The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine

Date: April 9th, 2020 Reference: Kline et al. Randomized trial of therapy dogs versus deliberative coloring (art therapy) to reduce stress in emergency medicine providers. AEM April 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Justin Morgenstern is an emergency physician and the creator of the excellent #FOAMed project called First10EM.com Case: It has been a hard shift. You wish you could say “uncharacteristically”, but recently all your shifts in the emergency department have felt a little hard. The increased workload due to COVID-19 hasn’t been helping. You sit down to chart after a difficult resuscitation, and the charge nurse, seeing that you look a little stressed, asks if you would like to take a break to play with a dog. Background: Medicine is an incredibly rewarding profession. However, it is undeniably marked by significant levels of stress. Reports of burnout are high across medicine, and even higher in emergency medicine (1,2). A study of USA physicians showed that they had more than 50% with at least one symptom of burnout. Emergency physicians reported the highest prevalence of burnout at around 70% (3). Burnout is associated with a loss of empathy and compassion towards patients, decreased job satisfaction, and shorter careers in medicine (4,5). It has also been associated with negative impacts on patient care including self-perceived medical error (6), risk of medical errors (7), and quality of care (8,9). We have covered burnout a few times on the SGEM including my own personal experience of being on the edge of burnout: Five Tips: To Avoid Emergency Medicine Burnout SGEM#178:Mindfulness – It’s not Better to Burnout than it is to Rust SGEM Xtra: On the Edge of Burnout ACEM18 SGEM Xtra: CAEP Wellness Week 2019 YouTube: Being on the Edge of Burnout One Year Later There is some prior literature that exposure to animals decreases stress (10,11). Theoretically, time spent deliberately coloring as a mindfulness practice could also decrease stress (12). Therefore, these authors designed a prospective, randomized trial comparing the effects of dog therapy, deliberate coloring, and control on stress levels for emergency department providers (13). Clinical Question: Does dog therapy result in lower perceived stress than deliberate coloring or control when applied as a break during an emergency medicine shift? Reference: Kline et al. Randomized trial of therapy dogs versus deliberative coloring (art therapy) to reduce stress in emergency medicine providers. AEM April 2020 Population: Emergency care providers, including nurses, residents, and physicians, from a single center emergency department. Exclusions: Dislike, allergy, fear, or other reason not to interact with a therapy dog. Intervention: There were two interventions, which occurred approximately midway through the provider’s shift. Dog therapy consisted of an interaction with a therapy dog, which providers could pet or touch if they wished. The coloring group was provided with three mandalas to choose to color and a complete set of coloring pencils. Both of these activities occurred in a quiet room, physically separated from the clinical care area, with no electronic devices, telephone, window, or overhead speaker. Comparison: A convenience sample of providers that were not offered any break. Outcomes: Primary Outcomes: There were two primary outcomes. The first was a self-assessment of stress using a visual analogue scale. The second was a 10-item validated perceived stress scores, altered to focus providers on the past several hours rather than months, as it was originally designed. These were both measured at the beginning of the shift, about 30 minutes after the intervention, and near the end of the shift. Secondary Outcomes: They looked also looked at a FACES scales as a measure of stress, and provider cortisol levels. Dr. Jeff Kline This is an SGEMHOP episode which means we have the lead author on the show. Dr. Jeff Kline (@klinelab) is the Vice Chair of Research in Emergency Medicine and a professor of physiology, Indiana University School of Medicine. He is the editor in chief of AEM, creator of Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) Rule and has published extensively in the area of pulmonary emboli. Authors’ Conclusions: "This randomized, controlled clinical trial demonstrates preliminary evidence that a five minute therapy dog interaction while on shift can reduce provider stress in Emergency Department physicians and nurses.” Quality Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials: The study population included or focused on those in the emergency department. Yes The patients were adequately randomized. No The randomization process was concealed. Unsure The patients were analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized. Yes The study patients were recruited consecutively (i.e. no selection bias). No The patients in both groups were similar with respect to prognostic factors. Unsure All participants (patients, clinicians, outcome assessors) were

Date: April 4th, 2020 It has been just over a year since Dr. Salim Razaie (REBEL EM) and I stepped into the ring for a boxing matched theme debate in Sydney, Australia. It was the EBM rumble down under for SMACC 2019. How the world has changed with COVID19. You can see the original SGEM Xtra post from March 2019. It has more details about each issue we discussed and our slides. This is being posted now because a high-definition video is available on YOUTUBE for those who could not attend or for those who want to watch this epic match again. It is an example of mixing education and entertainment for some great knowledge translation. You can also listen to an edited version on the SGEM iTunes feed. We went four rounds punching and counter punching arguments about critical care controversies. The REBEL took the fight to the Skeptic. He supported his position with a flurry of publications.. The skeptic responded with his own citations. As with boxing, the champion must be beat, the challenger cannot win with a draw and there were no knockouts in the match. The skeptic fell back on the burden of proof and asserted he had not been convinced to accept any of the REBELs claims. The ultimate winner was the patient. We both agree that the patient deserves the best care, based on the best evidence. Four Critical Care Controversies: Round#1: Mechanical CPR - SGEM#136 Round#2: Epinephrine in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA) - SGEM#238 Round#3: Stroke Ambulances with CT Scanners Round#4: Bougie for First Pass Intubation - SGEM#271 Conclusion/Winner - Use EBM and the winner is the patient We appreciate Dr. Justin Morgenstern (First10EM) being the impartial referee for this contest. He ensured it was a good clean fight about the evidence and did not allow us to punch each other below the belt (in the p-value). We encourage you to read the primary literature yourself. There are multiple links provided to the relevant studies in the original post. The literature should guide your care but it should not dictate your care. You will still need to apply your good clinical judgment and ask the patient what they value and prefer. Thank you to all the students who supported me in the skeptical corner of the ring. I hope it encouraged their critical thinking skills. Not just to accept anything because their supervisor/attending told them. They also made sure I had plenty of maple syrup between the rounds. 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 power of social media. The ultimate goal is for patients get the best care, based on the best evidence. REMEMBER TO BE SKEPTICAL ABOUT ANYTHING YOU LEARN, EVEN IF YOU HEARD IT ON THE SKEPTICS’ GUIDE TO EMERGENCY MEDICINE.

