Article

THE DIAGNOSIS: Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

The shave biopsy revealed large cells with prominent nucleoli, clear cytoplasm, and thin cell borders in a nestlike arrangement (Figure 1). Immunohistochemical examination was negative for cytokeratin 5/6 and positive for PAX8 (Figure 2), which finalized the diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Later, our patient had a core biopsy-proven metastasis to the C6 spinous process, with concern for additional metastasis to the liver and lungs on positron emission tomography. Our patient’s treatment plan included pembrolizumab and axitinib to manage further cutaneous metastasis and radiation therapy for the C6 spinous process metastasis.

Renal cell carcinoma denotes cancer originating from the renal epithelium and is the most common kidney tumor in adults.¹ Renal cell carcinoma accounts for more than 90% of kidney malignancies in the United States and has 3 main subtypes: clear cell RCC, papillary RCC, and chromophobe RCC.² About 25% of cases metastasize, commonly to the lungs, liver, bones, lymph nodes, contralateral kidney, and adrenal glands.³

Cutaneous metastasis of RCC is rare, with an incidence of approximately 3.3%.⁴ Notably, 80% to 90% of patients with metastatic skin lesions had a prior diagnosis of RCC.² Skin metastases associated with RCC predominantly are found on the face and scalp, appearing as nodular, swiftly expanding, circular, or oval-shaped growths. The robust vascular element of these lesions can lead to confusion with regard to the proper diagnosis, as they often resemble hemangiomas, pyogenic granulomas, or Kaposi sarcomas.⁴

Many cutaneous metastases linked to RCC exhibit a histomorphologic pattern consistent with clear cell adenocarcinoma.² The malignant cells are large and possess transparent cytoplasm, round to oval nuclei, and prominent nucleoli. The cells can form glandular, acinar, or papillary arrangements; extravasated red blood cells frequently are found within the surrounding fibrovascular tissue.⁵ The presence of cytoplasmic glycogen can be revealed through periodic acid–Schiff staining. Other immunohistochemical markers commonly used to identify skin metastasis of RCC include epithelioid membrane antigen, carcinoembryonic antigen, and CD-10.¹

Various mechanisms are involved in the cutaneous metastases of RCC. The most common pathway involves infiltration of the skin directly overlying the malignant renal mass; additional potential mechanisms include the introduction of abnormal cells into the skin during surgical or diagnostic interventions and their dissemination through the lymphatic system or bloodstream.¹ Among urogenital malignancies other than RCC, skin metastases predominantly manifest in the abdominal region.² Conversely, the head and neck region are more frequently impacted in RCC. The vascular composition of these tumors plays a role in facilitating the extension of cancer cells through the bloodstream, fostering the emergence of distant metastases.⁶

The development of cutaneous metastasis in RCC is associated with a poor prognosis, as most patients die within 6 months of detection.³ Treatment options thus are limited and palliative. Although local excision is an alternative treatment for localized cutaneous metastasis, it often provides little benefit in the presence of extensive metastasis; radiotherapy also has been shown to have a limited effect on primary RCC, though its devascularization of the lesion may be effective in metastatic cases.⁵ Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as nivolumab and ipilimumab have improved progression-free survival in patients with metastatic RCC, though uncertainty remains regarding their efficacy in attenuating cutaneous metastasis.^5,6

THE DIAGNOSIS: Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

The shave biopsy revealed large cells with prominent nucleoli, clear cytoplasm, and thin cell borders in a nestlike arrangement (Figure 1). Immunohistochemical examination was negative for cytokeratin 5/6 and positive for PAX8 (Figure 2), which finalized the diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Later, our patient had a core biopsy-proven metastasis to the C6 spinous process, with concern for additional metastasis to the liver and lungs on positron emission tomography. Our patient’s treatment plan included pembrolizumab and axitinib to manage further cutaneous metastasis and radiation therapy for the C6 spinous process metastasis.

Renal cell carcinoma denotes cancer originating from the renal epithelium and is the most common kidney tumor in adults.¹ Renal cell carcinoma accounts for more than 90% of kidney malignancies in the United States and has 3 main subtypes: clear cell RCC, papillary RCC, and chromophobe RCC.² About 25% of cases metastasize, commonly to the lungs, liver, bones, lymph nodes, contralateral kidney, and adrenal glands.³

Cutaneous metastasis of RCC is rare, with an incidence of approximately 3.3%.⁴ Notably, 80% to 90% of patients with metastatic skin lesions had a prior diagnosis of RCC.² Skin metastases associated with RCC predominantly are found on the face and scalp, appearing as nodular, swiftly expanding, circular, or oval-shaped growths. The robust vascular element of these lesions can lead to confusion with regard to the proper diagnosis, as they often resemble hemangiomas, pyogenic granulomas, or Kaposi sarcomas.⁴

