Friday, June 22, 2012

Nephropathy Was As Common as PE after CTPA

It's Jeff Kline Week at EMLitOfNote, with the second Carolinas paper this week - and, as a Patient Safety and Quality Fellow, I just can't help but cite articles that deal with the consequences of otherwise well-meaning practice.

This small study followed 174 patients undergoing CTPA demonstrated a yield of 7% for PE.  On the other hand, this same cohort demonstrated a yield of 14% for contrast-induced nephropathy - as defined by an increase in serum Cr of 0.5 mg/dL or >25%.  Three of the 24 patients with CIN progressed to severe renal failure, two of whom died.  The proportion of CIN and renal failure were similar to the outcomes observed in the additional 459 patients they followed for CT imaging on other contrast protocols.

So, the rate of CIN is not insignificant - particularly compared to the rate of diagnosis of PE at this institution.  It seems to be suggested by this study, although not shown, that the relative risk of death conferred by receiving contrast and developing CIN might even exceed the number of adverse events that might have occurred from PE if left undiagnosed or untreated.

"Prospective Study of the Incidence of Contrast-induced Nephropathy Among Patients Evaluated for Pulmonary Embolism by Contrast-enhanced Computed Tomography"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22687176

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Chest Pain - Here, Your Problem Now

In the United States, a quarter of our medical malpractice payments result from missed myocardial infarctions.  Therefore, in states with sub-optimal liability environments, emergency physicians are stuck in a quagmire of conflicted interests and fear of litigation if a discharged patient has an MI.

Therefore, a common strategy is to make low-risk chest pain Someone Else's Problem.  And, this article from Archives of Internal Medicine shows the internist evaluating the patient simply makes the same surrender to defensive medicine.  In this retrospective cohort, 2,107 admitted patients underwent 1,474 stress tests during their two-year study period.  Of those 1,474, 12.5% were abnormal.  Of those 184 patients, only 11.6% underwent cardiac catheterization, and a grand total of 9 patients received a revascularization.

So, the authors suggest two salient points:
 - 2,107 admissions to yield 9 (supposedly) beneficial interventions - how crazy is that?
 - What about the 88.4% of patients with abnormal stress tests that didn't undergo an invasive test within 30 days - why are we using an evaluation strategy we don't act on?

The authors think we might be able improve upon this practice pattern.

"Outcomes of Patients Admitted for Observation of Chest Pain"
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22566486

Monday, June 18, 2012

National Quality Measure for Pulmonary Embolism

The overuse of CTA in the Emergency Department and the over-diagnosis of pulmonary emboli of non-physiologic significance has been demonstrated as a significant societal harm.  In response to this, the National Quality Forum has been looking at developing a quality measure aimed at reducing CTA use in the Emergency Department.

The NQF estimated 7 to 25% of CTAs in the ED might be unnecessary.  From Jeff Kline's shop at Carolinas, they prospectively gathered data on all their potential pulmonary emboli and attempted to determine which scans were "inappropriate."  For their purposes, a scan was "inappropriate" if it was a low-risk patient with a negative D-dimer assay, or it was a low-risk patient without D-dimer testing.  11% were D-dimer negative and 22% were low-risk without D-dimer testing performed, which sums to 32% potentially avoidable imaging.

Of the 1,205 "potentially avoidable" scans, there were 58 positives.  The clinical significance of these potential misses is uncertain.  Whether this represents an acceptable miss rate for a quality measure in a liability prone environment is another matter entirely.

"Evaluation of Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Department and Consistency With a National Quality Measure"
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22664742