Date: March 27th, 2020 Reference: Secko et al. Musculoskeletal Ultrasonography to Diagnose Dislocated Shoulders: A ProspectiveCohort. Ann Emerg Med Feb 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Tony Zitek is an Emergency Medicine physician in Miami, Florida. He is an Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine for Florida International University and Nova Southeastern University, and Tony is the Research Director for the Emergency Medicine residency program at Kendall Regional Medical Center. DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT AN EPISODE ON COVID19 Here are five websites to get up-to-date information about COVID19: Centre for Disease Control and Prevention Health Canada Public Health Ontario World Health Organization Food and Drug Administration Case: An 18-year-old, previously healthy male presents to the emergency department after sustaining an injury to his right shoulder after colliding with another player during a football game. On examination, there is a loss of the normal rounded appearance of the shoulder. You suspect the patient may have a shoulder dislocation. He has no history of shoulder dislocations in the past. Will you order an x-ray or perform a point-of-care ultrasound to confirm the diagnosis? Background: Despite shoulder dislocations being a very common injury presenting to the ED, it has only been covered once on SGEM#121. This episode tried to answer whether it was better for the shoulder to be immobilized in an external or internal rotation post-reduction. We still don’t know if one position is superior to another. Emergency physicians frequently perform pre- and post-reduction x-rays for patients with shoulder dislocations. However, some prior studies suggest that the routine performance of these x-rays may not be necessary, especially in patients with recurrent dislocations who have not sustained any direct trauma [1-2]. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has previously been studied for the use of the diagnosis of shoulder dislocations with most prior data suggesting that POCUS is highly sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of shoulder dislocations [3-4]. As with other applications of POCUS, the use of ultrasound for shoulder dislocations has the potential to reduce the time to diagnosis, reduce radiation exposure, and lower cost. However, prior studies about the use of POCUS for shoulder dislocations have used a variety of scanning techniques and some have utilized as few as 2 sonographers [4]. One study found only a 54% sensitivity for identifying persistent dislocation after a reduction attempt [5]. Clinical Question: What is the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound for the diagnosis of shoulder dislocations as compared with x-ray? Reference: Secko et al. Musculoskeletal Ultrasonography to Diagnose Dislocated Shoulders: A Prospective Cohort. Ann Emerg Med Feb 2020 Population: Adult patients with suspected shoulder dislocations who presented to one of two EDs when a study investigator was present. Exclusion: Patients with multiple traumatic injuries, decreased level of consciousness, or hemodynamic instability. Intervention: Pre- and post-reduction POCUS utilizing a posterior approach in which they traced the scapular spine towards the glenohumeral joint. The POCUS technique they used is basically as follows --- the sonographer palpates the spine of the scapula, and then places the ultrasound probe directly over the scapular spine. The study protocol allowed the sonographer to choose either a linear or curvilinear probe. The sonographer then follows the scapular spine laterally until the glenoid and humerus are identified. Using this technique, the glenoid and humeral head both look like hyperechoic semicircles. They should be very close to each other, and if not, that indicates a shoulder dislocation. After assessing for dislocation, the sonographer can assess for fracture by fanning the probe from a cephalic to caudal direction. A fracture appears as a disruption in the normal contour of the hyperechoic humerus. (shown below in Figure 1 from the manuscript). Figure 1. A, Proper probe placement on the patient and the 3-step sequence to examine the shoulder from the posterior approach. The blue dot above the probe corresponds to the probe indicator. B, The corresponding ultrasonographic images to the probe placement in A at the level of the scapular spine (1), the glenohumeral joint (2), and the humerus (3). Comparison: Pre- and post-reduction x-rays. Outcomes: Primary Outcome: The diagnostic accuracy of POCUS for shoulder dislocations. Secondary Outcomes: Presence or absence of fracture, time from triage to POCUS exam as compared to x-ray, time from POCUS exam initiation to diagnosis, determination of glenohumeral distance of non-dislocated and dislocated shoulders, and sonographer confidence in diagnosis (from 0-10). Authors’ Conclusions: “A posterior approach point-of-care ultrasonographic study is a quick and accurate tool to diagnose dislocated shoulders. Ultrasonography was also able to accura

Date: March 18th, 2020 Reference: Ebell et al. Accuracy of Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of Adult Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Meta-analysis. AEM March 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. Disclaimer: This is Not an Episode on COVID19 Things are changing quickly with the COVID19 pandemic. Here are five basic things you can do to help flatten the curve as of this blogpost: Wash your hands well and often (at least 20 seconds with soap and water) Try not to touch your face Physically isolate yourself from large gatherings but stay socially connected electronically Cough into your elbow or use a tissue, throw the tissue out and go to #1 Disinfect objects or surfaces with a regular household cleaning wipe or spray If you are unsure of what to do or for more information, here are five websites to get up-to-date information about COVID19: COVID19 Centre for Disease Control and Prevention Health Canada Public Health Ontario World Health Organization Food and Drug Administration Case: A 47-year-old healthy, non-smoker, presents to the emergency department (ED) with a productive cough, fever and says it has been difficult to breathe for the past four days. He appears well, with a temperature of 38.7 Celsius, heart rate of 90 beats per minute, respiratory rate of 20 breaths per minute and room air oxygen saturation of 91%. On auscultation you hear some fine crackles at the bases. You wonder if there is value in ordering any bloodwork, particularly a biomarker such as C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT) or a complete blood count for white blood cell count (WBC) in addition to doing a chest x-ray (CXR). Background: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a significant source of morbidity and mortality in adults (1,2). We have covered this issue a couple of times on the SGEM. One episode looked at β-Lactam monotherapy vs. β-Lactam plus macrolide combination therapy in adult patients admitted to hospital with moderately severe CAP (SGEM#120). This study supported the combination therapy in these patients. More recently, we looked at the question of whether steroids improve morbidity and mortality in patients admitted to hospital with CAP (SGEM#216). The bottom line was that corticosteroids appear to improve mortality and/or morbidity in patients admitted to hospital with CAP. There is evidence that an accurate diagnosis of CAP may lead to earlier treatment while avoiding unnecessary antibiotics for patients who do not have CAP. Pervious research has demonstrated that individual signs and symptoms have limited accuracy in the diagnosis of CAP. The diagnosis of CAP is usually based on an abnormal chest x-ray in a patient with signs and symptoms of a lower respiratory tract infection (3,4). White blood cell count (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), and procalcitonin are biomarkers associated with an increased likelihood of CAP. There are also clinical prediction rules that include CRP for the diagnosis of CAP (5,6). Procalcitonin is another potential biomarker that may help in the diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia (7). Guidelines such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend the use of CRP at the point of care to reduce inappropriate antibiotic when diagnosing CAP (8) These various biomarkers are readily available in the ED setting in the US, as well as in the primary care setting in other countries in Europe. The study we are reviewing on this SGEM episode performs an updated systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) of the diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers for CAP. Clinical Question: What is the accuracy of biomarkers for the diagnosis of community acquired pneumonia? Reference: Ebell et al. Accuracy of Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of Adult Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Meta-analysis. AEM March 2020 Population: Adult patients presenting with symptoms of acute respiratory infection and patients with clinically suspected pneumonia based on physician order of a chest radiograph, reporting sufficient information to calculate sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of CAP for at least one biomarker. Exclusions: Studies of dyspnea or sepsis rather than suspected CAP. Studies limited to patients with chronic lung disease, patients in skilled nursing facilities, or immunosuppressed/HIV patients. Ventilator or hospital acquired pneumonia. Studies of the diagnosis of a specific pathogen (i.e. mycoplasma or legionella). Studies that did not use a cohort design (i.e. recruited patients with known CAP and healthy controls). Intervention: C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin or white blood cell (WBC) count Comparison: Chest imaging with CXR or CT scan Outcome: Diagnosis accuracy of biomarkers for pneumonia This is an SGEMHOP episode which means we have the lead author on the show. Dr. Mark Ebell is a Family Ph

