors’ Conclusions: “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.” Quality Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials: The study population included or focused on those in the emergency department. Yes The patients were adequately randomized. Yes The randomization process was concealed. Yes The patients were analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized. Unsure The study patients were recruited consecutively (i.e. no selection bias). No The patients in both groups were similar with respect to prognostic factors. Yes All participants (patients, clinicians, outcome assessors) were unaware of group allocation. All groups were treated equally except for the intervention. Yes Follow-up was complete (i.e. at least 80% for both groups). Yes All patient-important outcomes were considered. Yes The treatment effect was large enough and precise enough to be clinically significant. No Key Results: They recruited 256 participants into the trial with 90% (196) having outcome data. The mean age was 22 years, 71% were thought to also have cellulitis and 83% (213/256) received antibiotics at discharge. More than 80% of those prescribed antibiotics were given the combination of cephalexin and TMX-SMP. No statistical difference in treatment failure between loop technique and packing. Primary Outcome: Treatment failure 20% (95% CI 12-28%) in packing group vs. 13% (6-20%) LOOP group; p=0.25. Secondar

Date: November 30th, 2020 Reference: Ohle R et al. Can Emergency Physicians Accurately Rule Out a Central Cause of Vertigo Using the HINTS Examination? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. AEM 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Mary McLean is an Assistant Program Director at St. John’s Riverside Hospital Emergency Medicine Residency in Yonkers, New York. She is the New York ACEP liaison for the Research and Education Committee and is a past ALL NYC EM Resident Education Fellow. Case: A 50-year-old female presents to your community emergency department in the middle of the night with new-onset constant but mild vertigo and nausea. She has nystagmus but no other physical exam findings. You try meclizine, ondansetron, valium, and fluids, and nothing helps. Her head CT is negative (taken 3 hours after symptom onset). You’re about to call in your MRI tech from home, but then you remember reading that the HINTS exam is more sensitive than early MRI for diagnosis of posterior stroke. You wonder, “Why can’t I just rule out stroke with the HINTS exam? How hard can it be?” You perform the HINTS exam and the results are reassuring, but the patient’s symptoms persist… Background: Up to 25% of patients presenting to the ED with acute vestibular syndrome (AVS) have a central cause of their vertigo - commonly posterior stroke. Posterior circulation strokes account for approximately up to 25% of all ischemic strokes [1]. MRI diffuse-weighted imagine (DWI) is only 77% sensitive for detecting posterior stroke when performed within 24h of symptom onset [2,3]. As an alternative diagnostic method, the HINTS exam was first established in 2009 to better differentiate central from peripheral causes of AVS [4]. But what is the HINTS exam? It’s a combination of three structured bedside assessments: the head impulse test of vestibulo-ocular reflex function, nystagmus characterization in various gaze positions, and the test of skew for ocular alignment. When used by neurologists and neuro-ophthalmologists with extensive training in these exam components, it has been found to be nearly 100% sensitive and over 90% specific for central causes of AVS [5-8]. Over the past decade, some emergency physicians have adopted this examination into their own bedside clinical assessment and documentation. We’ve used it to make decisions for our patients, particularly when MRI is not readily available. We’ve even used it to help decide whether or not to get a head CT. But we’ve done this without the extensive training undergone by neurologists and neuro-ophthalmologists, and without any evidence that the HINTS exam is diagnostically accurate in the hands of emergency physicians. Clinical Question: Can emergency physicians accurately rule out a central cause of vertigo using the HINTS examination? Reference: Ohle R et al. Can Emergency Physicians Accurately Rule Out a Central Cause of Vertigo Using the HINTS Examination? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. AEM 2020 Population: Adult patients presenting to an ED with AVS Exclusions: Non-peer-reviewed studies, unpublished data, retrospective studies, vertigo which stopped before or during workup, incomplete HINTS exam, or studies with data overlapping with another study used Intervention: HINTS examination by emergency physician, neurologist, or neuro-ophthalmologist Comparison: CT and/or MRI Outcome: Diagnosis of HINTS examination for central cause for AVS (i.e., posterior stroke) Authors’ Conclusions: “The HINTS examination, when used in isolation by emergency physicians, has not been shown to be sufficiently accurate to rule out a stroke in those presenting with AVS.” Quality Checklist for Systematic Review Diagnostic Studies: The diagnostic question is clinically relevant with an established criterion standard. Unsure The search for studies was detailed and exhaustive. Yes The methodological quality of primary studies were assessed for common forms of diagnostic research bias. Yes The assessment of studies were reproducible. Yes There was low heterogeneity for estimates of sensitivity or specificity. No The summary diagnostic accuracy is sufficiently precise to improve upon existing clinical decision-making models. Unsure Key Results: They searched multiple electronic databases with no language or age restrictions and the gray literature. The authors identified 2,695 citations with five articles meeting inclusion criteria and a total of 617 patients. There were no studies that included only emergency physicians performing the HINTS examination. Essentially, the authors separated the studies into two cohorts according to the medical specialties of the HINTS examiners, and for each cohort they reported the sensitivity and specificity of the HINTS exam for diagnosis of posterior stroke. The first cohort included neurologists and neuro-ophthalmologists. The sensitivity and specificity of the HINTS examination were 96.7% (95% CI; 93.1 to 98.5) and 94.8% (95% CI; 91 to 97.1). In contrast, the second cohort (onl

Date: November 25th, 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Joe Vipond has worked as an emergency physician for twenty years, currently at the Rockyview General Hospital. He is the President of the national charity Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), as well as the co-founder and co-chair of the local non-profit the Calgary Climate Hub, and during COVID, the co-founder of Masks4Canada. Joe grew up in Calgary and continues to live there with his wife and two daughters. Reference: Bundgaard et al. Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 2020 Case: : Alberta is the last province in Canada that has yet to enact a mandatory mask policy. Should they do it? Mask4All Debate Background: During a respiratory pandemic, there still remains substantial questions about the utility and risk of facial masks for prevention of viral transmission. We debated universal mandatory masking back in the spring on an SGEM Xtra episode. Some very well known evidence-based medicine experts like Dr. Trisha Greenhalgh were advocating in favour of stricter mask regulations based on the precautionary principle (Greenhalgh et al BMJ 2020). She was challenged on her position (Martin et al BMJ 2020) and responded with an article called: Laying straw men to rest (Greenhalgh JECP 2020). A limitation of science is the available evidence. SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus and we did not have much information specifically about the efficacy of masks. We needed to extrapolate from previous research on masks and other respiratory illnesses. However, we do have a firm understanding of the germ theory of disease and masks have been used for over 100 years as an infectious disease strategy. It was surgeons in the late 1890’s that began wearing masks in the operating theaters. There was skepticism back then as to the efficacy of a “surgical costume” (bonnet and mouth covering) to prevent disease and illness during surgery (Strasser and Schlich Lancet 2020). There was one recent cluster randomized control trial looking at surgical masks, cloth masks or a control group in healthcare workers (MacIntyre et al BMJ 2015). The main outcomes were clinical respiratory illness, influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection. All infectious outcomes were highest in the cloth mask group, lower in the control group and lowest in the medical mask group. As with all studies this one had limitations. One of the main ones is this looked at healthcare workers wearing a mask as protection not in the general public as a source control. There has been a systematic review meta-analysis on physical distancing, face masks and eye protection to prevent SARS-Cov-2 (Chu et al Lancet 2020). With regards to masks, they found that face masks could result in a large reduction in risk of infection with a stronger association with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar cloth masks. SRMA also have limitations and one of the main ones is they are dependent on the quality of the included studies. This review in the Lancet included ten studies (n=2,647) with seven from China, eight looking at healthcare workers (not general public) and only one looking at COVID19. All 10 studies were observational designs and the authors correctly only claim associations. They also say their level of certainty about masks being associated with a decrease in disease is considered “low certainty” based on the GRADE category of evidence. When considering an intervention, we cannot just consider the potential benefit, but we must also consider the potential harms. There is little or no evidence that wearing a face mask leads to potential harms. Yes, there are case reports of harm, children under 2 years of age should not wear face coverings (AAP News) and studies systematically under report adverse events (Hodkinson et al BMJ 2013) but the pre-test probability of individual harm is very low. What many studies on masks conclude is we need better evidence to inform our decisions. Now we have the first published randomized control trial on mask wearing in public to prevent transmission of COVID19. Clinical Question: Does recommending surgical mask use outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures? Reference: Bundgaard et al. Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 2020 Population: Danish adults > 18 years of age without symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 (or previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2), working out-of-home with exposure to other people for more than three hours per day and who do not normally wear a face mask at

Date: November 19th, 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Corey Heitz is an emergency physician in Roanoke, Virginia. He is also the CME editor for Academic Emergency Medicine. Reference: Pines et al. The impact of advanced practice provider staffing on emergency department care: productivity, flow, safety, and experience. AEM November 2020. Case: You are the medical director of a medium sized urban emergency department (ED). Volumes have increased over the past few years and you’re considering adding an extra shift or two. Your hospital has asked you to consider adding some advanced practice providers (APPs) instead of physician hours. Background: Advanced practice providers (APPs) such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs) are increasingly used to cover staffing needs in US emergency departments. This is in part driven by economics, as APPs are paid less per hour than physicians. The calculation works if APP productivities are similar enough to physicians to offset differentials in billing rates. However, little data exists comparing productivity, safety, flow, or patient experiences in emergency medicine. The American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) has a position statement on what they refer to as non-physician practitioners that was recently updated. The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) has a number of documents discussing APPs in the ED. There has been a concern about post-graduate training of NPs and PAs in the ED. A joint statement on the issue was published in September this year by AAEM/RSA, ACEP, ACOEP/RSO, CORD, EMRA, and SAEM/RAMS. Clinical Question: How does the productivity of advanced practice providers compare to emergency physicians and what is its impact on emergency department operations? Reference: Pines et al. The impact of advanced practice provider staffing on emergency department care: productivity, flow, safety, and experience. AEM November 2020. Population: National emergency medicine group in the USA that included 94 EDs in 19 states Exposure: Proportion of total clinician hours staffed by APPs in a 24-hour period at a given ED Comparison: Emergency physician staffing Outcome: Primary Outcome: Productivity measures (patients per hour, RVUs/hour, RVUs/visit, RVUs per relative salary for an hour) Safety Outcomes: Proportion of 72-hour returns and proportion of 72-hour returns resulting in admission Other Outcomes: ED flow by length of stay (LOS), left without completion of treatment (LWOT) Dr. Jesse Pines This is an SGEMHOP episode which means we have the lead author on the show. Dr. Jesse Pines is the National Director for Clinical Innovation at US Acute Care Solutions and a Professor of Emergency Medicine at Drexel University. In this role, he focuses on developing and implementing new care models including telemedicine, alternative payment models, and also leads the USACS opioid programs. Authors’ Conclusions: “In this group, APPs treated less complex visits and half as many patients/hour compared to physicians. Higher APP coverage allowed physicians to treat higher-acuity cases. We found no economies of scale for APP coverage, suggesting that increasing APP staffing may not lower staffing costs. However, there were also no adverse observed effects of APP coverage on ED flow, clinical safety, or patient experience, suggesting little risk of increased APP coverage on clinical care delivery. Quality Checklist for Observational Study: Did the study address a clearly focused issue? Yes Did the authors use an appropriate method to answer their question? Unsure Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way? Yes Was the exposure accurately measured to minimize bias? Yes Was the outcome accurately measured to minimize bias? Yes Have the authors identified all-important confounding factors? Unsure Was the follow up of subjects complete enough? Yes How precise are the results? Fairly precise Do you believe the results? Yes Can the results be applied to the local population? Unsure Do the results of this study fit with other available evidence? Unsure Key Results: Over five years there were more than 13 million ED visits at these 94 sites. The majority (75%) of visits were treated by physicians independently. PAs treated 18.6%, NPs 5.4% and 1.4% were treated by both a physician and an APP. Physicians were more productive than physician assistants and nurse practitioners. Effect of 10% increase in APP coverage: Patients/hour: -0.12 (95% CI; -0.15 to -0.10) RVUs/hour: -0.4 (95% CI; -0.5 to -0.3) Safety and Outcome: No significant effect on length of stay, left without treatment, and 72-hour returns Listen to the podcast on iTunes to hear Jesse’s responses to our five nerdy questions. 1) Surprise: These results surprise me somewhat due to personal experience where APPs see lower acuity patients, often in a “fast-track” area. I don’t know our facility data, but would be surprised if the APPs had significantly lower overall patients/hour than the doctors. 2) Physici

Date: October 29th, 2020 Guest Skeptic: Martha Roberts is a critical and emergency care, triple-certified nurse practitioner currently living and working in Sacramento, California. She is the host of EM Bootcamp in Las Vegas, as well as a usual speaker and faculty member for The Center for Continuing Medical Education (CCME). She writes a blog called The Procedural Pause for Emergency Medicine News and is the lead content editor and director for the video series soon to be included in Roberts & Hedges' Clinical Procedures in Emergency Medicine. Reference: Vent et al. Buffered lidocaine 1%, epinephrine 1:100,000 with sodium bicarbonate (hydrogencarbonate) in a 3:1 ratio is less painful than a 9:1 ratio: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. JAAD (2020) Case: A 35-year-old female arrives to the emergency department with a 3 cm laceration to the palmar surface of her left forearm sustained by a clean kitchen knife while emptying the dishwasher. The patient reports a fear of needles and has concerns about locally anaesthetizing the area because, “I got stitches on my arm once before and that shot burned like crazy”! The patient asks the practitioner if there is any chance, she can get a shot that “burns less” than her last one. Background: We have covered wound care a number of times on the SGEM. This has included some myth busing way back in SGEM#9 called Who Let the Dogs Out. That episode busted five myths about simple wound care in the Emergency Department: Patients Priorities: Infection is not usually the #1 priority for patients. For non-facial wounds it is function and for facial wounds it is cosmetic. This is in contrast to the clinicians’ #1 priority that is usually infection. Dilution Solution: You do not need some fancy solution (sterile water, normal saline, etc) to clean a wound. Tap water is usually fine. Sterile Gloves: You do not need sterile gloves for simple wound treatment. Non-sterile gloves are fine. Save the sterile gloves for sterile procedures (ex. lumbar punctures). Epinephrine in Local Anesthetics: This will not make the tip of things fall off (nose, fingers, toes, etc). Epinephrine containing local anesthetics can be used without the fear of an appendage falling off. All Simple Lacerations Need Sutures: Simple hand lacerations less than 2cm don’t need sutures. Glue can be used in many other areas including criss-crossing hair for scalp lacerations. Other SGEM episodes on wound care include: SGEM#63: Goldfinger (More Dogma of Wound Care) This episode looked at how long do you have to close a wound. The bottom line was that there is no good evidence to show that there is an association between infection and time from injury to repair. SGEM#156: Working at the Abscess Wash The question from that episode was: does irrigation of a cutaneous abscess after incision and drainage reduce the need for further intervention? Answer: Irrigation of a cutaneous abscess after an initial incision and drainage is probably not necessary. SGEM#164: Cuts Like a Knife – But you Might Also Need Antibiotics for Uncomplicated Skin Abscesses. SGEM Bottom Line: The addition of TMP/SMX to the treatment of uncomplicated cutaneous abscesses represents an opportunity for shared decision-making. The issue of buffering lidocaine was covered on SGEM #13. This episode briefly reviewed a Cochrane SRMA that looked at buffering 9ml of 1% or 2% lidocaine with 1ml of 8.4% sodium bicarbonate (Cepeda et al 2010). The SRMA of buffering lidocaine contained 23 studies with 8 of the 23 studies having moderate to high risk of bias. The SGEM bottom line was that patients might appreciate the extra effort of buffering the lidocaine. Interestingly, this Cochrane Review was withdrawn from publication in 2015. The reason provided was that the review was no longer compliant with the Cochrane Commercial Sponsorship Policy. The non-conflicted authors have decided not to update the review. Clinical Question: Does buffering lidocaine with sodium bicarbonate make local anesthetic less painful? Reference: Vent et al. Buffered lidocaine 1%, epinephrine 1:100’000 with sodium bicarbonate (hydrogencarbonate) in a 3:1 ratio is less painful than a 9:1 ratio: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. JAAD (2020) Population: Healthy volunteers age 18-75 years of age Exclusions: Hypersensitivity or allergies to local anesthetics of the amide type or to auxiliary substances such as sulfites, pregnant, damaged skin on the arms, or inability to give informed consent. Intervention: IMP (investigational medicinal products) were injected 5cm distal from the cubital fossa IMP1: 1% lidocaine with epinephrine plus sodium bicarbonate in a 3:1 mixing ratio IMP2: 1% lidocaine with epinephrine plus sodium bicarbonate in a 9:1 mixing ratio IMP3: 1% lidocaine with epinephrine Comparison: Placebo of 0.9% sodium chloride (IMP4) Outcomes: Primary Outcome: Pain during infiltration on a numerical rating scale (0-10