Many cutaneous metastases linked to RCC exhibit a histomorphologic pattern consistent with clear cell adenocarcinoma.² The malignant cells are large and possess transparent cytoplasm, round to oval nuclei, and prominent nucleoli. The cells can form glandular, acinar, or papillary arrangements; extravasated red blood cells frequently are found within the surrounding fibrovascular tissue.⁵ The presence of cytoplasmic glycogen can be revealed through periodic acid–Schiff staining. Other immunohistochemical markers commonly used to identify skin metastasis of RCC include epithelioid membrane antigen, carcinoembryonic antigen, and CD-10.¹

Various mechanisms are involved in the cutaneous metastases of RCC. The most common pathway involves infiltration of the skin directly overlying the malignant renal mass; additional potential mechanisms include the introduction of abnormal cells into the skin during surgical or diagnostic interventions and their dissemination through the lymphatic system or bloodstream.¹ Among urogenital malignancies other than RCC, skin metastases predominantly manifest in the abdominal region.² Conversely, the head and neck region are more frequently impacted in RCC. The vascular composition of these tumors plays a role in facilitating the extension of cancer cells through the bloodstream, fostering the emergence of distant metastases.⁶

The development of cutaneous metastasis in RCC is associated with a poor prognosis, as most patients die within 6 months of detection.³ Treatment options thus are limited and palliative. Although local excision is an alternative treatment for localized cutaneous metastasis, it often provides little benefit in the presence of extensive metastasis; radiotherapy also has been shown to have a limited effect on primary RCC, though its devascularization of the lesion may be effective in metastatic cases.⁵ Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as nivolumab and ipilimumab have improved progression-free survival in patients with metastatic RCC, though uncertainty remains regarding their efficacy in attenuating cutaneous metastasis.^5,6

THE DIAGNOSIS: Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

The shave biopsy revealed large cells with prominent nucleoli, clear cytoplasm, and thin cell borders in a nestlike arrangement (Figure 1). Immunohistochemical examination was negative for cytokeratin 5/6 and positive for PAX8 (Figure 2), which finalized the diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Later, our patient had a core biopsy-proven metastasis to the C6 spinous process, with concern for additional metastasis to the liver and lungs on positron emission tomography. Our patient’s treatment plan included pembrolizumab and axitinib to manage further cutaneous metastasis and radiation therapy for the C6 spinous process metastasis.

Renal cell carcinoma denotes cancer originating from the renal epithelium and is the most common kidney tumor in adults.¹ Renal cell carcinoma accounts for more than 90% of kidney malignancies in the United States and has 3 main subtypes: clear cell RCC, papillary RCC, and chromophobe RCC.² About 25% of cases metastasize, commonly to the lungs, liver, bones, lymph nodes, contralateral kidney, and adrenal glands.³

Cutaneous metastasis of RCC is rare, with an incidence of approximately 3.3%.⁴ Notably, 80% to 90% of patients with metastatic skin lesions had a prior diagnosis of RCC.² Skin metastases associated with RCC predominantly are found on the face and scalp, appearing as nodular, swiftly expanding, circular, or oval-shaped growths. The robust vascular element of these lesions can lead to confusion with regard to the proper diagnosis, as they often resemble hemangiomas, pyogenic granulomas, or Kaposi sarcomas.⁴

Many cutaneous metastases linked to RCC exhibit a histomorphologic pattern consistent with clear cell adenocarcinoma.² The malignant cells are large and possess transparent cytoplasm, round to oval nuclei, and prominent nucleoli. The cells can form glandular, acinar, or papillary arrangements; extravasated red blood cells frequently are found within the surrounding fibrovascular tissue.⁵ The presence of cytoplasmic glycogen can be revealed through periodic acid–Schiff staining. Other immunohistochemical markers commonly used to identify skin metastasis of RCC include epithelioid membrane antigen, carcinoembryonic antigen, and CD-10.¹

Various mechanisms are involved in the cutaneous metastases of RCC. The most common pathway involves infiltration of the skin directly overlying the malignant renal mass; additional potential mechanisms include the introduction of abnormal cells into the skin during surgical or diagnostic interventions and their dissemination through the lymphatic system or bloodstream.¹ Among urogenital malignancies other than RCC, skin metastases predominantly manifest in the abdominal region.² Conversely, the head and neck region are more frequently impacted in RCC. The vascular composition of these tumors plays a role in facilitating the extension of cancer cells through the bloodstream, fostering the emergence of distant metastases.⁶

