Carpenter, Christopher R.

AbstractBackgroundCanalith repositioning maneuvers (such as the Epley maneuver) are recommended by specialty guidelines for management of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) yet are frequently underutilized in the emergency department (ED).MethodsWe conducted a systematic review (SR) of SRs to summarize the evidence of Epley maneuver for the treatment of posterior canal (pc) BPPV in any setting. We included SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared Epley to control in adult patients with pc‐BPPV. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened in duplicate. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was used to rate certainty of evidence. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. Meta‐analysis of individual studies was conducted with random and fixed effects.ResultsFrom 2228 titles, seven SRs were selected for quality assessment. One review was of higher methodological quality, included only RCTs, and was the most current and comprehensive. Five of the 11 RCTs of the review, including 312 patients with pc‐BPPV diagnosed by Dix–Hallpike, were relevant to our question. Meta‐analysis of four RCTs (251 patients) showed the use of Epley (compared to control) was associated with higher complete resolution of vertigo at 1 week (OR 7.19, 95% CI 1.52–33.98, moderate certainty). Meta‐analysis of three RCTs (195 patients) showed the use of Epley was associated with higher conversion to negative Dix–Hallpike at 1 week (OR 6.67, 95% CI 1.52–33.98, moderate certainty). The number‐needed‐to‐treat was three. Meta‐analysis of the outcomes at 1 month, and when observational studies were included, showed similar results. No serious adverse effects were reported.ConclusionsSymptoms of pc‐BPPV improve with the Epley maneuver. Emergency clinicians should become familiar with performing the Epley for BPPV. Further studies on ED implementation and clinician education of Epley are needed.

AbstractBackgroundA short course of corticosteroids is among the management strategies considered by specialists for the treatment of vestibular neuritis (VN). We conducted an umbrella review (systematic review of systematic reviews) to summarize the evidence of corticosteroids use for the treatment of VN.MethodsWe included systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that evaluated the effects of corticosteroids compared to placebo or usual care in adult patients with acute VN. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened in duplicate. The quality of reviews was assessed with the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR‐2) tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was used to rate certainty of evidence. No meta‐analysis was performed.ResultsFrom 149 titles, five systematic reviews were selected for quality assessment, and two reviews were of higher methodological quality and were included. These two reviews included 12 individual studies and 660 patients with VN. In a meta‐analysis of two RCTs including a total of 50 patients, the use of corticosteroids (compared to placebo) was associated with higher complete caloric recovery (risk ratio 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32 to 6.00, low certainty). It is very uncertain whether this translates into clinical improvement as shown by the imprecise effect estimates for outcomes such as patient‐reported vertigo or patient‐reported dizziness disability. There was a wide CI for the outcome of dizziness handicap score (one study, 30 patients, 20.9 points in corticosteroids group vs. 15.8 points in placebo, mean difference +5.1, 95% CI −8.09 to +18.29, very low certainty). Higher rates of minor adverse effects for those receiving corticosteroids were reported, but the certainty in this evidence was very low.ConclusionsThere is limited evidence to support the use of corticosteroids for the treatment of VN in the emergency department.

AbstractThis second Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE‐2) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic “low‐risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department.” The multidisciplinary guideline panel applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding four priority questions for adult emergency department patients with low‐risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain. The intended population includes adults with multiple similar presentations of abdominal signs and symptoms recurring over a period of months or years. The panel reached the following recommendations: (1) if a prior negative computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) has been performed within 12 months, there is insufficient evidence to accurately identify populations in whom repeat CTAP imaging can be safely avoided or routinely recommended; (2) if CTAP with IV contrast is negative, we suggest against ultrasound unless there is concern for pelvic or biliary pathology; (3) we suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety may be performed during the ED evaluation; and (4) we suggest an opioid‐minimizing strategy for pain control.EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe GRACE‐2 writing group developed clinically relevant questions to address the care of adult patients with low‐risk, recurrent, previously undifferentiated abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED). Four patient‐intervention‐comparison‐outcome‐time (PICOT) questions were developed by consensus of the writing group, who performed a systematic review of the literature and then synthesized direct and indirect evidence to formulate recommendations, following GRADE methodology. The writing group found that despite the commonality and relevance of these questions in emergency care, the quantity and quality of evidence were very limited, and even fundamental definitions of the population and outcomes of interest are lacking. Future research opportunities include developing precise and clinically relevant definitions of low‐risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain and determining the scope of the existing populations in terms of annual national ED visits for this complaint, costs of care, and patient and provider preferences.

AbstractObjectiveComputed tomography (CT) imaging is frequently obtained for recurrent abdominal pain after a prior emergency department (ED) evaluation. We evaluate the utility of repeat CT imaging following an indeterminate index CT in low‐risk abdominal pain adult ED patients.MethodsAn electronic search was designed for the patient‐intervention‐control‐outcome‐timing (PICOT) question: (P) adult patients with low‐risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated atraumatic abdominal pain presenting to the ED after an index‐negative CT within 12 months; (I) repeat CT versus (C) no repeat CT; for (O) abdominal surgery or other invasive procedure, mortality, identification of potentially life‐threatening diagnosis, and hospital and intensive care unit admission rates; and return ED visit (T), all within 30 days. Four reviewers independently selected evidence for inclusion and then synthesized the results around the most prevalent themes of repeat CT timing, diagnostic yield, ionizing radiation exposure, and predictors of repetitive imaging.ResultsAlthough 637 articles and abstracts were identified, no direct evidence was found. Thirteen documents were synthesized as indirect evidence. None of the indirect evidence defined a low‐risk subset of abdominal pain nor did investigators describe whether reimaging occurred for complaints similar to the initial ED evaluation. Included studies did not describe the index CT findings and some reported explanatory findings noted on the original CT for which repeat CTs might have been indicated. The time frame for a repeat CT ranged from hours to 1 year. The frequency of repeat CTs (2%–47%) varied across studies as did the yield of imaging to alter downstream clinical decision making (range = 5%–67%).ConclusionDue to the absence of direct evidence our scoping review is unable to provide high‐quality evidence‐based recommendations upon which to confidently base an imaging practice guideline. There is no evidence to support or refute performing a CT for low‐risk recurrent abdominal pain.

AbstractBackgroundRecurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED) might represent an opportunity for screening of depression and/or anxiety.MethodsWe systematically searched five databases for studies evaluating the effect of screening for depression and/or anxiety in ED patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain. Given paucity of direct evidence, we also searched for indirect evidence including studies that assessed prevalence of depression and/or anxiety in EDs (not necessarily recurrent abdominal pain), diagnostic accuracy of screening tools, effectiveness of screening in other settings, and outcomes such as repeat ED visits of patients with abdominal pain who were screened in the ED. Two methodologists evaluated certainty in the evidence using the GRADE approach.ResultsA total of 4,337 citations were reviewed, and zero studies were found on the effect of screening in patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain in the ED. A total of 35 studies were included as relevant indirect evidence. In studies of ED patients with abdominal pain, depression ranged from 10% to 29%, while anxiety ranged from 18% to 50%. False positives appear to be an issue given relatively low specificity of screening tools. One randomized trial including ED patients with vague symptoms evaluated the effect of depression screening on a composite outcome of depression recognition, psychiatric consultation, or referral by the emergency physician (risk ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 4.53, very low certainty). One study reported that patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain who screened positive for depression have had increased ED recidivism (odds ratio = 3.17, 95% CI = 1.14 to 8.85, very low certainty).ConclusionsWe were unable to identify any evidence that confirms that depression or anxiety screening in ED patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain improves outcomes or changes management downstream.

AbstractThis first Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE‐1) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic: Recurrent, Low‐risk Chest Pain in the Emergency Department. The multidisciplinary guideline panel used The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding eight priority questions for adult patients with recurrent, low‐risk chest pain and have derived the following evidence based recommendations: (1) for those >3 h chest pain duration we suggest a single, high‐sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to reasonably exclude acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within 30 days; (2) for those with a normal stress test within the previous 12 months, we do not recommend repeat routine stress testing as a means to decrease rates of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days; (3) insufficient evidence to recommend hospitalization (either standard inpatient admission or observation stay) versus discharge as a strategy to mitigate major adverse cardiac events within 30 days; (4) for those with non‐obstructive (<50% stenosis) coronary artery disease (CAD) on prior angiography within 5 years, we suggest referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (5) for those with no occlusive CAD (0% stenosis) on prior angiography within 5 years, we recommend referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (6) for those with a prior coronary computed tomographic angiography within the past 2 years with no coronary stenosis, we suggest no further diagnostic testing other than a single, normal high‐sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to exclude ACS within that 2 year time frame; (7) we suggest the use of depression and anxiety screening tools as these might have an effect on healthcare use and return emergency department (ED) visits; and (8) we suggest referral for anxiety or depression management, as this might have an impact on healthcare use and return ED visits.

AbstractObjectiveSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) emerged as a global pandemic in early 2020 with rapidly evolving approaches to diagnosing the clinical illness called coronavirus disease (COVID‐19). The primary objective of this scoping review is to synthesize current research of the diagnostic accuracy of history, physical examination, routine laboratory tests, real‐time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (rRT‐PCR), immunology tests, and computed tomography (CT) for the emergency department (ED) diagnosis of COVID‐19. Secondary objectives included a synopsis of diagnostic biases likely with current COVID‐19 research as well as corresponding implications of false‐negative and false‐positive results for clinicians and investigators.MethodsA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses–Scoping Review (PRISMA‐ScR)–adherent synthesis of COVID‐19 diagnostic accuracy through May 5, 2020, was conducted. The search strategy was designed by a medical librarian and included studies indexed by PubMed and Embase since January 2020.ResultsA total of 1,907 citations were screened for relevance. Patients without COVID‐19 are rarely reported, so specificity and likelihood ratios were generally unavailable. Fever is the most common finding, while hyposmia and hypogeusia appear useful to rule in COVID‐19. Cough is not consistently present. Lymphopenia is the mostly commonly reported laboratory abnormality and occurs in over 50% of COVID‐19 patients. rRT‐PCR is currently considered the COVID‐19 criterion standard for most diagnostic studies, but a single test sensitivity ranges from 60% to 78%. Multiple reasons for false‐negatives rRT‐PCR exist, including sample site tested and disease stage during which sample was obtained. CT may increase COVID‐19 sensitivity in conjunction with rRT‐PCR, but guidelines for imaging patients most likely to benefit are emerging. IgM and IgG serology levels are undetectable in the first week of COVID‐19, but sensitivity (range = 82% to 100%) and specificity (range = 87% to 100%) are promising. Whether detectable COVID‐19 antibodies correspond to immunity remains unanswered. Current studies do not adhere to accepted diagnostic accuracy reporting standards and likely report significantly biased results if the same tests were to be applied to general ED populations with suspected COVID‐19.ConclusionsWith the exception of fever and disorders of smell/taste, history and physical examination findings are unhelpful to distinguish COVID‐19 from other infectious conditions that mimic SARS‐CoV‐2 like influenza. Routine laboratory tests are also nondiagnostic, although lymphopenia is a common finding and other abnormalities may predict severe disease. Although rRT‐PCR is the current criterion standard, more inclusive consensus‐based criteria will likely emerge because of the high false‐negative rate of PCR tests. The role of serology and CT in ED assessments remains undefined.