Date: October 21st, 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Justin Morgenstern is an emergency physician, creator of the excellent #FOAMed project called First10EM.com and a member of the #SGEMHOP team. Reference: Derkenne et al. Mobile Smartphone Technology Is Associated With Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest Survival Improvement: The First Year "Greater Paris Fire Brigade" Experience. AEM Oct 2020. Case: You are waiting in line for coffee, discussing the latest SGEM Hot Off the Press episode on twitter, when an alert pops up on your phone. It says that someone in the grocery store next door has suffered a cardiac arrest and needs your help. You remember installing this app at a conference last year, but this is the first time you have seen an alert. You abandon your coffee order and quickly head next-door, where you are able to start cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and direct a bystander to find the store’s automated external defibrillator (AED) while waiting for emergency medical services (EMS) to arrive. After the paramedics take over, you wonder about the evidence for this seemingly miraculous intervention. Background: Out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is something that we have covered many times on the SGEM. SGEM#64: Classic EM Papers (OPALS Study) SGEM#136: CPR – Man or Machine? SGEM#143: Call Me Maybe for Bystander CPR SGEM#152: Movin’ on Up – Higher Floors, Lower Survival for OHCA SGEM#162: Not Stayin’ Alive More Often with Amiodarone or Lidocaine in OHCA SGEM#189: Bring Me to Life in OHCA SGEM#231: You’re So Vein – IO vs. IV Access for OHCA SGEM#238: The Epi Don’t Work for OHCA SGEM#247: Supraglottic Airways Gonna Save You for an OHCA? SGEM#275: 10th Avenue Freeze Out – Therapeutic Hypothermia after Non-Shockable Cardiac Arrest The American Heart Association promotes the “Chain-of-Survival”. There are five steps in the Chain-of-Survival for OHCA: Step One – Recognition and activation of the emergency response system Step Two – Immediate high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation Step Three – Rapid defibrillation Step Four – Basic and advanced emergency medical services Step Five – Advanced life support and post arrest care Bystander CPR and early defibrillation are key components of the out of hospital cardiac arrest chain of survival. Unfortunately, most patients don’t receive these crucial interventions. Many people are trained in CPR but never use their skills, because it is unlikely that they will happen to be in exactly the right place at the right time. They may be willing and able to help, but if the patient in need is one block over, they may never know about it. The advent of the smart phone with GPS capability means that we should be better able to direct individuals trained in basic life support (BLS) to those in need around them. We should also be able to use smart phones to more easily identify the closest AEDs. Over the last decade, numerous apps have been developed to do exactly that, but the impact of those apps on clinical outcomes is still unclear. Clinical Question: Is the use of a smart phone app that can match trained responders to cardiac arrest victims and indicate the closest available AEDs associated with better clinical outcomes? Reference: Derkenne et al. Mobile Smartphone Technology Is Associated With Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest Survival Improvement: The First Year "Greater Paris Fire Brigade" Experience. AEM Oct 2020. Population: Cardiac arrests from a single emergency medical service (EMS) agency in Paris, France that were called through the central dispatch center and occurred while the chief dispatcher was available to participate, occurred in a public area, and in which there was not obvious environmental danger. Intervention: Alerts were sent through the Staying Alive app to volunteers trained in BLS who were within 500 meters of the reported cardiac arrest. The intervention group is the group of patients for whom someone responded to the alert and provided BLS treatment. Comparison: The control group consisted of patients in whom no volunteer was within 500 meters at the time of the arrest, for whom no volunteer responded to the alert, or for whom the volunteer responded to the alert but did not perform BLS. Outcomes: Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) upon hospital admission, survival outcomes upon hospital discharge and impact of first responders (commonly referred to as“Bons Samaritains”[BS]) on survival outcomes. Dr. Clementt Derkenne This is an SGEMHOP episode which means we usually have the lead author on the show. Dr. Clement Derkenne is an emergency physician in the Emergency Medical Department, Paris Fire Brigade, Clamart, France. He did not feel comfortable doing a podcast in English which we completely understand. Authors’ Conclusions: “We report for the that mobile smartphone technology was associated with OHCA survival through accelerated initiation of efficient cardiopulmonary resuscitation by first responders in a large urban area

Date: October 21st, 2020 This is an SGEM Xtra episode. I had the honour of presenting at the Department of Family Medicine's Grand Rounds at the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry. The title of the talk was: How to think, not what to think. The presentation is available to watch on YouTube, listen to on iTunes and all the slides can be downloaded from this LINK. Five Objectives: Discuss what is science Talk about who has the burden of proof Discuss Evidence-based medicine (EBM), limitations and alternatives Provide a five step approach to critical appraisal Briefly talk about COVID19 and the importance of EBM What is Science? It is the most reliable method for exploring the natural world. There are a number of qualities of science: Iterative, falsifiable, self-correcting and proportional. What science isn’t is “certain”. We can have confidence around a point estimate of an observed effect size and our confidence should be in part proportional to the strength of the evidence. Science also does not make “truth” claims. Scientists do make mistakes, are flawed and susceptible to cognitive biases. Physicians took on the image of a scientist by co-opting the white coat. Traditionally, scientists wore beige and physicians wore black to signify the somber nature of their work (like the clergy). Then came along the germ theory of disease and other scientific knowledge. It was the Flexner Report in 1910 that fundamentally changed medical education and improved standards. You could get a medical degree in only one year before the Flexner Report. The white coat was now a symbol of scientific rigour separating physicians from “snake oil salesman”. Many medical schools still have white coat ceremonies. However, only 1 in 8 physicians still report wearing a white lab coat today (Globe and Mail). Science is Usually Iterative: Sometimes science takes giants leaps forward, but usually it takes baby steps. You probably have heard the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants"? In Greek mythology, the blind giant Orion carried his servant Cedalion on his shoulders to act as the giant's eyes. The more familiar expression is attributed to Sir Isaac Newton, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” It has been suggested that Newton may have been throwing shade at Robert Hooke. Hooke was the first head of the Royal Society in England. Hooke was described as being a small man and not very attractive. The rivalry between Newton and Hooke is well documented. The comments about seeing farther because of being on the shoulders of giants was thought to be a dig at Hooke's short stature. However, this seems to be gossip and has not been proven. Science is Falsifiable: If it is not falsifiable it is outside the realm/dominion of science. This philosophy of science was put forth by Karl Popper in 1934. A great example of falsifiability was the claim that all swans are white. All it takes is one black swan to falsify the claim. Science and Proportionality: The evidence required to accept a claim should be in part proportional to the claim itself. The classic example was given by the famous scientist Carl Sagan (astronomer, astrophysicist and science communicator). Did the TV series Cosmos and wrote a number of popular science books (The Dragons of Eden). Sagan made the claim that there was a “fire-breathing dragon that lives in his garage”. How much evidence would it take for you to accept the claim about the dragon? His word, pictures, videos, bones, other biological evidence, how about knowing any other dragons or dragons that breathe fire? Compare that to if I said we just got a new puppy and it’s in the garage. You would probably take my word for it. There is nothing extraordinary about the claim. Most of you should be familiar and have had experience with a puppy at some point in your life. So the quality of evidence to convince you of something should be in part proportional to the claim being asserted. The summary is the famous quote by Carl Sagan that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Science is Self-Correcting: Because science is iterative and falsifiable it is also self correcting. Science gets updated. We hopefully learn and get closer to the “truth” over time. Medical reversal is a thing and there is a great book and by Drs. Prasad and Cifu on this issue called Ending Medical Reversal: Improving Outcomes, Saving Lives. Burden of Proof: Those making the claim have the burden of proof. It is called a burden because it hard - not because it is easy. We start with the null hypothesis (no superiority). Evidence is presented to convince us to reject the null and accept there is superiority to their claim. If the evidence is convincing we should reject the null. If the evidence is not convincing we need to accept the null hypothesis. It is a logical fallacy to shift the burden of proof onto those who say they do not accept the claim. They

Date: October 14th, 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr.Salim Rezaie is a community emergency physician at Greater San Antonio Emergency Physicians (GSEP), where he is the director of clinical education. Salim is probably better known as the creator and founder of the wonderful knowledge translation project called REBEL EM. It is a free, critical appraisal blog and podcast that try to cut down knowledge translation gaps of research to bedside clinical practice. Reference: Rowell et al. Effect of Out-of-Hospital Tranexamic Acid vs Placebo on 6-Month Functional Neurologic Outcomes in Patients With Moderate or Severe Traumatic Brain Injury. JAMA 2020. Case: A 42-year-old helmeted bicycle rider is involved in an accident where he hits his head on the ground. At the time of emergency medical services (EMS) arrival, the patient is alert but seems a bit confused. The accident was within one hour of injury and his Glasgow Coma Scale (GSC) score was 12. Vital signs show a slight tachycardia but otherwise normal. Pupils were both equal and reactive and he doesn’t appear to have any other traumatic injuries, or focal neurologic deficits. Other injuries appear minimal with some abrasions from the fall. Background: The CRASH-2 trial, published in 2010, showed a 1.5% mortality benefit (NNT 67) for patients with traumatic hemorrhage who received tranexamic acid (TXA) compared to placebo. Dr. Anand Swaminathan and I covered that classic paper on SGEM#80. TXA has become standard practice in many settings as a result of this data. However, patients with significant head injury were excluded in this study and it was unclear of the effect of TXA in this group. CRASH-3 Fast forward to October 2019, when CRASH-3 was published. This large, very well-done randomized placebo-controlled trial examined the use of TXA in patients with traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) with GCS score of 12 or lower or any intracranial bleed on CT scan and no extracranial bleeding treated within 3 hours of injury. The authors reported no statistical superiority of TXA compared to placebo for the primary outcome of head injury-related deaths within 28 days. We reviewed that article published in the Lancet in SGEM#270. Subgroup analysis did demonstrate that certain patients (GCS 9 to 15 and ICH on baseline CT) showed a mortality benefit with TXA. While very interesting and potentially clinically significant, we need to be careful not to over-interpret this subgroup analysis. We did express concern over the possibility that this subgroup would be highlighted and “spun”. Unfortunately, that did happen with a subsequent media blitz and a misleading infographic. Further data is clearly needed to elucidate the role of TXA in patients with TBI. Clinical Question: Does pre-hospital administration of TXA to patients with moderate or severe traumatic brain injury improve neurologic outcomes at 6 months? Reference: Rowell et al. Effect of Out-of-Hospital Tranexamic Acid vs Placebo on 6-Month Functional Neurologic Outcomes in Patients With Moderate or Severe Traumatic Brain Injury. JAMA 2020. Population: Patients 15 years of age or older with moderate or severe blunt or penetrating TBI. Moderate to severe TBI was defined as a GCS 3 to 12, at least one reactive pupil, systolic blood pressure ≥90mmHg prior to randomization, able to receive intervention or placebo within two hours from injury, and destination to a participating trauma center. Exclusions: Prehospital GCS=3 with no reactive pupil, start of study drug bolus dose greater than two hours from injury, unknown time of injury, clinical suspicion by EMS of seizure activity, acute MI or stroke, or known history, of seizures, thromboembolic disorders or renal dialysis, CPR by EMS prior to randomization, burns > 20% total body surface area, suspected or known prisoners, suspected or known pregnancy), prehospital TXA or other pro-coagulant drug given prior to randomization or subjects who have activated the “opt-out” process. Interventions: They had two intervention groups. The Bolus Maintenance Group received an out-of-hospital TXA 1g intravenous (IV) bolus and in-hospital TXA 1g IV 8-hour infusion. The Bolus Only Group received an out-of-hospital TXA 2g IV and in-hospital placebo 8-hour IV infusion. Comparison: The Placebo Group received Out-of-hospital saline IV bolus and in-hospital saline 8-hour infusion. Outcome: Primary Outcome: Favorable neurologic function at 6 months (defined as Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended Score >4 which is considered moderate disability or good recovery) Secondary Outcomes: There were 18 secondary endpoints, of which 5 reported statistical analysis in this trial 28 day mortality 6-Month Disability Rating Scale Score (0 equals no disability and 30 equals death) Progression of intracranial hemorrhage (Defined as >33% increase in the combined volume of hemorrhage) Incidence of seizures Incidence of thromboembolic events Authors’ Conclusions: “Among patients with moderate to severe TBI, out-of-h