The development of cutaneous metastasis in RCC is associated with a poor prognosis, as most patients die within 6 months of detection.³ Treatment options thus are limited and palliative. Although local excision is an alternative treatment for localized cutaneous metastasis, it often provides little benefit in the presence of extensive metastasis; radiotherapy also has been shown to have a limited effect on primary RCC, though its devascularization of the lesion may be effective in metastatic cases.⁵ Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as nivolumab and ipilimumab have improved progression-free survival in patients with metastatic RCC, though uncertainty remains regarding their efficacy in attenuating cutaneous metastasis.^5,6

The Diagnosis: Leiomyoma

Histopathology revealed a dermal mesenchymal tumor composed of fascicles of bland spindle cells with tapered nuclei, perinuclear vacuoles, eosinophilic cytoplasm, and low cellularity (Figure 1). Immunohistochemical studies of the cells stained strongly positive for smooth muscle actin and desmin, consistent with a smooth muscle neoplasm (Figure 2). Fumarate hydratase (FH) staining revealed loss of expression in tumor cells, consistent with FH deficiency (Figure 3). A diagnosis of cutaneous leiomyoma was made, and although the clinical and histologic findings suggested hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer (HLRCC), genetic testing was negative for an FH gene mutation. This negative result indicated that HLRCC was unlikely despite the initial concerns based on the findings. 

Leiomyomas are benign neoplasms that are challenging to diagnose based on the clinical picture alone. Leiomyomas most commonly are found in the genitourinary and gastrointestinal systems, with cutaneous manifestation being the second most common presentation.¹ These benign smooth muscle tumors manifest as tender, firm, flesh-colored, pink or reddish-brown nodules that are subcategorized based on the derivation of the smooth muscle within the tumor.² Angioleiomyomas, the most common type, arise from the tunica media of blood vessels, whereas piloleiomyomas and genital leiomyomas arise from the arrector pili musculature of the hair follicle and the smooth muscle found in the scrotum, labia, or nipple.² Rare cases of cutaneous leiomyosarcomas and angioleiomyosarcomas have been reported in the literature.^3,4 Solitary leiomyomas tend to develop on the lower extremities, whereas multiple lesions frequently manifest on the extensor surfaces of extremities and the trunk. Lesions often are painful, either spontaneously or in association with applied pressure, emotional stress, or exposure to cold temperatures.² 

Although leiomyomas themselves are benign, patients with multiple cutaneous leiomyomas may have an underlying genetic mutation that increases their risk of developing HLRCC, an autosomal-dominant syndrome.⁵ Referral should be considered for individuals with a personal history of or a first-degree relative with cutaneous leiomyomas or renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with histology typical of hereditary leiomyomatosis and RCC, as recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors.⁶ In this case, the decision to refer the patient for genetic testing was based on her family history, specifically her paternal uncle having multiple similar lesions, which, while not a first-degree relative, still raised concerns about potential hereditary risks and warranted further evaluation. A germline mutation in the FH gene, which encodes an enzyme that converts fumarate to malate in the Krebs cycle and plays a role in tumor suppression, is the cause of HLRCC.^2,7 When part of this genetic condition, cutaneous leiomyomas tend to occur around 25 years of age (range, 10-50 years).² A diagnosis of HLRCC should be strongly considered if a patient displays multiple cutaneous leiomyomas with at least 1 histologically confirmed lesion or at least 2 of the following: solitary cutaneous leiomyoma with family history of HLRCC, onset of severely symptomatic uterine fibroids before age 40 years, type II papillary or collecting duct renal cell cancer before age 40 years, or a first-degree family member who meets 1 of these criteria.^5,8 

Diagnosis of cutaneous leiomyoma may be accomplished by microscopic examination of a tissue sample; however, further diagnostic workup is warranted due to the strong correlation with HLRCC.² A definitive diagnosis of HLRCC is confirmed with a germline mutation in the FH gene, and genetic screening should be offered to patients before renal cancer surveillance to avoid unwarranted investigations.⁸ Timely clinical diagnosis enables early genetic testing and enhanced outcomes for patients with confirmed HLRCC who may need a multidisciplinary approach of dermatologists, gynecologists, and urologic oncologists.^5,8 

Cutaneous leiomyomas can be excised, and this typically is the gold standard of care for small and localized lesions, although the use of cryosurgery and carbon dioxide lasers has been reported as well.^2,9,10 For more widespread lesions or for patients who are not appropriate candidates for surgery, pharmacologic therapies (α-blockers, calcium channel blockers, nitroglycerin), intralesional corticosteroids, and/or botulinum toxin injections can be utilized.^2,11 

