Development and validation of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) induced angioedema investigator rating scale and proposed discharge criteria.

BACKGROUND: The use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) has been associated with the development of bradykinin-mediated angioedema. With ever-widening indications for ACEI in diseases including hypertension, congestive heart failure and diabetic nephropathy, a concomitant increase in ACEI-Angioedema (ACEI-A) has been reported. At present there is no validated severity scoring or discharge criteria for ACEI-A. We sought to develop and validate an investigator rating scale with corresponding discharge criteria using clinicians experienced in treating ACEI-A. METHODS: In-depth, 60-min qualitative telephone interviews were conducted with 12 US-based emergency physicians. Beforehand, clinicians were sent four case studies describing patients experiencing different severities of angioedema attacks. Clinicians were initially asked open-ended questions about their experience of patients' symptoms, treatment and discharge decisions. Clinicians then rated each patient case study and discussed patient diagnoses, ratings of symptom severity and discharge evaluation. The ratings were used to assess inter-rater reliability of the scale using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) using IBM SPSS analysis Version 19 software. RESULTS: The findings provide support focusing on four key symptoms of airway compromise scored on a 0-4 scale: 1) Difficulty Breathing, 2) Difficulty Swallowing, 3) Voice Changes and 4) Tongue Swelling and the corresponding discharge criteria of a score of 0 or 'No symptoms' for Difficulty Breathing and Difficulty Swallowing and a score of 0 or 1 indicating mild or absence of symptoms for Voice Change and Tongue Swelling. Eleven clinicians agreed the absence of standardized discharge criteria supported the use of this scale. All physicians concurred with the recommended discharge criteria. The clinician ratings provided evidence of strong inter-rater reliability for the rating scale (ICC > 0.80). CONCLUSION: The investigator rating scale and discharge criteria are clinically valid, relevant and reliable. Moreover, both address the current unmet need for standardized ED discharge criteria.

The incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: We measured the incidence and risk factors for contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) in trauma patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively collected trauma database. We studied injured patients who received a contrast-enhanced computer tomography with an initial and repeat serum creatinine after 48 h. Exclusion criteria were patients on dialysis. CIN was defined as a 25% rise in creatinine or an increase in creatinine > or =0.5 mg/dl from baseline 48 h after contrast. Data were reported as means+/-SD. Group comparisons were made by Fisher's exact test or Student's t-test (alpha=0.05, two tails). RESULTS: In total, 235 patients were studied with an average age of 44+/-20 (13-92 years) (80% men), 79% of whom had blunt injuries. CIN incidence was 5.1% [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.9-8.8%]. No patients in the CIN or non-CIN groups died, or required in-patient/chronic dialysis. CIN patients were significantly (P=0.003) older (61 vs. 43 years). For age > or =75 years, the relative risk was 7.7 and the number needed to harm was 5. An elevated creatinine (more than 1.5 mg/dl) was significantly (P=0.007) associated with CIN. For creatinine greater than 1.5 mg/dl, the relative risk was 6.4 and the number needed to harm was 6. CIN was significantly (P=0.02) more likely in patients with glomerular filtration rate less than 60 ml/min/1.73 m. We found no significant (P>0.05) difference in base-deficit, lactate, and Injury Severity Score between CIN and non-CIN patients. CONCLUSION: We found a 5.1% incidence of CIN in trauma patients exposed to intravenous contrast. Elderly and trauma patients with low glomerular filtration rate were especially predisposed to CIN.

Computerized physician order entry and online decision support.

Computerized physician order entry (CPOE) and decision support systems (DSS) can reduce certain types of error but often slow clinicians and may increase other types of error. The net effect of these systems on an emergency department (ED) is unknown. The consensus participants combined published evidence with expert opinion to outline recommendations for success. These include seamless integration of CPOE and DSS into systems and workflow; ensuring access to Internet-based and other online support material in the clinical arena; designing systems specifically for the ED and measuring their impact to ensure an overall benefit; ensuring that CPOE systems provide error and interaction checking and facilitate weight- and physiology-based dosing; using interruptive alerts only for the highest-severity events; providing a simple, vendor-independent interface for institutional customization of CPOE alert thresholds; maximizing the use of automated systems and passive data capture; and ensuring the widespread availability of CPOE and DSS using secure wireless and portable technologies where appropriate. Decisions regarding CPOE and DSS in the ED should be guided by the ED chair or designee. Much of what is believed to be true regarding CPOE and DSS has not been adequately studied. Additional CPOE and DSS research is needed quickly, and this research should receive funding priority. DSS and CPOE hold great promise to improve patient care, but not all systems are equal. Evidence must guide these efforts, and the measured outcomes must consider the many factors of quality care.