January 14, 2021

Background Information: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains a diagnostic challenge to providers and a significant burden on healthcare systems globally. Despite the advancement of invasive medical therapies such as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO) at designated cardiac catherization centers, the majority of these patients sustain poor outcomes due to hypoxic brain injury. Clinical features of neurologic injury are typically delayed until 72 hours after admission. As a result, many neuro-prognostication tools have been developed to assist with clinical decision making as well as reduce expensive futile interventions.1 Some of these neuroprognostication tools include the Cardiac Arrest Hospital Prognosis (CAHP), OHCA and Targeted Temperature Management (TTM) risk tools. Unfortunately, these are complex and time consuming, thus limiting their use in the emergency department (ED). The authors of the following study sought out to develop and validate a point-based risk score to support clinical decision making and predict neurologic outcomes using the cerebral performance category (CPC) scale (Figure 1)

July 13, 2020

Background Information:

Headache is a common chief complaint that emergency physicians encounter almost every day and sometimes multiple times in each shift. In fact, headache is the fifth leading cause of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED).1 Current first-line treatment consists of a dopamine antagonist such as prochlorperazine or metoclopramide which are given in addition to diphenhydramine to mitigate any potential adverse effects. A recent study has shown that IV haloperidol, another dopamine antagonist, was equivalent to IV metoclopramide in the successful treatment of headaches in the ED.2 Additionally, haloperidol has been shown to be an effective rescue medication in the treatment of refractory migraine-pain.3 Unfortunately, the cardiovascular effects and reported QTc prolongation associated with haloperidol has limited its use in the ED. The authors of the following study sought to determine the effectiveness of low-dose IV haloperidol in the ED treatment of acute benign headache among patients aged 13 to 55 years old

April 11, 2019

The shiny new toy in stroke treatment is endovascular therapy.  There have now been 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on endovascular stroke therapy (EST), with eight of the last nine showing positive results – stunningly positive.  This flood of positive trials has led to new guidelines from the American Heart Association (AHA) and American Stroke Association (ASA)that extend the treatment window potentially as far out as 24 hours after last known well, and has spawned a movement to completely overhaul how we deliver care for patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). With all of the enthusiasm for EST, it is important to review the evolution of this new approach, to review and critique the evidence, and to evaluate what this means in clinical practice.

April 1, 2019

Background: No matter which side of the debate you sit on in regard to systemic thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke (AIS), there is one truth: systems have undergone major changes to ensure tPA is offered to patients in the ≤4.5-hour window.  The debate surrounding tPA in AIS lies in the equipoise surrounding benefits while there are very real harms.  Advocates of tPA in AIS hang on to two trials that have never been replicated (i.e. NINDS and ECASS-III), and both have major methodological issues. Skeptics of tPA in AIS appropriately argue that there are 11 other randomized clinical trials which have shown almost no benefit, but come at the cost of early increased early mortality and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) (Nice breakdown of individual trials of thrombolysis in stroke can be found at First10EM).  Now there is a push to extend the window of tPA out to 9 hours in AIS with newer imaging modalities such as MRI diffusion-weighted studies in patients with unknown onset of symptoms. The push for this stems from the fact that patients with a visible ischemic lesion on diffusion-weighted imaging, combined with the absence of a clearly visible hyperintense signal in the same region on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) is predictive of symptom onset within 4.5 hours before imaging.