Date: March 12th, 2020 Dr. Jonathan Stea Guest Skeptic: Dr. Jonathan Stea (@Jonathanstea) is a PhD Clinical Psychologist working at the Foothills Medical Centre in Calgary, Alberta. He is also an Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Calgary. This SGEM Xtra is based on a tweet from about a month ago on The 10 Commandments of helping distinguish between science from pseudoscience for psychology students. It was written by Scott O. Lilienfeld (Association for Psychological Science 2005). This seemed like a good time to discuss pseudoscience because of the legitimate concerns about COVID19. These high anxiety situations regarding health seem to bring out those looking to sell fraudulent products. The FDA has even had to issue warning letters to firms with claims to “prevent, treat, mitigate, diagnose or cure coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).” Dr. Nina Shapiro has written a couple of articles in Forbes about this issue of “miracle cures” and FDA warnings. There was also an article by Timothy Caulfield (@CaulfieldTIm). In that piece he specifically mentioned a Calgary naturopathy who made some unsupported claims about COVID19. Fears Of The COVID-19 Coronavirus Provide More Opportunity For Misinformation About Miracle Cures (March 1, 2020) FDA Issues Warnings To Companies Selling Fraudulent COVID-19 Coronavirus Therapies (March 9, 2020) Misinformation, alternative medicine and the coronavirus (March 12, 2020) We also need to be careful not to paint with too broad of a brush. There are bad people out there making false claims. It does not mean all practitioners are bad and all practices are fraudulent. Massage therapy and Reiki may relieve some peoples’ anxiety over COVID19. In contrast, there is no high-quality evidence that homeopathy and chiropractic care can cure COVID19. We should try to focus on the claims that people are making and hold those who are making incorrect claims accountable. Even the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors (CAND) said that the Calgary naturopath had made: “false and misleading statements” and there “are no proven methods for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 — claims otherwise made by any health professionals are invalid and should be reported immediately to applicable regulators.” We should apply the same level of skepticism and science to all claims. These include claims made by all health care providers including psychologists, physicians, nurses, chiropractors, naturopaths, acupuncturists, etc. It is not just about COVID19 claims but about any therapeutic claims. Patients deserve the best care, based on the best evidence. COVID19 The COVID19 story is evolving quickly and could be out of date when this episode is published. Here are some basic things that you could do to try and stay healthy: Wash your hands well (at least 20 seconds with soap and water) and try not to touch your face Avoid people who are sick and limit your social gatherings Stay home if you are feeling ill Cough into a tissue and throw it out immediately or cough into your elbow and disinfect objects or surfaces with a regular household cleaning wipe or spray People who are feeling ill should wear a facemask but other people who are feeling fine and not caring for a sick person do not need to wear a mask If you are unsure of what to do, please contact your local health authority. There are some official websites to get the latest update on the COVID19 situation: Centre for Disease Control and Prevention Health Canada Public Health Ontario World Health Organization Food and Drug Administration A Rough Guide To Spotting Bad Science Science is very exciting and does not need to be made more sensational. As a science communicator, it is disappointing when research is hyped up in the media. A recent example of this would be the CRASH#3 trial. This was a well-designed randomized control trial asking an important question. The research group successfully completed and published their trial in a high impact journal. The primary outcome was “negative” but that in no way negates the science or its importance. It was unfortunate to see the spin that came out on CRASH#3 (SGEM#270). The 10 Commandments of EBM The 10 Commandments of Helping Students Distinguish Science from Pseudoscience in Psychology. There are a number of definitions of science and here is one: “Science is the study of the nature and behaviour of natural things and the knowledge that we obtain about them.” Collins Dictionary. American Psychological Association Dictionary of Psychology has a definition for Pseudoscience: "a system of theories and methods that has some resemblance to a genuine science but that cannot be considered such. Examples include astrology, numerology, and esoteric magic. Various criteria for distinguishing pseudosciences from true sciences have been proposed, one of the most influential being that of falsifiability." Using these definitions, here is the list of the 10 Command

Date: March 4th, 2020 Reference: Radonovich et al. N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel. A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2019 The Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial (ResPECT) Guest Skeptics: Dr. Christopher Patey is an Assistant Professor with Memorial University Medical School in St. John’s, Newfoundland Canada. Over the past seventeen years he has practiced as a rural emergency and family physician and Clinical Chief of Emergency at Carbonear Hospital. Paul Norman is a registered nurse working as a frontline emergency nurse in Eastern Health, Newfoundland, Canada. Paul has greater than ten years of experience working in Emergency Nursing and Critical Care. His focus is implementation of LEAN strategies, quality and process improvement. Paul's work has been extended to reach emergency services throughout Canada and he has contributed on many platforms including local, regional, provincial and national speaking engagements. Disclaimers: This episode is about influenza not coronavirus (Covid-19) Dr. Patey's Disclaimer: I am not an expert on PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), Influenza/HINI/Coronavirus, Journal Reviews or Emergency Department management of pandemics. Paul Norman's Disclaimer: We (Dr. Patey and I) are experts on asking questions on the frontline of a Rural Emergency Department to ensure quality, and most importantly, effective patient care. Dr. Ken Milne's Disclaimer: I am an expert on critical appraisal but do not know what mask (if any) is best for preventing the Covid-19 virus. I think we can all agree on a few general recommendation: Get a flu shot if possible, wash your hands well (at least 20 seconds with soap and water), try not to touch your face, avoid people who are sick, stay home if you are feeling ill, cough into a tissue and throw it out immediately or cough into your elbow, disinfect objects or surfaces with a regular household cleaning wipe or spray, people who are well do not need to wear a facemask, people who are feeling ill should wear a facemask, and reach out to your local health authority if you think you might have the COVID-19. Covid-19 Information: This story is evolving quickly, and people should go to official websites to get the latest update on the Cover-19 situation: Centre for Disease Control and Prevention Health Canada Public Health Ontario World Health Organization Food and Drug Administration Case: With the potential global impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) and our rural emergency departments (ED) having an extremely low compliance rate for N95 mask fit testing, our ED administration sends an urgent request for everyone to have N95 mask testing as soon as possible (ASAP). The urgent email also request shaving facial hair. You wonder about the evidence supporting the initiative and if there is any recent evidence surrounding N95 masks usage for preventing health care workers getting acute respiratory illnesses. Background: Many hospitals had their health care workers fitted with N95 masks in response to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. The N95 masks were known to prevent small particles and therefore thought to be more effective. What was not known is whether or not this better effectiveness would translate into less viral respiratory infections acquired in hospital compared to regular disposable surgical medical masks. In other words, would N95 masks have a healthcare provider-oriented outcome. When it appeared that the transmission of the pandemic H1N1 was not different from seasonal influenza the recommendation for medical masks in most settings was reinstated. With the potential for an epidemic/pandemic outbreak of coronovirus, there is the demand for increased vigilance in preventive measures to prevent and contain the outbreak of this communicable disease. There have been a number of other studies discussing masks in preventing influenza spread: Loeb et al 2009 did a non-inferiority trial of surgical masks vs. N95 respirator masks for preventing flu in Ontario nurses working at tertiary care hospitals. They concluded surgical masks were non-inferior. MacIntyre et al 2009 did a cluster RCT on the use of face masks to control for respiratory virus transmission in households. They found face masks were unlikely to be an effective policy for seasonal respiratory diseases. This was in part because <50% of participants had mask adherence. Those who wore the mask did have a statistically significant reduction in clinical infection. MacIntyre et al 2011 published another study in the same year comparing efficacy non-face masks to fit tested and non-fit tested N95 respiratory mask in preventing respiratory infections in hospital workers in China. The results showed a significant decrease in respiratory illnesses including influenza. The authors did cautioned readers that the trial may have been underpowered. Smith et al CMAJ 2016 did a systematic review and meta-analysis on th