The acronym BLEND AN EGG encompasses the clinical differential diagnosis for painful skin tumors: blue rubber bleb nevus, leiomyoma, eccrine spiradenoma, neuroma, dermatofibroma, angiolipoma, neurilemmoma, endometrioma, glomangioma, and granular cell tumor. Blue rubber bleb nevi are deep blue in color, and angiolipomas sit under the skin and present as subcutaneous swellings. Dermatofibromas and neurofibromas also are included in the differential.¹² Dermatofibromas are firm solitary lesions that have a pathognomonic pinch sign. Neurofibromas are soft and rubbery, have a buttonhole sign, and stain positively for S-100 protein and SOX-10 but negatively for actin and desmin.¹²

The Diagnosis: Leiomyoma

Histopathology revealed a dermal mesenchymal tumor composed of fascicles of bland spindle cells with tapered nuclei, perinuclear vacuoles, eosinophilic cytoplasm, and low cellularity (Figure 1). Immunohistochemical studies of the cells stained strongly positive for smooth muscle actin and desmin, consistent with a smooth muscle neoplasm (Figure 2). Fumarate hydratase (FH) staining revealed loss of expression in tumor cells, consistent with FH deficiency (Figure 3). A diagnosis of cutaneous leiomyoma was made, and although the clinical and histologic findings suggested hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer (HLRCC), genetic testing was negative for an FH gene mutation. This negative result indicated that HLRCC was unlikely despite the initial concerns based on the findings. 

Leiomyomas are benign neoplasms that are challenging to diagnose based on the clinical picture alone. Leiomyomas most commonly are found in the genitourinary and gastrointestinal systems, with cutaneous manifestation being the second most common presentation.¹ These benign smooth muscle tumors manifest as tender, firm, flesh-colored, pink or reddish-brown nodules that are subcategorized based on the derivation of the smooth muscle within the tumor.² Angioleiomyomas, the most common type, arise from the tunica media of blood vessels, whereas piloleiomyomas and genital leiomyomas arise from the arrector pili musculature of the hair follicle and the smooth muscle found in the scrotum, labia, or nipple.² Rare cases of cutaneous leiomyosarcomas and angioleiomyosarcomas have been reported in the literature.^3,4 Solitary leiomyomas tend to develop on the lower extremities, whereas multiple lesions frequently manifest on the extensor surfaces of extremities and the trunk. Lesions often are painful, either spontaneously or in association with applied pressure, emotional stress, or exposure to cold temperatures.² 

Although leiomyomas themselves are benign, patients with multiple cutaneous leiomyomas may have an underlying genetic mutation that increases their risk of developing HLRCC, an autosomal-dominant syndrome.⁵ Referral should be considered for individuals with a personal history of or a first-degree relative with cutaneous leiomyomas or renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with histology typical of hereditary leiomyomatosis and RCC, as recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors.⁶ In this case, the decision to refer the patient for genetic testing was based on her family history, specifically her paternal uncle having multiple similar lesions, which, while not a first-degree relative, still raised concerns about potential hereditary risks and warranted further evaluation. A germline mutation in the FH gene, which encodes an enzyme that converts fumarate to malate in the Krebs cycle and plays a role in tumor suppression, is the cause of HLRCC.^2,7 When part of this genetic condition, cutaneous leiomyomas tend to occur around 25 years of age (range, 10-50 years).² A diagnosis of HLRCC should be strongly considered if a patient displays multiple cutaneous leiomyomas with at least 1 histologically confirmed lesion or at least 2 of the following: solitary cutaneous leiomyoma with family history of HLRCC, onset of severely symptomatic uterine fibroids before age 40 years, type II papillary or collecting duct renal cell cancer before age 40 years, or a first-degree family member who meets 1 of these criteria.^5,8 

Diagnosis of cutaneous leiomyoma may be accomplished by microscopic examination of a tissue sample; however, further diagnostic workup is warranted due to the strong correlation with HLRCC.² A definitive diagnosis of HLRCC is confirmed with a germline mutation in the FH gene, and genetic screening should be offered to patients before renal cancer surveillance to avoid unwarranted investigations.⁸ Timely clinical diagnosis enables early genetic testing and enhanced outcomes for patients with confirmed HLRCC who may need a multidisciplinary approach of dermatologists, gynecologists, and urologic oncologists.^5,8 

Cutaneous leiomyomas can be excised, and this typically is the gold standard of care for small and localized lesions, although the use of cryosurgery and carbon dioxide lasers has been reported as well.^2,9,10 For more widespread lesions or for patients who are not appropriate candidates for surgery, pharmacologic therapies (α-blockers, calcium channel blockers, nitroglycerin), intralesional corticosteroids, and/or botulinum toxin injections can be utilized.^2,11 

