Objective: Dyspnea is the second most common symptom experienced by the approximately 4.5 million patients with cancer presenting to emergency departments (ED) each year. Distinguishing pneumonia, the most common reason for presentation, from other causes of dyspnea is challenging. This report characterizes the diagnostic uncertainty in patients with dyspnea and pneumonia presenting to an ED by establishing the rates of co-diagnosis, co-treatment, and misdiagnosis.

Methods: Visits by individuals ≥18 years old with cancer who presented with a complaint of dyspnea were identified using the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey between 2012-2014 and analyzed for rates of co-diagnosis, co-treatment (treatment or diagnosis for >1 of pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], and heart failure), and misdiagnosis of pneumonia. Additionally, we assessed rates of diagnostic uncertainty (co-diagnosis, co-treatment, or a lone diagnosis of dyspnea not otherwise specified [NOS]) .

Results: Among dyspneic cancer visits (1,593,930), 15.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.1-20.5%) were diagnosed with pneumonia, 22.5% (95% CI, 16.7-29.7%) with COPD, and 7.4% (95% CI 4.7-11.4%) with heart failure. Dyspnea NOS was diagnosed in 32.3% (95% CI, 25.7-39.7%) of visits and as the only diagnosis in 23.1% (95% CI, 16.3-31.6%) of all visits. Co-diagnosis occurred in 4.0% (95% CI, 2.0-7.6%) of dyspneic adults with cancer and co-treatment in 12.1% (95% CI, 7.5-18.9%). Agreement between emergency physician and inpatient documentation for presence of pneumonia was 57.7% (95% CI, 37.0-76.1%).

Conclusion: Diagnostic uncertainty remains a significant concern in patients with cancer presenting to the ED with dyspnea. Clinical uncertainty among dyspneic patients results in both misdiagnosis and under-treatment of patients with pneumonia and cancer.

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Intravascular volume status is an important clinical consideration in the management of the critically ill. Point of care ultrasonography (POCUS) has gained popularity as a non-invasive means of intravascular volume assessment via examination of the inferior vena cava (IVC). However, there is limited data comparing different acquisition techniques for IVC measurement by POCUS.

The goal of this evaluation is to determine the reliability of three IVC acquisition techniques for volume assessment: sub-xiphoid transabdominal long axis (LA), transabdominal short axis (SA), and right lateral transabdominal coronal long axis (CLA) (aka “rescue view”).

Methods

Volunteers were evaluated by three experienced emergency physician sonographers (EP). Gray scale (B-mode) and Motion-mode (M-mode) diameters were measured and IVC collapsibility index (IVCCI) calculated for three anatomic views (LA, SA, CLA). For each IVC measurement, descriptive statistics, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), and 2-Way Univariate Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were calculated.

Results

Thirty-nine volunteers were evaluated yielding 351 total US measurements. Measurements of the three views had similar means (LA 1.9 ± 0.4cm; SA 1.9 ± 0.4cm; CLA 2.0 ± 0.5cm). For B-Mode, LA had the highest ICC (0.86, 95% CI = 0.76 to 0.92) while CLA had the poorest  ICC (0.74, 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.85). ICCs for all M-mode IVCCI were low. Significant interaction effects between anatomical view and EP were observed for B-mode and M-mode measurements. Post-hoc analyses reveal difficulty in consistent view acquisition between EPs.

Conclusions

Inter rater reliability of the IVC by EPs was highest for B-mode LA and poorest for all M-Mode IVC collapsibility indices (IVCCI). These results suggest that B-mode LA holds the most promise to deliver reliable measures of IVC diameter. Future studies may focus on validation in a clinical setting as well as comparison to a reference standard.

Introduction: Emergency endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a common and critical procedure performed in both prehospital and in-hospital settings. Studies of prehospital providers have demonstrated that rescuer position influences ETI outcomes. However, studies of in-hospital rescuer position for ETI are limited. While we adhere to strict standards for the administration of ETI, we posited that perhaps requiring in-hospital rescuers to stand for ETI is an obstacle to effectiveness. Our objective was to compare in-hospital emergency medicine (EM) trainees’ performance on ETI delivered from both the seated and standing positions.

Methods: EM residents performed ETI on a difficult airway mannequin from both a seated and standing position. They were randomized to the position from which they performed ETI first. All ETIs were recorded and then scored using a modified version of the Airway Management Proficiency Checklist. Residents also rated the laryngeal view and the difficulty of the procedure. We analyzed comparisons between ETI positions with paired t-tests.

Results: Forty-two of our 49 residents (85.7%) participated. Fifteen (35.7%) were female, and all three levels of training were represented. The average number of prior ETI experiences among our subjects was 44 (standard deviation=34). All scores related to ETI performance were statistically equivalent across the two positions (performance score, number of attempts, time to intubation success, and ratings of difficulty and laryngeal view). We also observed no differences across levels of training.

Conclusion: The position of the in-hospital provider, whether seated or standing, had no effect on the provider’s ETI performance. Since environmental circumstances sometimes necessitate alternative positioning for effective ETI administration, our findings suggest that there may be value in training residents to perform ETI from both positions.