Date: October 9th, 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Sergey Motov is an Emergency Physician in the Department of Emergency Medicine, Maimonides Medical Center in New York City. He is also one of the world’s leading researchers on pain management in the emergency department, specifically the use of ketamine. His twitter handle is @PainFreeED. Reference: Friedman et al. Ibuprofen Plus Acetaminophen Versus Ibuprofen Alone for Acute Low Back Pain: An Emergency Department-based Randomized Study. AEM 2020. Case: A 41-year-old man without a significant past medical history presents to the emergency department (ED) with a chief complaint of lower back pain that started 48 hours prior to the ED visits after attempting to move a couch in his house. He describes the pain as sharp, constant, non-radiating, and 6/10 in intensity. Pain gets worse with movement and minimal bending. The pain is limiting his usual activities included his ability to go to work. He denies weakness or numbness of the legs as well as bowel or bladder dysfunctions. You perform a physical exam and note prominent tender area to palpation at the right lumbar region. You explain to the patient the most likely diagnosis is a muscle strain. Your usual approach is to treat this type of case scenario with Ibuprofen. The patient asked you if Ibuprofen alone will be strong enough to control his pain. Background: Pain is one of the most frequent reasons to attend an ED. Low back pain (LBP) is responsible for 2.3% of all ED visits resulting in 2.6 million visits each year in the USA (Friedman et al Spine 2010). We have covered back pain a number of times on the SGEM. SGEM#87: Let Your Back Bone Slide (Paracetamol for Low-Back Pain) SGEM#173: Diazepam Won’t Get Back Pain Down SGEM#240: I Can’t Get No Satisfaction for My Chronic Non-Cancer Pain The SGEM bottom line from SGEM#240 was: There appears to be no long-term analgesics benefits from prescribing opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (nociceptive and neuropathic). However, their use is associated with increased adverse events. The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) has updated their clinical policy on prescribing opioids for adult ED patients. There are no Level A recommendations, one Level B recommendation and multiple Level C recommendations (ACEP June 2020) In adult patients experiencing opioid withdrawal, is emergency department-administered buprenorphine as effective for the management of opioid withdrawal compared with alternative management strategies? Level B Recommendations: When possible, treat opioid withdrawal in the emergency department with buprenorphine or methadone as a more effective option compared with nonopioid-based management strategies such as the combination of α2-adrenergic agonists and antiemetics Many other pharmaceutical treatments besides opioids have been tried to address acute LBP pain with limited success. These include: acetaminophen (Williams et al Lancet 2014), muscle relaxants (Friedman et al JAMA 2015), NSAIDs (Machado et al Ann Rheum Dis 2017), steroids (Balakrishnamoorthy et al Emerg Med J 2014) and benzodiazepines (Friedman et al Ann Emerg Med 2017). Pain outcomes for patients with LBP are generally poor; One week after an ED visit in an unselected LBP population, 70% of patients report persistent back pain–related functional impairment and 69% report continued analgesic use (Friedman et al AEM 2012). There are a number of non-pharmaceutical treatment modalities that have also been tried to treat low back pain. They include: CBT and mindfulness (Cherkin et al JAMA 2016), chiropractic (Paige et al JAMA 2017), physical therapy (Paolucci et al J Pain Research 2018) and acupuncture (Colquhoun and Novella Anesthesia and Analgesia 2013). None of these other treatments has high-quality evidence supporting their use. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended as first-line medication therapy for patients with acute LBP. Acetaminophen is often used for acute LBP, although it is unlikely to be effective when used as monotherapy. Whether or not combining an NSAID with acetaminophen can improve patient outcomes is unknown. Clinical Question: Is the addition of acetaminophen to ibuprofen better than ibuprofen alone in treating ED patients with acute, non-traumatic, non-radicular low back pain? Reference: Friedman et al. Ibuprofen Plus Acetaminophen Versus Ibuprofen Alone for Acute Low Back Pain: An Emergency Department-based Randomized Study. AEM 2020. Population: Adults aged 21 to 69 years who presented to the ED primarily for management of acute non-traumatic, non-radicular, musculoskeletal LBP with Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ)score of >5. The RMDQ is a 24-item questionnaire commonly used to measure LBP and related functional impairment. The scale goes from 0 (no impairment) to 24 (maximum impairment). Exclusions: “non- musculoskeletal etiology of low back, such as urinary tract infection or influenza-like illness; radicular pain, defi

Date: September 28th, 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr.Michelle Cohen (@DocMCohen). She is a rural Family Physician, writer (CBC News, Toronto Star and McLean’s Magazine), Assistant Professor Queens University and the Co-Chair of the Advocacy Committee of Canadian Women in Medicine. Dr. Michell Cohen This is an SGEM Xtra episode based on an article by Dr. Cohen and Dr. Kiran published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ). The article was called Closing the gender pay gap in Canadian medicine. Please listen to the SGEM podcast to hear Dr. Cohen answer five questions and discuss the issue of gender pay inequity. Five Questions about the Gender Pay Gap Is the gender pay gap real? Do women just work less (or less efficiently) than men? What are some of the root causes of the gender pay gap? What can we learn from other jurisdictions? What can be done to close the gender pay gap in Canadian medicine? The CMAJ article fits with the evidence presented at FIX19. It also is consistent with the study published a year ago that showed Ontario female surgeons made 24% less per hour than male surgeons. This pay gap persisted even after adjusting for various factors (Dossa et al JAMA 2019). The Ontario Medical Association (OMA) has published a report called Understanding Gender Pay Gaps Among Ontario Physicians from their Human Resources Committee. It found that male physicians on average bill 15.6% more than female physicians even after controlling for a number of variables. There was a recent study that looked at the 194 countries and the gender of the national leader (Garikipati and Kambhampati 2020). They found that countries led by women were associated with better COVID-outcomes. This is low quality evidence because it is an observational study that is pre-print (not peer reviewed) and we should not over-interpret the results. This association between women leaders and good COVID responses was discussed in a debate about masks back in the spring of this year (SGEM Xtra Masks4All). There was a stronger association between women leaders and good COVID responses than to mandatory universal masking policies. Conclusions to the CMAJ Article “Women continue to be paid less than men in medicine. The gender pay gap exists within every specialty and also between specialties, with physicians in male­dominated specialties receiving higher payments. The gap is not explained by women working less but, rather, relates more to systemic bias in medical school, hiring, pro­motion, clinical care arrangements, mechanisms used to pay physicians and societal structures more broadly. Progress in Canada will require a commitment from medical associations and governments to close the pay gap, starting with transparent reporting of physician payments stratified by gender. We need to go further as a professionto understand how gender, race, disability and other identi­ties intersect to affect gaps in pay and then take action to address these gaps to realize the vision of pay equity for all in medicine.” We need to ensure that everyone gets the emergency care they need, regardless of whether they identify as a man or woman. The emergency department is like a lighthouse. It is the one place in the house of medicine where the light is always on and will treat anyone at any time for anything. The gender inequity discussion does dichotomize things into men and women. This is a false dichotomy. There are people who do not identify as a man or women. Gender is complex and on a spectrum. There is how a person identifies, expresses themselves, the sex assigned at birth, who they are physically attracted to and who they are emotionally attracted to. I would suggest that FBM is just the starting point and we need to take it one step further to Gender-Based Medicine (GBM). The Gender Unicorn is a graphic representation demonstrating the complexity of gender and sexuality. We need to make sure that the house of medicine is not just inclusive and tolerant but accepting and welcoming to everyone regardless of how they identify. The progression, in my opinion, should be from Evidence-Based Medicine (male dominated) to Feminist-Based Medicine (recognizing gender inequity) to Gender-Based Medicine (more inclusive) and ultimately to Humanist-Based Medicine (HBM). There are other inequities in medicine besides just gender. There are problems with race, religion, socioeconomic status, mental health, physical ability, etc. In order to provide patients with the best care, based on the best evidence we need high-quality, clinically relevant research that is inclusive and representative of everyone; remove inequities for those who generate research and provide care at the bedside; and finally, recognize everyone has value and should expect and deserve great care. The SGEM will be back next episode doing a structured critical appraisal of a recent publication. Trying to cut the knowledge translation window down from over ten years to less than one year using the

Date: October 2nd, 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr.Barbra Backus is an emergency physician at the Emergency Department of the Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. She is the creator of the HEART Score and an enthusiastic researcher. Reference: Claiborne Johnston S et al. Ticagrelor and Aspirin or Aspirin Alone in Acute Ischemic Stroke or TIA. NEJM July 2020 Case: A 65-year-old man with a history of well controlled hypertension presents to the emergency department and is diagnosed with a mild stroke (NIHSS score 3). He is a non-smoker, not diabetic and has never had a stroke before. The only medicine he takes is an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor. You are wondering if he should be discharged on just aspirin or aspirin plus another antiplatelet agent like ticagrelor. Background: Acute ischemic strokes are the leading cause of disability in our society and the third most common cause of death. Aspirin has been used to prevent a subsequent stroke in patients who suffered an acute ischemic stroke (AIS) or transient ischemic attack (TIA), which occur in approximately 5-10% of patients in the first few months after their primary event. Trials have shown mixed results with the combination of aspirin with clopidogrel in this population. SGEM#24 reviewed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of aspirin vs. aspirin + clopidogrel in patients with recent symptomatic lacunar infarcts identified by MRI (Benavente et al NEJM 2012). Adding clopidogrel to aspirin did not reduce recurrent strokes but did increase risk of bleed and death. The study was stopped early due to harm and lack of efficacy. An RCT done in China on patients with minor strokes or TIAs who were treated within 24 hours after the onset of symptoms showed that aspirin plus clopidogrel is superior to aspirin alone for reducing the risk of stroke in the first 90 days and does not increase the risk of hemorrhage (Wang et al NEJM 2013). A third RCT assigned patients with minor ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA to ASA alone or the combination of both aspirin and clopidogrel. This trial was also stopped early because of lower risk of major ischemic events but higher risk of major hemorrhage with the combination therapy compared to aspirin alone (Johnston et al NEJM 2018). As an antiplatelet agent that blocks the P2Y12 receptor, clopidogrel requires hepatic conversion to its active form through a pathway that is ineffective in 25% of white and 60% of Asian patients; efficacy is therefore uncertain in these patients (Pan et al Circulation 2017). Ticagrelor is a direct-acting antiplatelet agent that does not depend on metabolic activation. A trial of ticagrelor alone did not show a benefit over aspirin in preventing subsequent cardiovascular events (Johnston et al NEJM 2016). The effect of the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin on prevention of stroke has not been well studied. Clinical Question: Is the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin superior to aspirin alone in reducing the risk of subsequent stroke or death among patients with acute non-cardioembolic cerebral ischemia? Reference:Claiborne Johnston S et al. Ticagrelor and Aspirin or Aspirin Alone in Acute Ischemic Stroke or TIA. NEJM July 2020 Population: Patients 40 years and older who experience a mild-to-moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke (NIHSS score of 5 or less), or high-risk TIA (ABCD2>5) or symptomatic intracranial or extracranial arterial stenosis (>50% lumen narrowing accounting for the TIA) Excluded: Thrombolysis or EVT was planned <24 hours before randomization or if there was planned use of anticoagulation or specific anti-platelet therapy other than ASA. Patients were also not eligible if they had “hypersensitivity to ticagrelor or ASA, a history of atrial fibrillation or ventricular aneurysm or a suspicion of a cardioembolic cause of the TIA or stroke, planned carotid endarterectomy that required discontinuation of the trial medication within 3 days after randomization, a known bleeding diathesis or coagulation disorder, a history of intracerebral hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding within the past 6 months, or major surgery within 30 days before randomization.” Intervention: 30-day regimen of ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (300 to 325 mg on the first day followed by 75 to 100 mg daily). Comparison: 30-day regimen of matching placebo plus aspirin. Outcomes: Primary Outcome: Composite of stroke or death within 30 days. Secondary Outcomes: First subsequent ischemic stroke, incidence of disability within 30 days and adverse events. Authors’ Conclusions: “Among patients with a mild-to-moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke (NIHSS score ≤5) or TIA who were not undergoing intravenous or endovascular thrombolysis, the risk of the composite of stroke or death within 30 days was lower with ticagrelor–aspirin than with aspirin alone, but the incidence of disability did not differ significantly betwee

Date: September 22nd, 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Chris Bond is an emergency medicine physician in Calgary. He is also an avid FOAM supporter/producer through various online outlets including TheSGEM. Reference: Warren et al. Antacid monotherapy is more effective in relieving epigastric pain than in combination with lidocaine. A randomized double-blind clinical trial. AEM Sept 2020. Case: A 34-year-old male presents to the emergency department with burning epigastric pain after eating two hours ago. He says he gets this from time to time but this is the worst it has ever been. He denies chest pain, shortness of breath, fever and vomiting. His vital signs are within normal limits and his abdominal exam reveals mild epigastric and left upper quadrant tenderness with no peritonitis. Pink Lady Cocktail Background: Patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) with epigastric pain are typically treated with an antacid, either alone or combined with other medications. Such medications include viscous lidocaine, an antihistamine, a proton pump inhibitor, or an anticholinergic (1,2). In Canada we often use an antacid plus viscous lidocaine referred to as a “Pink Lady”. This is different than the alcoholic cocktail called a Pink Lady. In the US, combination treatment is often called a “GI Cocktail”. There are mixed results from studies with varying methodological quality looking at acute dyspepsia management in the ED. One single-blind study comparing 30 mL of antacid with or without 15 mL of viscous lidocaine found the addition of lidocaine significantly increased pain relief, decreasing patient pain score by 40 mm compared to 9 mm with antacid monotherapy (3). Another single-blind RCT comparing antacid plus either benzocaine solution or viscous lidocaine found no statistical difference between the two interventions, however, there was no antacid monotherapy group (4). A larger, double-blind RCT of 113 patients compared 30 mL of antacid monotherapy, antacid with 10 mL of an anticholinergic, and antacid with anticholinergic and 10 mL of 2% viscous lidocaine. This study found all treatments had clinical efficacy and there was no statistical difference in pain relief between the three treatment groups. The conclusion from Berman et al was to recommend antacid monotherapy (5). Clinical Question: Is antacid monotherapy more effective in relieving epigastric pain than in combination with lidocaine? Reference: Warren et al. Antacid monotherapy is more effective in relieving epigastric pain than in combination with lidocaine. A randomized double-blind clinical trial. AEM Sept 2020. Population: Adult patients with epigastric pain or dyspepsia presenting to the emergency department. Excluded: Patients unable to consent or under 18 years of age. Intervention: Arm 1 (Viscous): Received 10 mL oral lidocaine 2% viscous gel plus 10 mL antacid (traditional antacid/lidocaine mixture) Comparison: Arm 2 (Solution): Received 10 mL lidocaine 2% solution plus 10 mL antacid Arm 3 (Antacid): Received 20 mL antacid alone Outcome: Primary Outcome: Change in pain scores on 100mm visual analog scale (VAS) at 30 minutes after treatment. Secondary Outcomes: Medication palatability (taste, bitterness, texture, and overall acceptability) using a VAS, change in pain score 60 minutes post administration and adverse events. Dr. Jamie Warren This is an SGEMHOP episode which means we have the lead author on the show, Dr. Jaimee Warren. She is a first-year doctor at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and an aspiring emergency and retrieval physician. She hopes to one day work in rural and extreme environments. Authors’ Conclusions: “A 20 mL dose of antacid alone is no different in analgesic efficacy than a 20 mL mixture of antacid and lidocaine (viscous or solution). Antacid monotherapy was more palatable and acceptable to patients. A change in practice is therefore recommended to cease adding lidocaine to antacid for management of dyspepsia and epigastric pain in the ED.” Quality Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials: The study population included or focused on those in the emergency department. Yes The study participants were adequately randomized. Yes The randomization process was concealed. Yes The participants were analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized. Yes The study participants were recruited consecutively (i.e. no selection bias). No The participants in both groups were similar with respect to prognostic factors. Unsure All participants were unaware of group allocation. No All groups were treated equally except for the intervention. Yes Follow-up was complete (i.e. at least 80% for both groups). Yes All patient-important outcomes were considered. Yes The treatment effect was large enough and precise enough to be clinically significant. Yes Key Results: The trial enrolled 94 patients and 89 could be analyzed (30 viscous, 31 solution and 28 antacid group). The mean age was in the early 40’s, with around 2/3 female and 80% of patients

