Background: No recent data have investigated rates of diagnostic testing for pulmonary embolism (PE) in US emergency departments (EDs), and no data have examined computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) rates in subgroups at high risk for adverse imaging outcomes, including young women and children. We hypothesized that over-testing for PE remains a problem. Methods and Results: We used electronic health record and billing data for 16 EDs in Indiana and 11 hospitals in the Dallas-Fort Worth area from 2016 to 2019 to locate ED patients who had any of the following: D-dimer, CTPA, scintillation ventilation perfusion lung scanning or formal pulmonary angiography. The primary outcomes were ED encounter volume-adjusted CTPA rate, PE yield rate with subgroup reporting for children (<18 years) and women under 45 years. We also examined the most frequent diagnoses. From a total visit volume of 1 828 010 patient encounters, 97 125 (5.3% of the total volume) had a diagnostic test for PE, including 25 870 patients who had CTPA order without D-dimer (59% of all tests for PE). The yield rate for PE from CTPA scans was 1.3% (1.1%–1.5%) in Indiana and 4.8% (4.2%–5.1%) in Dallas-Fort Worth (pooled rate 3.1%). Linear regression showed that increased D-dimer ordering correlated with increased PE yield rate (Pearson’s R 2 =0.43; P <0.001). From the pooled sample, 59% of CTPAs done were in women, with 21% of all CTPAs performed on women under 45 years of age, and 1.4% (1.3%–1.5%) on children. The most frequent diagnoses were symptom-based descriptions of chest pain (34%) and shortness of breath (6.5%) and the condition-based diagnosis of pneumonia (4.1%). Conclusions: Over-testing for PE in American EDs remains a major public health problem. Centers with higher D-dimer ordering had higher yield of PE on CTPA. These data suggest the potential for implementation of D-dimer based protocols to reduce low-yield CTPA ordering.

No abstract

IntroductionThe U.S. opioid epidemic has highlighted the need to identify patients at risk of opioid abuse and overdose. We initiated a novel emergency department- (ED) based interventional protocol to transition our superuser patients from the ED to an outpatient chronic pain program. The objective was to evaluate the protocol’s effect on superusers’ annual ED visits. Secondary outcomes included a quantitative evaluation of statewide opioid prescriptions for these patients, unique prescribers of controlled substances, and ancillary testing.MethodsPatients were referred to the program with the following inclusion criteria: ≥ 6 visits per year to the ED; at least one visit identified by the attending physician as primarily driven by opioid-seeking behavior; and a review by a committee comprising ED administration and case management. Patients were referred to a pain management clinic and informed that they would no longer receive opioid prescriptions from visits to the ED for chronic pain complaints. Electronic medical record (EMR) alerts notified ED providers of the patient’s referral at subsequent visits. We analyzed one year of data pre- and post-referral.ResultsA total of 243 patients had one year of data post-referral for analysis. Median annual ED visits decreased from 14 to 4 (58% decrease, 95% CI [50 to 66]). We also found statistically significant decreases for these patients’ state prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) opioid prescriptions (21 to 13), total unique controlled-substance prescribers (11 to 7), computed tomography imaging (2 to 0), radiographs (5 to 1), electrocardiograms (12 to 4), and labs run (47 to 13).ConclusionThis program and the EMR-based alerts were successful at decreasing local ED visits, annual opioid prescriptions, and hospital resource allocation for this population of patients. There is no evidence that these patients diverted their visits to neighboring EDs after being informed that they would not receive opioids at this hospital, as opioid prescriptions obtained by these patients decreased on a statewide level. This implies that individual ED protocols can have significant impact on the behavior of patients.

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

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