PEM Pearls: This may hurt! How to manage pediatric anxiety in the ED

screaming child

Pain and anxiety in the emergency department (ED) are two of the most common things we see in children. Pediatric patients, whether first time visitors or those with chronic illnesses, can exhibit marked anxiety and fear when in the ED setting. Child development, parenting styles and prior medical experiences will  guide their reactions in these cases. Practitioners must have a unique set of tools to work with these children and understand the optimal methods for providing care, while decreasing some of these normal reactions to a stressful environment. The most important part of treating anxiety and fear in children is recognizing it early. While pharmacologic interventions can adequately treat pain and anxiety in children, there are quick and effective approaches to avoid these medicines in many cases. Below is a structured approach to assess and reduce anxiety during examination:

(more…)

By |2017-10-26T14:33:41-07:00May 24, 2016|Pediatrics, PEM Pearls|

Managing migraine headaches in complicated patients

migraineCase Vignette

A 42-year-old female presents at 10 pm with a throbbing right frontal headache associated with nausea, vomiting, photophobia, and phonophobia. The headache is severe, rated as “10” on a 0 to 10 triage pain scale. The headache began gradually while the patient was at work at 2 pm. Since 2 pm, she has taken 2 tablets of naproxen 500 mg and 2 tablets of sumatriptan 100 mg without relief.

The patient has a diagnosis of migraine without aura. She reports 12 attacks per month. The headache is similar to her previous migraine headaches. She is forced to present to an Emergency Department (ED) on average 2 times per month for management of migraine refractory to oral therapy. She reports a history of dystonic reactions and akathisia after receiving IV dopamine antagonists during a previous ED visit. The physical exam is non-contributory including a normal neurological exam, normal visual fields and fundoscopic exam, and no signs of a head or face infection. When you are done evaluating her, the patient reports that she usually gets relief with 3 doses of hydromorphone 2 mg + diphenhydramine 50 mg IM, and asks that you administer her usual treatment. What do you do?

Background

Migraine is a neurological disorder characterized by recurrent painful headaches and abnormal processing of sensory input resulting in symptoms such as photophobia, phonophobia, and osmophobia.1 Central to disease pathogenesis is abnormal activation of nociceptive pathways.2 Disease severity ranges from mild to severe. Patients at one end of the spectrum have rare episodic headaches. On the other end are patients who have headaches on more days than not, patients who are functionally impaired by their headaches, and patients who frequently cannot participate fully in work or social activities. Chronic migraine, a sub-type of migraine defined by ≥15 days with headache for at least 3 consecutive months, is experienced by 1-3% of the general population.3

ED use for treatment of migraine is common. 1.2 million patients present to U.S. ED’s annually for management of this primary headache disorder.4 Parenteral opioids are used to treat the acute headache in slightly more than 50% of all ED visits.4 Multiple authorities have cautioned against the use of opioids for migraine.5,6 However, the frequent use of opioids has continued unabated, despite the publication in the EM, neurology, and headache literature of dozens of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating safety and efficacy of parenteral alternatives, most notably dopamine antagonists and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.7

Opioids have been associated with a variety of poor outcomes in migraine patients including:

  1. Progression of the underlying migraine disorder from episodic to chronic migraine8
  2. Increased frequency of return visits to ED9
  3. Less responsiveness to subsequent treatment with triptans10
  4. Less frequent headache relief than patients who received dihydroergotamine or dopamine antagonists11

In contrast, a high quality, ED-based RCT did not demonstrate more harm from 1 or 2 doses of meperidine than from dihydroergotamine.12 Hydromorphone, the parenteral opioid currently used most commonly in U.S. EDs,4 has never been studied experimentally in migraine patients. However, given the wide range of parenteral alternatives, the possibility that opioids may worsen the underlying migraine disorder, and the fact that they are less efficacious than other treatments, opioids should not be offered as first- or second-line therapy for patients who present de novo to an ED with an acute migraine (assuming no contraindications to alternative medications).

Questions:

1) Other than opioids, what parenteral therapies can be offered to this patient?

The 3 classes of parenteral therapeutics with the most evidence supporting safety and efficacy for use as first-line therapy for migraine are the following13:

  1. Dopamine antagonists
  2. NSAIDs
  3. Subcutaneous sumatriptan

However, this patient has relative contraindications to each of these. Other parenteral medications used for migraine are listed in the following table.

