Does the presence of ultrasound really affect computed tomographic scan use? A prospective randomized trial of ultrasound in trauma.

OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of evidence demonstrating that emergency department (ED) ultrasound changes clinical practice in trauma patients. We hypothesized that the presence of ultrasound would affect clinical decision making as evidenced through abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scan use in blunt multiple trauma patients. METHODS: This study used a prospective randomized format in an urban county ED with Level II trauma center status (ED census, 72,000 patients per year). Participants were patients with multiple blunt injuries meeting trauma center triage criteria. Patients were randomized to receive either abdominal ultrasound or no ultrasound (control) during initial ED resuscitation. The primary outcome variable was use of abdominal CT scan in patients with and without ultrasound. RESULTS: Two hundred eight patients were enrolled. The mean age was 40 +/- 18 years, and 62% were men. Mechanism of injury was motor vehicle crash, 56%; automobile versus pedestrian, 18%; motorcycle crash, 16%; falls, 10%; and other, 10%. One hundred four ultrasound and 104 control patients were analyzed. There were no apparent differences between ultrasound and control groups in demographics, injury type, or Injury Severity Score. Fifty-four of 104 (52%) of the control group received abdominal CT scans versus 37 of 104 (36%) abdominal CT scans for the ultrasound group; mean difference in proportions was 15.9 (p < 0.01; 95% confidence interval, 2.6-29.1). CONCLUSION: In this trial, the routine use of abdominal ultrasound in the evaluation of patients with multiple blunt injuries resulted in significantly fewer abdominal CT scans being obtained. A larger trial is needed to more clearly define the clinical and financial impact of ultrasound in the management of blunt abdominal trauma.

Intravenous magnesium as an adjuvant in acute bronchospasm: a meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Although several trials have been published evaluating intravenous magnesium sulfate as treatment for acute bronchospasm, its effectiveness for this indication remains unclear, prompting this meta-analysis. METHODS: All randomized controlled trials of adjuvant bolus intravenous magnesium sulfate for acute bronchospasm in the emergency department were eligible. Trials were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE, bibliographies of selected articles, and review of abstracts of 4 scientific societies. Two reviewers abstracted data, one of whom was blinded to author and journal. Because studies used different spirometric outcome measures, effect size was calculated for each study by Hedges' method. The analysis used a fixed-effects model. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the influence of study quality and to search for publication bias. RESULTS: Abstracts from 210 articles were reviewed, yielding 40 trials, of which 9 were specific to bolus intravenous magnesium sulfate in the ED, in doses from 1.2 to 2 g, or an equivalent pediatric dose. Combined results across 9 studies including 859 patients showed a posttreatment effect size of 0.162 for patients treated with intravenous magnesium sulfate (95% confidence interval 0.028, 0.297; P =.02). In sensitivity analyses exploring the effects of study quality and publication bias, the summary effect ranged from 0.127 to 0.206. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant bolus intravenous magnesium sulfate in acute bronchospasm appears statistically beneficial in improving spirometric airway function by 16% of a SD. Although the clinical significance of this is uncertain, given the safety of intravenous magnesium sulfate therapy and its relatively low cost, it should be considered, absent contraindications, in patients with moderate to severe acute bronchospasm.

Real-time ultrasound-guided femoral vein catheterization during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of real-time-ultrasound guidance with the standard landmark-oriented approach for obtaining femoral vein catheterization in patients requiring intravenous access during CPR. METHODS: Prospective, randomized, paired subject-controlled clinical trial in the setting of an urban teaching county hospital emergency department. The study comprised a convenience sample of 20 patients presenting with apnea and pulselessness in the ED. Each patient received bilateral femoral lines, one by ultrasound guidance and one by the landmark approach (control). Randomization determined which technique and which side would be attempted first. The following parameters were recorded: time to initial flash of blood, time to completion of catheterization, number of needle passes, and rate of arterial catheterization. CPR and Advanced Cardiac Life Support protocols were continued during both procedures. RESULTS: Real-time ultrasound-guided catheterization had a higher success rate (90% versus 65%, P = .058), a lower number of needle passes (2.3 +/- 3 versus 5.0 +/- 5, P = .0057), and a lower rate of arterial catheterization (0% versus 20%, P = .025) than the standard landmark-oriented approach. Ultrasound was also slightly faster in time to blood flash and in time to catheterization. An incidental finding of interest was that real-time ultrasound demonstrated the presence of femoral vein pulsations during CPR. CONCLUSION: Real-time ultrasound-guided femoral vein catheterization was faster and produced a lower rate of inadvertent arterial catheterization and a higher rate of success during CPR than the standard landmark-oriented approach. Also, ultrasound demonstrated that palpable femoral pulsation during CPR is venous rather than arterial.

Blood pressure control with diltiazem XR, a novel extended-release formulation of diltiazem HCl, in mature and elderly hypertensive patients.

The safety and efficacy of an extended-release form of diltiazem HCl (diltiazem XR) in patients 55 years or older with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension were examined in a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study involving 350 patients with supine diastolic blood pressure (DBP) between 95 mm Hg and 114 mm Hg. Patients were randomized to a once-daily dose of diltiazem XR (240 mg) or placebo; 261 patients received diltiazem XR and 89 received placebo. After 4 weeks, the dose was doubled (to 480 mg) in patients whose supine DBP was > 90 mm Hg, and treatment was continued for another 4 weeks. Diltiazem XR consistently reduced blood pressure (BP) in the study population. At end-point, the mean reduction in supine DBP was 8.65 mm Hg in the diltiazem XR group and 2.75 mm Hg in the placebo group (P < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis confirmed the efficacy of diltiazem XR in men, women, patients between the ages of 55 and 64 years, patients 65 years or older, and non-black patients. Other BP values (supine systolic, standing diastolic, and standing systolic) also were significantly reduced in patients treated with diltiazem XR. BP reduction (supine DBP < or = 90 mm Hg or by > or = 10 mm Hg) was achieved in 58% of patients receiving diltiazem XR compared with 27% of patients receiving placebo. Decreases in apical heart rate were minimal and similar in both groups. No significant differences were noted in adverse events in the diltiazem XR and placebo groups: 36.4% of patients in the diltiazem XR group and 37.1% in the placebo group had no adverse experiences, and 63.6% and 62.9%, respectively, had at least one adverse event. Physical examination findings and laboratory values were clinically unremarkable and comparable in the diltiazem XR and placebo groups. Diltiazem XR given once daily at doses of 240 mg and 480 mg was safe and effective in lowering blood pressure in mature and elderly patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.