Date: September 16th, 2020 Guest Skeptics: Dr. Robert Goulden and Dr. Audrey Marcotte are Chief Residents from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine Program at McGill University. Robert’s academic interests include research and evidence-based medicine. Alongside his EM residency, he is doing a PhD in epidemiology. Audrey’s academic interests include trauma and resuscitation. Outside of medicine, Audrey likes to play rugby and run. Reference: Roberts et al. Effects of a high-dose 24-h infusion of tranexamic acid on death and thromboembolic events in patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding (HALT-IT): an international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet 2020 This was an SGEM Journal Club episode recorded live at McGill University Grand Rounds. This was the third time coming to McGill University Department of Emergency Medicine to give Grand Rounds. The first visit was back in 2013 for SGEM#50: Under Pressure - Vasopressin, Steroids and Epinephrine in Cardiac Arrest. The bottom line was this was interesting, but VSE protocol was not ready for routine use. The second visit was SGEM#176: Somebody’s Watching Me – Cardiac Monitoring for Chest Pain. We were trying to answer the question: Do all patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain need to be placed on cardiac monitoring or could some be safely removed? The SGEM Bottom Line was that for some patients presenting with chest pain who are chest pain free and have normal/non-specific ECG findings could potentially be safely removed from cardiac monitoring using the Ottawa CPCM Rule. Five Rules of SGEM-JC Case:A 58-year-old man presents with hypotension, tachycardia, and pallor. He vomits a large amount of bloody emesis and has epigastric discomfort. He is not taking any anti-coagulants. He remains hemodynamically unstable despite initial resuscitation and has another episode of hematemesis in front of you. While waiting for your consultant to answer the phone, you consider treating him with tranexamic acid (TXA), but wonder if it will prevent death from gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Background: We have covered the use of TXA a number of times on the SGEM. TXA is an anti-fibrinolytic agent that inhibits clot breakdown and has demonstrated mixed results in different clinical settings. The CRASH-2 trial showed a 1.5% absolute mortality benefit with TXA in adult trauma patients compared to placebo (SGEM#80). TXA also seems to improve patient-oriented outcomes in epistaxis (SGEM#53 and SGEM#210). However, TXA did not show a statistically significant difference for the primary outcome in post-partum hemorrhage (SGEM#214) WOMAN Trial, hemorrhagic stroke (SGEM#236) or traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (SGEM#270) CRASH-3. A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of eight smaller trials (n=1,701) using TXA in gastrointestinal bleeding suggested a large (40%) risk reduction in all-cause mortality (Bennett et al 2014). However, even a meta-analysis is prone to bias and is only as good as the quality of the included trials. When all participants in the intervention group with missing outcome data were included as treatment failures, or when the analysis was limited to trials with low risk of attrition bias the mortality benefit of TXA disappeared. Clinical Question: Does treatment with TXA reduce the mortality of patients with upper or lower GI bleeds? Reference: Roberts et al. Effects of a high-dose 24-h infusion of tranexamic acid on death and thromboembolic events in patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding (HALT-IT): an international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet 2020 Population: Adult patients (16 years of age or 18 years of age and older depending on country) with significant upper or lower GI bleed. Significant bleed was defined clinically (judged at risk of bleeding to death, hypotension <90 mmHg systolic, tachycardia, signs of shock, needing transfusion, urgent endoscopy or surgery). Exclusion: Any patient whom the clinician felt had a clear indication or clear contraindication for TXA Intervention: Intravenous TXA, 1g loading dose over 10 minutes followed by 3g maintenance over 24 hours Comparison: Matching placebo (Sodium chloride 0.9% IV) Outcome: Primary Outcome: Death due to gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding within five days Secondary Outcomes: Death due to gastrointestinal bleeding within 24h and within 28 days All-cause and cause specific mortality at 28 days Rebleeding within 24h, 5 days, 28 days Surgical or radiological intervention Blood product transfusion Thromboembolic events (deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, myocardial infarction) Seizures and other complications (sepsis, pneumonia, renal and liver failure, cardiac event) Days in intensive care unit Functional status (Katz index of Independence in activities of daily living) Authors’ Conclusions: “We found that tranexamic acid did not reduce death from gastrointestinal bleeding. On the bas

Date: September 11th, 2020 This is an SGEM Xtra episode. I was invited by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) to give a talk at their council meeting on burnout. It was an opportunity to share my journey and give an important message about kindness. I have discussed burnout and wellness a number of times on the SGEM: SGEM#289: I Want a Dog to Relieve My Stress in the Emergency Department SGEM Xtra: CAEP Wellness Week 2019 SGEM Xtra: On the Edge of Burnout SGEM Xtra: Don’t Give Up – The Power of Kindness SGEM#178: Mindfulness – It’s not Better to Burnout than it is to Rust SGEM Xtra: Five Tips to Avoid Emergency Medicine Burnout Burnout vs. Moral Injury The word burnout was coined by Herbert Freudenberger in 1974. He defined it as “a state of fatigue or frustration that resulted from professional relationships that failed to produce the expected rewards”. A distinction between burnout and moral injury was made during the presentation. Moral injury has been defined as: “perpetrating, failing to prevent, bearing witness to, or learning about acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations". This was originally described in soldiers’ responses to their actions during war. Journalist Diane Silver described moral injury in her State News article as “a deep soul wound that pierces a person’s identity, sense of morality, and relationship to society.” The moral injury of physicians is being unable to provide high-quality care they want to provide to their patients. My struggle with Burnout My struggle with burnout included the death of my father (Dr. Ken Milne Sr.) in November of 2018, the sudden death of my "little" brother Scottie (The Moose) in February 2020 and the unexpected death our family dog Moxy (best dog every) this summer. Much of this taking place in the context of the COVID19 global pandemic. All the slides from this CPSO presentation can be downloaded and shared from this link. The CPSO video recorded the presentation and it should be available soon. There are also a number of references for further information on burnout. Shanafelt et al. Changes in Burnout and Satisfaction With Work-Life Balance in Physicians and the General US Working Population Between 2011 and 2014. Mayo Clin Proc 2015 Shanafelt et al. Relationship Between Clerical Burden and Characteristics of the Electronic Environment With Physician Burnout and Professional Satisfaction. Mayo Clin Proc 2016 West et al. Interventions to prevent and reduce physician burnout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2016 Dr. Goldman & BatDoc One of the big lessons I have learned over the last two years is to be kinder. This was taught to me by my kindness mentor Dr. Brian Goldman from CBC show White Coat Black Art. He has published a book called The Power of Kindness: Why Empathy Is Essential in Everyday Life. I had the honour of interviewing Dr. Goldman on an SGEM Xtra. We need to try to be kinder to ourselves, kinder to each other and kinder to each other. In a world where you can be anything, be kind. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario The CPSO has recognized that our health care system is facing pressures and the COVID19 pandemic has made things even worse. The June 2020 eDialogue highlighted five things the college is doing to mitigate this increase in stress. Introduced Alternative Dispute Resolution mech as an option for the handling of low-risk matters Decreased the time to complete a complaint by 47% in 2019, compared to 2018 Promoted connectedness through the quality improvement’s (QI) emphasis on peer interactions Encouraged professionalism to flourish by developing a QI framework that allows physicians to self-direct their learning Redesigned policies that allow physicians to immediately understand and access College expectations Pills that can be hard to swallow - but can help a lot Admitting that you're not okay Asking for help Allowing yourself to feel your emotions Removing toxic people, habits and belief systems Learning to accept change You can listen to the SGEM Podcast on iTunes or GooglePlay to hear more about my journey. Telling my personal burnout story is not to get sympathy or pity. Rather it is to remind you that everyone has a story. Everyone can be fighting a battle you know nothing about. My story is only unique because it is my story, everyone will have their own story, and we all can struggle facing our personal difficulties. While it can feel like we have the weight of the world on our shoulders right now please remember it is OK not to be OK. you do not need to be a super hero. Asking for help is a sign of strength and not a weakness. And don’t panic, this too shall pass.There are a number of resources available if you are struggling with burnout: Physician Health Program ACEM Member Wellbeing ACEP Wellness Section CAEP Resident Wellness EMRA Wellness Committee The SGEM will be back next episode with a critical appraisal of a recent publi

Date: August 27th, 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Malthaner is the Chair/Chief of the Division of Thoracic Surgery, Director of Thoracic Surgery Research and Simulation, and Professor in the Departments of Surgery, Oncology, and Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry and Western University. Rick is also the founder of Western University’s Department of Surgery Journal Club and runs The Skeptik Thoracik Journal Club. Reference: Brown et al. Conservative versus Interventional Treatment for Spontaneous Pneumothorax. NEJM 2020 Case: A 49-year-old healthy male electrician presents to the emergency room with right chest pain and dyspnea. The work-up reveals a diagnosis of a right pneumothorax confirmed by chest x-ray (CXR). What do you do? Background: A patient with a pneumothorax is a common presentation to the emergency department. Pneumothoraxes can be broken down into either primary or secondary. Primary pneumothorax occurs in healthy people. Secondary pneumothoraxes are associated with underlying lung disease. There is considerable heterogeneity in the management of primary spontaneous pneumothoraxes, but the most common treatment is interventional drainage, sometimes progressing to surgical intervention. However, the insertion of a chest tube is often painful and can cause organ injury, bleeding, and infection. An alternative approach is conservative management, with intervention reserved for patients for whom the pneumothorax becomes physiologically significant. I covered in the Skeptik Thoracik Journal Club which can be viewed on YouTube. Clinical Question: Does everyone with a large first-time spontaneous pneumothorax need a chest tube? Reference: Brown et al. Conservative versus Interventional Treatment for Spontaneous Pneumothorax. NEJM 2020 Population: Patients 14 to 50 years of age with a unilateral primary spontaneous pneumothorax of 32% or more on chest radiography according to the Collins method. Exclusion: Previous primary spontaneous pneumothorax on the same side Secondary pneumothorax (defined as occurring in the setting of acute trauma or underlying lung disease including asthma with preventive medications or symptoms in the preceding two years) Coexistent hemothorax Bilateral pneumothorax “Tension’ pneumothorax” (systolic BP <90 mmHg, mean arterial pressure <65 mmHg, or shock index HR/SBP ≥1) Pregnancy at time of enrolment Social circumstances (inadequate support after discharge to re-attend hospital if required or unlikely to present for study follow up) Planned air travel within the following 12 weeks Intervention: A small chest tube (≤12 French) was inserted and attached to an underwater seal, without suction and a CXR was obtained one hour later. If the lung had re-expanded and the underwater drain no longer bubbled, the drain was closed with the use of a three-way stopcock. Four hours later, if the patient’s condition was stable and a repeat CXR showed that the pneumothorax had not recurred, the drain was removed, and the patient was discharged. If the initial drain insertion did not result in resolution on CXR or if the pneumothorax recurred under observation, the stopcock was opened, the underwater seal drainage was recommenced, and the patient was admitted. Subsequent interventions were at the discretion of the attending clinician. Comparison: Patients were observed for a minimum of four hours before a repeat CXR was obtained.After observation, if patients did not receive supplementary oxygen and were walking comfortably, they were discharged with analgesia and written instructions. Interventions were allowed in the conservative-management protocol under five conditions: Clinically significant symptoms persisted despite adequate analgesia; Chest pain or dyspnea prevented mobilization; Patient was unwilling to continue with conservative treatment; Patient’s condition became physiologically unstable (systolic blood pressure of <90 mm Hg, heart rate in beats per minute greater than or equal to systolic blood pressure in millimeters of mercury, respiratory rate of >30 breaths per minute, Spo2 of <90% while the patient was breathing ambient air or a repeat chest radiograph showed an enlarging pneumothorax along with physiological instability. In these situations, subsequent interventions were at the discretion of the attending clinician. Outcome: Primary Outcome: Complete radiographic resolution of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (full lung re-expansion), as determined by the treating physician, within eight weeks after randomization. Secondary Outcomes: Per-protocol analysis of the primary outcome. Time to radiographic resolution. Time to symptom resolution of symptoms. Pneumothorax recurrence 24 hours or later after chest tube removal. Adverse events. Length of stay (LOS) in the hospital in the first eight weeks. Number of invasive procedures. Number of radiologic investigations. Number of days off from work. Chest-tube drainage for equal

Date: September 3rd, 2020 It has been a tough year for all of us with the global pandemic of COVID19. I hope everyone is safe and taking care of themselves both physically and mentally. It is more important than ever during these difficult times to stay socially connected to those we love and care about. You are all leaders in your own way and can set the tone for your community. Lead by example: wash your hands well, practice physical distancing (not social distancing) and be smart about wearing a mask. More than anything else, try to be kinder to each other as we get through this challenging time. We have just finished Season#8 of the SGEM with an episode on the diagnostic accuracy of clinical findings, lab tests and imaging studies for COVID19 (SGEM#299). This was an SGEM Hot off the Press episode in partnership with Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM). We track these special shows and this one got close 2.6 million twitter impressions in one week. It is also now in the top 50 papers every published by AEM according to Altmetrics. This represents some excellent knowledge translation (KT) by addressing awareness. The SGEM continues to grow and has approximately 43,000 subscribers. It has been successful because of people like you who listen every week. I would also like to thank the SGEMHOP Team (Drs. Bond, Heitz and Morgenstern), PaperinaPic producer (Dr. Challen), all the guest skeptics and my best friend Chris Carpenter. The SGEM continues to try and cut KT window down from over ten years to less than one year. It does this by doing a structured critical review of a recent publication and then shares the information using social media. Our ultimate goal is for patients to get the best care based on the best evidence. Scottie (The Moose) Milne As many of you know, 2020 has been additionally difficult for the Milne family with the unexpected death of my little brother Scottie in February. I'm still processing the grief and appreciate all the love and support everyone has provided. We all deal with death in our own way and on our own time schedule. Part of my grieving process was to plant an oak tree for Scott this spring. I know it will grow as big and strong as he did. If you have a sibling, friend, or anyone you care deeply about, I would encourage you to reach out to them today. Let them know how much you love them and appreciate them being part of your life. It may be your last opportunity. It is also ok not to be ok. You do not need to be a super hero. Asking for help is a sign of strength not weakness. I asked for and received help from many of you and it got me through this very painful time. You know who you are and thank you so much. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you SGEMers for everything you do in providing excellent patient care. As a gift, please accept this PDF book of SGEM Season#6. You will find links to all your favourite episodes, PaperinaPic infographics, and Twitter polls. Don't Panic! Dr. Chris Carpenter's chapter on evidence based medicine, Dr. Justin Morgenstern's (First10EM) simplified guide to approaching the literature and Dr. Anthony Crocco's SketchyEBM chapter are all still part of the book. Please feel free to share SGEM Season#6 book via your social media networks (email, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc). If you are looking for the amazing theme music that helps with the KT for each SGEM episode, you can find them on Spotify. Most of the music comes from the 1980's because it is clearly the best musical era. This KT project continues to be part of the free open access to medical education movement (FOAMed). I continue to strongly believe we should share our intellectual capital and efforts with everyone around the world with no paywalls. This information should be for anyone, anywhere and at anytime. The SGEM Season#6 was put together with the help of my niece Rhiannon Milne who just finished her degree in Global Business and Digital Arts from the University of Waterloo. My daughter Sage Milne also helped put the book together and did the cover art that was inspired by the movie the Last Star Fighter. She knows I am just as obsessed with 80's movies as I am with 80's music. Sage is entering third year at Huron University College and is doing a degree in Global Health Studies. Here are links to all six season of the SGEM as PDF books. You can download each season by clicking on the link: Season#1, Season#2, Season#3, Season #4, Season#5 and Season#6 The SGEM Season#9 will be starting soon. We have some exciting things to introduce to try and make the SGEM even better. I might even start making a TikTok video for each episode. Watch your social media feeds for the announcements coming this fall. One last thing. Could you please write a review on iTunes, like the SGEM on Facebook and follow the SGEM on Twitter? Remember to be skeptical of anything you learn, even if you heard it on the Skeptics' Guide to Emergency Me