Table: Alternative parenteral migraine therapies

AgentDoseAdverse eventsEvidence supporting efficacyNotes
Acetaminophen (APAP)14,151 gm IVWell toleratedIn one trial, IV APAP did no better than placebo. In another, IV APAP was comparable to an IV NSAID.
Dihydroergotamine160.5 mg -1 mg IV infusionNausea is common. Pre-treat with anti-emetics.In one trial, DHE was less effective than sumatriptan at 2 hours but more effective by 4 and 24 hours.Use cautiously in patients with cardiovascular risk factors.
Ketamine170.08 mg/kg SCFatigue, deliriumIn one low quality cross-over RCT, ketamine outperformed placebo.
Magnesium18–211-2 gm IVFlushingIn RCTs of varying quality, IV mg did not consistently outperform placeboEfficacy data is most compelling for migraine with aura.
Octreotide220.1 mg SCDiarrhea, injection site reactionsIn a high quality RCT, octreotide did not outperform placebo
Propofol23,2410 mg IV every 10 minutes as needed up to 80 mg Or 30-40 mg IV with 10-20 mg bolus every 3-5 minutes up to 120 mgSedation, hypoxiaIn a low quality RCT, propofol outperformed dexamethasone. In another low quality trial, propofol outperformed sumatriptan.It is not clear whether the migraine returns after propofol administration has been completed. Previous ALiEM post on migraines and propofol.
Valproic acid28,291000 mg IVWell toleratedIn a high quality RCT, valproate was outperformed by metoclopramide and ketorolac. In a lower quality RCT, valproate was comparable to IV aspirin.
APAP= acetaminophen; DHE= dihydroergotamine; Mg= magnesium

In some patients, greater occipital nerve blocks with a long-acting local anesthetic such as bupivaciane may play a role.25 While the above alternative parenteral therapies may benefit this patient, available evidence regarding risks and benefits does not dictate that these other therapies must be offered prior to use of opioids.

2) Does the fact that this patient makes frequent use of the ED indicate an unmet medical need?

As with congestive heart failure and asthma, frequent use of an ED for migraine is associated with worse underlying disease.26 These frequent users are more likely to have chronic migraines (> 15 headache days per month) and psychiatric co-morbidities.26 Concomitant medication overuse headache, a disorder defined by an upward spiral of increasing headache frequency in the setting of increased usage of analgesic or migraine medication, is also common.27 Management of complicated patients with migraines is exceedingly difficult, particularly during a busy ED shift, and may lead to frustration for both the healthcare practitioner and the patient. Ideally, outpatient healthcare practitioners with appropriate expertise should direct management of complicated patients with migraines.

3) Should the patient be administered 3 doses of hydromorphone 2 mg + diphenhydramine 50 mg IM as she wishes?

Management of chronic pain patients can be trying and demoralizing for emergency physicians because the underlying problem cannot be solved, and all avenues of treatment are flawed.  Allowing the patient to suffer without appropriate justification is cruel. Delaying opioid administration during good faith efforts to identify alternative effective therapeutic agents is reasonable. Withholding opioids on principle is problematic because for most patients in most circumstances, published data do not establish that the benefit of pain relief is outweighed by the potential for opioid induced harm. On the other hand, thoughtlessly acquiescing to repeated requests for opioids during multiple ED visits is a violation of good medical practice, because of the concern of exacerbating the underlying migraine disorder, which could result in more ED visits, increased number of headache days, and the potential to cause refractoriness to standard migraine medication. One might compare it to administering antibiotics for bronchitis.

Case Resolution

The best solution for the patient in the case vignette is to administer parenteral opioids only as rescue therapy for patients who adhere to an established outpatient plan of care. Acutely, the patient should not be allowed to suffer. However distasteful it may be, the harm arising from 3 isolated doses of parenteral opioids during one ED visit is unlikely to be either long-lasting or severe. But a prerequisite to treatment with opioids during a subsequent visit should be adherence to appropriate outpatient treatment: specifically, patients who require parenteral opioids for migraines should regularly attend outpatient appointments with an appropriate healthcare provider within the ED’s healthcare system.