The acronym BLEND AN EGG encompasses the clinical differential diagnosis for painful skin tumors: blue rubber bleb nevus, leiomyoma, eccrine spiradenoma, neuroma, dermatofibroma, angiolipoma, neurilemmoma, endometrioma, glomangioma, and granular cell tumor. Blue rubber bleb nevi are deep blue in color, and angiolipomas sit under the skin and present as subcutaneous swellings. Dermatofibromas and neurofibromas also are included in the differential.¹² Dermatofibromas are firm solitary lesions that have a pathognomonic pinch sign. Neurofibromas are soft and rubbery, have a buttonhole sign, and stain positively for S-100 protein and SOX-10 but negatively for actin and desmin.¹²

The Diagnosis: Leiomyoma

Histopathology revealed a dermal mesenchymal tumor composed of fascicles of bland spindle cells with tapered nuclei, perinuclear vacuoles, eosinophilic cytoplasm, and low cellularity (Figure 1). Immunohistochemical studies of the cells stained strongly positive for smooth muscle actin and desmin, consistent with a smooth muscle neoplasm (Figure 2). Fumarate hydratase (FH) staining revealed loss of expression in tumor cells, consistent with FH deficiency (Figure 3). A diagnosis of cutaneous leiomyoma was made, and although the clinical and histologic findings suggested hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer (HLRCC), genetic testing was negative for an FH gene mutation. This negative result indicated that HLRCC was unlikely despite the initial concerns based on the findings. 

Leiomyomas are benign neoplasms that are challenging to diagnose based on the clinical picture alone. Leiomyomas most commonly are found in the genitourinary and gastrointestinal systems, with cutaneous manifestation being the second most common presentation.¹ These benign smooth muscle tumors manifest as tender, firm, flesh-colored, pink or reddish-brown nodules that are subcategorized based on the derivation of the smooth muscle within the tumor.² Angioleiomyomas, the most common type, arise from the tunica media of blood vessels, whereas piloleiomyomas and genital leiomyomas arise from the arrector pili musculature of the hair follicle and the smooth muscle found in the scrotum, labia, or nipple.² Rare cases of cutaneous leiomyosarcomas and angioleiomyosarcomas have been reported in the literature.^3,4 Solitary leiomyomas tend to develop on the lower extremities, whereas multiple lesions frequently manifest on the extensor surfaces of extremities and the trunk. Lesions often are painful, either spontaneously or in association with applied pressure, emotional stress, or exposure to cold temperatures.² 

Although leiomyomas themselves are benign, patients with multiple cutaneous leiomyomas may have an underlying genetic mutation that increases their risk of developing HLRCC, an autosomal-dominant syndrome.⁵ Referral should be considered for individuals with a personal history of or a first-degree relative with cutaneous leiomyomas or renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with histology typical of hereditary leiomyomatosis and RCC, as recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors.⁶ In this case, the decision to refer the patient for genetic testing was based on her family history, specifically her paternal uncle having multiple similar lesions, which, while not a first-degree relative, still raised concerns about potential hereditary risks and warranted further evaluation. A germline mutation in the FH gene, which encodes an enzyme that converts fumarate to malate in the Krebs cycle and plays a role in tumor suppression, is the cause of HLRCC.^2,7 When part of this genetic condition, cutaneous leiomyomas tend to occur around 25 years of age (range, 10-50 years).² A diagnosis of HLRCC should be strongly considered if a patient displays multiple cutaneous leiomyomas with at least 1 histologically confirmed lesion or at least 2 of the following: solitary cutaneous leiomyoma with family history of HLRCC, onset of severely symptomatic uterine fibroids before age 40 years, type II papillary or collecting duct renal cell cancer before age 40 years, or a first-degree family member who meets 1 of these criteria.^5,8 

Diagnosis of cutaneous leiomyoma may be accomplished by microscopic examination of a tissue sample; however, further diagnostic workup is warranted due to the strong correlation with HLRCC.² A definitive diagnosis of HLRCC is confirmed with a germline mutation in the FH gene, and genetic screening should be offered to patients before renal cancer surveillance to avoid unwarranted investigations.⁸ Timely clinical diagnosis enables early genetic testing and enhanced outcomes for patients with confirmed HLRCC who may need a multidisciplinary approach of dermatologists, gynecologists, and urologic oncologists.^5,8 