Date: February 28th, 2020 Reference: Rajendran et al. Randomised control trial of adult therapeutic colouring for the management of significant anxiety in the Emergency Department. AEM February 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Corey Heitz is an emergency physician in Roanoke, Virginia. He is also the CME editor for Academic Emergency Medicine. Case: One night during an overnight shift, you are taking care of a patient who presented to the emergency department (ED) due to anxiety and vague suicidal ideation. The process for medical clearance and psychiatric evaluation can take quite a while, and you notice that this patient seems stressed and anxious. You wonder if there’s a way to assist them during the prolonged wait without resorting to sedative medication. Background: Psychological disorders are a common reason for presenting to the ED. Anxiety disorders are the most common (Marchesi et al EMJ 2004). However, we have only covered mental health issues a few times on the SGEM: SGEM#45: Vitamin H (Haloperidol for Psychosis) SGEM#178: Mindfulness – It’s not Better to Burnout than it is to Rust SGEM#218: Excited Delirium Syndrome SGEM#237: Screening Tool for Child Sex Trafficking SGEM#252: Blue Monday- Screening Adult ED Patients for Risk of Future Suicidality Patients with psychological disorders are often kept in the ED for a prolonged period of time. The ED itself can be a stressful environment and exacerbate anxiety. Emergency physicians have pharmaceutical options to treat anxiety. One of the most common medications to use is a benzodiazepine like lorazepam or diazepam. There is a need for non-pharmacological therapies to treat anxiety, and in some settings, art therapy has been studied. Specifically, adult coloring books have been used in the community and seem to function through cognitive easing (Rigby et al BMJ 2016 and Curry et al Art There 2005). Clinical Question: Can colouring decrease anxiety in adult patients presenting to the emergency department? Reference: Rajendran et al. Randomised control trial of adult therapeutic colouring for the management of significant anxiety in the Emergency Department. AEM February 2020 Population: Patients >15 years old with a score of >6 on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Anxiety (HADS-A). A score of >6 is considered moderate to severe anxiety. Intervention: Colouring pack (10 adult colouring pages and 36 pencil colours) Comparison: Placebo pack (10 plain sheets of paper, a Bic pen and instructions to draw or write freely) Outcome: Primary Outcome: Within-patient change in HADS-A score from baseline after two hours of therapy. Secondary Outcomes: Survey questions regarding value of therapy and level of engagement with treatment packs (length of time) Dr. Naveen Rajendran This is an SGEMHOP episode which means we have the lead author on the show. Dr. Naveen Rajendran is an intern at the Westmead Hospital in Sydney with a keen interest in emergency medicine and the investigation of novel therapies that could aid in alleviating the growing stress on modern emergency departments. This study was conducted when he was a medical student at the University of Sydney with Dr. Coggins (@coggi33) who was his research supervisor. Authors’ Conclusions: “Among ED patients, exposure to adult colouring books resulted in lower self-reported levels of anxiety at 2-hours compared to placebo.” Quality Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials: The study population included or focused on those in the emergency department. Yes The patients were adequately randomized. Unsure The randomization process was concealed. Yes The patients were analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized. Yes The study patients were recruited consecutively (i.e. no selection bias). Unsure The patients in both groups were similar with respect to prognostic factors. Yes All participants (patients, clinicians, outcome assessors) 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: They screened 179 patients that were flagged as being anxious. The cohort included 53 participants with a mean age of 33 years and 73% were female. HADS-A decreased significantly more in the adult colouring group Primary Outcome: Intervention Group: Mean HADS-A decrease at two hours was 3.7 (95%CI 2.4 to 5.1, p<0.001) Control Group: Mean HADS-A decrease at two hours: 0.3 (95%CI -0.6 to 1.2, p=0.51) Secondary Outcomes: For the question "would you recommend colouring" on a Likert Scale (1-5) the average satisfaction score was 4.2. We asked Naveen ten questions to get a greater understand of his publication. Listen to the SGEMHOP podcast to hear all of his answers. Single Centre: This was a relatively small sample size of 53 patients. However,