Department-wide opioid policies are essential, as physician to physician variability in care may undermine a strict approach to opioids. Ideally, a committee with relevant expertise can monitor frequently presenting pain patients and develop patient-specific interventions that will be enforced by all practitioners during subsequent visits. If need be, the terms of treatment can be reinforced with a written document (example in the Appendix). This written document is not meant to be legally binding, but should be used to establish expectations. The last thing a busy emergency physician needs is a battle over opioids with a frequently presenting migraine patient. But before discharge, there should be a conversation about expectations during future ED visits. This will contribute to increased satisfaction for both the provider and the patient.

Top image: (c) Can Stock Photo

Migraine and opioids

A written understanding between the staff of the emergency department and ______.

As providers of emergency healthcare 24 hours per day, seven days per week, we take enormous pride in our ability to provide top-notch care. We save lives, treat pain and illness, and work hard to ensure the best possible health for all of our patients. We are asking you to sign this agreement because we believe that together, you and we can do a better job of managing your headaches.

You have a migraine. A migraine is a chronic headache disorder. For reasons that are still unclear to scientists, the brains of patients with migraines experience pain differently than people without migraine. The result of this is horrible headaches and other symptoms like nausea, vomiting, sensitivity to light and sound, and dizziness. There are effective treatments for migraines. Some patients with migraines take medications every day to prevent headaches from even beginning. Some patients with migraine receive injections to decrease the number of headaches they experience. Some patients learn techniques to take control of the pain once it begins.

We have noticed that because of your headaches, you have to come to the emergency department (ED) to get treatment frequently. When you come to the ED, the only medication that helps your headache is an opioid medication. Examples of opioid medications include: hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), morphine, butorphanol, oxycodone (Percocet, Oxycontin). We want to work with you to decrease the number of times that you have to come to the ED to get treatment for migraine. Based on published scientific studies, we think that treating migraines with opioid medications may be worsening your migraines. We understand that opioid medications make you feel better quickly, but ultimately, they may be doing more harm than good. Therefore, we want to limit the number of doses of opioids that you receive in the ED. With that goal in mind, we are going to require the following prior to giving you opioid injections in the ED.

  • You need to establish a relationship with a doctor who can help you manage your migraines. The names and contact numbers of some doctors we recommend are listed below. You may use your own doctor, but the doctor must be experienced in the management of headache or pain, must be local, and must be willing to be available by telephone whenever you are in the ED
  • Every ED visit must be followed up with a visit to that doctor
  • You need to make a good faith effort to reduce the number of times you visit the ED for your treatment of migraines.