Cutaneous leiomyomas can be excised, and this typically is the gold standard of care for small and localized lesions, although the use of cryosurgery and carbon dioxide lasers has been reported as well.^2,9,10 For more widespread lesions or for patients who are not appropriate candidates for surgery, pharmacologic therapies (α-blockers, calcium channel blockers, nitroglycerin), intralesional corticosteroids, and/or botulinum toxin injections can be utilized.^2,11 

The acronym BLEND AN EGG encompasses the clinical differential diagnosis for painful skin tumors: blue rubber bleb nevus, leiomyoma, eccrine spiradenoma, neuroma, dermatofibroma, angiolipoma, neurilemmoma, endometrioma, glomangioma, and granular cell tumor. Blue rubber bleb nevi are deep blue in color, and angiolipomas sit under the skin and present as subcutaneous swellings. Dermatofibromas and neurofibromas also are included in the differential.¹² Dermatofibromas are firm solitary lesions that have a pathognomonic pinch sign. Neurofibromas are soft and rubbery, have a buttonhole sign, and stain positively for S-100 protein and SOX-10 but negatively for actin and desmin.¹²

To the Editor:

A 22-year-old man was referred to our dermatology outpatient department for wartlike growths that gradually developed around a postoperative enteroatmospheric fistula and stoma over the past 4 months. The patient presented for an emergency exploratory laparotomy with a history of perforation peritonitis 1.5 years prior to the current presentation. He also had a small bowel obstruction 5 months prior to the current presentation that resulted in the resection of a large segment of the small bowel. He underwent a diverting loop ileostomy when the abdominal closure was not achieved because of bowel edema, following which he developed a postoperative enteroatmospheric fistula. In addition, the stoma retracted and was followed by dermal dehiscence, which led to notable leakage and resulted in heavy fecal contamination of the midline wound.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed multiple grayish-white, dome-shaped, moist papules coalescing to form a peristomal pseudoverrucous mass on the lower side of the stoma (Figure 1). The patient experienced mild itching. The lesion showed no signs of erosion, bleeding, or purulent discharge, and there were no nearby lumps or enlarged lymph nodes. The differential diagnosis included peristomal pyoderma gangrenosum, human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, pseudoverrucous papules and nodules (PPNs), squamous cell carcinoma, and exuberant granulation tissue. A skin biopsy was performed, and histopathology revealed hyperkeratosis, moderate papillomatosis, and marked acanthotic hyperplasia seen as downgrowths into the dermis (Figure 2). No koilocytes, atypia, or mitotic figures were present. Abundant neutrophils and few eosinophils were seen in the dermal infiltrate. A final diagnosis of PPN was made based on clinicopathologic correlation. The patient was advised to use a smaller stoma bag and to change the collection pouch frequently to reduce skin contact with fecal matter.

Peristomal skin conditions are reported in 18% to 55% of patients with stomas and include allergic contact dermatitis, mechanical dermatitis, infections, pyoderma gangrenosum, and irritant contact dermatitis.^1,2 Pseudoverrucous papules (also called chronic papillomatous dermatitis or pseudoverrucous lesions) is a rare dermatologic complication found on the skin around stomas,³ most commonly around urostomy stomas. The presence of PPNs around colostomy stomas and the perianal region is extremely rare.^2,4 This condition is the result of chronic irritant dermatitis from frequent exposure to urine or feces, leading to maceration and epidermal hyperplasia. It occurs because of improper sizing of the stoma bag or incorrect positioning or construction of the stoma.⁵

the overuse of topical benzocaine-resorcinol, leading to chronic irritation.⁶ It is clinically characterized by multiple grayish-white, wartlike, confluent papulonodules around areas chronically exposed to moisture. Differential diagnoses such as secondary neoplasms, HPV infection, exuberant granulation tissue, and candidal infections should be considered.³ Final diagnosis is based on clinicopathologic findings, similar to our case. Epidermal growth factor and transforming growth factor are thought to play a role in the pathophysiology of pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia. Increased expression of these mediators leads to proliferation of the epidermis into the dermis.⁷ The role of HPV in PPN remains unclear, as not all PPN lesions are positive for HPV and the cutaneous lesions resolve once the source of irritation is removed. Recommended treatment includes local skin care; stoma refitting; and, in severe cases, excision and revision of the stoma.² Dermatologists must be aware of this often-underdiagnosed condition.