Date: January 27th, 2020 Guest Skeptics: Dr. Richelle Cooper is a Professor of Emergency Medicine at the UCLA Department of Emergency Medicine. Dr. Maia Dorsett is an Emergency and EMS Physician at the University of Rochester Medical Center. Reference: Dorsett et al. Bringing value, balance and humanity to the emergency department: The Right Care Top 10 for emergency medicine. Emerg Med J 2019 This is an SGEM Xtra based on a recent publication by Dr. Dorsett and her team. It is an article of ten recommendations on how we might provide a more balanced approach to healthcare tailored to the needs of the patients we see in the emergency department. One of the authors of the article was the Legend of Emergency Medicine, Dr. J. Hoffman. SGEMers have heard about over-testing, over-diagnosing and over-treating. These authors have some concerns about what they call the unmentioned "elephant in the room". "While specialty societies do undertake advocacy work to address the health needs of the public, they also have a fundamental duty to advocate for and protect the interests of their specialty. Furthermore, healthcare dollars that are ‘wasted’ are of course not actually thrown away but rather end up in someone’s pocket; thus, there is clearly a conflict of interest when specialty societies address the overuse of extremely lucrative medical procedures that provide substantial income to their members." Choosing Wisely is an initiative trying to address the issue of over-testing, over-diagnosing and over-treating. To be clear, these authors are not against Choosing Wisely. "Important to note that we are not against choosing wisely, however the issue is larger and more nuanced. It is not just about “low value” care and costs but about harms, harms from overuse of diagnostic tests and treatment and also from underuse in other cases. The right care alliance is concerned about the right care for the right patients at the right time, thus not just overused tests." The organization this group of authors are associated with is called the Right Care Alliance (RCA). How is it different from the Choosing Wisely Campaign? "The Right Care Alliance was formed in 2015 by the Lown Institute, a healthcare think tank. Many of us, such as myself, became involved with the work of the Lown because of our interest in reducing the harms of overtesting and overdiagnosis. But we quickly realized that talking about Right Care was actually a conversation about the Right amount of care and that this was more than just about too much care, it was also about underuse, health care access and a focus on treating the whole patient. It was this realization – that we cannot address overuse without talking about underuse - that lead to the formation of the RCA. The powerful part of the RCA is that it is a grassroots coalition of not just healthcare practitioners, but also patients and community members." Where does emergency medicine fit into the RCA initiative? "Nowhere in healthcare is the unfortunate dichotomy between overuse and underuse as apparent as in our emergency departments, which function simultaneously as centers of high acuity healthcare and healthcare safety nets. Organizationally, the RCA has a number of subcommittees or “councils”. The Emergency Medicine (EM) Council is one of these subgroups and is composed primarily of emergency physicians and nurses." "In May 2016, the RCA asked its specialty councils to create their own ‘top 10’ lists, The goal was to identify not merely interventions that are overused but also others that need to be used more widely, if we are to achieve both better and more equitable health outcomes and financial savings." What were the guiding principles put forward by the RCA to generate the top 10 list? Guiding Principles for Top 10 List: Patient-centred Holistic in approach Understandable to both healthcare professionals and non-health care professionals Meaningful to everyone who participates in the healthcare system Criteria Used to Select the Top 10 Items: Matter to patients Have high potential to harm or to benefit Be common (overuse) or rare (underuse) enough that avoiding or doing the item routinely would move the needle towards the right care Examine or illustrate how it ties to system failures. The committee was predominantly made up of emergency physicians, including residents, faculty and community physicians, and emergency medicine nurses. Patients were invited to participate on all the committees, and it was required that members of the Patient council review and provide input to all lists. The Emergency Medicine (EM) members of the RCA were all invited to participate, ultimately 125 gave input on potential items. They participated in each part of the scoring and ranking and in a smaller group for the discussion of the items. Similarly, Maia presented and received input from patients/patient advocates at a Lown conference. Two Overriding P

Date: February 11th, 2020 Reference: Yeh et al. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial. BMJ 2018. Guest Skeptic: Marcus Prescott is a nurse in Norway. He is also now a third-year medical student. Case: A 32-year-old woman with no previous medical history calls you while a passenger on a crashing plane. She has been offered a parachute by the flight attendant but is unsure whether jumping from the plane is wise. You quickly scour the literature for evidence to inform her decision. Background: The parachute– an umbrella term for devices to slow the motion of an object through an atmosphere by creating drag – was first deployed in China roughly 4,000 years age. The modern versions reached widespread use with the invention of heavier than air flight early last century. Different variants of parachutes have been used both for recreational and safety purposes; in either case aiming to avoid death in people falling from heights presumed to be lethal. Despite the near universal application, a systematic review from 2003 (Smith and Pell, BMJ) found no RCTs of parachute intervention. That systematic review published in the BMJ is a classic paper and part of their annual holiday edition. It stated that there was observational data showing parachutes failed at times to prevent morbidity and mortality. There are also case reports of free falls that did not result in 100% mortality. The authors suggested taking evidence-based medicine advocates up in a plane for a double blinded randomized control trial. The intervention would be a parachute and the control arm would be a sham parachute (backpack). To make it more rigorous, anyone who survived the first jump would cross over into the other arm of the study and jump again. Only then would we have definitive evidence that a parachute was effective in preventing death and major trauma related to gravitational challenges. After years of trying to organize a trial, researchers were finally able to recruit some volunteers to jump out of a plane with a parachute or backpack. Clinical Question: Do parachutes reduce death or major injury when jumping from aircraft? Reference: Yeh et al. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial. BMJ 2018. Population: Adults 18 years of age and older, seated on aircraft and deemed rational decision makers. Intervention: Jumping from aircraft with parachute Comparison: Jumping from aircraft with backpack Outcome: Primary Outcome: Composite of death and major traumatic injury (ISS>15) within five minutes of impact or at 30 days. Secondary Outcomes: Health status and subgroup analysis based on type of aircraft or previous parachute use. Authors’ Conclusions: “Parachute use did not significantly reduce death or major injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggestion cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exists in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice.” Quality Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials: The study population included or focused on those in the emergency department. No The patients were adequately randomized. Yes The randomization process was concealed. Yes The patients were analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized. Yes The study patients were recruited consecutively (i.e. no selection bias). No The patients in both groups were similar with respect to prognostic factors. Unsure All participants (patients, clinicians, outcome assessors) 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. No Key Results: They screened 92 adults with only 23 agreeing to be in the trial. The median age was 38 years and 43% were female. Parachutes did not reduce death or major injury Primary Outcome: Composite of death and major traumatic injury (ISS>15) within five minutes of impact was 0% vs. 0% with p>0.9 Composite of death and major traumatic injury (ISS>15) within 30 days was 0% vs. 0% with p>0.9 Secondary Outcomes: No statistical difference in health status No statistical differences when stratified by type of aircraft or previous parachute use. Talk Nerdy: There were many limitations to this study including a composite outcome for the primary outcome. However, we will only discuss five things that threaten the validity and interpretation of this trial. Convenience Sample: These were not cons

