CJEM Articles: diagnosis

Objective: We derived a clinical decision rule to determine which emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS) require chest radiography.

Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients over 24 years of age with a primary complaint of chest pain and possible ACS over a 6 month period. Emergency physicians completed standardized clinical assessments and ordered chest radiographs as appropriate. Two blinded investigators independently classified chest radiographs as "normal," "abnormal not requiring intervention" and "abnormal requiring intervention," based on review of the radiology report and the medical record. The primary outcome was abnormality of chest radiographs requiring acute intervention. Analyses included interrater reliability assessment (with κ statistics), univariate analyses and recursive partitioning.

Results: We enrolled 529 patients during the study period between Jul. 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2007. Patients had a mean age of 59.9 years, 60.3% were male, 4.0% had a history of con gestive heart failure and 21.9% had a history of acute myocardial infarction. Only 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1%-3.8%) of patients had radiographic abnormality of the chest requiring acute intervention. The κ statistic for chest radiograph classification was 0.81 (95% CI 0.66-0.95). We derived the following rule: patients can forgo chest radiography if they have no history of congestive heart failure, no history of smoking and no abnormalities on lung auscultation. The rule was 100% sensitive (95% CI 32.0%-40.4%) and 36.1% specific (95% CI 32.0%-40.4%).

Conclusion: This rule has potential to reduce health care costs and enhance ED patient flow. It requires validation in an independent patient population before introduction into clinical practice.

Objective: We sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of clinical prediction rules to exclude acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the emergency department (ED) setting.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We contacted content experts to identify additional articles for review. Reference lists of included studies were hand searched. We selected articles for review based on the following criteria: 1) enrolled consecutive ED patients; 2) incorporated variables from the history or physical examination, electrocardiogram and cardiac biomarkers; 3) did not incorporate cardiac stress testing or coronary angiography into prediction rule; 4) based on original research; 5) prospectively derived or validated; 6) did not require use of a computer; and 7) reported sufficient data to construct a 2 × 2 contingency table. We assessed study quality and extracted data independently and in duplicate using a standardized data extraction form.

Results: Eight studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing 7937 patients. None of the studies verified the prediction rule with a reference standard on all or a random sample of patients. Six studies did not report blinding prediction rule assessors to reference standard results, and vice versa. Three prediction rules were prospectively validated. Sensitivities and specificities ranged from 94% to 100% and 13% to 57%, and positive and negative likelihood ratios from 1.1 to 2.2 and 0.01 to 0.17, respectively.

Conclusion: Current prediction rules for ACS have substantial methodological limitations and have not been successfully implemented in the clinical setting. Future methodologically sound studies are needed to guide clinical practice.

Objective: To compare the results of urine cultures and reagent strip testing in 2 groups of elderly emergency department (ED) patients: an asymptomatic group unlikely to have urinary tract infection (UTI), and a group who had vague symptoms and were considered at risk for UTI.

Methods: We performed a prospective observational convenience study with 2 groups of 100 patients aged 65 or older. The asymptomatic group consisted of afebrile patients presenting to the ED with non-infectious complaints, while the symptomatic group included patients presenting with acute confusion, weakness or fever but no apparent urinary symptoms. We defined a positive urine culture as a single organism count greater than 100 000 CFU/mL in mid-stream specimens, or greater than 1000 CFU/mL in catheter specimens. We considered reagent strips positive if they demonstrated any reaction to the leukocyte-esterase assay, the nitrite assay or both.

Results: Of the 33 positive cultures, 10 had negative reagent strips. Thirteen of the 14 positive nitrite tests were culture positive for a specificity of 92.8% and a sensitivity of 36.1%. Positive cultures did not infer a diagnosis of UTI. Of the 67 positive reagent strips, 41 (61.2%) were associated with negative cultures. Likelihood ratios (LRs) in both groups affirmed the inability of the reagent strips to help significantly in decision making, with positive and negative LR in the indeterminate range (control group: 2.8 and 0.31, symptomatic group: 2.7 and 0.46, respectively).

Conclusion: In the elderly, reagent testing is an unreliable method of identifying patients with positive blood cultures. Moreover, positive urine culture rates are only slightly higher in patients with vague symptoms attributable to UTI than they are in (asymptomatic) patients treated for non-urologic problems, which suggests that many positive cultures in elderly patients with non- focal systemic symptoms are false-positive tests reflecting asymptomatic bacteriuria and not UTIs. Blood cultures, regarded by many as the criterion standard for UTI, do not have sufficient specificity to confirm the diagnosis of UTI in elderly patients with non-specific symptoms.