Tag Archives: emergency me

Croup: Riding the Dex Express

Sooooo….this paper turned up at JC last week (thanks to Nicola P) and whilst I’m not sure that it meets all three of our criteria for a top JC paper it is relevant as a week barely seems to go by without someone questioning the dose/route/brand/colour/size/ethnicity of medicine for croup.
Rule of thumb chaps and chapesses ‘The greater the dogma, the greater the ignorance’. Someone cleverer than I said that, but I’m happy to plagiarise ‘cos it’s true.
Anyway, Croup arrives as a question once again in the journal Emergency Medicine Australia, but this time the question relates to speed of onset in mild to moderate croup.

 STOP! If you are in exam mode at this point you should read the paper. See what you think about it and give it a mark out of 10.

We’ve talked about this paper and it’s a tricky one. The first question is why has this paper been done (which we cannot answer, but can surmise privately). The use of steroids in the management of croup is very well established and is something we led on here in Virchester many years ago. It was even one of the very first BETs back in 2004 (amazing to think that we are still talking about this 8 years later).
I’ve also seen the Cochrane review and even examined some CTRs for FCEM on the subject. So, it pretty much seems to me that the question of whether we give steroids for croup is well made. The research that remains is, I suppose, about refining and polishing what is surely a well established fact.

STEROIDS WORK IN CROUP Click the link and read the Cochrane review.

So, what about the paper this week? Is there anything we can draw from it and learn? Well, the authors have done an RCT (good) on mild/moderate croup patients. Interesting this as for the mild ones would you give steroids or just let nature take its course? (Ed – depends on how mild as croup score 1-3 is mild) I’m not sure so there maybe an element of over-treatment in comparison to other practices. Whatever, the authors tell us that there is an effect of giving steroids that they can define and detect at  30 minutes following administration of steroid and that this counteracts the information given through Cochrane about a delayed effect taking up to 6 hours.

I have major concerns with this paper and I just don’t see how this is going to make a significant difference to our practice in PEM.  I don’t think a paper like this would appear in an exam, but if it did I would be pulling holes in it along the following lines.

1. What is the clinically important question here? It seems that we are looking to see the speed of onset of steroid meds in mild/moderate croup. The clinical importance of this is perhaps unclear except in logistical (admission) terms. What defines a significant difference in this low acuity group? Mild croup is not admitted anyway so what is the issue we are addressing?

2. Sample size. OK. An interest of mine, and if you share that interest (you sad person) then hop over to the podcast to hear more about how to understand and interpret sample size calculations. In this paper they appear to be using tests for continuous data for data which is unlikely to be so. Honestly, it seems as though these are the wrong tests for this data, but there is insufficient information in the paper for us to tell. Where is the clue? Well, the Wesley croup score is a categorical score (at best ordinal). It’s not continuous and is unlikely to be normally distributed, so a t-test is rarely going to be the right test. So hmm, not enough information to know but questions are there to be asked. If you want to know more about stats for Critical Appraisal then click here and here. Apart from anything else, a study of just 70 patients would have to show a massive effect if it is be valid and I don’t see that here. Similarly the graph shows average scores only, and I’m not sure that I’m just interested in the change in average score amongst 35 patients. I want to see the distribution as well. This is a common problem in papers as the mean score reporting removes the depth and character of the data.

3. Right, so we are unsure of the validity of the question and also of the sample size what else? Well,  do applaud the authors for defining the numbers of patients that they ‘could’ have recruited and the difference between that number (828) and the number recruited (70) is huge. This suggests a degree of patient selection which may well affect the results. Now, I don’t want to put a massive downer on this as it is an inevitable problem with EM research, but this ratio really asks questions as to whether this is a representative sample, or whether the results will be heavily skewed because it is a sample of convenience.

So, it sounds as though we were pretty down on this paper from a methodological point of view. We gave it a 3/10 to be honest which is clearly not high, but just wait is there ANYTHING we can take away from this piece of work at all. Well, it’s tricky to be honest. It’s likely (but I’m finding it difficult to tell) that oral dex starts working fairly quickly, but that was never a clinical dilemma for me before I read this paper so I’m not going to change practice. However, it’s a useful to use this as a vehicle to discuss Croup (again), to review the relevant BETs and to talk about how to spot flaws in papers.

 bw

Simon C

PS. If you are still in exam mode try answering the following questions…

1. What is meant by the term ‘double-blinded’ and why is it important in a trial like this?

2. Four patients in the placebo group worsened during the initial phase of the trial and were then given steroids. They were analysed in the placebo group despite getting steroids. What is this type of analysis called and is it the right approach?

Glasgow Scores… Not just for coma any more!

Quick post…

NICE have recently published new guidance on Upper GI bleeding.

It is surprisingly sensible. I was pleased with their position on PPI’s for upper GI bleeding (not before endoscopy…).

The other point that I was happy to see was the inclusion of the Blatchford score for risk assement of these patients.

We all love a good scoring system, especially if really complicated (long hours spent working out APACHE scores on ICU spring to mind)

The Blatchford score however, is simple, and useful. I have been using this to help plan management of these patients for a while, and I was surprised to find that many people have not heard of it.

So what else to do? To the Bat Cave St Emlyn’s!

What is it?

To give it its full name; The Glasgow Blatchford Score was derived in 2000. It is designed to identify patients who require admission for treatment of their UGI bleed, and who can go home for outpatient management.

Previous to this, standard practice was to admit the mass majority of these patients, even the young well ones with minor bleeding or ‘coffee ground’vomits.

Here it is:

It can be easily calcualted using information availble in the ED. You can use the ever useful mdcalc.com

So why use it? 

So we can send people home! This has to be a good thing, as long as it is ‘safe’ to do so.

In 2009 Stanley et al performed a prospective study to establish whether this was the case. Their hypothesis: If the GB score was 0, the patient could go home from the ED, and be followed up as an outpatient.

Sounds great right? Did it work?

The study was split into two parts. First they collected data on all GI bleeds seen in the ED. They recorded the outcomes, and compared the outcomes with the GB score on admission. In the second part they introduced the low risk criteria, and discharged those with a GB score of 0.

So….

In the first part they identified 334 patients with UGI bleed. 319 of them got admitted (96%)

53 of them were low risk (GBS 0). 50 of these were admitted. None of them died or needed any interventions.

So far so good yes? If we could have have sent those patients home, wouldn’t everyone be happier and the world a better place?

So that’s what they did. In the second phase of the study they put their theory in practice. They identified 491 UGI bleed patients. 123 (22%) of them presented with a GBS score of 0, and of this group, 84 got sent home (68%).

They then followed them up to see how they got on. Only 23 (40%) turned up for their outpatient endoscopy, the rest were chased up via GP, case note review and telephone follow up.

So how did they do? Really well as it turns out. Out of the 123 patients with a GBS score of 0 a total of 0 needed an intervention or died from a UGI bleed related cause in the following 6 months. Zero, zilch, nada.

These results are summarised here:

For those concerned with our limited health resources (i.e. all of us), the exciting figure is at the bottom. Before the scoring system was introduced, only 4% of the UGI bleed patients were being discharged from the ED. With the scoring system in place, 29% were sent home.

Considering the numbers of these patients we all see, this is a big deal.

So should we do this? I think so.

Gareth.