Date: January 29th, 2020 Reference: Perry et al. Prospective Implementation of the Ottawa Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Rule and 6-Hour Computed Tomography Rule. Stroke 2019 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Rory Spiegel is an EM/CC doctor who splits his time in the Emergency Department and Critical Care department. He also has this amazing #FOAMed blog called EM Nerd. Case: A 48-year-old male presents to your emergency department with a sudden onset headache, which started about one-hour prior to arrival. The headache is severe is quality and the patient does not have a history of similar headaches in the past. It is associated with nausea, vomiting and photophobia. Background: Headaches are a common complaint presenting to the emergency department. Subarachnoid hemorrhage represents one of the most serious underlying causes of headaches and we have covered it a number of times on the SGEM: SGEM#48: Thunderstruck – Subarachnoid Hemorrhage SGEM#134: Listen, to what the British Doctors Say about LPs post CT for SAH SGEM#140: CT Scans to Rule Out Subarachnoid Hemorrhages in A Non-Academic Setting SGEM#201: It’s in the Way That You Use It – Ottawa SAH Tool In patients who present neurologically intact making the diagnosis early is key to preventing subsequent more life-threatening bleeding. A number of controversies surround the diagnosis of SAH in the emergency department. Two of the more provocative are the use of the Ottawa SAH Rule and whether a lumbar puncture (LP) is required following a negative CT if the scan is performed within 6-hours of symptom onset. The Ottawa SAH Rule (tool) was covered on SGEM#201. The bottom line from that study was that the clinical decision instrument needed external validation, a meaningful impact analysis performed and patient acceptability of incorporating this rule into a shared decision-making instrument before being widely adopted. We were surprised that in their background/introduction material they did not include the excellent SRMA on this topic by Carpenter et al. AEM 2016. Clinical Question: What is the clinical impact of the Ottawa SAH Rule and the 6-hour CT Rule compared to standard care when implemented in six emergency departments across Canada? Reference: Perry et al. Prospective Implementation of the Ottawa Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Rule and 6-Hour Computed Tomography Rule. Stroke 2019 The senior author on this publication was the legend of emergency medicine, Dr. Ian Stiell from Ottawa. Population: Neurologically intact adult presenting to the ED with a chief complaint of a nontraumatic, acute headache, or syncope associated with a headache. Exclusions: Patients with any of the following: 3 or more previous similar headaches (ie, same intensity/character as their current headache) over a period of >6 months (eg, established migraines) confirmed SAH before arrival at study ED previously investigated with CT and LP for the same headache papilledema new focal neurological deficit previous diagnosis of intracranial aneurysm or SAH known brain neoplasm cerebroventricular shunt headache within 72 hours following a LP headache described as gradual or peak intensity beyond 1 hour. Intervention: Physicians were actively encouraged to use the Ottawa SAH Rule and the 6-hour-CT Ruleto determine when to undergoing diagnostic workups for SAH and when a CT alone with an appropriate workup. Clinicians had the option to override the proposed rules. Comparison: The control phase was standard care. Clinicians were encouraged to not use any clinical decision instrument and make the decision to pursue diagnostic studies based on their own clinical discretion. Outcome: The primary outcome was the clinical impact of the Ottawa SAH Rule and 6-hr CT Rule for making the diagnosis of a SAH compared to usual care. SAH was defined as: Subarachnoid blood on CT Xanthochromia in the cerebrospinal fluid Red blood cells in the final tube of cerebrospinal fluid with an aneurysm demonstrated on cerebral angiography, CTA, or magnetic resonance imaging angiography. Dr. Jeff Perry Authors’ Conclusions: “This implementation study validates the accuracy of the Ottawa SAH rule and 6-hour-CT rule for SAH. Both the Ottawa SAH rule and the 6-hour-CT rule are now fully validated and ready to use clinically. Using the Ottawa SAH rule did not increase or decrease the number of investigations performed. The 6-hour-CT rule resulted in a modest decrease in testing following a normal early CT. Utilizing the Ottawa SAH rule and the 6-hour-CT rule allows clinicians in ED to safely standardize care for alert, patients with acute headache.” Quality Checklist for A Diagnostic Study: The clinical problem is well defined. Yes The study population represents the target population that would normally be tested for the condition (ie no spectrum bias). Yes The study population included or focused on those in the emergency department. Yes The study patients were recruited consecutively (ie no selection bias). Yes The diagnostic evaluation w

Date: January 25th, 2020 SGEM#281: EM Docs Got an AmbuBag Statistically Significant: Dan Lane We want to make the SGEM even better and address some of the criticisms from the ClinEpi world about clinicians trying to do critical appraisal. In order to do that we now have a Dr. Dan Lane who has a PhD in Clinical Epidemiology. He will be commenting on each the SGEM episodes. Dr. Dan Lane On this episode of Statistically Significant we are going to discuss the importance of balance of prognostic factors in randomized controlled trials, using the PreVent trial as an example. Characteristics that indicate when a patient more likely to have an outcome, what we call prognostic factors, need to be accounted for when assessing the effectiveness of a treatment. Without accounting for prognostic factors, the measures of treatment effect can be biased due to observed or unobserved factors amongst patients in each group. Consider if this same study had been conducted as a non-randomized design –clinicians may have decided to ventilate select patients between induction and intubation because they perceived them as more unstable prior to induction. These patients may also be at higher risk for hypoxia during this period for the same reasons the clinicians chose to ventilate them and therefore they would look worse when compared to patients not receiving ventilation if you did not account for these reasons – this is what epidemiologists call an indication bias. The goal of randomization in clinical trials is to balance patient characteristics between the different groups being investigated in the study. By randomly assigning patients to groups, the sole indication for receiving the treatment is the randomization process. As long as there are enough patients randomized, all known and unknown prognostic factors will be mathematically balanced between the groups. Therefore when talking about the balance of prognostic factors as part of critical appraisal, the key point to realize is there are both known and unknown factors. Although in this study they found some statistical differences between measured prognostic factors at baseline, these are just the prognostic factors that happen to be reported by the investigators. If we trust their randomization process then we can assume that the overall risk of the primary outcome, which includes measured and unmeasured prognostic factors, is mathematically balanced between the groups. One final point - the use of statistical hypothesis testing to compare prognostic factors is actually inappropriate here because by definition the null hypothesis that the two groups are the same is assumed to be true when the two groups are selected based on randomization. Therefore, any differences between the groups would be due to chance alone and considering them different would be a type 1 error. Additional Reading: Altman and Bland. Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise? BMJ May 1999 Sander Greeland. Randomization, statistics, and causal inference. Epidemiology Nov 1990 Stephen Sean. Baseline Balance and Valid Statistical Analyses: Common Misunderstandings. Applied Clinical Trials. May 2005. REMEMBER TO BE SKEPTICAL OF ANYTHING YOU LEARN, EVEN IF YOU HEARD IT ON THE SKEPTICS’ GUIDE TO EMERGENCY MEDICINE.

