CJEM Articles: Catherine M. Clement

Displaying 1-5 of 5 results

  • Association of the Ottawa Aggressive Protocol with rapid discharge of emergency department patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter
    May 2010 12 3
    Catherine M. Clement, Cheryl Symington, Christian Vaillancourt, David Birnie, Garth Dickinson, Ian G. Stiell, Jeffrey J. Perry, Martin S. Green

    Objective: There is no consensus on the optimal management of recent-onset episodes of atrial fibrillation or flutter. The approach to these conditions is particularly relevant in the current era of emergency department (ED) overcrowding. We sought to examine the effectiveness and safety of the Ottawa Aggressive Protocol to perform rapid cardioversion and discharge patients with these arrhythmias.

    Methods: This cohort study enrolled consecutive patient visits to an adult university hospital ED for recent-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter managed with the Ottawa Aggressive Protocol. The protocol includes intravenous chemical cardioversion, electrical cardioversion if necessary and discharge home from the ED.

    Results: A total of 660 patient visits were included, 95.2% involving atrial fibrillation and 4.9% involving atrial flutter. The mean age of patients enrolled was 64.5 years. In total, 96.8% were discharged home and, of those, 93.3% were in sinus rhythm. All patients were initially administered intravenous procainamide, with a 58.3% conversion rate. A total of 243 patients underwent subsequent electrical cardioversion with a 91.7% success rate. Adverse events occurred in 7.6% of cases: hypotension 6.7%, bradycardia 0.3% and 7-day relapse 8.6%. There were no cases of torsades de pointes, stroke or death. The median lengths of stay in the ED were as follows: 4.9 hours overall, 3.9 hours for those undergoing conversion with procainamide and 6.5 hours for those requiring electrical conversion.

    Conclusion: This is the largest study to date to evaluate the Ottawa Aggressive Protocol, a unique approach to cardioversion for ED patients with recent-onset episodes of atrial fibrillation and flutter. Our data demonstrate that the Ottawa Aggressive Protocol is effective, safe and rapid, and has the potential to significantly reduce hospital admissions and expedite ED care.

  • An international study of emergency physicians’ practice for acute headache management and the need for a clinical decision rule
    November 2009 11 6
    Anne-Maree Kelly, Catherine M. Clement, Debra Eagles, Ian G. Stiell, Jamie Brehaut, Jeffrey J. Perry, Suzanne Mason

    Objective: Patients with acute headache often undergo com puted tomography (CT) followed by a lumbar puncture to rule out subarachnoid hemorrhage. Our international study exam ined current practice, the perceived need for a clinical deci sion rule for acute headache and the required sensitivity for such a rule.

    Methods: We approached 2100 emergency physicians from 4 countries (Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States) to participate in our survey by sampling the membership of their emergency associations. We used a modified Dillman technique with 3-5 notifications and a prenotification letter employing a combination of electronic mail and postal mail. Physicians were questioned about neu rologically intact patients who presented with headache. Analysis included both descriptive statistics for the entire sample and stratification by country.

    Results: The total response rate was 54.7% (1149/2100). Respondents were primarily male (75.5%), with a mean age of 42.5 years and a mean 12.3 years of emergency depart ment (ED) experience. Of the physicians who responded, 49.5% thought all acute headache patients should be investi gated with CT and 57.4% felt CT should always be followed by lumbar puncture. Of the respondents, 95.7% reported they would consider using a clinical decision rule for patients with acute headache to rule out subarachnoid hemorrhage. Respondents deemed the median sensitivity required by such a rule to be 99% (interquartile range 98%-99%). Approxi mately 1 in 5 physicians suggested that 100% sensitivity was required.

    Conclusion: Emergency physicians report that they would welcome a clinical decision rule for headache that would determine which patients require costly or invasive tests to rule out subarachnoid hemorrhage. The required sensitivity of such a rule was realistic. These results will inform and inspire the development of clinical decision rules for acute headache in the ED.