Date: August 18th, 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Corey Heitz is an emergency physician in Roanoke, Virginia. He is also the CME editor for Academic Emergency Medicine. Reference: Carpenter et al. Diagnosing COVID-19 in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review of Clinical Exam, Labs, Imaging Accuracy and Biases. AEM August 2020 Case: You are working in the emergency department during the COVID-19 outbreak, and you see a patient with oxygen saturations of 75% on room air, a fever, and a cough. Upon review of systems, you learn that she lost her sense of taste about two days ago. Your hospital performs COVID reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) nasal swabs on suspected patients, so you order this test and await the results. Background: In early 2020, a pandemic broke out with origins thought to be in the Wuhan region of China. A novel coronavirus, SARS-Co-V-2, commonly called COVID-19, rapidly spread around the world, overwhelming hospitals and medical systems, causing significant morbidity and mortality. The speed with which the outbreak occurred made identification of cases difficult, as the disease exhibited a variety of symptoms, and testing lagged spread. The US Federal Drug Administration (FDA) allowed for emergency development and use of rt-PCR assays, and dozens of companies released assay kits. Mask4All Debate I consciously have tried to avoid contributing to the COVID-19 information overload. However, I did do a CAEP Town Hall on therapeutics (SGEM Xtra: Be Skeptical) with Dr. Sean Moore and a friendly debate on mandatory universal masking in public with Dr. Joe Vipond (SGEM Xtra: Masks4All). This review discusses the diagnostic accuracy of rt-PCR for COVID-19, as well as signs, symptoms, imaging, and other laboratory tests. Clinical Question: What is the diagnostic accuracy of history, clinical examination, routine labs, rt-PCR, immunology tests and imaging tests for the emergency department diagnosis for COVID19? Reference: Carpenter et al. Diagnosing COVID-19 in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review of Clinical Exam, Labs, Imaging Accuracy and Biases. AEM August 2020 Population: Original research studies describing the frequency of history, physical findings, or diagnostic accuracy of history/physical findings, lab test, or imaging tests for COVID-19 Intervention: None Comparison: None Outcome: Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios) Dr. Chris Carpenter This is an SGEMHOP episode which means we have the lead author on the show. Dr. Chris Carpenter is Professor of Emergency Medicine at Washington University in St. Louis and a member of their Emergency Medicine Research Core. He is a member of the SAEM Board of Directors and the former Chair of the SAEM EBM Interest Group and ACEP Geriatric Section. He is Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Academic Emergency Medicine where he is leading the development of the "Guidelines for Reasonable and Appropriate Emergency Care" (GRACE) project. He is also Associate Editor of Annals of Internal Medicine’s ACP Journal Club and the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, and he serves on the American College of Emergency Physician's (ACEP) Clinical Policy Committee. Dr. Carpenter also wrote the book on diagnostic testing and clinical decision rules. Authors’ Conclusions: “With the exception of fever and disorders of smell/taste, history and physical exam findings are unhelpful to distinguish COVID-19 from other infectious conditions that mimic SARS-CoV-2 like influenza. Routine labs are also non-diagnostic, although lymphopenia is a common finding and other abnormalities may predict severe disease. Although rRT-PCR is the current criterion standard, more inclusive consensus-based criteria will likely emerge because of the high false-negative rate of polymerase chain reaction tests. The role of serology and CT in ED assessments remains undefined.” Quality Checklist for Systematic Review Diagnostic Studies: The diagnostic question is clinically relevant with an established criterion standard. Yes/No The search for studies was detailed and exhaustive. No The methodological quality of primary studies were assessed for common forms of diagnostic research bias. Yes The assessment of studies were reproducible. Yes There was low heterogeneity for estimates of sensitivity or specificity. No 6. The summary diagnostic accuracy is sufficiently precise to improve upon existing clinical decision-making models. No Key Results: The authors screen 1,907 citations and 87 were included in the review. None adhere to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) or the updated reporting framework for history and physical examination. Rt-PCR was used as the criterion standard for many of the studies, but none explored the possibility of false negatives. 1) PRISMA-ScR (Scoping Review): What are the differences between PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and the PRISMA-ScR g

Date: July 20th, 2020 Guest Skeptic: Professor Simon Carley is Creator, Webmaster, owner and Editor in Chief of the St. Emlyn’s blog and podcast. He is Professor of Emergency Medicine at Manchester Metropolitan University and a Consultant in adult and paediatric Emergency Medicine at Manchester Foundation Trust. Dr. Carley is even verified on twitter as @EMManchester. Reference: Carley et al. Evidence-based medicine and COVID-19: what to believe and when to change. BMJ_EMJ July 2020 This is an SGEM Xtra episode. It was great to have one of the giants of the FOAMed world back on the SGEM. The last time Dr. Carely was on was on SGEM#148. The bottom line from that episode on skin glue for peripheral intravenous lines was: "Skin glue does appear to decrease the failure rate of IVs in patients admitted to hospital from the ED at 48 hours. We do not know if this is a good idea for all ED patients and we do not know the true effect size, but for high stakes cannulas that we really want to stay in this intervention should be considered.” This SGEM Xtra is based on a wonderful article by Simon Carley, Daniel Horner, Rick Body, and Kevin Mackway-Jones published in the BMJ-Emergency Medicine Journal. The article was titled: Evidence-based medicine and COVID-19: what to believe and when to change. Simon and I discussed the what inspired him to write this article. It was great that it started with a definition of evidence-based medicine (EBM). They used the one proposed by Dr. David Sackett in 1996: “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients" We gave a shout out to our friends Dr. Justin Morgenstern (First10EM) and Dr. Casey Parker (Broome Doc) on their recent podcast called EBM 2.0 with guest Dr. Senthi. It is important to remember the literature is just one of three pillars of EBM. There are many problems and limitations with medical research. This includes the dreaded p-value (dichotomization), biases (something that systematically moves us away from the "truth"), and the replication crisis. However, the other two pillars of EBM are equally as important. That includes the clinician’s judgment and the patient’s values and preferences. The first section of the article was about knowledge translation (KT) during the COVID19 pandemic. Listeners know the the SGEM is trying to cut the KT window down from over 10 years to less than one year using the power of social media. There is a study that quantify the KT gap being 17 years for 14% of high-quality, clinically relevant information to reach the patient (Morris, Wooding and Grant JRSM 2011). We then went on to talk about the precipitous decisions that are being made during COVID19 and give some examples. This is not a unique situation to a pandemic. There is something called intervention bias. This is the desire by the "medical community to intervene, whether it is with drugs, diagnostic tests, non-invasive procedures, or surgeries, when not intervening would be a reasonable alternative." Dr. Jerome Hoffman The concept of intervention bias reminds me of one of my favourite ideas I learned from the Legend of EM, Dr. Jerry Hoffman, "don’t just do something, stand there". There is a great fantastic article on this idea by Keijzers et al 2018. Many of us have been asked many questions during the pandemic. Some probably have been asked "what would you want if you got COVID19" or "what's the harm in trying" something to treat this terrible new infectious deadly disease? We talked about some of these questions and Simon listed some of the potential harms of just trying without good evidence including: distraction, false hope, suboptimal use of resources, misunderstanding of patient trajectory and loss of equipoise. It is also known that harms are systematically underreported in research studies (Saini et al BMJ 2014). Four Strategies As A Way Forward Ensure that every patient with COVID-19 has the opportunity to enter a clinical trial. Ensure that research delivered during a pandemic is of the highest possible quality. Encourage the use of routinely collected, anonymised data to support epidemiological studies. Design studies for deployment in future pandemics and place them in a ‘hibernated state’ such that the research infrastructure is in place prior to requirement. I suggested one more strategy to arrive at my favourite number five. The fifth strategy would be (not just during global pandemic) to be skeptical and teach critical thinking skills to other clinicians and the public so they are less likely to be fooled by all the poor arguments and information on social media. There is a great quote from the website the Logic of Science about this global pandemic and science. Simon's final thoughts were from the manuscript. The SGEM will be back next episode with a critical appraisal of a recent publication. Trying to cut the

Date: July 13th, 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Justin Morgenstern is an emergency physician and the creator of the excellent #FOAMed project called First10EM.com. He has a great new blog post about increasing diversity in medicine using something called the BSAP approach and an interesting Broome Doc podcast with Dr. Casey Parker called EBM 2.0. Reference: Ebell et al. Accuracy of Signs and Symptoms for the Diagnosis of Community‐acquired Pneumonia: A Meta‐analysis. AEM July 2020 Case: A 67-year-old woman with no previous health problems presents with fever, cough, and myalgias. You are working with a medical student on their very first rotation, and you want to spend some time teaching them about the history and physical exam. However, being an evidence-based medicine enthusiast, you wonder what aspects of the patient’s presentation are going to be truly helpful in making a diagnosis. Background: Depending on the time of year, fever and cough can be one of the most common presentations seen in the emergency department. It is important not to miss pneumonia in the sea of viral illnesses. We have covered various aspects of this issue a number of times on the SGEM: SGEM#287: Difficult to Breathe – It Could Be Pneumonia SGEM#286: Behind the Mask – Does it need to be an N95 mask? SGEM#263: Please Stop, Prescribing – Antibiotics for Viral Acute Respiratory Infections SGEM#216: Pump It Up – Corticosteroids for Patients with Pneumonia Admitted to Hospital SGEM#120: One Thing or Two for Community Acquired Pneumonia? Antibiotic overuse is a significant problem, and ordering chest x-rays (CXR) on everyone is inefficient, expensive, and adds potentially unnecessary risk from radiation. Thus, it is important to know how accurate the history and physical exam is for identifying patients with pneumonia. A prior meta-analysis demonstrated that the combination of normal vital signs and normal lung exam effectively rules out pneumonia (Marchellow eat al JABFM 2019), and that a physician’s overall clinical impression is moderately accurate (Dale et al BrJGP 2019). However, there has not been a meta-analysis looking at the evidence for individual signs and symptoms for pneumonia in the last decade. Clinical Question: What is the accuracy of individual signs and symptoms for diagnosing community acquired pneumonia? Reference: Ebell et al. Accuracy of Signs and Symptoms for the Diagnosis of Community‐acquired Pneumonia: A Meta‐analysis. AEM July 2020 Population: Adolescents and adults presenting with symptoms of respiratory infection or clinically suspected pneumonia in the outpatient setting Intervention: Any clinical sign or symptom (including vital signs) for pneumonia Comparison: Outcome: Radiologically confirmed pneumonia (using CXR as the gold standard) Dr. Mark Ebell This is an SGEMHOP episode which means we have the lead author on the show. Dr. Mark Ebell is a Family Physician and Professor at the University of Georgia in Athens. He is a co-founder of POEMs, editor-in-chief of Essential Evidence, deputy editor of American Family Physician, and co-host of the podcast Primary Care Update and POEM of the Week. Authors’ Conclusions: “While most individual signs and symptoms were unhelpful, selected individual signs and symptoms are of value for diagnosing CAP. Teaching and performing these high value elements of the physical examination should be prioritized, with the goal of better targeting chest radiographs and ultimately antibiotics. Quality Checklist for Systematic Review Diagnostic Studies: The diagnostic question is clinically relevant with an established criterion standard. Unsure. The search for studies was detailed and exhaustive. Yes The methodological quality of primary studies were assessed for common forms of diagnostic research bias. Yes The assessment of studies were reproducible. Yes There was low heterogeneity for estimates of sensitivity or specificity. Yes/No The summary diagnostic accuracy is sufficiently precise to improve upon existing clinical decision-making models. No Key Results: They identified 16 studies that met their inclusion and exclusion criteria. Seven studies were based in the emergency department and nine in a primary care setting. The number of participants ranged from 52 to 2850. The mean age ranged from 32 to 62 years, and between 48% and 60% of the participants were female. A CXR was used as the gold standard in all studies. The risk of bias was assessed as low in 12 studies and moderate in five. The prevalence of pneumonia was 10% in the primary care studies and 20% in emergency department studies. No individual sign or symptom was good enough to independently rule in or rule out pneumonia. The most helpful indicator was “overall clinical impression”, with a positive likelihood ratio of 6.32 (the highest of any finding) (95% CI 3.58-10.5) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.54 (95% CI 0.46-0.64). Although a number of symptoms and signs were associated with pneumonia, the low positive lik