References

1.
Headache C. The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (beta version). Cephalalgia. 2013;33(9):629-808. [PubMed]
2.
Goadsby P. Pathophysiology of migraine. Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2012;15(Suppl 1):S15-22. [PubMed]
3.
Lipton R. Chronic migraine, classification, differential diagnosis, and epidemiology. Headache. 2011;51 Suppl 2:77-83. [PubMed]
4.
Friedman B, West J, Vinson D, Minen M, Restivo A, Gallagher E. Current management of migraine in US emergency departments: an analysis of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Cephalalgia. 2015;35(4):301-309. [PubMed]
5.
Langer-Gould A, Anderson W, Armstrong M, et al. The American Academy of Neurology’s top five choosing wisely recommendations. Neurology. 2013;81(11):1004-1011. [PubMed]
6.
Loder E, Weizenbaum E, Frishberg B, Silberstein S, American H. Choosing wisely in headache medicine: the American Headache Society’s list of five things physicians and patients should question. Headache. 2013;53(10):1651-1659. [PubMed]
7.
Sumamo S, Dryden D, Pasichnyk D, et al. Acute Migraine Treatment in Emergency Settings. November 2012. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK115368/. [PubMed]
8.
Bigal M, Serrano D, Buse D, Scher A, Stewart W, Lipton R. Acute migraine medications and evolution from episodic to chronic migraine: a longitudinal population-based study. Headache. 2008;48(8):1157-1168. [PubMed]
9.
Colman I, Rothney A, Wright S, Zilkalns B, Rowe B. Use of narcotic analgesics in the emergency department treatment of migraine headache. Neurology. 2004;62(10):1695-1700. [PubMed]
10.
Burstein R, Collins B, Jakubowski M. Defeating migraine pain with triptans: a race against the development of cutaneous allodynia. Ann Neurol. 2004;55(1):19-26. [PubMed]
11.
Friedman B, Kapoor A, Friedman M, Hochberg M, Rowe B. The relative efficacy of meperidine for the treatment of acute migraine: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Emerg Med. 2008;52(6):705-713. [PubMed]
12.
Carleton S, Shesser R, Pietrzak M, et al. Double-blind, multicenter trial to compare the efficacy of intramuscular dihydroergotamine plus hydroxyzine versus intramuscular meperidine plus hydroxyzine for the emergency department treatment of acute migraine headache. Ann Emerg Med. 1998;32(2):129-138. [PubMed]
13.
Orr S, Aubé M, Becker W, et al. Canadian Headache Society systematic review and recommendations on the treatment of migraine pain in emergency settings. Cephalalgia. 2015;35(3):271-284. [PubMed]
14.
Turkcuer I, Serinken M, Eken C, et al. Intravenous paracetamol versus dexketoprofen in acute migraine attack in the emergency department: a randomised clinical trial. Emerg Med J. 2014;31(3):182-185. [PubMed]
15.
Leinisch E, Evers S, Kaempfe N, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy of intravenous acetaminophen in the treatment of acute migraine attacks: a double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group multicenter study. Pain. 2005;117(3):396-400. [PubMed]
16.
Winner P, Ricalde O, Le F, Saper J, Margul B. A double-blind study of subcutaneous dihydroergotamine vs subcutaneous sumatriptan in the treatment of acute migraine. Arch Neurol. 1996;53(2):180-184. [PubMed]
17.
Nicolodi M, Sicuteri F. Exploration of NMDA receptors in migraine: therapeutic and theoretic implications. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res. 1995;15(5-6):181-189. [PubMed]
18.
Corbo J, Esses D, Bijur P, Iannaccone R, Gallagher E. Randomized clinical trial of intravenous magnesium sulfate as an adjunctive medication for emergency department treatment of migraine headache. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;38(6):621-627. [PubMed]
19.
Shahrami A, Assarzadegan F, Hatamabadi H, Asgarzadeh M, Sarehbandi B, Asgarzadeh S. Comparison of therapeutic effects of magnesium sulfate vs. dexamethasone/metoclopramide on alleviating acute migraine headache. J Emerg Med. 2015;48(1):69-76. [PubMed]
20.
Cete Y, Dora B, Ertan C, Ozdemir C, Oktay C. A randomized prospective placebo-controlled study of intravenous magnesium sulphate vs. metoclopramide in the management of acute migraine attacks in the Emergency Department. Cephalalgia. 2005;25(3):199-204. [PubMed]
21.
Bigal M, Bordini C, Tepper S, Speciali J. Intravenous magnesium sulphate in the acute treatment of migraine without aura and migraine with aura. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Cephalalgia. 2002;22(5):345-353. [PubMed]
22.
Levy M, Matharu M, Bhola R, Meeran K, Goadsby P. Octreotide is not effective in the acute treatment of migraine. Cephalalgia. 2005;25(1):48-55. [PubMed]
23.
Soleimanpour H, Taheraghdam A, Ghafouri R, Taghizadieh A, Marjany K, Soleimanpour M. Improvement of refractory migraine headache by propofol: case series. Int J Emerg Med. 2012;5(1):19. [PubMed]
24.
Moshtaghion H, Heiranizadeh N, Rahimdel A, Esmaeili A, Hashemian H, Hekmatimoghaddam S. The Efficacy of Propofol vs. Subcutaneous Sumatriptan for Treatment of Acute Migraine Headaches in the Emergency Department: A Double-Blinded Clinical Trial. Pain Pract. 2015;15(8):701-705. [PubMed]
25.
Voigt C, Murphy M. Occipital nerve blocks in the treatment of headaches: safety and efficacy. J Emerg Med. 2015;48(1):115-129. [PubMed]
26.
Friedman B, Serrano D, Reed M, Diamond M, Lipton R. Use of the emergency department for severe headache. A population-based study. Headache. 2009;49(1):21-30. [PubMed]
27.
Kristoffersen E, Lundqvist C. Medication-overuse headache: epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2014;5(2):87-99. [PubMed]
28.
Leniger T, Pageler L, Stude P, Diener H, Limmroth V. Comparison of intravenous valproate with intravenous lysine-acetylsalicylic acid in acute migraine attacks. Headache. 2005;45(1):42-46. [PubMed]
29.
Friedman B, Garber L, Yoon A, et al. Randomized trial of IV valproate vs metoclopramide vs ketorolac for acute migraine. Neurology. 2014;82(11):976-983. [PubMed]
By |2019-04-28T21:14:07-07:00May 18, 2016|CME, Neurology, Tox & Medications|

