BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is characterized by acute episodes of potentially life-threatening symptoms that are often treated in the emergency setting. Current guidelines recommend: 1) quick diagnosis using standard criteria; 2) first-line treatment with epinephrine; and 3) discharge with a prescription for an epinephrine auto-injector, written instructions regarding long-term management, and a referral (preferably, allergy) for follow-up. However, studies suggest low concordance with guideline recommendations by emergency medicine (EM) providers. The study aimed to evaluate how emergency departments (EDs) in the United States (US) manage anaphylaxis in relation to guideline recommendations. METHODS: This was an online anonymous survey of a random sample of EM health providers in US EDs. RESULTS: Data analysis included 207 EM providers. For respondent EDs, approximately 9%reported using agreed-upon clinical criteria to diagnose anaphylaxis; 42% reported administering epinephrine in the ED for most anaphylaxis episodes; and <50% provided patients with a prescription for an epinephrine auto-injector and/or an allergist referral on discharge. Most provided some written materials, and follow-up with a primary care clinician was recommended. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first cross-sectional survey to provide "real-world" data showing that practice in US EDs is discordant with current guideline recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, and fol ow-up of patients with anaphylaxis. The primary gaps are low (or no) utilization of standard criteria for defining anaphylaxis and inconsistent use of epinephrine. Prospective research is recommended.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Alere Triage Cardio3 Tropinin I (TnI) assay (Alere, Inc., USA) and the PathFast cTnI-II (Mitsubishi Chemical Medience Corporation, Japan) against the central laboratory assay Singulex Erenna TnI assay (Singulex, USA). METHODS: Using the Markers in the Diagnosis of Acute Coronary Syndromes (MIDAS) study population, we evaluated the ability of three different assays to identify patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The MIDAS dataset, described elsewhere, is a prospective multicenter dataset of emergency department (ED) patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and a planned objective myocardial perfusion evaluation. Myocardial infarction (MI) was diagnosed by central adjudication. RESULTS: The C-statistic with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for diagnosing MI by using a common population (n=241) was 0.95 (0.91-0.99), 0.95 (0.91-0.99), and 0.93 (0.89-0.97) for the Triage, Singulex, and PathFast assays, respectively. Of samples with detectable troponin, the absolute values had high Pearson (R(P)) and Spearman (R(S)) correlations and were R(P)=0.94 and R(S)=0.94 for Triage vs Singulex, R(P)=0.93 and R(S)=0.85 for Triage vs PathFast, and R(P)=0.89 and R(S)=0.73 for PathFast vs Singulex. CONCLUSIONS: In a single comparative population of ED patients with suspected ACS, the Triage Cardio3 TnI, PathFast, and Singulex TnI assays provided similar diagnostic performance for MI.
Acute Coronary Syndrome/*diagnosis ; Biomarkers/analysis ; Emergency Service, Hospital ; Humans ; Laboratories/standards ; Myocardial Infarction/diagnosis ; *Point-of-Care Systems ; Prospective Studies ; Reagent Kits, Diagnostic ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Troponin I/*analysis

Objective: To determine the utility of a highly sensitive troponin assay when utilized in the emergency department. Methods The FAST-TRAC study prospectively enrolled >1,500 emergency department patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome within 6 hours of symptom onset and 2 hours of emergency department presentation. It has several unique features that are not found in the majority of studies evaluating troponin. These include a very early presenting population in whom prospective data collection of risk score parameters and the physician’s clinical impression of the probability of acute coronary syndrome before any troponin data were available. Furthermore, two gold standard diagnostic definitions were determined by a pair of cardiologists reviewing two separate data sets; one that included all local troponin testing results and a second that excluded troponin testing so that diagnosis was based solely on clinical grounds. By this method, a statistically valid head-to-head comparison of contemporary and high sensitivity troponin testing is obtainable. Finally, because of a significant delay in sample processing, a unique ability to define the molecular stability of various troponin assays is possible.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00880802