Date: June 30th, 2020 Guest Skeptic: Professor Daniel Fatovich is an emergency physician and clinical researcher based at Royal Perth Hospital, Western Australia. He is Head of the Centre for Clinical Research in Emergency Medicine, Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research; Professor of Emergency Medicine, University of Western Australia; and Director of Research for Royal Perth Hospital. Reference: Alper et al. Thrombolysis with alteplase 3–4.5 hours after acute ischaemic stroke: trial reanalysis adjusted for baseline imbalances. BMJ Evidence Based Medicine 2020 Case: A 65-year-old man arrives from home to the emergency department by EMS with right-sided weakness beginning three hours prior. Advance neuroimaging demonstrates he does not qualify for endovascular clot retrieval. He has an NIHSS score of 11 and no contra-indications for systemic thrombolysis. Background: Thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke has to be one of, if not the most, controversial subjects of my career. The debate dates back to the classic NINDS paper published in the NEJM in 1995. We reviewed that publication with Dr. Anand Swaminathan on SGEM#70. Some people might argue that it’s less relevant now because of endovascular clot retrieval, but it’s a living example of issues with research methodology, critical appraisal, bias, conflicts of interest, etc. These elements are continuously present in medicine – look at all the COVID-19 literature – made worse by the preprint archives of non-peer reviewed papers. Thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke. The Lancet 2012 Truth, thinking and thrombolysis. EMA 2016 Response from Prof. Fatovich to Stroke thrombolysis: Leaving the past, understanding the present and moving forward. EMA 2013 The “Fragility” of Stroke Thrombolysis. TMJ 2020 Believing is seeing: Stroke thrombolysis remains unproven after the third international stroke trial (IST-3). EMA 2012 Don't Just Do Something, Stand There! The Value and Art of Deliberate Clinical Inertia. EMA 2018 Dr. Jerome Hoffman It was Dr. Jerome Hoffman that introduced me to this issue and was a basis of my skepticism. I used to think if the study was published in a high-impact journal it must be true. His mentorship and teaching are why I consider Dr. Hoffman a legend of emergency medicine. We have covered the issue of thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke a number of times on the SGEM. I have also published a review on the topic of thrombolytics for stroke beyond three hours (Carpenter et al JEM 2011). More recently, I published a pro/con debate on the subject with Dr. Eddy Lange looking at the evidence (Milne et al CJEM 2020). SGEM#29: Stroke Me, Stroke Me SGEM Xtra: Walk of Life SGEM Xtra: No Retreat, No Surrender SGEM#269: Pre-Hospital Nitroglycerin for Acute Stroke Patients? SGEM#290: Neurologist Led Stroke Teams – Working 9 to 5 There has been a lot of skepticism around thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke since the beginning. A reanalysis of the NINDS data by Dr. Hoffman and Dr. Schriger was published in Annals of Emergency Medicine in 2009. At least one other reanalysis has questioned the 2009 reanalysis (Saver et al Ann Emerg Med 2010). Thus, there is a degree of uncertainty in the NINDS-II results. The major takeaway from this reanalysis was that the baseline imbalance in stroke severity led to the difference in outcomes. If tPA really works, we should see a bigger change in the NIHSS score in the tPA group vs. the placebo group. Yet the difference was 0.0. People can forget that a clinical trial has internal validity if and only if the imbalance between groups, bias in the assessment of outcome, and chance, have been excluded as possible explanations for the difference in outcomes. Baseline imbalance is a recurring theme. So, replication studies are hugely important. It was the NINDS trial that changed guidelines and practices to provide thrombolysis in patients with stroke symptoms less than three hours after onset. This despite the multiple other trials that did not show efficacy and reported an increase in harm (bleeding). The increase in adverse events prompting some to be stopped early (SGEM Xtra:Thrombolysis for Acute Stroke). The only other randomized control trial claiming benefit for the primary outcome was ECASS III (Hacke et al NEJM 2008). ECASS I and II did not show a benefit with thrombolysis. ECASS III reported a 7% absolute benefit of improved mRS at 90 days compared to placebo, 9% increase in intracranial hemorrhage, 2% increase in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and no significant difference in mortality. The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) is the largest organization of EM physicians in the world. ACEP has a clinical policy statement on the issue (Brown et al AEM 2015). They looked at the <3 hour time frame and the 3-4.5 hour time frame. ACEP made no level “A” recommendations but did make level B and C recommendations. Is IV tPA safe and effective for patients with acute ischemic stroke if gi

Date: June 27th, 2020 I had the pleasure of presenting at the Northern Constellation Faculty Development Conference 2020 on May 8th. This was the 9th annual conference put on by the Northern School of Medicine (NOSM). Dr. Sarah McIsaac was kind enough to invite me to present at the Northern Constellation Conference. She is an anesthesiologist/intensivist at Health Sciences North, Assistant Professor and Medical Director of Faculty Development for NOSM. This presentation is available to watch on the SGEM YouTube Channel or listened to on the SGEM podcast. All of the slides can also be downloaded from this link. I was asked to give a presentation about evidence-based medicine (EBM), critical appraisal and relate it back to COVID. Certainly there has been a lot of information coming out on the topic and it can seem like you are drinking from a fire hose at times. The presentation was broken down into three parts: Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), critical appraisal and the Peltzman Effect (risk compensation): Part I: Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) It is always good to define terms at the beginning of any discussion. I used the original definition of EBM given by Dr. David Sackett: “The conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.” (Sackett et al BMJ 1996) There are three pillars to EBM than can be represented in a Venn diagram. People often make the mistake of thinking that EBM is just about the scientific literature. This is not true. The evidence informs and guides our care but it does not dictate our care. EBM also needs your clinical judgement based on your experience. We also need to engage with patients and ask them about their preferences and values. These three components make up EBM: The literature, our judgement and the patients values. There is a hierarchy to the evidence and we want to use the best evidence so patients get the best care. The hierarch is usually described as a pyramid with the lowest form of evidence being expert opinion and the highest level being a systematic review. This is an over simplification of the levels of evidence. A good randomized control trial (RCT) can be more informative than a systematic review (SR) that only includes low quality study (GIGO - garbage in, garbage out). There are arguments against EBM and it does have limitations. One that is often pointed out is that it would be unethical to do an RCT on harm. The 2003 Smith and Pell parachute trial is usually pointed to as an example (BMJ 2003). This could be considered a straw man argument because most medical practices are not parachutes (Hayes et al CMAJ 2018). In addition, a randomized control trial has been done assessing the efficacy of parachutes to prevent gravitationally related morbidity and mortality and was reviewed on SGEM#284. Five alternatives to EBM were discussed (Adapted from Isaacs and Fitzgerald BMJ 1999) : Eminence-Based Medicine (EmBM): The more senior the colleague, the less importance he or she placed on the need for anything as mundane as evidence. Experience, it seems, is worth any amount of evidence. These colleagues have a touching faith in clinical experience, which has been defined as ‘‘making the same mistakes with increasing confidence over an impressive number of years.” The eminent physician’s white hair and balding pate are called the “halo” effect. Vehemence-Based Medicine (VBM): The substitution of volume for evidence is an effective technique for brow beating your more timorous colleagues and for convincing relatives of your ability. Eloquence-Based Medicine (ElBM): The year round suntan, silk tie, Armani suit, and tongue should all be equally smooth. Sartorial elegance and verbal eloquence are powerful substitutes for evidence. Nervousness-Based Medicine (NBM): Fear of litigation is a powerful stimulus to over investigation and over treatment. This may be a greater factor in the US while in Canada it might be more of being shamed or reported to the College. In an atmosphere of litigation/shame phobia, the only bad test is the test you didn’t think of ordering. Confidence-Based Medicine (CBM): This is restricted to surgeons. EBM is like democracy, it is the worst form of medicine except all the others that have been tried. Part II: Five Steps of Critical Appraisal Step 1: Use a PICO (population, intervention, comparison/control and outcome) to formulate the clinical question you are trying to answer Step 2: Search for the best evidence (try the TRIP Database) Step 3: Find the least bias evidence (bias is something that systematically moves us away from the “truth” not just noise in the data) Step 4: Critically appraise the literature using a quality check list (SGEM Make it So) Step 5: Decide if it is practice changing (consider the number needed to treat for benefit [NNTB] and the number needed to treat for harm [NNTH]) Then once you have done all that you can discuss it with the patient in front of y

Date: June 14th, 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Dennis Ren is a Pediatric Emergency Medicine fellow at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC. Reference: Kuppermann et al. A Clinical Prediction Rule to Identify Febrile Infants 60 Days and Younger at Low Risk for Serious Bacterial Infections. JAMA Pediatr. 2019. Case: A 5-week-old full term female presents to the Emergency Department (ED) for fever with rectal temp of 100.6F (38.1C). Her mother states that she has been fussier today. She also seems “congested” and is not feeding as well. She continues to have the usual number of wet diapers. The mother is worried about her sick baby. She wants to know if they will need a spinal tap, be placed on antibiotics or will need to be admitted to the hospital? Background: Fever without source in infants less than three months old represents a significant diagnostic dilemma for clinicians. Several criteria have been developed previously, including the Rochester (Jaskiewicz et al 1994), Boston (Baskin et al 1992) and Philadelphia (Baker et al 1993) criteria to help clinicians stratify the risk of serious bacterial infections (SBI). Febrile infants commonly present to the emergency department. It is estimated 8-13% may have SBI that may include urinary tract infections, bacteremia, and bacterial meningitis. It is difficult to identify which infants have SBI by clinical examination alone. There are serious consequences from missed SBI. Workup for SBI may include lumbar puncture, antibiotics, and hospitalization. These criteria (Rochester, Boston and Philadelphia) could be considered out of date in our current era of vaccinations. We covered a new protocol called the Step-by-Step approach on SGEM#171. The “Step-by-Step”rule combined both clinical factors and laboratory factors in febrile infants aged 22 to 90 days. It had a sensitivity of 98.9% to detect all SBIs. The SGEM Bottom Line #171: “If you have availability of serum procalcitonin measurement in a clinically-relevant time frame, the Step-by-Step approach to fever without source in infants 90 days old or younger is better than using the Rochester criteria or Lab-score methods. With the caveat that you should be careful with infants between 22-28 days old or those who present within two hours of fever onset.” It is important to balance the consequences of missing an SBI with performing unnecessary procedures (lumbar punctures), exposing infants to antibiotics, and prolonging hospital stay. The new study proposes a novel way of identifying low risk febrile infants 29-60 days based on three objective lab criteria. Clinical Question: Can a clinical prediction rule (tool) using laboratory data identify febrile infants under 60 days of age who are at low risk for serious bacterial infection (urinary tract infection, bacteremia, and bacterial meningitis) and reduce unnecessary lumbar punctures, antibiotic exposure, and hospitalization? Reference: Kuppermann et al. A Clinical Prediction Rule to Identify Febrile Infants 60 Days and Younger at Low Risk for Serious Bacterial Infections. JAMA Pediatr. 2019. Population: Febrile infants <60 days of age who look good and whose blood cultures were obtained to rule out SBI (fever was a rectal temperature of at least 38C) Excluded: Infants who looked critically ill, had antibiotics in the previous 48 hours, history of prematurity (≤36 weeks’ gestation), pre-existing medical conditions, indwelling devices or soft tissue infections. Intervention: Derivation and validation of accurate clinical prediction rule (tool) for infants at low risk of SBI using a negative urinalysis, ANC <4,090/uL, and procalcitonin 1.71 ng/ml or less Comparison: Pre-existing algorithms combining subjective clinical findings and lab markers Outcome: Accuracy of the prediction rule to identify infants at low risk for SBI (sensitivity, specificity, negative prediction value and negative likelihood ratio). SBI was defined as bacterial meningitis, bacteremia or UTI. UTI was defined as growth of a single urine pathogen with at least 1,000 cfu/ml on culture obtained by suprapubic aspiration, at least 50,000 cfu/ml from catheterized specimens or 10,000-50,000 cfu/ml from catheterized specimens in association with an abnormal urinalysis (presences of leukocytes esterase, nitrite or pyuria). Authors’ Conclusions:“We derived and validated an accurate prediction rule to identify febrile infants 60 days and younger at low risk for SBIs using the urinalysis, ANC, and procalcitonin levels. Once further validated on an independent cohort, clinical application of the rule has the potential to decrease unnecessary lumbar punctures, antibiotic administration, and hospitalizations.” Quality Checklist for Clinical Decision Tools: The study population included or focused on those in the ED. Yes The patients were representative of those with the problem. Yes All important predictor variables and outcomes were explicitly specified. Yes This is a prospective, multicenter study

Date: June 9th, 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Chris Bond is an Emergency Medicine Physician and Assistant Professor at the University of Calgary. He is also an avid FOAM supporter/producer through various online outlets including TheSGEM. Reference: Westafer et al. Provider Perspectives on the Use of Evidence-based Risk Stratification Tools in the Evaluation of Pulmonary Embolism: A Qualitative Study. AEM June 2020. Case: A 63-year-old female presents to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain for the past eight hours. It is pleuritic, worse with certain movements and associated with some shortness of breath. Her vital signs are within normal limits and oxygen saturation is 95% on room air. An ECG, chest x-ray and troponin are all within normal limits and she has no calf swelling or tenderness. She does have a previous history of DVT/PE 12 years ago after returning from a transatlantic flight. She has also been doing more work around the house and lifting the past few weeks because of COVID and has some mild chest wall tenderness on palpation. The remainder of her Wells’ criteria are unremarkable. How do you proceed in evaluating this patient for pulmonary embolism (PE)? Background: Pulmonary embolism is a common ED diagnosis with an estimated 1-2% of all patients presenting to United States EDs undergoing CT for suspected PE (1). However, less than 10% of these scans show PE (2-4). We have covered the topic of PE frequently on the SGEM. SGEM#51: Home (Discharging Patients with Acute Pulmonary Emboli Home from the Emergency Department) SGEM#118: I Hope you Had a Negative D-dimer (ADJUST PE Study) SGEM#126: Take me to the Rivaroxaban – Outpatient treatment of VTE SGEM#163: Shuffle off to Buffalo to Talk Thrombolysis for Acute Pulmonary Embolism SGEM#219: Shout, Shout, PERC Rule Them Out SGEM#277: In the Pregnant YEARS – Diagnosing Pulmonary Embolism SGEM#282: It’s All ‘bout that Bayes, ‘Bout that Bayes- No Trouble – In Diagnosing Pulmonary Embolism There are multiple validated risk stratification tools to evaluate for PE and reduce inappropriate testing, including the Pulmonary Embolism Rule Out Criteria (PERC), Wells’score, YEARS algorithm and D-Dimer testing (5-7). There have also been more recent adjustments to D-Dimer threshold based on clinical probability as calculated by a trichotomized Wells score (8). Unfortunately, clinician uptake of these validated tools has been incomplete, with some ED studies finding 25% of patients who warranted no laboratory or imaging studies still received testing (4, 9-12.) Low-value testing increases costs, ED length of stay and subjects patients to unnecessary ionizing radiation and risk of anaphylaxis from intravenous contrast dye (13-14). Moreover, false positives CT scans are common and estimated to be between 10-26%, resulting in unnecessary anti-coagulation and risk to patients (15-17). This can ultimately lead to over-testing, over-diagnosing and over-treating. The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) started the project called Choosing Wisely to try and mitigate this problem. The SGEM looked at this imitative on an SGEM Xtra. The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) is part of the Choosing Wisely program and has a number of recommendations. One of the recommendations is on CT scans for ruling out PE. They have encouraged physicians to” “Avoid CT pulmonary angiography in emergency department patients with a low-pretest probability of pulmonary embolism and either a negative Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria (PERC) or a negative D-dimer.” ACEP 2014 The Right Care Alliance (RCA) was established in 2015. Certainly, patients at times need less care but they also at times need more care. This group’s goal is to advocate for the goldilocks zone of care, not too much but also not too little (SGEM Xtra). Clinical Question: What are the barriers and facilitators to the uptake of evidence-based practice in the ED evaluation for pulmonary embolism? Reference: Westafer et al. Provider Perspectives on the Use of Evidence-based Risk Stratification Tools in the Evaluation of Pulmonary Embolism: A Qualitative Study. AEM June 2020. Dr. Lauren Westafer As this is a qualitative study, we will use a modified PICO question Population: Emergency physicians Interest: The use of evidence-based risk stratification tools Context: The evaluation of acute pulmonary embolism This is an SGEMHOP episode and we have the lead author of this quantitative study, Dr. Lauren Westafer. Lauren is an emergency medicine physician practicing in Massachusetts, and avid FOAM producer. Authors’ Conclusions: “Our findings suggest that common barriers exist to the use of risk stratification tools in the evaluation of pulmonary embolism in the ED and provide insight into where to focus efforts for future implementation endeavors. Overall, provider-level factors such as risk avoidance and lack of knowledge of the tools dominated as barriers, while inner-setting factors were identified as faci

