RESUMEN
Introduction: Acute confusional migraine (ACM) is a rare variant of migraine that is benign and self-resolving but difficult to diagnose. Without known causative pathophysiology and a lack of recognition in the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3), ACM offers a puzzling clinical presentation. There currently is no standardized treatment for ACM, but with a growing anecdotal dataset there is the opportunity to formally recognize and establish protocols to improve patient care and outcomes. Case Report: A 14-year-old female presented to the emergency department (ED) with acute onset of confusion, vision changes, right-sided weakness, and dysarthria one hour prior to arrival. A stroke workup at the initial ED offered no pertinent findings. The patient was transferred to a pediatric specialty ED where all symptoms, aside from numbness and a mild headache, resolved during transfer. After administration of a migraine cocktail at the pediatric specialty ED, all remaining symptoms completely resolved. The patient was discharged home from the ED the same evening with outpatient follow-up. Conclusion: This case presents the difficulty of diagnosing and treating ACM prior to its self-resolution. It highlights the need for formal recognition of the condition by the ICHD-3. In doing so, greater recognition will promote more research, awareness, and establishment of a standardized treatment for ACM.
RESUMEN
Background: Door-in to door-out (DIDO) time for large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke is an emerging stroke performance measure. Initial presentation at a non-Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC) requires a transfer process that minimizes delays. Our objective was to assess whether DIDO time for stroke patients was reduced after implementation of an AutoLaunch protocol for interfacility transfers. Methods: This was a pre-post analysis of an AutoLaunch protocol for all acute stroke patients transferred to a CSC for mechanical thrombectomy. The distribution of DIDO times between patients transferred via the AutoLaunch and traditional dispatch protocols were compared. Results: We evaluated 92 interfacility transfers, with 22 utilizing the AutoLaunch protocol and 70 utilizing traditional dispatch. Among AutoLaunch transfers, the median DIDO time was 85 minutes (IQR: 71, 133), while the median DIDO time among the traditional transfers was 109 minutes (IQR, 84, 144) (p=0.044). Conclusion: Implementation of an AutoLaunch protocol for patients with suspected LVO was associated with a reduction in DIDO time to CSCs. Further studies should evaluate patient outcomes based on transfer strategies.
RESUMEN
STUDY OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the duration and frequency of communication between EMS (Emergency Medical Services) and ED (Emergency Department) staff during handoff and the subsequent time to critical cardiac care (rhythm determination, defibrillation) using CA (cardiac arrest) video review. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study of video-recorded adult CAs between August 2020 and December 2022 was performed. Two investigators assessed the communication of 17 data points, time intervals, EMS initiation of handoff, and type of EMS agency. Median times from initiation of handoff to first ED rhythm determination and defibrillation were compared between the groups above versus below the median number of data points communicated. RESULTS: Overall, 95 handoffs were reviewed. The handoff was initiated in a median of 2 seconds (interquartile range (IQR) 0-10) after arrival. EMS initiated handoff in 65 (69.2%) patients. The median number of data points communicated was 9 and median duration was 66 seconds (IQR 50-100). Age, location of arrest, estimated down time, and medications administered were communicated > 80% of the time, initial rhythm 79%, and bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and witnessed arrest < 50%. The median times from initiation of handoff to first ED rhythm determination and defibrillation were 188 (IQR 106-256) and 392 (IQR 247-725) seconds, though not statistically different between handoffs with <9 vs. ≥9 data points communicated (p > 0.40). CONCLUSION: There is no standardization for handoff reports from EMS to ED staff for CA patients. Using video review, we demonstrated the variable communication during handoff. Improvements to this process could reduce the time to critical cardiac care interventions.