Objective: The objective of this study was to compare anxiolysis with intranasal dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 agonist, versus intranasal midazolam for pediatric laceration repairs. Methods:We performed a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of 40 patients 1-5 years with lacerations requiring suture repair in an academic pediatric emergency department (ED). Patients were randomized to receive either intranasal dexmedetomidine or intranasal midazolam. Our primary outcome measure was the anxiety score at the time of patient positioning for the laceration repair. We chose this time point to isolate the anxiolysis from the medications prior to intervention. Patient encounters were videotaped and scored for anxiety at multiple time points using the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale. The scale is 23.3-100 with higher scores indicating higher anxiety. We also evaluated these scores as a secondary outcome by dichotomizing them into anxious versus not anxious with a previously validated score cutoff.Results: Of the 40 patients enrolled, 20 in the dexmedetomidine group and 18 in the midazolam group completed the study and were included in the analysis. The median age was 3.3 years (range = 1.0-5.4 years). The median baseline anxiety score was 48.3. The anxiety score at position for procedure for patients receiving dexmedetomidine was 9.2 points lower than those receiving midazolam (median difference = 9.2, 95% confidence interval = 5 to 13.3; median score for dexmedetomidine = 23.3, median score for midazolam = 36.3). The proportion of patients who were classified as not anxious at the position for procedure was significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine group (70%) versus the midazolam group (11%). The number needed to treat with dexmedetomidine instead of midazolam to obtain the result of a not anxious patient at this time point was 1.7 patients. There were also significantly more patients who were classified as not anxious at the time of wound washout in the dexmedetomidine group compared to the midazolam group (35% vs. 6%). Dexmedetomidine and midazolam performed similarly with respect to all other measures including anxiety at other time points, parental perceived anxiety, parent and proceduralist satisfaction, procedural success, complications, and time in the ED. There were no serious adverse events seen in either group.Conclusions: Intranasal dexmedetomidine is an alternative anxiolytic medication to intranasal midazolam for pediatric laceration repairs, performing similarly in our study, except that patients who received dexmedetomidine had less anxiety at the time of positioning for procedure.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2016;23:910-917

No abstract

Background Variability in 2-tier Lyme disease test results according to the specific first-tier enzyme immunoassay (EIA) in children has not been examined rigorously. In this study, we compared paired results of clinical 2-tier Lyme disease tests to those of the C6 peptide EIA followed by supplemental immunoblotting (C6 2-tier test). Methods We performed a prospective cohort study of children aged ≥1 to ≤21 years who were undergoing evaluation for Lyme disease in the emergency department at 1 of 6 centers located in regions in which Lyme disease is endemic. The clinical first-tier test and a C6 EIA were performed on the same serum sample with supplemental immunoblotting if the first-tier test result was either positive or equivocal. We compared the results of the paired clinical and C6 2-tier Lyme disease test results using the McNemar test. Results Of the 1714 children enrolled, we collected a research serum sample from 1584 (92.4%). The clinical 2-tier EIA result was positive in 316 (19.9%) children, and the C6 2-tier test result was positive or equivocal in 295 (18.6%) children. The clinical and C6 2-tier test results disagreed more often than they would have by chance alone (P = .002). Of the 39 children with either a positive clinical or C6 2-tier test result alone, 2 children had an erythema migrans (EM) lesion, and 29 had symptoms compatible with early disseminated Lyme disease. Conclusions Two-tier Lyme disease test results differed for a substantial number of children on the basis of the specific first-tier test used. In children for whom there is a high clinical suspicion for Lyme disease and who have an initially negative test result, clinicians should consider retesting for Lyme disease.

