Campbell, Ronna L

Abstract Background Multiple anaphylaxis mediators have been demonstrated to provoke migraine‐like attacks following intravascular infusion, suggesting that anaphylaxis could cause headache; however, headache is rarely noted in anaphylaxis and is not included among diagnostic criteria. Objective Our study objectives were to estimate the frequency of headache among prospectively enrolled emergency department (ED) patients with anaphylaxis and assess the association of headache with patient and anaphylaxis characteristics. Methods A cross‐sectional study of ED patients aged ≥5 years who met anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria from January 8, 2020 to September 9, 2022 was conducted. The primary outcome of interest was headache frequency among patients who met at least one anaphylaxis criterion. We explored the association of headache with patient characteristics and anaphylaxis characteristics. Results We included 63 patients with anaphylaxis. In all, 17 (27%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 17%–40%) patients reported the presence of a headache. Female patients had more than a nine times increased odds of having headache (odds ratio [OR] 9.3, 95% CI 1.14–77.1, p = 0.016). Presentation with headache was associated with the presence of dyspnea (OR 5.5, 95% CI 1.56–19.7, p = 0.006). Conclusion Headache in anaphylaxis may be more common than previously recognized, especially in females. Larger prospective studies are needed to characterize headache as a marker of neurological involvement in anaphylaxis.

Abstract Objective The objective was to derive a risk score that uses variables available early during the emergency department (ED) encounter to identify high‐risk geriatric patients who may benefit from delirium screening. Methods This was an observational study of older adults age ≥ 75 years who presented to an academic ED and who were screened for delirium during their ED visit. Variable selection from candidate predictors was performed through a LASSO‐penalized logistic regression. A risk score was derived from the final prediction model, and predictive accuracy characteristics were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results From the 967 eligible ED visits, delirium was detected in 107 (11.1%). The area under the curve for the REcognizing DElirium in Emergency Medicine (REDEEM) score was 0.901 (95% CI = 0.864–0.938). The REEDEM risk score included 10 different variables (seven based on triage information and three obtained during early history taking) with a score ranging from –3 to 66. Using an optimal cutoff of ≥11, we found a sensitivity of 84.1% (90 of 107 ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 75.5%–90.2%) and a specificity of 86.6% (745 of 860 non‐ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 84.1%–88.8%). A lower cutoff of ≥5 was found to minimize false negatives with an improved sensitivity at 91.6% (98 of 107 ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 84.2%–95.8%). Conclusion A risk stratification score was derived with the potential to augment delirium recognition in geriatric ED patients. This has the potential to assist on delirium‐targeted screening of high‐risk patients in the ED. Validation of REDEEM, however, is needed prior to implementation.

AbstractBackgroundFood is the leading cause of anaphylaxis in children seen in emergency departments in the United States, yet data on emergency department visits and hospitalizations related to food‐induced anaphylaxis are limited. The objective of our study was to examine national time trends of pediatric food‐induced anaphylaxis‐related emergency department visits and hospitalizations.MethodsWe conducted an observational study using a national administrative claims database from 2005 through 2014. Participants were younger than 18 years with an emergency department visit or hospitalization for food‐induced anaphylaxis. Outcome measures of our study included time trends of pediatric food‐induced anaphylaxis‐related emergency department visits and hospitalizations, including observations (in an emergency department or a hospital unit), inpatient admissions, and intensive care unit admissions.ResultsDuring the study period, participants had 7310 food‐induced anaphylaxis‐related emergency department visits. Emergency department visits for food‐induced anaphylaxis increased by 214% (P < .001); the highest rates were in infants and toddlers (age 0‐2 years). Rates of emergency department visits significantly increased in all age‐groups, with the highest increase in adolescents (age 13‐17 years: 413%; P < .001). Peanuts accounted for the highest rates (5.85 per 100 000 in 2014) followed by tree nuts/seeds (4.62 per 100 000 in 2014). The greatest increase in rates of emergency department visits for food‐induced anaphylaxis occurred with tree nuts/seeds (373.0% increase during the study period).ConclusionsThe incidence of food‐induced anaphylaxis has significantly increased over time in children of all ages. Food‐induced anaphylaxis in children is an important national public health concern.