Date: June 2nd, 2020 Reference: Permpikul et al. Early Use of Norepinephrine in Septic Shock Resuscitation (CENSER): A Randomized Trial. Respir Crit Care Med 2019. Guest Skeptic: Dr. Max Hockstein trained as an Emergency Medicine physician at University of Texas Southwestern and is finishing his Intensive Care fellowship at Emory. Max is then going to Georgetown to be an attending in both EM and ICU. Case: It’s another day in your emergency department (ED). Six hours into your shift, you finish dispo’ing the “really quick sign-out” from the night before. The triage nurse places a 61 year-old-man with fever, hypotension, cough into the smallest room in the ED. You scan through the EMR and see the blood pressure is 60/40. Being an astute emergency physician, you surmise that this value is one number column short of normal. It’s uncomfortably low – is it time to start a norepinephrine infusion? Background: I think we have covered sepsis more often than any other topic on the SGEM. It was the landmark paper published 19 years ago by Dr. Emanuel Rivers on early goal directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock that sensitized the medical community (Rivers et al NEJM 2001). SGEM#44: Pause (Etomidate and Rapid Sequence Intubation in Sepsis) SGEM#69: Cry Me A River (Early Goal Directed Therapy) ProCESS Trial SGEM#90: Hunting High and Low (Best MAP for Sepsis Patients) SGEM#92: ARISE Up, ARISE Up (EGDT vs. Usual Care for Sepsis) SGEM#113: EGDT – ProMISe(s) ProMISe(s) SGEM#174: Don’t Believe the Hype – Vitamin C Cocktail for Sepsis SGEM#207: Ahh (Don’t) Push It – Pre-Hospital IV Antibiotics for Sepsis. One of the goals of the early treatment of septic shock is to restore end-organ perfusion. Significant effort has been placed on the administration of IV crystalloids to address concerns for hypovolemia in septic shock. However, it has become evident that patients are often over-resuscitated with IV fluids which adversely impacts outcome. As such, the idea of the early norepinephrine administration to restore end-organ perfusion in septic shock has been suggested. Monitor-Oriented Outcomes (MOOs) Trials that examine outcomes in shock, historically, have examined two types of outcomes: patient-oriented outcomes (POOs) and monitor-oriented outcomes (MOOs). POOs focus on occurrences that matter to patients while MOOs do not. Many trials examining vasoactive infusions use MOOs as an endpoint(s) targeted to the medication’s intended use (i.e. increase in MAP). Much like titrating a therapy to an outcome, MOOs are frequently easier to monitor (ex: blood pressure, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, oxygen saturation, etc). An old adage in resuscitating the hypotensive patient “first, fill the tank” has gone largely unchallenged over the past several years. Oddly enough, however, shortening the duration of shock time-to-shock-resolution hasn’t translated to any measurably better outcomes. Clinical Question: Does starting norepinephrine earlier in septic shock lead to earlier shock control? Reference: Permpikul et al.Early Use of Norepinephrine in Septic Shock Resuscitation (CENSER): A Randomized Trial. Respir Crit Care Med 2019. Population: Adult patients (18 year of age and older) presenting to the ED with a mean arterial pressure (MAP) < 65 mmHg. Infection needed to be the suspected cause of the hypotension. Patients also had to meet 2012 surviving sepsis diagnostic criteria. Exclusions: Acute cardiac and cerebral conditions, pulmonary edema, status asthmaticus, gastrointestinal bleeding, pregnancy, burn, drug overdose, trauma, need immediate surgery and cancer. Intervention: Early norepinephrine adjusted to 0.05ug/kg/min for 24hrs plus usual care Comparison: Placebo plus usual care (intravenous fluids, appropriate antibiotics, source control and organ support as directed by the attending physician) Outcome: Primary Outcome: Shock control (sustained MAP > 65mmHg) by six hours after diagnosis of sepsis with hypotension together with adequate tissue perfusion (urine flow >0.5ml/kg/h for two consecutive hours or a decrease in serum lactate by > 10% from the initial lactate level). Secondary Outcomes: 28-day mortality and hospital mortality, time from initial treatment to achieving target MAP and tissue perfusion goal (and within six hours), urine output within six hours, rate of respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilator support, rate of renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy, lactate clearance, and number of organ support-free days to day 28 were also recorded. Authors’ Conclusions: “Early norepinephrine was significantly associated with increased shock control by 6 hours. Further studies are needed before this approach is introduced in clinical resuscitation practice.” Quality Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials: The study population included or focused on those in the emergency department. Yes The patients were adequately randomized. Yes The randomization process w

Date: May 29th, 2020 Reference: Erramouspe et al. Mortality and Complication Rates in Adult Trauma Patients Receiving Tranexamic Acid: A Single-center Experience in the Post–CRASH-2 Era. AEM May 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Corey Heitz is an emergency physician in Roanoke, Virginia. He is also the CME editor for Academic Emergency Medicine. Case: A 44-year-old male presents to your level 1 trauma center by EMS after a motor vehicle collision. He is hypotensive and tachycardic. You suspect abdomen and pelvic trauma and calculate his injury severity score (ISS) to be 22. Your hospital protocol is to give tranexamic acid (TXA) 1g IV over 10 minutes followed by a 1g infusion over eight hours. You wonder what his over-all chance of dying or developing a thromboembolic event when treated with TXA. Background: TXA is synthetic derivative of lysine that controls bleeding by inhibiting fibrinolysis and thus stabilizing clots that are formed. We have covered TXA as a treatment modality a number of times on the SGEM. The evidence for TXA providing a patient-oriented outcome (POO) has been mixed. It seems to work for epistaxis (SGEM#53 and SGEM#210), failed to demonstrate a decrease in all-cause mortality in post-partum hemorrhage (SGEM#214), and did not result in an improved neurologic outcome in hemorrhagic strokes (SGEM#236). REBEL EM has looked at using TXA for those conditions plus a few others (we will include a table in the show notes). It is unclear if it provides a benefit for gastrointestinal bleeds (GIB). Nebulized TXA shows promise for both post-tonsillectomy bleeding and hemoptysis. However, better studies are needed to confirm these observations. Dr. Anand Swaminathan and I covered the classic CRASH-2 Trial (SGEM#80). This study published in 2010 showed an absolute mortality reduction of 1.5% in adult trauma patients giving a number needed to treat to prevent one death of 67 (Shakur et al. Lancet 2010) CRASH-3 was a well-designed, large, multi-centred randomized placebo controlled trial published in October 2019 (The Lancet). It asked if TXA had a mortality benefit in patients with isolated head trauma (SGEM#270)? While there was a suggestion of benefit in a secondary subgroup analysis, the primary outcome demonstrated no statistical difference in head-injury related mortality with TXA compared to placebo (18.5% TXA vs. 19.8% placebo, RR 0.94 [95% CI 0.86 to 1.02]). One of the limitations to both CRASH-2 and CRASH-3 was the external validity. The majority of sites involved were in middle to low income countries. CRASH-3 had one Canadian site and the USA had no participating centres. Transfusion practices and identification of adverse events may differ in developing countries compared to the USA. Clinical Question: What is the mortality and thromboembolic events in adult trauma patients receiving TXA an American Level 1 Trauma Center? Reference: Erramouspe et al. Mortality and Complication Rates in Adult Trauma Patients Receiving Tranexamic Acid: A Single-center Experience in the Post–CRASH-2 Era. AEM May 2020 Population: Adults (18 years or older) who received TXA after an acute traumatic injury Excluded: Patients who received oral TXA, received it for elective surgery or nontrauma indications, received TXA 8 hours or longer after the injury, and patients with cardiac arrest at time of ED arrival. Intervention: TXA 1g IV over 10 minutes and maintenance infusion of 1g IV over 8 hours Comparison: None Outcome: Primary Outcome: In-hospital mortality Safety Outcome: Thromboembolic event within 28 day Dr. Erramousepe This is an SGEMHOP episode and we are pleased to have both the lead author and senior author on the episode. Dr. Joaquin Erramouspe is a medical doctor, who finished medical school in Uruguay, moved to the USA for further training and research, and now, is working as a researcher at Queensland University of Technology while obtaining his masters in science. Dr. Daniel Nishijima Dr. Daniel Nishijima is an emergency medicine physician at University of California Davis. His research focus is on trauma and neurological emergencies, particularly those with coagulation disorders. Authors’ Conclusions: “Adult trauma patients receiving TXA had similar incidences of death but higher incidences of thromboembolic events compared to the CRASH-2 trial. Variation in patient characteristics, injury severity, TXA dosing, and surgery and transfusion rates could explain these observed differences. Further research is necessary to provide additional insight into the incidence and risk factors of thromboembolic events in TXA use.” Quality Checklist for Observational Study: 1. Did the study address a clearly focused issue? Yes 2. Did the authors use an appropriate method to answer their question? Yes 3. Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way? Yes 4. Was the exposure accurately measured to minimize bias? Yes 5. Was the outcome accurately measured to minimize bias? Yes 6. Have the authors identified all-important conf

Date: May 19th, 2020 Reference: Yang P et al. Endovascular thrombectomy with or without intravenous alteplase in acute stroke. NJEM 2020. Guest Skeptic: Dr. Anand Swaminathan is an Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine at St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center in Paterson, NJ. Managing editor of EM:RAP and Associate Editor at REBEL EM. Case: A 53-year-old previously healthy man presents with 1.5 hours of right sided weakness as well as slurred speech. A rapid bedside assessment gives you a National Institute of Health Stroke Score/Scale (NIHSS) of 9 and you are concerned about a large vessel occlusion (LVO) based on the high NIHSS as well as the presence of both an upper extremity drift and the speech abnormality. A non-contrast CT shows no evidence of intracranial hemorrhage. A CT angiogram plus CT perfusion demonstrate a clot in the left proximal middle cerebral artery (MCA) with a small infarcted area and a large penumbra. Based on your institution’s current guidelines, the patient is a candidate for endovascular therapy, but they are also within the current window for the administration of alteplase. You wonder if you should give the alteplase while waiting for your neurointerventional team? Background: The issue of thrombolytics for stroke has been debated since at least 1995. This is the year that the famous NINDS trial was published. We cover this as an SGEM classic that all EM physicians should know about on SGEM#70. Our bottom line was that we were skeptical thrombolysis has a net patient-oriented benefit for acute ischemic strokes. We have covered this issue of thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke a number of times on the SGEM SGEM#29: Stroke Me, Stroke Me SGEM Xtra:Thrombolysis for Acute Stroke SGEM#290: Neurologist Led Stroke Teams – Working 9 to 5 You also had the Legend of Emergency Medicine, Dr. Jerome Hoffman on to reflect upon the last 25 years and the thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke debate (No Retreat, No Surrender) I also invited my EBM friend, Dr. Eddy Lang onto the SGEM to discuss his perspective on the issue (SGEM Xtra). This led to a pro/con publication in the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine (CJEM) tPA should be the initial treatment in eligible patients presenting with an acute ischemic stroke (Milne et al CJEM April 2020). The publication of the MR CLEAN trial in January 2015 changed the face of ischemic stroke care. This was the first study demonstrating a benefit to endovascular treatment of a specific subset of ischemic stroke patients: those with LVOpresenting within sixhours of symptom onset. MR CLEAN was followed by a flurry of publications seeking to replicate and refine treatment as well as expand the window for treatment. The REBEL EM team reviewed this literature back in 2018 and, with the help of Dr. Evie Marcolini, created the below workflow: One major component of LVO management is the use of systemic thrombolytics in patients presenting within the current thrombolytic treatment window prior to endovascular intervention. However, it’s unclear if systemic thrombolytic administration results in better outcomes or if it simply exposes the patient to increased risks at a higher cost. Limited evidence questions the utility of the current approach with thrombolytics plus endovascular therapy (Phan 2017, Rai 2018). There is a clear need for further research into systemic thrombolytics dosing and use. Clinical Question: Is endovascular therapy alone non-inferior to endovascular therapy plus systemic thrombolytics in the treatment of patients with large vessel occlusion strokes presenting within 4.5 hours of onset? Reference: Yang P et al. Endovascular thrombectomy with or without intravenous alteplase in acute stroke. NJEM 2020. Population: Adult patients (18 years of age or older) presenting within 4.5 hours of ischemic stroke symptom onset and with cerebral vascular occlusion on CT angiography of the intracranial internal carotid artery or middle cerebral artery (first and/or second segments) and an NIHSS > 1 and if endovascular thrombectomy was intended to be performed. Exclusions: Disability from a previous stroke or contraindication to IV alteplase and any contra-indication for thrombolysis according to American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines. Intervention: Endovascular thrombectomy alone Comparison: Endovascular thrombectomy + systemic alteplase 0.9 mg/kg Outcomes: Primary Outcome: Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score assessed at 90 days after randomization looking for non-inferiority (defined as a lower end of the odds ratio > 0.80) Secondary Outcomes: Death from any cause at 90 days, successful reperfusion before thrombectomy, recanalization at 24-72 hours (assessed by CTA), NIHSS score at 24 hours, and 5-7 days, final lesion volume on CT and mRS comparisons Safety Outcomes: All hemorrhages and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhages according to the Heidelberg criteria, occurrence of pseudoaneurysm and groin hematoma at the site of arterial punctu

