2/ To understand why the routine use CT/MRI to evaluate delirium is a #TWDFNR, we must first recognize that many acute neurologic processes assessed with neuroimaging DO cause delirium.
Example:
💥13%-48% of patients with acute stroke have delirium💥
3/ Regarding neuroimaging in hospitalized patients with delirium, the authors of the #TWDFNR review cover four studies and note that the overall diagnostic yield is 2.7%-14.5%.
How do these values inform your interpretation of the utility of CT/MRI in this setting?
4/ Given that the findings on CT/MRI are often high stakes (e.g., subdural hematoma or metastases), I see these values as suggesting imaging has value.
But, the 2.7%-14.5% range includes patients with more clear indications for imaging (e.g., recent fall).
5/ If one excludes clearer indications for CT/MRI...
➢ focal neurologic deficit
➢ new decline in mental status
➢ anticoagulation
➢ recent fall
...the yield falls to 0%-1.5%.
How do these values inform your interpretation of the utility of neuroimaging in this setting?
6/ The authors argue that:
"While a rate of 1.5% may appear high for a serious outcome such as stroke or intracranial bleeding, it is comparable to rates reported for missed major cardiac events in clinical algorithms for evaluating chest pain."
7/ They also note that there are additional downsides to routinely obtaining neuroimaging in this setting, including:
➢ cost
➢ radiation exposure
➢ incidental findings
8/ What do you think?
Given a yield of 0%-1.5%, along with the potential downsides, is routinely obtaining neuroimaging in undifferentiated hospitalized patients with delirium a #TWDFNR?
9/ Before closing, here are the full recommendations offered by the authors of the #TWDFNR review.
10/10
To read more about this topic, download the Open Access article using the link below.
And, as always, if there are things you think are #TWDFNR, send us an email: TWDFNR@hospitalmedicine.org
2/ As the authors note, the ELISA test has a sensitivity >95% when the optical density threshold is low. The high sensitivity of the ELISA may make one inclined to use it liberally to evaluate for HIT.
3/ But, there is another way one can effectively rule-out HIT: the 4Ts score.
A 2012 meta-analysis determined that the negative predictive value of a low probability 4Ts score was 99.8%. And, it didn't matter who "performed" the scoring.
2/ Case: A 71M with a history of HTN is hospitalized for cellulitis. On hospital day 2, the nurse pages you:
"Pt X with BP ____. Please advise". He has no symptoms or signs of end-organ damage.
What would be your threshold SBP to write for an as-needed anti-hypertensive?
3/ The treatment of hypertensive urgency is based on an assumption: if we do not lower the blood pressure now, something bad (e.g. stroke, MI, aortic dissection) will occur in the next few hours.
We aren't giving IV hydralazine to prevent a stroke two years from now...