Purpose of review Biphasic anaphylaxis is a well documented complication of anaphylaxis, but it has been inconsistently defined in the literature. Analysis of contemporary studies of biphasic anaphylaxis based on modern definitions is needed. Recent findings The rate of biphasic reactions in contemporary literature ranges from 0.4 to 14.7% depending on the study population. Observational studies have reported risk factors associated with the development of biphasic reactions; however, findings have been inconsistent and of questionable generalizability. Although life-threatening biphasic reactions are rare, up to 50% of biphasic reactions will require treatment with epinephrine. Early epinephrine administration may have a role in prevention of biphasic reactions, but the role of steroids needs further investigation. The optimal duration of observation is yet to be determined. Summary Given the relative rarity of life-threatening biphasic anaphylaxis and the new context of the NIAID/FAAN standardized definition, further research regarding biphasic anaphylaxis is needed to better elucidate the care model for anaphylaxis patients with a focus on: prevention of biphasic reactions; identification of patients at increased risk of a biphasic reaction; determination of appropriate observation strategies for anaphylaxis patients; and patient education and preparation for management of potential biphasic reactions.

AbstractObjectivesThe objectives were to describe lawsuits against providers for failing to order head computed tomography (CT) in cases of head trauma and to determine the potential effects of available clinical decision rules (CDRs) on each lawsuit.MethodsThe authors collected jury verdicts, settlements, and court opinions regarding alleged malpractice for failure to order head CT in the setting of head trauma from 1972 through February 2014 from an online legal research tool (WestlawNext). Data were abstracted onto a standardized data form. The performance of five CDRs was evaluated.ResultsSixty relevant cases were identified (52 adult, eight children). Of 48 cases with known outcomes, providers were found negligent in 10 cases (six adult, four pediatric), settled in 11 cases (nine adult, two pediatric), and were found not liable in 27 cases. In all 10 cases in which providers were found negligent, every applicable CDR studied would have indicated the need for head CT. In all eight cases involving children, the applicable CDR would have suggested the need for head CT or observation.ConclusionsA review of legal cases reported in a major online legal research system revealed 60 lawsuits in which providers were sued for failing to order head CTs in cases of head trauma. In all cases in which providers were found negligent, CT imaging or observation would have been indicated by every applicable CDR.

AbstractObjectivesPatient throughput is an increasingly important cause of emergency department (ED) crowding. The authors previously reported shorter patient length of stay (LOS) when adding a triage liaison provider, which required additional personnel. Here, the objective was to evaluate the effect of moving a fast‐track provider to the triage liaison role.MethodsThis was a prospective observational before‐and‐after study design with predefined outcomes measures. A “standard staffing” situation (where an advanced practice provider staffed treatment rooms in the fast track) was compared with an advanced practice provider performing the triage liaison staffing role, with no additional staff. Eleven intervention (“triage liaison staffing”) days were compared with 11 matched control (“standard staffing”) days immediately preceding the intervention. Total LOS was measured for all adult Emergency Severity Index (ESI) 3, 4, and 5 patients (excluding behavioral health patients), and results were compared using Wilcoxon rank‐sum and chi‐square tests.ResultsA total of 681 patients registered on control days and 599 on intervention days. There was no significant difference in total patient LOS: median = 273 minutes, interquartile range (IQR) 176 to 384 minutes on intervention days versus median = 253 minutes, IQR = 175 to 365 minutes on control days (p = 0.20). There was no difference in left‐without‐being‐seen (LWBS) rates (n = 48, 7% on control days vs. n = 35, 6% on intervention days; p=0.38). Secondary analysis of only ESI 3 patients showed no difference in total LOS between periods (median = 284 minutes, IQR = 194 to 396 minutes on intervention days vs. median = 290 minutes, IQR = 217 to 397 minutes on control days; p = 0.22). There was, however, significantly greater total LOS for ESI 4 and 5 patients during the intervention period (median = 238 minutes, IQR = 124 to 350 minutes on intervention days vs. median = 192 minutes, IQR = 124 to 256 minutes on control days; p = 0.011).ConclusionsThe previously reported benefits on patient LOS and LWBS rates after adding a triage liaison (resource additive) were lost when that provider was moved from fast track to the triage role (resource neutral). While the triage liaison provider role may be a way to improve ED throughput when additional resources are available, as evidenced by our prior study, the triage liaison model itself does not appear to replace the staffing of treatment rooms, as evidenced by this study.