To the Editor:

A 22-year-old man was referred to our dermatology outpatient department for wartlike growths that gradually developed around a postoperative enteroatmospheric fistula and stoma over the past 4 months. The patient presented for an emergency exploratory laparotomy with a history of perforation peritonitis 1.5 years prior to the current presentation. He also had a small bowel obstruction 5 months prior to the current presentation that resulted in the resection of a large segment of the small bowel. He underwent a diverting loop ileostomy when the abdominal closure was not achieved because of bowel edema, following which he developed a postoperative enteroatmospheric fistula. In addition, the stoma retracted and was followed by dermal dehiscence, which led to notable leakage and resulted in heavy fecal contamination of the midline wound.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed multiple grayish-white, dome-shaped, moist papules coalescing to form a peristomal pseudoverrucous mass on the lower side of the stoma (Figure 1). The patient experienced mild itching. The lesion showed no signs of erosion, bleeding, or purulent discharge, and there were no nearby lumps or enlarged lymph nodes. The differential diagnosis included peristomal pyoderma gangrenosum, human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, pseudoverrucous papules and nodules (PPNs), squamous cell carcinoma, and exuberant granulation tissue. A skin biopsy was performed, and histopathology revealed hyperkeratosis, moderate papillomatosis, and marked acanthotic hyperplasia seen as downgrowths into the dermis (Figure 2). No koilocytes, atypia, or mitotic figures were present. Abundant neutrophils and few eosinophils were seen in the dermal infiltrate. A final diagnosis of PPN was made based on clinicopathologic correlation. The patient was advised to use a smaller stoma bag and to change the collection pouch frequently to reduce skin contact with fecal matter.

Peristomal skin conditions are reported in 18% to 55% of patients with stomas and include allergic contact dermatitis, mechanical dermatitis, infections, pyoderma gangrenosum, and irritant contact dermatitis.^1,2 Pseudoverrucous papules (also called chronic papillomatous dermatitis or pseudoverrucous lesions) is a rare dermatologic complication found on the skin around stomas,³ most commonly around urostomy stomas. The presence of PPNs around colostomy stomas and the perianal region is extremely rare.^2,4 This condition is the result of chronic irritant dermatitis from frequent exposure to urine or feces, leading to maceration and epidermal hyperplasia. It occurs because of improper sizing of the stoma bag or incorrect positioning or construction of the stoma.⁵

the overuse of topical benzocaine-resorcinol, leading to chronic irritation.⁶ It is clinically characterized by multiple grayish-white, wartlike, confluent papulonodules around areas chronically exposed to moisture. Differential diagnoses such as secondary neoplasms, HPV infection, exuberant granulation tissue, and candidal infections should be considered.³ Final diagnosis is based on clinicopathologic findings, similar to our case. Epidermal growth factor and transforming growth factor are thought to play a role in the pathophysiology of pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia. Increased expression of these mediators leads to proliferation of the epidermis into the dermis.⁷ The role of HPV in PPN remains unclear, as not all PPN lesions are positive for HPV and the cutaneous lesions resolve once the source of irritation is removed. Recommended treatment includes local skin care; stoma refitting; and, in severe cases, excision and revision of the stoma.² Dermatologists must be aware of this often-underdiagnosed condition.

To the Editor:

A 22-year-old man was referred to our dermatology outpatient department for wartlike growths that gradually developed around a postoperative enteroatmospheric fistula and stoma over the past 4 months. The patient presented for an emergency exploratory laparotomy with a history of perforation peritonitis 1.5 years prior to the current presentation. He also had a small bowel obstruction 5 months prior to the current presentation that resulted in the resection of a large segment of the small bowel. He underwent a diverting loop ileostomy when the abdominal closure was not achieved because of bowel edema, following which he developed a postoperative enteroatmospheric fistula. In addition, the stoma retracted and was followed by dermal dehiscence, which led to notable leakage and resulted in heavy fecal contamination of the midline wound.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed multiple grayish-white, dome-shaped, moist papules coalescing to form a peristomal pseudoverrucous mass on the lower side of the stoma (Figure 1). The patient experienced mild itching. The lesion showed no signs of erosion, bleeding, or purulent discharge, and there were no nearby lumps or enlarged lymph nodes. The differential diagnosis included peristomal pyoderma gangrenosum, human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, pseudoverrucous papules and nodules (PPNs), squamous cell carcinoma, and exuberant granulation tissue. A skin biopsy was performed, and histopathology revealed hyperkeratosis, moderate papillomatosis, and marked acanthotic hyperplasia seen as downgrowths into the dermis (Figure 2). No koilocytes, atypia, or mitotic figures were present. Abundant neutrophils and few eosinophils were seen in the dermal infiltrate. A final diagnosis of PPN was made based on clinicopathologic correlation. The patient was advised to use a smaller stoma bag and to change the collection pouch frequently to reduce skin contact with fecal matter.

