Background: Advances in abdominal MRI have enabled rapid, free-breathing imaging without the need for intravenous or oral contrast material. The use of MRI as the primary imaging modality for suspected appendicitis has not been previously studied.Purpose: To determine the diagnostic performance of MRI as the initial imaging modality in children suspected of having acute appendicitis. Materials and Methods:The study included consecutive patients 18 years of age and younger presenting with acute abdominal pain at a tertiary care institution from January 2013 through June 2016 who subsequently underwent an unenhanced MRI examination as the primary diagnostic imaging modality. Electronic medical records and radiology reports were retrospectively evaluated for the feasibility and diagnostic performance of MRI, with surgical pathology and follow-up electronic records as reference standards. Statistical analyses were performed by using simple binomial proportions to quantify sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, and exact 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained.Results: After exclusions, 402 patients (median age: 13 years; interquartile range [IQR], 9-15 years; 235 female patients; 167 male patients) were included. Sedation for MRI was required in 13 of 402 patients (3.2%; 95% CI: 1.7%, 5.5%). The appendix was visualized in 349 of 402 patients (86.8%; 95% CI: 83.1%, 90%); for the remaining patients, a diagnosis was provided on the basis of secondary signs of appendicitis. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MRI as the primary diagnostic imaging modality for the evaluation of acute appendicitis were 97.9% (95 of 97; 95% CI: 92.8%, 99.8%), 99% (302 of 305; 95% CI: 97.2%, 99.8%), and 98.8% (397 of 402; 97.1%, 99.6%), respectively. Among patients with negative findings for appendicitis at MRI, an alternate diagnosis was provided in 113 of 304 patients (37.2%; 95% CI: 31.7%, 42.9%). Conclusion:When performed as the initial imaging modality in children suspected of having acute appendicitis, MRI examinations had high diagnostic performance for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis and in providing alternative diagnoses.

No abstract

PurposeEmergency medicine residency programs have evaluated the use of Multiple Mini Interviews (MMIs) for applicants. The authors developed an MMI-style method called the Fast Interview Track (FIT) to predict an applicant's ‘fit’ within an individual residency program.MethodsApplicants meet with up to five residents and are asked one question by each. Residents score the applicant using a Likert scale from 1 to 5 on two questions: ‘How well does the applicant think on his/her feet?’ and ‘How well do you think the applicant will fit in here?’. To assess how well these questions predicted a resident's ‘fit’, current residents scored fellow residents on these same questions. These scores were compared with the residents’ interview FIT scores. A postmatch survey of applicants who did not match at this program solicited applicants’ attitudes toward the FIT sessions.ResultsAmong the junior class, the correlation between interview and current scores was significant for question 1 (rho=0.5192 [p=0.03]) and question 2 (rho=0.5753 [p=0.01]). Among seniors, Spearman's rho was statistically significant for question 2, though not statistically significant for question 1. The chi-square measure of high scores (4–5) versus low scores (1–3) found a statistically significant association between interview and current scores for interns and juniors. Of the 29 responses to the postmatch survey, 16 (55%) felt FIT sessions provided a good sense of the program's personality and only 6 (21%) disagreed. Nine (31%) felt FIT sessions positively impacted our program's ranking and 11 (38%) were ‘Neutral’. Only two (7%) reported that FIT sessions negatively impacted their ranking of our program.ConclusionsFIT provided program leadership with a sense of an applicant's ‘fit’ within this program. Interview day scores correlated with scores received during residency. Most applicants report a positive experience with FIT sessions. FIT provides a useful tool to recruit applicants who fit with the residency program.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of bacteremia and/or bacterial meningitis in febrile infants ≤60 days of age with positive urinalysis (UA) results. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a prospective observational study of noncritical febrile infants ≤60 days between 2011 and 2019 conducted in the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network emergency departments. Participants had temperatures ≥38°C and were evaluated with blood cultures and had UAs available for analysis. We report the prevalence of bacteremia and bacterial meningitis in those with and without positive UA results. RESULTS: Among 7180 infants, 1090 (15.2%) had positive UA results. The risk of bacteremia was higher in those with positive versus negative UA results (63/1090 [5.8%] vs 69/6090 [1.1%], difference 4.7% [3.3% to 6.1%]). There was no difference in the prevalence of bacterial meningitis in infants ≤28 days of age with positive versus negative UA results (∼1% in both groups). However, among 697 infants aged 29 to 60 days with positive UA results, there were no cases of bacterial meningitis in comparison to 9 of 4153 with negative UA results (0.2%, difference -0.2% [-0.4% to -0.1%]). In addition, there were no cases of bacteremia and/or bacterial meningitis in the 148 infants ≤60 days of age with positive UA results who had the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network low-risk blood thresholds of absolute neutrophil count <4 × 103 cells/mm3 and procalcitonin <0.5 ng/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Among noncritical febrile infants ≤60 days of age with positive UA results, there were no cases of bacterial meningitis in those aged 29 to 60 days and no cases of bacteremia and/or bacterial meningitis in any low-risk infants based on low-risk blood thresholds in both months of life. These findings can guide lumbar puncture use and other clinical decision making.

No abstract