Date: January 9th, 2020 Reference: Casey et al. Bag-Mask Ventilation during Tracheal Intubation of Critically Ill Adults. NEJM February 2019 Guest Skeptic: Andrew Merelman is a critical care paramedic and second year medical student at Rocky Vista University in Colorado. His primary interests are resuscitation, critical care, airway management, and point-of-care ultrasound. Case: A 60-year-old male is in your emergency department with sepsis from pneumonia. He has worsening work of breathing and a decreasing level of consciousness. You decide based on his clinical presentation that he needs to be intubated. Due to his already poor oxygenation, you are concerned about him desaturating during intubation and wonder if there is anything you can do to help prevent it. Background: Emergency medicine is often referred to as the ABC (Airway, Breathing and Circulation) specialty. We have covered airway a few times on the SGEM: SGEM#75: Video Killed Direct Laryngoscopy? SGEM#96: Machine Head – NIPPV for Out of Hospital Respiratory Distress SGEM#247:Supraglottic Airways Gonna Save You for an OHCA? SGEM#249: Ace in the Hole – Confirming Endotracheal Tube Placement with POCUS SGEM#271: Bougie Wonderland for First Pass Success Rapid Sequence Intubation (RSI) has been a mainstay of emergency airway management for years. However, there are aspects of the procedure that have been debated, one of which is how best to oxygenate the patient during the apneic period while not increasing rates of aspiration. Clinical Question: Is bag-mask ventilation (BMV) performed during the apneic period of RSI (defined as the time between administration of RSI medications and intubation) in critically ill adults safe and effective? Reference: Casey et al. Bag-Mask Ventilation during Tracheal Intubation of Critically Ill Adults. NEJM February 2019 Population: Adults patients (older than 17 years of age) undergoing induction and tracheal intubation in the intensive care unit. Exclusions: Patients who were pregnant, incarcerated, had immediate need for intubation or if the treating clinicians felt that ventilation was indicated or contraindicated between induction and laryngoscopy. Intervention: Bag-mask ventilation (BMV) during the time between administration of sedation/paralysis and insertion of the laryngoscope into the mouth for intubation. Comparison: Apnea with or without nasal cannula oxygen during the time between administration of sedation/paralysis and insertion of the laryngoscope into the mouth for intubation. Outcome: Primary Outcome: The lowest oxygen saturation observed during the interval between induction and two minutes after tracheal intubation. Secondary Outcome: The incidence of severe hypoxemia (oxygen saturation of less than 80%). Authors’ Conclusions: “Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, patients receiving bag-mask ventilation had higher oxygen saturations and a lower incidence of severe hypoxemia than those receiving no ventilation.” Quality Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials: The study population included or focused on those in the emergency department. No The patients were adequately randomized. Yes The randomization process was concealed. Yes The patients were analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized. Yes The study patients were recruited consecutively (i.e. no selection bias). Unsure The patients in both groups were similar with respect to prognostic factors. No All participants (patients, clinicians, outcome assessors) were unaware of group allocation. No All groups were treated equally except for the intervention. No Follow-up was complete (i.e. at least 80% for both groups). Yes All patient-important outcomes were considered. No The treatment effect was large enough and precise enough to be clinically significant. Unsure Key Results: They screened 667 patients and enrolled 401. The median age was 60 years, 56% were male and half the patients had sepsis or septic shock. Bag-mask ventilation group had higher oxygen saturations and less severe hypoxemia compared to the control group. Primary Outcome: Lowest oxygen saturation 96% (interquartile range, 87% to 99%) in the BMV group vs. 93% (interquartile range, 81% to 99%) in the no-ventilation group (P = 0.01). Secondary Outcome: 21 patients (11%) in the BMV group had severe hypoxemia vs. 45 patients (23%) in the no-ventilation group (relative risk, 0.48; 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.77). 1. Patients: Patients in this study were recruited from seven academic intensive care units (ICUs) in the United States. Eighty percent of the patients were intubated for respiratory failure. While many adult patients in the emergency department are intubated for the same reason many others are intubated of cardiac arrest and trauma depending on your place of practice. It is unclear if this study population has external validity outside the ICU and to the emergency department. Another thing about the patients who were excluded. The study did not enroll

Guest Skeptic: Dr. Dan Lane has a Masters in Health Services Research at the University of Calgary, a Doctor of Philosophy in Clinical Epidemiology from the University of Toronto and is currently a medical student at the University of Calgary. Dan is naturally a contrarian, he strives to understand first principles of conventions in medical research in order to identify and challenge poor practices that have become dogma. He is passionate about statistics and epidemiology and wants to share that passion by making these topics more practical and approachable for clinicians. Believing the key to proper interpretation of medical research does not begin with memorizing some arbitrary threshold for statistical significance, Dan hopes to contribute to the SGEM through sharing an understanding of what story the numbers are actually telling about the data. Dan has no funding whatsoever, and no associations with industry. He is currently a medical student at the University of Calgary. Dan has some pet peeves when it comes to statistics there used and critical appraisals. We will do some more in depth SGEM Xtras on each of these issues. Thomas Bayes Absolute vs. Relative Estimates Effect Estimates and Not P-Values All Models are Wrong Predication vs. Classification Bayes No Frequentists The purpose of this SGEM Xtra, beside to introduce a new SGEM faculty member, is also to announce we are adding a new segment to the SGEM. It is going to be called Statistically Significant. We want to make the SGEM even better and address some of the criticisms from the ClinEpi world about clinicians trying to do critical appraisal. In order to do that we now have a Dr. Dan Lane PhD who will be commenting on each the SGEM episodes. The first instalment of Statistically Significant segment will be on this weeks’ SGEMHOP looking at troponin testing in the elderly patients presenting with non-specific complaints (SGEM#280). Let me know what you think of this idea. We have a few more lined up and feedback is always appreciated. Send me an email [email protected] Statistically Significant #280: Sensitivity and Specificity Despite their dogmatic use in the literature, sensitivity and specificity have a number of limitations that are rarely considered or addressed in diagnostic test studies. Sensitivity and Specificity are crude metrics, meaning they only look at the effect of a single measure and a single outcome. As crude measures they fail to incorporate any other information into their estimates, including potential confounders for the relationship between the test result and the outcome. In this particular study, age is part of the primary objective for the study (geriatric patients) but is also a confounder of the relationship between troponin level (which may increase with age) and acute coronary syndrome risk (also increases with age). When confounders like age are present, crude measures will be influenced based on the prevalence of confounders in each the groups – for example, if there were more older patients in the troponin positive group, the estimates for sensitivity may be inflated. Another limitation of sensitivity and specificity is they require a test result be classified as positive or negative. This is problematic when the real measure is a continuous measure, such as troponin. In the current study the test was considered “positive” if the troponin level was above the 99th percentiles for that enzyme. But this arbitrarily treats patients above or below the 99th percentile as homogeneous groups, meaning the statistics consider everyone above the threshold to be the same, and everyone below the threshold to be the same. Consider a patient with a troponin right below the threshold and another patient right above the threshold – surely these patients are almost identical in terms of their risk for having ACS. But by inserting an arbitrary break into the measure, the statistics will treat them as different resulting in more misclassifications simply because a threshold for positive or negative was selected. Instead of these binary classifications, researchers could focus directly on the patient’s risk of the outcome. This can be represented using probabilities and a smooth curve that shows the probability of ACS based on the exact troponin value. Using simple statistical models, these probability estimates can be adjusted for confounders, like age, and provide easily interpretable probability estimates for the entire range of troponins – no classification required! References: Amrhein, Greenland and McShare. Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature 2019 Reginal Nuzzo. STATISTICAL ERRORS. P values, the ‘gold standard’ of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume. Nature 2014 Fatovich and Phillips. The probability of probability and research truths. AEM 2017 Greenland et al. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. EJE 2016 Guggenmo