Trick of the Trade: Pre-Charge the Defibrillator

Pre-Charge the Defibrillator CPRIn cardiac arrest care it is well accepted that time to defibrillation is closely correlated with survival and outcome.1 There has also been a lot of focus over the years on limiting interruptions in chest compressions during CPR. In fact, this concept has become a major focus of the current AHA Guidelines. Why? Because we know interruptions are bad.2,3 One particular aspect of CPR that has gotten a lot of attention in this regard is the peri-shock period. It has been well established that longer pre- and peri-shock pauses are independently associated with decreased chance of survival.4,5 Can we do better to shock sooner and minimize these pauses?

(more…)

PEM Pearls: The nonvisualized appendix quandary on ultrasound

appendicitis image

A 10-year old girl presents with progressively worsening right lower quadrant pain for the last 2 days. She reports having chills and feeling warm. Her review of systems is negative for nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or urinary symptoms. Her abdominal exam is unremarkable except for some diffuse, mild tenderness with deep palpation in bilateral lower quadrants. Labs: WBC 9 x 10^9/L. Because of radiation exposure concerns, you order an abdominal ultrasound as the initial imaging modality to evaluate for appendicitis. The radiologist’s reading was: “Unable to visualize the appendix.” Now, what do you do?

Appendicitis background

Appendicitis is one of the most common surgical emergencies and accounts for 5-10% of all abdominal pain among pediatric patients. Diagnosis can be deceptively difficult given that the complaints can be vague and nonspecific among children. Furthermore, this disease can mimic and be mimicked by many other pathologies making the clinical exam challenging. Laboratory tests, as well as clinical decision-making tools can help guide a clinician, but are limited, especially since early in disease progression, there may not be any demonstrated abnormalities.1

Imaging modalities for appendicitis

The use of some type of imaging modality is now more frequently incorporated to help assess for appendicitis. The sensitivity and specificity for computer tomography (CT) has been quoted as 94 and 95%, respectively, while for ultrasound (US), it is around 88% and 94%, respectively.1 In one particular 2012 study by Trout et al., the sensitivity for US for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis was as low as 66.4%, although the specificity was 95.9%, with a false negative rate of 33.5%.2

While CT/MRI improves diagnostic accuracy, many institutions use US as the initial imaging modality in order to minimize radiation exposure, and need for IV access and sedation.1,3 However, US results can vary for many reasons:2

  • Operator ability: Dedicated pediatric sonographers were able to identify the appendix at a significantly higher rate than non-pediatric sonographers
  • Patient characteristics (e.g. obesity) and cooperation
  • Location of the appendix: A retrocecal appendix or an appendix in the deep pelvis, can be difficult to visualize.

The ultrasound reading is neither positive or negative. Now what?

Often clinicians are left in a quandary when the interpretation for the appendix is “equivocal,” “non-visualized,” “limited,” or “inconclusive.” This occurs 25-73% of the time.4,5 So now what? Many times, we progress to CT/MRI imaging as if the US study was never performed. Some clinicians incorporate other strategies including serial abdominal exams or repeated US studies. These alternative strategies, however, require a much longer ED stay.

Is there any value to a single “non-visualized appendix” US study result?

