ABSTRACT
Angioedema is a subcutaneous or submucosal tissue swelling due to capillary leakage and transudation of fluid into the interstitial tissue. It can be localized or generalized as part of a widespread reaction known as anaphylaxis. Millions of people in United States and all over the world receive ACEI antihypertensive therapy. ACEI is known to cause angioedema with an incidence of 0.7 percent. We present a case of 40-year-old female who was started on lisinopril three days prior to presentation for newly diagnosed hypertension. She presented with nonspecific severe abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. She denied having difficulty breathing or swelling anywhere in the body. On exam, she did not have facial, lip, tongue, or throat swelling. Her abdomen was tender without guarding or rigidity. Laboratory examination was unrevealing except for mild leukocytosis. Computed tomography scan (CT scan) of the abdomen with oral and IV contrast revealed a moderate amount of ascites with diffuse wall thickening, hyperenhancement, and mucosal edema of the entire small bowel. In the absence of any other pathology, matching history, and imaging findings highly suggestive of angioedema, she was diagnosed with isolated small bowel angioedema as a result of ACEI therapy. She was managed conservatively, and lisinopril was discontinued. A week later on follow-up, all her symptoms had resolved, and repeat CT scan showed resolution of all findings.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Health care providers are often called to respond to in-flight medical emergencies, but lack familiarity with expected supplies, interventions, and ground medical control support. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether a mobile phone app (airRx) improves responses to simulated in-flight medical emergencies. METHODS: This was a randomized study of volunteer, nonemergency resident physician participants who managed simulated in-flight medical emergencies with or without the app. Simulations took place in a mock-up cabin in the simulation center. Standardized participants played the patient, family member, and flight attendant roles. Live, nonblinded rating was used with occasional video review for data clarification. Participants participated in two simulated in-flight medical emergencies (shortness of breath and syncope) and were evaluated with checklists and global rating scales (GRS). Checklist item success rates, key critical action times, GRS, and pre-post simulation confidence in managing in-flight medical emergencies were compared. RESULTS: There were 29 participants in each arm (app vs control; N=58) of the study. Mean percentages of completed checklist items for the app versus control groups were mean 56.1 (SD 10.3) versus mean 49.4 (SD 7.4) for shortness of breath (P=.001) and mean 58 (SD 8.1) versus mean 49.8 (SD 7.0) for syncope (P<.001). The GRS improved with the app for the syncope case (mean 3.14, SD 0.89 versus control mean 2.6, SD 0.97; P=.003), but not the shortness of breath case (mean 2.90, SD 0.97 versus control mean 2.81, SD 0.80; P=.43). For timed checklist items, the app group contacted ground support faster for both cases, but the control group was faster to complete vitals and basic exam. Both groups indicated higher confidence in their postsimulation surveys, but the app group demonstrated a greater increase in this measure. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the airRx app prompted some actions, but delayed others. Simulated performance and feedback suggest the app is a useful adjunct for managing in-flight medical emergencies.
ABSTRACT
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Adverse drug events (ADEs) have been studied in hospitalized patients. Less is known about this common type of injury in emergency department patients. This study seeks to measure the risks, incidence, severity, and costs of ADEs in an ED population. METHODS: ED charts of visits to a university-affiliated tertiary-care ED occurring between March 1 and May 31, 1997, were retrospectively reviewed. The main outcome measures were ADE incidence, severity, and total cost. Visits identified by investigators as containing a suspected ADE were further assessed by using the Naranjo Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) probability scale. Events judged as probable ADEs (Naranjo ADR probability scale score of >4) were compared with ED control visits best matched by age for disposition, survival, severity, payer, sex, race, age, number of drugs, and total cost. RESULTS: Of 13,602 visits, 13,004 records were available. Three hundred twenty-one had suspected and 217 had probable ADEs (1.7% of evaluable encounters); these were compared with visits by 217 age-matched control patients. Insulin and warfarin were the most commonly responsible drugs. Patients with ADEs were older (mean age 45.1 versus 36.8 years; mean difference 8.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7 to 12.9), were more often women (odds ratio [OR] 1.48; 95% CI 1.01 to 2.16), took more drugs (mean number of drugs 4.1 versus 1.9; mean difference 2.2; 95% CI 1.7 to 2.8), and were hospitalized more frequently (OR 2.29; 95% CI 1.33 to 3.94) than control patients. CONCLUSION: ADEs encompassed an important segment of ED encounters and annual health care costs. ED screening may provide useful information about the epidemiology of outpatient ADEs.
