The Use of Tissue Plasminogen Activator in the Treatment of Wallenberg Syndrome Caused by Vertebral Artery Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Acute cerebrovascular accident (CVA) is a devastating cause of patient morbidity and mortality. Up to 10% of acute CVAs in young patients are caused by dissection of the vertebral or carotid artery. Wallenberg syndrome results from a CVA in the vertebral or posterior inferior artery of the cerebellum and manifests as various degrees of cerebellar dysfunction. The administration of a thrombolytic medication has been recommended in the treatment of patients with stroke caused by cervical artery dissection. Surprisingly, there is scant literature on the use of this medication in the treatment of this condition. CASE REPORT: We describe a 42-year-old man with the sudden onset of headache, left-sided neck pain, vomiting, nystagmus, and ataxia 1 h after completing a weightlifting routine. Computed tomography angiography revealed a grade IV left vertebral artery injury with a dissection flap extending distally and resulting in complete occlusion. Subsequent magnetic resonance imaging and angiography demonstrated acute left cerebellar and lateral medullary infarcts, consistent with Wallenberg syndrome. The patient was treated with tissue plasminogen activator, which failed to resolve his symptoms. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Emergency physicians frequently manage patients with acute CVAs. For select patients, the administration of tissue plasminogen activator can improve outcomes. However, the risk of major hemorrhage with this medication is significant. Cervical artery dissection is an important cause of acute stroke in young patients and is often missed on initial presentation. It is imperative for the emergency physician to consider acute cervical artery dissection as a cause of stroke and to be knowledgeable regarding the efficacy of thrombolytic medications for this condition.

Energy drink and other substance use among adolescent and young adult emergency department patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand current patterns of energy drink use and compare the extent of usage of energy drinks and other commonly used and misused substances between adolescent (13-17-years-old) and young adult (18-25-years-old) emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: During a 6-week period between June and August 2010, all patients presenting to an adult or pediatric ED were asked to complete a computer-based, anonymous questionnaire regarding use of energy drinks and other substances. Wilcoxon rank-sum, 2-sample tests of binomial proportions, Pearson χ(2) testing, and regression models were used to compare energy drink and substance use by age groups. RESULTS: Past 30-day energy drink use was greater for young adults (57.9%) than adolescents (34.9%) (P < 0.03). Adolescents typically consumed a mean of 1.5 and young adults a mean of 2.6 energy drinks per day when using energy drinks and drank at most a mean of 2.4 and 2.6 drinks per day, respectively. Among adolescents, energy drink usage was more common than alcohol, "street" or illicit drugs, and tobacco usage, but less common than caffeine product usage. For young adults, energy drink usage was more common than "street" or illicit drugs, but less common than caffeine use, and similar to tobacco and alcohol usage. Young adult energy drink users were more likely than young adult non-energy drink users also to use tobacco and caffeine. CONCLUSIONS: Energy drink use is common among ED patients. Given the high prevalence of energy drink use observed, emergency physicians should consider the involvement of energy drinks in the presentations of young people.

Behavioral and physiologic adverse effects in adolescent and young adult emergency department patients reporting use of energy drinks and caffeine.

INTRODUCTION: This pilot study assessed the prevalence of physiologic and behavioral adverse effects among adolescent (13-17 years) and adult (18-25 years) emergency department patients who reported energy drink and/or caffeinated-only beverage use within the 30 days prior to emergency department presentation. It was hypothesized that energy drink users would report more adverse effects than those who used only traditional caffeinated beverages such as coffee, tea, or soft drinks. METHODS: This cross-sectional pilot study was conducted in two urban emergency departments, one adult and one pediatric. Eligible patients were enrolled during a 6-week period between June and August 2010. Participants completed a tablet computer-based, self-administered, anonymous questionnaire about their past 30-day energy drink and/or caffeinated-only beverage use, substance use, and experience of 10 physiologic and 10 behavioral symptoms. Multivariable logistic regression and negative binomial regression models, adjusted for age, gender, and substance use, were created to compare the occurrence of each adverse effect between energy drink and caffeinated-only beverage users. Odds ratios (ORs) and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated. RESULTS: Of those enrolled, 53.3% reported consuming energy drinks, 39.1% caffeinated-only beverages, and 7.6% no energy drinks or caffeinated-only beverages within the past 30 days. In multivariable logistic regression models, energy drink users were more likely than caffeinated-only beverage users to report having "gotten into trouble at home, school, or work" in the past 30 days (OR: 3.12 [1.24-7.88]). In the negative binomial regression multivariable models, more behavioral effects were reported among drug users (IRR: 1.50 [1.18-1.93]), and more physiologic effects were reported among tobacco users (IRR: 1.42 [1.13-1.80]) and females (IRR: 1.48 [1.21-1.80]), but not among energy drink users. CONCLUSIONS: Energy drink users and substance users are more likely to report specific physiologic and behavioral adverse effects. Emergency department clinicians should consider asking patients about energy drink and traditional caffeine usage and substance use when assessing patient symptoms.