Serum GFAP and UCH-L1 for prediction of absence of intracranial injuries on head CT (ALERT-TBI): a multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: More than 50 million people worldwide sustain a traumatic brain injury (TBI) annually. Detection of intracranial injuries relies on head CT, which is overused and resource intensive. Blood-based brain biomarkers hold the potential to predict absence of intracranial injury and thus reduce unnecessary head CT scanning. We sought to validate a test combining ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), at predetermined cutoff values, to predict traumatic intracranial injuries on head CT scan acutely after TBI. METHODS: This prospective, multicentre observational trial included adults (≥18 years) presenting to participating emergency departments with suspected, non-penetrating TBI and a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 9-15. Patients were eligible if they had undergone head CT as part of standard emergency care and blood collection within 12 h of injury. UCH-L1 and GFAP were measured in serum and analysed using prespecified cutoff values of 327 pg/mL and 22 pg/mL, respectively. UCH-L1 and GFAP assay results were combined into a single test result that was compared with head CT results. The primary study outcomes were the sensitivity and the negative predictive value (NPV) of the test result for the detection of traumatic intracranial injury on head CT. FINDINGS: Between Dec 6, 2012, and March 20, 2014, 1977 patients were recruited, of whom 1959 had analysable data. 125 (6%) patients had CT-detected intracranial injuries and eight (<1%) had neurosurgically manageable injuries. 1288 (66%) patients had a positive UCH-L1 and GFAP test result and 671 (34%) had a negative test result. For detection of intracranial injury, the test had a sensitivity of 0·976 (95% CI 0·931-0·995) and an NPV of 0·996 (0·987-0·999). In three (<1%) of 1959 patients, the CT scan was positive when the test was negative. INTERPRETATION: These results show the high sensitivity and NPV of the UCH-L1 and GFAP test. This supports its potential clinical role for ruling out the need for a CT scan among patients with TBI presenting at emergency departments in whom a head CT is felt to be clinically indicated. Future studies to determine the value added by this biomarker test to head CT clinical decision rules could be warranted. FUNDING: Banyan Biomarkers and US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command.

Correction: Correction to 'Clinical Policy: Critical Issues in the Evaluation and Management of Adult Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Seizures' [Annals of Emergency Medicine 63 (2014) 437-447.e15].

Due to a miscommunication during the process of transferring this manuscript from our editorial team to Production, the Members of the American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Policies Committee (Oversight Committee) were not properly indexed in PubMed. This has now been corrected online. The publisher would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.

The American Board of Emergency Medicine Maintenance of Certification Summit.

BACKGROUND: The American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) convened a summit of stakeholders in Emergency Medicine (EM) to critically review the ABEM Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Program. OBJECTIVE: The newly introduced American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) 2015 MOC Standards require that the ABMS Member Boards, including ABEM, "engage in continual quality monitoring and improvement of its Program for MOC …" ABEM sought to have the EM community participate in the quality improvement process. DISCUSSION: A review of the ABMS philosophy of MOC and requirements for MOC were presented, followed by an exposition of the ABEM MOC Program. Roundtable discussions included strengths of the program and opportunities for improvement; defining, teaching, and assessing professionalism; identifying and filling competency gaps; and enhancing relevancy and adding value to the ABEM MOC Program. CONCLUSIONS: Several suggestions to improve the ABEM MOC Program were discussed. ABEM will consider these recommendations when developing its next revision of the ABEM MOC Program.

Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with seizures.

This clinical policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians is the revision of a 2004 policy on critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients with seizures in the emergency department. A writing subcommittee reviewed the literature to derive evidence-based recommendations to help clinicians answer the following critical questions: (1) In patients with a first generalized convulsive seizure who have returned to their baseline clinical status, should antiepileptic therapy be initiated in the emergency department to prevent additional seizures? (2) In patients with a first unprovoked seizure who have returned to their baseline clinical status in the emergency department, should the patient be admitted to the hospital to prevent adverse events? (3) In patients with a known seizure disorder in which resuming their antiepileptic medication in the emergency department is deemed appropriate, does the route of administration impact recurrence of seizures? (4) In emergency department patients with generalized convulsive status epilepticus who continue to have seizures despite receiving optimal dosing of a benzodiazepine, which agent or agents should be administered next to terminate seizures? A literature search was performed, the evidence was graded, and recommendations were given based on the strength of the available data in the medical literature.

Mild traumatic brain injury: key decisions in acute management.