Date: January 16th, 2020 Reference: Troponin Testing and Coronary Syndrome in Geriatric Patients With Nonspecific Complaints: Are We Overtesting? AEM January 2020 Guest Skeptics: Dr. James VandenBerg: James has a master’s degree in clinical investigation from Washington University in St. Louis, and is currently the Chief Resident at Detroit Receiving Hospital. Dr. Andrew Huang: Andy is the Chief Resident at Sinai-Grace Hospital. Case: As the resident, you have just finished seeing a 78-year-old male who has been brought in by his family over the holidays. The triage nurse has put the reason for the visit as “multiple complaints”. Despite spending 30 minutes in the room, you still are not sure exactly why the patient is here. Your attending says that if you take a good geriatric history that you can always determine what’s going on. However, 15 minutes later your attending leaves the room defeated. The patient’s complaints are just so nonspecific. The attending ends up ordering the “geriatrogram” – ticking off every blood test on the form, including the troponin. You turn to the attending and ask, “do you really think this could be acute coronary syndrome (ACS)?” Background: Patients 65 years and older account for about 15% of emergency department visits in the United States. Their presentations are often complicated as they present with nonspecific symptoms, and there is often obscuring co-morbid conditions, polypharmacy, and cognitive/functional impairment. Nonspecific symptoms in the elderly usually yield a broad differential and there are no recommended diagnostic algorithms, leading to extensive testing. ACS is usually amongst this differential, as cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in this population. Additionally, the elderly population with ACS more commonly presents without chest pain compared to younger patients (up to 20% of elderly patients with MI present with “weakness” as part of their chief complaint). While cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in the elderly, the frequency of ACS amongst this population presenting with nonspecific symptoms is unknown. Clinical Question: What is the frequency of ACS in elderly patients presenting to the ED with nonspecific complaints, and what is the utility of troponin testing in this population? Reference: Wang et al. Troponin Testing and Coronary Syndrome in Geriatric Patients With Nonspecific Complaints: Are We Overtesting? AEM January 2020 Population: Patients aged 65 years and older presenting to the emergency department with nonspecific chief complaints who underwent troponin testing. “Nonspecific” was designed a priori as including weak or weakness, dizzy or dizziness, fatigue, lethargy, altered mental status, light-headedness, medical problem, examination requested, failure to thrive, or “multiple complaints.” Exclusions: If they had a focal chief complaint (ex. focal pain, injury complaint, shortness of breath, vomiting, diaphoresis, syncope, fever, cough, focal neurologic deficit)or fever of at least 38C at triage. Investigation: Troponin testing Comparison: None Outcomes: There were multiple outcomes of interest: The proportion of patients with nonspecific complaints who underwent troponin testing. The proportion of such patients who had elevated troponin. The proportion of patients with ACS at the index visit or within 30 days. The utility of troponin testing to diagnose or exclude ACS. The frequency of other causes of troponin elevation in this population. Dr. Alfred Wang This is a LIVE episode of an SGEMHOP which means we have the lead author on the show. Dr. Alfred Wang is an emergency medicine physician at Indiana University in Indianapolis, IN. With the help from a dedicated team of physician-peers and mentor, Dr. Wang was able to complete this research project. Authors’ Conclusions: “While consideration for ACS is prudent in selected elderly patients with nonspecific complaints, ACS was rare and no patients received reperfusion therapy. Given the false-positive rate in our study, our results may not support routine troponin testing for ACS in this population.” Quality Checklist for A Chart Review: There is a quality check list for ED studies that was published by Gilbert et al in Annals of EM 1996. It had eight items. The list was updated and expanded by Dr. Andrew Worster from BEEM to include 12 items. The authors of this retrospective chart review did a great job and 11 out of 12 answers were yes. The only “no” was that they did not have a management plan described for missing data in the publication. Abstract Training: Were the abstractors trained before the data collection? Yes Case Selection Criteria: Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria for case selection defined? Yes Variable Definition: Were the variables defined? Yes Abstraction Forms: Did the abstractors use data abstraction forms? Yes Performance Monitored: Was the abstractors’ performance monitored? Yes Bin

Date: January 10th, 2020 Reference: Dodick DW et al. Ubrogepant for the Treatment of Migraine. NEJM 2019 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Anand Swaminathan is an Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Paterson, NJ. He is also the managing editor of EM:RAP and associate editor at REBEL EM. Case: A 23-year-old man with a history of migraines presents with two days of headache, nausea and photo-photophobia typical of his prior migraines. He’s tried a number of medications at home including ibuprofen, acetaminophen, aspirin and sumatriptan without any considerable improvement in symptoms. You start to offer him your standard medications like metoclopramide and haloperidol when he asks about a new drug he heard about called ubrogepant. Background: Migraine headaches are a chronic neurologic disease characterized by throbbing, often unilateral headaches that are often associated with nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia. It is a common disease and can be severe enough to impede on people’s lives. Headaches themselves are not only a common emergency department presentation but one that is filled with potential dangers. There are a number of causes of headache that are life and limb threatening – subarachnoid hemorrhage (SGEM#201), meningitis, encephalitis, cerebral venous thrombosis, vertebral artery dissection among other things but, most headaches are benign in nature. There is an international classification system of headaches (IHS 2018). The current system classifies them into primary and secondary headaches. An important part of our job as emergency physicians is to differentiate the lethal headache from the benign headache. Though we rarely make a de novo diagnose of migraines in the emergency department, many patients with migraines present to us for symptom management. The pathophysiology of migraines is both complicated and poorly understood but there are a number of potential treatments including NSAIDs, acetaminophen, aspirin, neuroleptics, triptans and even propofol. More recently, calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists (CGRPs) have emerged as a new potential treatment. The first big study that came out on these drugs was published in the NEJM in 2019 and was entitled Rimegepant, an Oral Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor Antagonist for Migraine (Lipton et al). Now, we have a second study published in the NEJM on a related drug, ubrogepant. Clinical Question: Does ubrogepant increase the percentage of patients who were free from pain and absent of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom at two hours from initial dose in comparison to placebo? Reference: Dodick DW et al. Ubrogepant for the Treatment of Migraine. NEJM 2019 Population: Adult patients (18-75 years of age) with at least a one-year history of migraine with or without aura that met criteria from the International classification of headache disorders and had migraine onset before the age of 50. Patients had to have a history of migraines between 4-72 hours and a history of migraine attacks separated by at least 48 hours of freedom from headache. Additionally, they had to have suffered from two to eight migraines per month over the last three months. Exclusions: Patients with 15 or more headaches/month on average in the previous six months. Hard to distinguish the type of headache. Use of acute migraine treatment on ten or more days in the previous three months. Participated in a trial involving CGRP. Had clinically significant cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease. History of hepatitis in the last six months or laboratory findings of liver disease (elevated AST, AST, Bilirubin or low serum albumin). Additional Exclusions from ClinicalTrials.gov Has a history of migraine aura with diplopia or impairment of level of consciousness, hemiplegic migraine, or retinal migraine Has a current diagnosis of new persistent daily headache, trigeminal autonomic cephalgia (eg, cluster headache), or painful cranial neuropathy Required hospital treatment of a migraine attack 3 or more times in the previous 6 months Has a chronic non-headache pain condition requiring daily pain medication Has a history of malignancy in the prior 5 years, except for adequately treated basal cell or squamous cell skin cancer, or in situ cervical cancer Has a history of any prior gastrointestinal conditions (eg, diarrhea syndromes, inflammatory bowel disease) that may affect the absorption or metabolism of investigational product; participants with prior gastric bariatric interventions which have been reversed are not excluded Intervention: Ubrogepant 50 mg or 100 mg Comparison: Placebo Outcomes: Co-Primary Outcome: Freedom from pain at two hours from initial dose of medication. Absence of the most bothersome symptom associated with migraine two hours from initial dose of medication. Secondary Outcomes: Change in severity of headache at two hours, sustained pain relief, sustained freedom from pain, absence of photophobia, absence of