Introduction: The majority of patients seeking medical treatment for snakebites do not suffer from severe envenomation. However, no guidelines exist for ordering coagulation markers in patients with minimal or moderate envenomation, nor in those who do not receive antivenom. In this study, we sought to determine whether it was possible to limit the practice of ordering coagulation studies to those patients suffering severe envenomation, rattlesnake envenomation, or both.Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on all cases of crotalid snakebite presenting to an adult emergency department (ED) from April 1998 to June 2006. Each chart was abstracted for patient’s age, gender, type of snake (if known), severity of envenomation at initial presentation, coagulation test results, whether antivenom was administered, and whether the patient was admitted.Results: Over an approximately 8-year period, 131 snakebite cases presented that met the inclusion criteria, of which 35 (26.7%) had some type of coagulation marker abnormality. Limiting coagulation testing to patients suffering severe envenomation or rattlesnake envenomation would have resulted in failure to identify 89% or 77%, respectively, of the 35 patients who were found to have at least 1 abnormal coagulation marker.

Conclusion: Our study failed to identify a subset of patients that could be defined as low risk or for whom coagulation marker testing could be foregone. This study suggests that coagulation tests should be routinely performed on all patients presenting to the ED with complaints of envenomation by copperheads, moccasins, or rattlesnakes. Further clarification of when coagulation markers are indicated may require a prospective study that standardizes snake identification and the timing of coagulation marker testing. [West J Emerg Med. 2012;13(1):68–74.]

Objectives: Financial conflicts of interest have come under increasing scrutiny in medicine, but their impact has not been quantified. Our objective was to use the results of a national survey of academic emergency medicine (EM) faculty to determine if an association between money and personal opinion exists.

Methods: We conducted a web-based survey of EM faculty. Opinion questions were analyzed with regard to whether the respondent had either 1) received research grant money or 2) received money from industry as a speaker, consultant, or advisor. Responses were unweighted, and tests of differences in proportions were made using Chi-squared tests, with p<0.05 set for significance.

Results: We received responses from 430 members; 98 (23%) received research grants from industry, while 145 (34%) reported fee-for-service money. Respondents with research money were more likely to be comfortable accepting gifts (40% vs. 29%) and acting as paid consultants (50% vs. 37%). They had a more favorable attitude with regard to societal interactions with industry and felt that industry-sponsored lectures could be fair and unbiased (52% vs. 29%). Faculty with fee-for-service money mirrored those with research money. They were also more likely to believe that industry-sponsored research produces fair and unbiased results (61% vs. 45%) and less likely to believe that honoraria biased speakers (49% vs. 69%).

Conclusion: Accepting money for either service or research identified a distinct population defined by their opinions. Faculty engaged in industry-sponsored research benefitted socially (collaborations), academically (publications), and financially from the relationship. [West J Emerg Med. 2010; 11(2):126-132.]