No abstract

OBJECTIVES:In Lyme disease endemic areas, initial management of children with arthritis can be challenging because diagnostic tests take several days to return results, leading to potentially unnecessary invasive procedures. Our objective was to examine the role of the C6 peptide enzyme immunoassay (EIA) test to guide initial management. METHODS:We enrolled children with acute arthritis undergoing evaluation for Lyme disease presenting to a participating Pedi Lyme Net emergency department (2015)(2016)(2017)(2018)(2019) and performed a C6 EIA test. We defined Lyme arthritis with a positive or equivocal C6 EIA test result followed by a positive supplemental immunoblot result and defined septic arthritis as a positive synovial fluid culture result or a positive blood culture result with synovial fluid pleocytosis. Otherwise, children were considered to have inflammatory arthritis. We report the sensitivity and specificity of the C6 EIA for the diagnosis of Lyme arthritis.RESULTS: Of the 911 study patients, 211 children (23.2%) had Lyme arthritis, 11 (1.2%) had septic arthritis, and 689 (75.6%) had other inflammatory arthritis. A positive or equivocal C6 EIA result had a sensitivity of 100% (211 out of 211; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 98.2%-100%) and specificity of 94.2% (661 out of 700; 95% CI: 92.5%-95.9%) for Lyme arthritis. None of the 250 children with a positive or equivocal C6 EIA result had septic arthritis (0%; 95% CI: 0%-1.5%), although 75 children underwent diagnostic arthrocentesis and 27 underwent operative joint washout. CONCLUSIONS:In Lyme disease endemic areas, a C6 EIA result could be used to guide initial clinical decision-making, without misclassifying children with septic arthritis.WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Treating clinicians evaluating children with acute arthritis must make initial management decisions before results of Lyme disease tests are available. Children with Lyme arthritis frequently undergo invasive procedures (eg, arthrocentesis) to evaluate for septic arthritis.WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: In this 6-center prospective observational study of children with acute arthritis, none with a positive or equivocal C6 enzyme immunoassay result had septic arthritis. In the appropriate clinical scenario, a positive or equivocal C6 enzyme immunoassay test result could be used to safely avoid arthrocentesis.

In Lyme disease endemic areas, Lyme and septic arthritis often present similarly. A published septic knee arthritis clinical prediction rule includes 2 high-risk predictors: absolute neutrophil count of 10,000 cells/mm 3 or greater and erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 40 mm/h or greater. The objective of the study was to externally validate this prediction rule in a multicenter prospective cohort. Methods:We enrolled a prospective cohort of children with knee monoarthritis undergoing evaluation for Lyme disease at 1 of 8 Pedi Lyme Net emergency departments located in endemic areas. We defined a case of septic arthritis with a positive synovial fluid culture or a synovial fluid white blood cell count of 50,000 or greater per high powered field with a positive blood culture and Lyme arthritis with a positive or equivocal C6 EIA, followed by a positive supplemental immunoblot. Other children were classified as having inflammatory arthritis. We report the performance of the septic arthritis clinical prediction rule in our study population.Results: Of the 543 eligible children, 13 had septic arthritis (2.4%), 234Lyme arthritis (43.1%), and 296 inflammatory arthritis (54.5%). Of the 457 children (84.2%) with available laboratory predictors, all children with septic arthritis were classified as high risk (sensitivity, 100%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 77.2%-100%; specificity, 68.1%; 95% CI, negative predictive value, 278/278 [100%]; 95% CI, 98.6%-100%). Of the 303 low-risk children, 52 (17.2%) underwent diagnostic arthrocentesis. Conclusions:The septic knee arthritis clinical prediction rule accurately distinguished between septic and Lyme arthritis in an endemic area. Clinical application may reduce unnecessary invasive diagnostic procedures.

No abstract

Objectives The primary objective was to survey pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) leaders and fellows regarding point‐of‐care ultrasound (POCUS) training in PEM fellowship programs, including teaching methods, training requirements, and applications taught. Secondary objectives were to compare fellows' and program leaders' perceptions of fellow POCUS competency and training barriers. Methods This was a cross‐sectional survey of U.S. PEM fellows and fellowship program leaders of the 78 fellowship programs using two online group‐specific surveys exploring five domains: program demographics; training strategies and requirements; perceived competency; barriers, strengths, and weaknesses of POCUS training; and POCUS satisfaction. Results Eighty‐three percent (65/78) of programs and 53% (298/558) of fellows responded. All participating PEM fellowship programs included POCUS training in their curriculum. Among the 65 programs, 97% of programs and 92% of programs utilized didactics and supervised scanning shifts as educational techniques, respectively. Sixty percent of programs integrated numerical benchmarks and 49% of programs incorporated real‐time, hands‐on demonstration as training requirements. Of the 19 POCUS applications deemed in the literature as core requirements for fellows, at least 75% of the 298 fellows reported training in 13 of those applications. Although less than half of fellows endorsed competency for identifying intussusception, ultrasound‐guided pericardiocentesis, and transvaginal pregnancy evaluation, a higher proportion of leaders reported fellows as competent for these applications (40% vs. 68%, p ≤ 0.001; 21% vs. 39%, p = 0.003; and 21% vs. 43%, p ≤ 0.001). Forty‐six percent of fellows endorsed a lack of PEM POCUS evidence as a training barrier compared to 31% of leaders (p = 0.02), and 39% of leaders endorsed a lack of local financial support as a training barrier compared to 23% of fellows (p = 0.01). Conclusions Although most PEM fellowship programs provide POCUS training, there is variation in content and requirements. Training does conform to many of the expert recommended guidelines; however, there are some discrepancies and perceived barriers to POCUS training remain.