New data suggests that an adequately performed US examination has some negative predictive value (NPV) for appendicitis despite the appendix not being seen (“non-visualized”), assuming that there are no other abnormalities present.5,6

A recent Journal of Pediatric Surgery 2015 study reports that an indeterminate abdominal US has some negative predictive power in risk stratifying the patient for appendicitis. From 2004-2013 at a single tertiary academic center, Cohen et al. did a retrospective chart review study of 1,260 patients who underwent abdominal US where appendicitis was suspected. 63% of the initial US findings were deemed non-diagnostic, with 56% of these due to non-visualization of the appendix. The authors then calculated NPV for non-diagnostic and non-visualized US results, as a function US alone, a serum WBC cutoff of 7.5 x 10^9/L, and a serum WBC cutoff of 11.0 x 10^9/L. The results are summarized in the table.6

US Study ResultNumberNPV for Appendicitis
US AloneUS + Serum WBC* <7.5US + Serum WBC* <11
Non-diagnostic**87684.5%91.7%95.6%
Non-diagnostic because of non-visualized appendix77786.4%98.9%97.0%
* WBC units are in 109/L

** Cases were categorized as non-diagnostic if they were not clearly or mostly conclusive in being a positive or negative ultrasound study for acute appendicitis

This study, examined the relationship between a non-diagnostic US and a primary outcome measure of appendicitis. With a non-diagnostic US and a serum WBC count of <7.5 x 10^9/L, one might be able to have a shared decision discussion with the family about observing the patient at home or as an inpatient without further immediate imaging. The NPV is 97.1% (or 98.9% if the appendix was not visualized). A limitation of this study is that it is a single-site retrospective study.6

But is it that simple?

For many clinicians, when we get a “non-visualized appendix” US reading, we still feel pressed to get further imaging, even if our suspicion is low. For those low-risk patients, regardless of the next imaging modality, they will already have a high NPV (86.4% in one study).7

Radiologists will also look for secondary findings suggestive of appendicitis, including the presence of an appendicolith, free fluid or fluid collection, echogenic inflammatory changes or hyperemia. A study by Ross et al. found that those with at least one of these secondary signs had an odds ratio of 6.52 of having appendicitis.4

A major part of the problem is how US findings are reported, because they can wildly vary by institution and by US technician. Providing a standardized and comprehensive report can help minimize confusion and clarify what descriptives mean. Fallon et al, created an “Appy-Score” which helped categorize various findings, though their “equivocal” definition was a catch-all for those that did not fit into the other groups (e.g. periappendiceal inflammatory changes or borderline enlargement with an otherwise normal appendix). They demonstrated that by using their US scoring system, they were able to reduce overall CT use by 38%.8

 

Appy-Score Strata
1Completely visualized normal-appearing appendix with no ancillary findings to suggest appendicitis
2Partially visualized normal-appearing appendix with no findings to suggest appendicitis
3Non-visualized appendix with no ancillary findings to suggest appendicitis
4Equivocal
5aNon-perforated acute appendicitis
5bPerforated appendicitis
Adapted from Larson et al5 Table 1

Larson et al. used 5 specific interpretative categories to provide more description about their US findings. In patients with a non-visualized appendix but with positive secondary findings, the appendicitis rate was 39.3%, while those without any secondary findings, had a rate of 3.8%.5

How can we also use clinical decision tools to help risk stratify the need for additional imaging?

Given a 50/50 chance of having an equivocal US exam, having a pre-test risk probability based on clinical exam and/or scores (e.g. Alvarado score) may help risk stratify your patients when combined with imaging.

 

Clinical CriterionNo. of Points
Migration of pain to the right iliac fossa1
Anorexia or ketones in the urine1
Nausea or vomiting1
Right lower quadrant tenderness2
Rebound tenderness1
Fever of 37.3°C or more1
Leukocytosis of > 10,000/µL2
Neutrophilia > 75%1
Total possible points10
Components of the Alvarado Score

In a study by Blitman et al., they found a NPV of 99.6% for those patients who had an inconclusive US test, but a low Alvarado score (<5) and 89.7% for those with a score of 5-8.9

Bottom Line

Many institutions have created a staged approach where they will use ultrasound first, followed by a CT or MRI, if they are unable to visualize the appendix. Given new evidence, we now might consider avoiding additional imaging in certain low-risk populations. These low risk patients have ALL of the following:

  1. Low Alvarado Score (<5)
  2. Non-elevated serum WBC value
  3. Nonvisualized appendix with no secondary findings on US

In the hands of a proficient US operator, a nonvisualized appendix without secondary findings on US no longer means an automatic CT or MRI scan.