The definition of a mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) has come under close scrutiny and is changing as a result of refined diagnostic testing. Although up to 15% of patients with a mild TBI will have an acute intracranial lesion identified on head computed tomography (CT), less than 1% of these patients will have a lesion requiring a neurosurgical intervention. Evidence-based guideline methodology has assisted in generating recommendations to facilitate clinical decision making; however, no set of guidelines is 100% sensitive and specific. Evidence supports the safety of discharging patients with mild TBI who have a negative CT. However, though patients with a negative CT are at almost no risk of deteriorating from a neurosurgical lesion, a key intervention is to provide these patients at discharge from the emergency department with counseling regarding postconcussive symptoms, when to return to work, school, or sports, and when to seek additional medical care.

Mild traumatic brain injury.

Mild traumatic brain injury accounts for 1% to 2% of emergency department visits in the United States. Up to 15% of these patients will have an acute intracranial lesion identified on head computed tomography; less than 1% of mild traumatic brain injuries will require neurosurgical intervention. Clinical research over the past decade has focused on identifying the subgroup of patients with mild traumatic brain injury with acute traumatic lesions on computed tomography and specifically those at risk for harboring a potentially catastrophic lesion. This research has been used to generate evidence-based guidelines to assist in clinical decision making. There is no evidence to support the use of plain film radiographs in the evaluation of patients with mild traumatic brain injury. The utility of brain-specific biomarkers is rapidly evolving, and a growing body of evidence supports their potential role in determining the need for neuroimaging. Clinical predictors for identifying patients with abnormal computed tomography have been established and, if used, may have a significant positive impact on traumatic brain injury-related morbidity and healthcare utilization in the United States. Patients with negative computed tomography are at almost no risk of deteriorating; however, they should be counseled regarding postconcussive symptoms and should be given appropriate written instructions and referrals at discharge.

Clinical policy: neuroimaging and decisionmaking in adult mild traumatic brain injury in the acute setting.

This clinical policy provides evidence-based recommendations on select issues in the management of adult patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the acute setting. It is the result of joint efforts between the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was developed by a multidisciplinary panel. The critical questions addressed in this clinical policy are: (1) Which patients with mild TBI should have a noncontrast head computed tomography (CT) scan in the emergency department (ED)? (2) Is there a role for head magnetic resonance imaging over noncontrast CT in the ED evaluation of a patient with acute mild TBI? (3) In patients with mild TBI, are brain specific serum biomarkers predictive of an acute traumatic intracranial injury? (4) Can a patient with an isolated mild TBI and a normal neurologic evaluation result be safely discharged from the ED if a noncontrast head CT scan shows no evidence of intracranial injury? Inclusion criteria for application of this clinical policy's recommendations are nonpenetrating trauma to the head, presentation to the ED within 24 hours of injury, a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 14 or 15 on initial evaluation in the ED, and aged 16 years or greater. The primary outcome measure for questions 1, 2, and 3 is the presence of an acute intracranial injury on noncontrast head CT scan; the primary outcome measure for question 4 is the occurrence of neurologic deterioration.

Clinical policy: neuroimaging and decisionmaking in adult mild traumatic brain injury in the acute setting.

This clinical policy provides evidence-based recommendations on select issues in the management of adult patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the acute setting. It is the result of joint efforts between the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was developed by a multidisciplinary panel. The critical questions addressed in this clinical policy are: (1) Which patients with mild TBI should have a noncontrast head computed tomography (CT) scan in the emergency department (ED)? (2) Is there a role for head magnetic resonance imaging over noncontrast CT in the ED evaluation of a patient with acute mild TBI? (3) In patients with mild TBI, are brain specific serum biomarkers predictive of an acute traumatic intracranial injury? (4) Can a patient with an isolated mild TBI and a normal neurologic evaluation result be safely discharged from the ED if a noncontrast head CT scan shows no evidence of intracranial injury? Inclusion criteria for application of this clinical policy's recommendations are nonpenetrating trauma to the head, presentation to the ED within 24 hours of injury, a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 14 or 15 on initial evaluation in the ED, and aged 16 years or greater. The primary outcome measure for questions 1, 2, and 3 is the presence of an acute intracranial injury on noncontrast head CT scan; the primary outcome measure for question 4 is the occurrence of neurologic deterioration.

Clinical policy: critical issues in the management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with acute carbon monoxide poisoning.