Date: May 18th, 2020 I was asked to participate in a debate regarding the issue of Masks4All in Canada by the people involved in the COVID Information for Canadian Physicians Facebook group. This is a private group ~22,000 physicians, residents, students and nurse practitioners from around the world. Dr. Joe Vipond I was reluctant to participate but was convinced after having a good conversation with the organizers and Dr. Vipond. They assured me it would be respectful, focus on the evidence and be an educational experience for the audience. These are stressful times and we all want the best recommendation for patients, based on the best evidence to ensure community well-being. Arguing for the affirmative position was Dr. Joe Vipond. He is an emergency physician at the Rockyview General Hospital and a clinical assistant professor at the University of Calgary. He has generously made available his notes from the debate that include links to more information. I argued against the resolution. This does not mean I am against wearing a cloth mask in public. Those who know my not so secret identity (BatDoc) know that I am often seen in public wearing a mask. This is not the type of mask Dr. Vipond and I were debating. We were not talking about wearing medical masks, surgical masks, N95 masks or respirators by healthcare providers on the front lines of COVID19. The debate also did not include symptomatic people or those caring for high-risk people. We were only debating the issue of universal cloth Masks4All in public. To be very clear, I am not anti-mask wearing in public. My position is "it all depends" as taught by my evidence-based medicine (EBM) mentor Dr. Andrew Worster from BEEM. I am just not in favour of a mandatory universal Masks4All in public in Canada. You can watch the Mask4All debate on YouTube. Resolution: Be it resolved that a mandatory universal mask for all to prevent transmission of COVID19 be recommended for Canadians. Dr. Kashif Pirzada We were each given four minutes for an opening statement, three minutes for a rebuttal, four more minutes for a second affirmative statement and finished with three minutes for another rebuttal and closing statement. We had two moderators for this debate. Dr. Kashif Pirzada is an emergency physician in Toronto with an interest in startups and innovation. He is also a co-founder of Conquer-Covid19, a charity that sources personal protection equipment for frontline health workers. Dr. Jennifer Kwan Dr. Jennifer Kwan is a family physician in Burlington, Ontario. She is known for COVID19 data visualizations on Twitter (@jkwan_md) along with the HowsMyFlattening team, and is an advocate for #Masks4Canada and personal protection equipment donations with Halton Regional Chinese Canadian Association. I am not against wearing a cloth mask in public. My position is that I am not convinced that a mandatory Masks4All in public by people that are practicing physical distancing will prevent transmission of clinical disease (COVID19). This is an important distinction. Dr. Samir Grover Questions on the Facebook feed were moderated by Dr. Samir Grover. He is an associate professor and program director for gastroenterology at the University of Toronto. Kashif and Samir have a podcast about COVID-19 called "The Medicine Club" which can be accessed on Twitter @TheMedClubTO It is important in any discussion to be clear on the terms being used. Mandatory: Required by a law or rule : OBLIGATORY. Universal: Including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributivity without limit or exception. Public: All public places (not to private places) Clinical Disease: There is a difference between a DOO (Disease Oriented Outcome- detection of COVID19 RNA) and a POO (Patient-Oriented Outcome - clinical disease). As a clinician, I am more interested in POOs and less interested in DOOs. Epistemology: The study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity I want to accept positions for good reasons not because it is someone’s opinion. Just because someone is a gifted clinician and an excellent advocate for the environment does not mean they are an expert in clinical epidemiology, biostatistics and critical appraisal. This brings up the possibility of a Dunning-Kruger Effect. Here is a link to a great video made by Dr. Rohin Francis (@MedLifeCrisis). It is a satirical ad for Dunning-Kruger Alcohol and uses humour as a COVID19 coping strategy. “The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific area. This tends to occur because a lack of self-awareness prevents them from accurately assessing their skills.” My credentials included 37 years of medical research, Senior Editor of Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM), advance training in clinical epidemiology, biostatistics and critical appraisal. I teach these skills and cognitive bias and logical

Date: May 9th, 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Sean Moore is an Assistant Professor at the Northern Ontario School of Medicine (NOSM), Chief of Emergency Services at Lake of the Woods Hospital in Kenora, Medical director with Ornge, and Associate Medical Director with CritiCall Ontario. CAEP Town Hall We had the pleasure of presenting for the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) COVID-19 Town Hall this week. CAEP is the national voice of emergency medicine (EM) in Canada and provides continuing medical education, advocates on behalf of emergency physicians and their patients, supports research and strengthens the EM community. In co-operation with other specialties and committees, CAEP also plays a vital role in the development of national standards and clinical guidelines. Our CAEP COVID-19 Town Hall presentation is available to watch on the CAEP website. It has also been uploaded to CAEP's YouTube channel. All of the the CAEP COVID-19 Town Halls talks are available free open access. Copies of our slides can be downloaded at this link. Dr. Sean Moore Dr. Moore and I were asked to speak about the treatments being used for COVID-19. In this global pandemic, clinicians and researchers have been throwing multiple different treatments at this new corona virus hoping something will work. This includes things like: Azithromycin, Steroids, Famotidine, IL-6 inhibitors, Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesivir, Vitamin C, and Zinc. We narrowed our presentation down to five treatments and the evidence behind those treatments. These are listed below with links to the references mentioned in the presentation. Chloroquine / Hydroxychloroquine Dr. Didier Raoult Gautret et al. Clinical and microbiological effect of a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 80 COVID-19 patients with at least a six-day follow up: A pilot observational study. Travel Med Infect Dis. April 11th, 2020 Tang et al. Hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: an open-label, randomized, controlled trial. MedRxIV April 14th, 2020 Chowdhury et al. A Rapid Systematic Review of Clinical Trials Utilizing Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine as a Treatment for COVID‐19. AEM May 2020. We cannot recommend hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine based on the available evidence. Steroids Surviving Sepsis Campaign: guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Intensive Care Med. 2020 Mar 28. Steroids Wilson et al. COVID‐19: Interim Guidance on Management Pending Empirical Evidence. From an American Thoracic Society‐led International Task Force. Thoracic April 3rd, 2020 Villar et al. Dexamethasone treatment for the acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Resp Med Feb 7th, 2020 Wu et al. Risk Factors Associated With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Death in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA Int Med March 13th, 2020 We cannot recommend the use of steroids outside of an RCT. However, steroids should be considered when patients have other indications like COPD or asthma. Remdesivir Grein et al. Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19. NEJM April 10th, 2020 Wang et al. Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. The Lancet April 29th, 2020 Fauchi A. Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT). Press Conference April 29th, 2020 We cannot recommend the routine use of remdesivir based on the available evidence. Convalescent Plasma Convalescent plasma is being investigated but there is very little information on this treatment modality. Currently the CONCOR Trial is underway in Canada using 200-500 ml of plasma. Researchers from across the country are involved including Drs. Donald Arnold, Philippe Begin and Jeannie Callum. Plasma collection was started in April. We cannot recommend the use of convalescent plasma outside of a research study. Vaccines Much work is being done on developing a COVID19 vaccine but that is a least months if not years away. My position on vaccines is that the evidence for potential benefit is much greater than the evidence for potential harm. Vaccines are safe and effective for the vast majority of people. SGEM#20 with guest skeptic Dr. Lauren Westafer (@LWestafer) from FOAMCast discussed the issue of flu shots for healthcare workers. We do not know how effective a vaccine will be, it's safety or how long the immunity would last at this time. George Santayana Dr. Moore and I continued the presentation with a reminder that we should remember our history. We have made mistakes in the past by adopting new technology or treatments too soon in medicine. There are examples of when the treatment was properly studied it was found not to work or even worse, increase mobility or mortality. It was George Santayana who said "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". A

Date: April 24th, 2020 Reference: Watanabe et al. Is Use of Warning Lights and Sirens Associated With Increased Risk of Ambulance Crashes? A Contemporary Analysis Using National EMS Information System (NEMSIS) Data. Annals of Emergency Medicine. July 2019 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Robert Edmonds is an emergency physician in the US Air Force in Virginia. This is Bob’s eleventh visit to the SGEM. Disclaimer: The views and opinions of this podcast do not represent the United States Government or the US Air Force. Case:You are visiting with your father, a 64-year-old overweight man with hypertension. He describes significant pain in his chest upon awakening and tells you to call an ambulance. The EMS crew arrives and performs a 3 lead EKG that does not show an ST elevated myocardial infarction. They prepare to load your father into the ambulance, and since you’re his only child and he’s a talker, he mentions you’re an emergency physician. The crew then asks if you want them to transport your father Code 3 with full lights and sirens. Background: The use of warning lights and sirens in ambulances is fairly widespread. Their use is associated with marginally faster response and transport times (7). Several studies have found ambulance crashes occurring while lights and sirens are used to have a higher injury rate, and a majority of fatal ambulance crashes involve their use (12-15). EMS agencies have varying guidelines on when to use lights and sirens, and the amount of time saved with lights and sirens is approximately 1-3 minutes (REF). This means the intervention is likely unhelpful for the patient in many transports. Clinical Question: What is the association between warning lights and sirens use by EMS and crash-related delays? Reference: Watanabe et al. Is Use of Warning Lights and Sirens Associated With Increased Risk of Ambulance Crashes? A Contemporary Analysis Using National EMS Information System (NEMSIS) Data. Annals of Emergency Medicine. July 2019 Population: All dispatches of a transport-capable ground EMS vehicle to a 911 emergency scene from the 2016 National EMS Information System, both the response to the scene and the transport from the scene. Excluded: Interfacility transfers, intercepts, medical transports, and standbys; responses by nontransport or rescue vehicles, mutual aid activations, and supervisor responses; and events documented as responses or transports by rotor-wing or fixed-wing air-medical services. Intervention: Use of lights and sirens Comparison: No lights and sirens Outcome: Crash-related delay (proxy for EMS vehicle crash) Authors’ Conclusions: “Ambulance use of lights and sirens is associated with increased risk of ambulance crashes. The association is greatest during the transport phase. EMS providers should weigh these risks against any potential time savings associated with lights and sirens use.” Quality Checklist for Observational Study: Did the study address a clearly focused issue? Yes Did the authors use an appropriate method to answer their question? Yes Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way? Yes Was the exposure accurately measured to minimize bias? Yes Was the outcome accurately measured to minimize bias? Yes/No Have the authors identified all-important confounding factors? Yes Was the follow up of subjects complete enough? Yes How precise are the results/estimate of risk? Adequate Do you believe the results? Yes Can the results be applied to the local population? Yes Do the results of this study fit with other available evidence? Yes Results: The 2016 NEMSIS database contained 20.4 million 911 dispatches of ground EMS. There was a total of 2,539 crash-related delays. Key Result: There was a greater odds ratio of crashing with the use of lights and sirens. 1) Reporting Bias: The authors mention how the study is entirely dependent on crash related delays. It is unknown how widespread reporting of crash-related delays is and since this is dependent on individual agencies self-reporting, there may be bias from the agencies to report this more commonly when lights and sirens are used, as this was already believed at the time of the study to induce additional risk. Alternatively, as the authors point out, some upgrades to lights and sirens may occur after an ambulance crash has occurred, which would bias the results. 2) Association not Causation: It would not be correct to conclude that lights and sirens cause crashes from this publication. This was a retrospective database study not a randomized controlled trial. There could have been unmeasured confounders responsible for the observed results. 3) Partial Lights and Sirens:The authors teased apart three scenarios-complete absence of lights and sirens, full use of lights and sirens, and partial use of lights and sirens. These partial use cases include both cases where there was initially no lights and sirens and then they upgraded to lights and sirens, as well as cases where the crew started with lights and sirens, a

Date: April 21st, 2020 Reference: Juergens et al. Effectiveness of emergency physician determinations of the need for thrombolytic therapy in acute stroke. Proc Baylor Univ Med Center Oct 2019 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Chuck Sheppard is an attending Emergency Department Physician at Mercy Hospital in Springfield, Missouri and the medical director for Mercy Life Line air medical service. He has been practicing in Emergency Medicine for over 40 years and involved in EMS services for over 30 years. Case: 56-year-old female with sudden onset of left arm and leg weakness with slurred speech presents to the emergency department (ED). She was last seen well two hours prior. Her past medical history includes hypertension and type II diabetes. She is not on any anticoagulation except ASA. There is no previous history of stroke. The neurology led stroke team is not available and you wonder if that will affect her outcome. Background: Treatment for acute ischemic stroke has been debated between neurologists and emergency physicians for years now. A recent PRO/CON debate on the subject was published in CJEM April 2020 with Dr. Eddy Lang and myself. It was the legend of emergency medicine, Dr. Jerome Hoffman that really raised the concern about the lack of evidence for using thrombolytics in acute ischemic stroke. He was interviewed on an SGEM Xtra segment called No Retreat, No Surrender. We have covered acute ischemic stroke many times on the SGEM. SGEM#29: Stroke Me, Stroke Me SGEM#70: The Secret of NINDS SGEM Xtra:Thrombolysis for Acute Stroke SGEM Xtra: Walk of Life SGEM#269: Pre-Hospital Nitroglycerin for Acute Stroke Patients? Clinical Question: Does the presence of a neurologist led stroke team affect the likelihood of receiving tPA and does that improve a patient-oriented outcome? Reference: Juergens et al. Effectiveness of emergency physician determinations of the need for thrombolytic therapy in acute stroke. Proc Baylor Univ Med Center Oct 2019 Population: All patients presenting to the ED meeting stroke activation criteria Intervention: Neurologist led stroke team Comparison: No neurologist led stroke team Outcomes: Primary Outcome: Rate of tPA administration Secondary Outcomes: Door-to-needle times, modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at discharge, change in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), and discharge disposition Authors’ Conclusions: “Emergency physicians administered significantly less thrombolytics than did neurologists. No significant difference was observed in outcomes, including mRS and admission-to-discharge change in NIHSS. Quality Checklist for Observational Study: Did the study address a clearly focused issue? Yes Did the authors use an appropriate method to answer their question? Yes Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way? Yes Was the exposure accurately measured to minimize bias? Yes Was the outcome accurately measured to minimize bias? Yes Have the authors identified all-important confounding factors? Unsure Was the follow up of subjects complete enough? Yes How precise are the results? Precise Do you believe the results? Yes Can the results be applied to the local population? Unsure Do the results of this study fit with other available evidence? Yes Results: There were 415 stroke activations during the study period (Jan 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016). Of those activations, 153 (37%) were managed by the neurologist led team and 262 (63%) were treated by emergency physicians. The median age was early 60’s with slightly more female patients in the cohort. Three-quarters arrived by EMS and the median NIHSS score was 7 for the EM physicians and 6 for the neurologists. The diagnosis was hemorrhagic stroke (~10%), ischemic stroke (~70%), neurological/psychiatric (~15%) and other (~5%). Key Result: Neurologists gave tPA 13% more often than EM physicians Primary Outcome: Rate of tPA administration 26.3% EM physicians and 39.2% neurologists (p=0.006) Secondary Outcomes: No statistical difference in mRS score at discharge 1. Single Center: This was a single center study that may have a unique practice pattern limiting its external validity to other practice environments. As someone who practices in a rural environment, we transport our stroke patients “code stroke” to a higher level of care or use telemedicine with a neurologist who decides on tPA administration. 2. Retrospective Study: This was a retrospective single-center study and results demonstrate association not causation. There could be unmeasured confounders responsible for the observed differences in the results. 3. When Thrombolysed: The neurologists led the team Monday to Friday during business hours. There could be differences that were not measured on nights, weekends and holidays. The baseline NIHSS score was one-point different at baseline between the two cohorts. We know that the severity of the stroke at presentation has a strong influence on the final outcome. We also don’t know if the radiology coverage after hours and on we