References

  1. Estey A, Poonai N, Lim R. Appendix not seen: the predictive value of secondary inflammatory sonographic signs. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2013;29(4):435-439. [PubMed]
  2. Trout A, Sanchez R, Ladino-Torres M, Pai D, Strouse P. A critical evaluation of US for the diagnosis of pediatric acute appendicitis in a real-life setting: how can we improve the diagnostic value of sonography? Pediatr Radiol. 2012;42(7):813-823. [PubMed]
  3. Dillman J, Gadepalli S, Sroufe N, et al. Equivocal Pediatric Appendicitis: Unenhanced MR Imaging Protocol for Nonsedated Children-A Clinical Effectiveness Study. Radiology. 2016;279(1):216-225. [PubMed]
  4. Ross M, Liu H, Netherton S, et al. Outcomes of children with suspected appendicitis and incompletely visualized appendix on ultrasound. Acad Emerg Med. 2014;21(5):538-542. [PubMed]
  5. Larson D, Trout A, Fierke S, Towbin A. Improvement in diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound of the pediatric appendix through the use of equivocal interpretive categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(4):849-856. [PubMed]
  6. Cohen B, Bowling J, Midulla P, et al. The non-diagnostic ultrasound in appendicitis: is a non-visualized appendix the same as a negative study? J Pediatr Surg. 2015;50(6):923-927. [PubMed]
  7. Ly D, Khalili K, Gray S, Atri M, Hanbidge A, Thipphavong S. When the Appendix Is Not Seen on Ultrasound for Right Lower Quadrant Pain: Does the Interpretation of Emergency Department Physicians Correlate With Diagnostic Performance? Ultrasound Q. 2016;32(3):290-295. [PubMed]
  8. Fallon S, Orth R, Guillerman R, et al. Development and validation of an ultrasound scoring system for children with suspected acute appendicitis. Pediatr Radiol. 2015;45(13):1945-1952. [PubMed]
  9. Blitman N, Anwar M, Brady K, Taragin B, Freeman K. Value of Focused Appendicitis Ultrasound and Alvarado Score in Predicting Appendicitis in Children: Can We Reduce the Use of CT? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(6):W707-12. [PubMed]

Trick-of-the-Trade: IV Compatibility Information at Your Fingertips

MicromedexWe often have less than optimal IV access to administer fluids, blood products, and medications in sick ED patients. If more than one medication needs to be infused in the same line, how do we know if they are compatible? The gold standard for checking IV compatibility is Trissel’s Stability of Compounded Formulations. 1 But a textbook doesn’t help us in critical situations. Is there a better way?

(more…)

PEM Pearls: Prolonged Fever in Pediatric Patients – When should you worry?

Prolonged Fever in Pediatric PatientsFebrile pediatric patients are ubiquitous in emergency departments (ED) around the country.  Parents agonize over the presence, height, and persistence of fever, despite the energy we invest in attempting to reassure them and minimize ‘fever phobia’. But when should we, as providers, also be worried? Very often in pediatric patients we are trying to distinguish self-limited viral infections from potentially harmful bacterial ones. In ill-appearing patients, it’s easy. We treat the patient aggressively as if their symptoms were attributable to a bacterial infection. The proper approach is more opaque with the relatively well-appearing febrile child. How do we pick out the bacterial infections in these cases?

(more…)

By |2017-10-26T14:33:56-07:00May 5, 2016|Pediatrics, PEM Pearls|

Trick of the Trade: Ultrasound for Pedal Pulse Identification and ABI

ultrasound for pedal pulse PT The Problem: A patient is rolled in to your ED by EMS with extremity trauma. You’re rightfully concerned about possible vascular injury to an upper or lower extremity, but you can’t palpate a dorsalis pedis (DP) or posterior tibialis (PT) pulse! You spend minutes, whisking the doppler probe, attempting to hear a waveform in a busy ED. Unfortunately you can’t seem to hear the “whoosh,” making accurate it nearly impossible for you to measure ankle-brachial indices (ABI). 1–3

(more…)

By |2025-04-07T20:21:03-07:00May 4, 2016|Cardiovascular, Trauma, Tricks of the Trade|
Go to Top