  • Association of injury mechanism with the risk of cervical spine fractures
    January 2009 11 1
    Catherine M. Clement, Ian G. Stiell, Robert J. Brison, Wendy L. Thompson

    Objective: A full understanding of an injury event and the mechanical forces involved should be important for predicting specific anatomical patterns of injury. Yet, information on the mechanism of injury is often overlooked as a predictor for specific anatomical injury in clinical decision-making. We measured the relationship between mechanism of injury and risk for cervical spine fracture.

    Methods: Our case-control study is a secondary analysis of data collected from the Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCR) study. Data were collected from 1996 to 2002 and included patients presenting to the emergency departments of 9 tertiary care centres after sustaining acute blunt trauma to the head or neck. Cases are defined as patients who were categorized in the CCR study with a clinically important cervical spine fracture. Controls had no radiologic evidence of cervical spine injury. Bivariate and multivariate unconditional logistic regression models were used. Results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

    Results: Among the 17 208 patients in the CCR study, 320 (2%)received a diagnosis of a cervical spine fracture. Axial loads, falls, diving incidents and nontraffic motorized vehicle collisions (e.g., collisions involving snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles) were injury mechanisms that were significantly related to a higher risk of fracture. For motor vehicle collisions, the risk of cervical spine injury increased with the posted speed, being involved in a head-on collision or a rollover, or not wearing a seat belt (p < 0.05). The occurrence of cervical spine fracture was negligible in simple rear-end collisions (1 in 3694 cases; OR 0.015, 95% CI 0.002-0.104]).

    Conclusion: Our study quantitatively demonstrates the relationship between specific mechanisms of injury and the risk of a cervical spine fracture. A full understanding of the injury mechanism would assist providers of emergency health care in assessing risk for injury in trauma patients.

  • Canadian C-Spine Rule study for alert and stable trauma patients: II. Study objectives and methodology
    May 2002 4 3
    Andreas Laupacis, Brian Holroyd, Brian Rowe, Catherine M. Clement, Daniel Cass, Gary H. Greenberg, George A. Wells, Glen Bandiera, Howard Lesiuk, Iain MacPhail, Ian G. Stiell, James Worthington, Jonathan Dreyer, Laurie Morrison, Mark Reardon, Mary A. Eisenhauer, Michael Schull, R. Douglas McKnight, Richard Verbeek, Robert Brison

    Clinical prediction rules are decision-making tools that incorporate three or more variables from the history, physical examination or simple tests. They help clinicians make diagnostic or therapeutic decisions by standardizing the collection and interpretation of clinical data. There is growing interest in the methodological standards for their development and validation. This article describes the methods used to derive the Canadian C-Spine Rule and provides a valuable reference for investigators planning to develop future clinical prediction rules.

  • Canadian C-Spine Rule study for alert and stable trauma patients: I. Background and rationale
    March 2002 4 2
    Andreas Laupacis, Brian Holroyd, Brian Rowe, Catherine M. Clement, Daniel Cass, Gary H. Greenberg, George A. Wells, Glen Bandiera, Howard Lesiuk, Iain MacPhail, Ian G. Stiell, James Worthington, Jonathan Dreyer, Laurie Morrison, Mark Reardon, Mary A. Eisenhauer, Michael Schull, R. Douglas McKnight, Richard Verbeek, Robert Brison

    This paper is Part I of a 2-part series to describe the background and methodology for the Canadian C-Spine Rule study to develop a clinical decision rule for rational imaging in alert and stable trauma patients. Current use of radiography is inefficient and variable, in part because there has been a lack of evidence-based guidelines to assist emergency physicians. Clinical decision rules are research-based decision-making tools that incorporate 3 or more variables from the history, physical examination or simple tests. The Canadian CT Head and C-Spine (CCC) Study is a large collaborative effort to develop clinical decision rules for the use of CT head in minor head injury and for the use of cervical spine radiography in alert and stable trauma victims. Part I details the background and rationale for the development of the Canadian C-Spine Rule. Part II will describe in detail the objectives and methods of the Canadian C-Spine Rule study.