This clinical policy focuses on critical issues concerning the management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute symptomatic carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning. The subcommittee reviewed the medical literature relevant to the questions posed. The critical questions are: Should hyperbaric oxygen (HBO(2)) therapy be used for the treatment of patients with acute CO poisoning; and Can clinical or laboratory criteria identify CO-poisoned patients who are most or least likely to benefit from this therapy? Recommendations are provided on the basis of the strength of evidence of the literature. Level A recommendations represent patient management principles that reflect a high degree of clinical certainty; Level B recommendations represent patient management principles that reflect moderate clinical certainty; and Level C recommendations represent other patient management strategies that are based on preliminary, inconclusive, or conflicting evidence, or based on committee consensus. This clinical policy is intended for physicians working in hospital-based EDs.

Clinical policy: critical issues in the management of patients presenting to the emergency department with acetaminophen overdose.

This clinical policy focuses on critical issues concerning the management of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acetaminophen overdose. The subcommittee reviewed the medical literature relevant to the questions posed. The critical questions are: 1. What are the indications for N-acetylcysteine (NAC) in the acetaminophen overdose patient with a known time of acute ingestion who can be risk stratified by th Rumack-Matthew nomogram? 2. What are the indications for NAC in the acetaminophen overdose patient who cannot be risk stratified by the Rumack-Matthew nomogram? Recommendations are provided on the basis of the strength of evidence of the literature. Level A recommendations represent patient management principles that reflect a high degree of clinical certainty; Level B recommendations represent patient management principles that reflect moderate clinical certainty; and Level C recommendations represent other patient management strategies that are based on preliminary, inconclusive, or conflicting evidence, or based on committee consensus. This guideline is intended for physicians working in EDs.

Clinical policy: Critical issues in the management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with acute carbon monoxide poisoning.

This clinical policy focuses on critical issues concerning the management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute symptomatic carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning. The subcommittee reviewed the medical literature relevant to the questions posed. The critical questions are: Should hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) therapy be used for the treatment of patients with acute CO poisoning; and Can clinical or laboratory criteria identify CO-poisoned patients who are most or least likely to benefit from this therapy. Recommendations are provided on the basis of the strength of evidence of the literature. Level A recommendations represent patient management principles that reflect a high degree of clinical certainty; Level B recommendations represent patient management principles that reflect moderate clinical certainty; and Level C recommendations represent other patient management strategies that are based on preliminary, inconclusive, or conflicting evidence, or based on committee consensus. This clinical policy is intended for physicians working in hospital-based EDs.

Clinical policy: critical issues in the management of patients presenting to the emergency department with acetaminophen overdose.

This clinical policy focuses on critical issues concerning the management of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acetaminophen overdose. The subcommittee reviewed the medical literature relevant to the questions posed. The critical questions are: 1. What are the indications for N-acetylcysteine (NAC) in the acetaminophen overdose patient with a known time of acute ingestion who can be risk stratified by the Rumack-Matthew nomogram? 2. What are the indications for NAC in the acetaminophen overdose patient who cannot be risk stratified by the Rumack-Matthew nomogram? Recommendations are provided on the basis of the strength of evidence of the literature. Level A recommendations represent patient management principles that reflect a high degree of clinical certainty; Level B recommendations represent patient management principles that reflect moderate clinical certainty; and Level C recommendations represent other patient management strategies that are based on preliminary, inconclusive, or conflicting evidence, or based on committee consensus. This guideline is intended for physicians working in EDs.

Management of breakthrough seizures in the emergency department: continuity of patient care.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a chronic disorder requiring long-term management. Communication between emergency physicians, neurologists, and primary care physicians (PCPs) is especially critical for the continuity of care for patients who present in an emergency department (ED) with a breakthrough seizure. Therefore, maximizing communication between the emergency physician and the PCP is of the utmost importance. The emergency physician, who is on the front line, must gather the information necessary to identify the underlying cause of the seizure and decide whether the pharmaceutical management must be changed. SCOPE: This paper provides a clinical commentary on issues to consider when managing breakthrough seizures in the ED, to inform and facilitate communication between emergency physicians, consulting neurologists, and PCPs. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical management decisions, especially when considering adjustment in an antiepileptic drug (AED) regimen, are often best made in coordination with a consulting neurologist. Increasing emergency physicians' comfort level regarding the use of newer-generation AEDs can improve the dialogue between the emergency physician and neurologist and the dialogue with the patient. Understanding the risks and benefits of the newer AEDs will assist the emergency physician in clinical decision making and, it is hoped, improve clinical outcomes. To preserve continuity of patient care, a patient's treating physician should be notified of all the particulars of the ED visit, and an appointment should be scheduled at the time of discharge for follow-up evaluation.