Peristomal skin conditions are reported in 18% to 55% of patients with stomas and include allergic contact dermatitis, mechanical dermatitis, infections, pyoderma gangrenosum, and irritant contact dermatitis.^1,2 Pseudoverrucous papules (also called chronic papillomatous dermatitis or pseudoverrucous lesions) is a rare dermatologic complication found on the skin around stomas,³ most commonly around urostomy stomas. The presence of PPNs around colostomy stomas and the perianal region is extremely rare.^2,4 This condition is the result of chronic irritant dermatitis from frequent exposure to urine or feces, leading to maceration and epidermal hyperplasia. It occurs because of improper sizing of the stoma bag or incorrect positioning or construction of the stoma.⁵

the overuse of topical benzocaine-resorcinol, leading to chronic irritation.⁶ It is clinically characterized by multiple grayish-white, wartlike, confluent papulonodules around areas chronically exposed to moisture. Differential diagnoses such as secondary neoplasms, HPV infection, exuberant granulation tissue, and candidal infections should be considered.³ Final diagnosis is based on clinicopathologic findings, similar to our case. Epidermal growth factor and transforming growth factor are thought to play a role in the pathophysiology of pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia. Increased expression of these mediators leads to proliferation of the epidermis into the dermis.⁷ The role of HPV in PPN remains unclear, as not all PPN lesions are positive for HPV and the cutaneous lesions resolve once the source of irritation is removed. Recommended treatment includes local skin care; stoma refitting; and, in severe cases, excision and revision of the stoma.² Dermatologists must be aware of this often-underdiagnosed condition.

North American venomous snakes traditionally are classified as members of either the Viperidae (eg, rattlesnakes, copperheads, cottonmouths) or Elapidae (eg, coral snakes) families and account for roughly 5000 to 10,000 reported envenomations annually.^1,2 In 2021, America’s Poison Centers reported 2287 calls related to copperheads, 71 related to coral snakes, 229 related to cottonmouths, 1184 related to rattlesnakes, and 524 related to unknown snakes.³ The majority of calls related to snake bites were for adult patients, resulting in absent to minor outcomes. Only 1 death due to a rattlesnake bite was reported.³ Death by envenomation from a North American snake species is considered rare and typically is attributed to a lapse in medical attention; however, rattlesnakes are the most common reported cause of death by snake envenomation (Figure 1).^1,3 A study comparing snake bites and hospital stays in the southeast vs southwest United States found that the southeast had the highest incidence of copperhead bites (37%), while the southwest had a higher incidence of rattlesnake bites (70%); those who were bitten by a rattlesnake were reported to have more severe symptoms and greater need for medical attention and antivenin.⁴ Some reports have linked pediatric and elderly patients to worse outcomes.⁵ However, one study examining 24,388 emergency department visits for snake bites from 2006 through 2014 found that the majority of pediatric cases were handled by non– trauma centers in the southern United States,⁶ supporting evidence found by Campbell et al⁷ indicating that most snake bites in children can be managed with conservative care. Though reported complications—including weakness, paralysis, hypovolemic shock, thrombocytopenia, and death—from North American venomous snake bites are low, they are still considered a medical emergency.⁸ It is essential for physicians to understand the clinical manifestations and treatment of North American venomous snake bites and to educate patients on how to protect themselves against and avoid provoking snakes, particularly in rural areas.² In this article, we review the characteristics of common North American venomous snakes and the clinical manifestations of their bites. We also discuss the appropriate measures for staging, evaluating, and treating snake envenomation to improve patient management and care.

Features of North American Venomous Snakes

Individual snakes within the Viperidae family vary in size, markings and coloration, activity, and region, and physicians should consult their local health departments regarding snakes that are common in their area.² Cottonmouth snakes are semiaquatic and traditionally are found within the southern and central United States. With a spade-shaped head and distinct two-tone coloration, cottonmouths may be mistaken for other nonvenomous water snakes in these regions (Figure 2).² Copperheads, true to their name, are red in color; they inhabit a large portion of the southeastern United States and eastern Texas regions and are the cause of the majority of venomous snake bites in North America (Figure 3). Both cottonmouths and copperheads are believed to bite and envenomate as a defensive mechanism when provoked.

Coral snakes, found in the eastern United States and Texas regions, are the only subspecies of the Elapidae family (Figure 4).^2,9 They can be distinguished from the nonvenomous milk snake by their characteristic banding, as coral snakes are patterned in a red-yellow-black band sequence and milk snakes are patterned in a red-black-yellow or white sequence. The differences in appearance of these snakes often is remembered by the phrase “red on yellow kills a fellow.”

Anatomic differences between the Viperidae and Elapidae families, including fang size, placement, and type, as well as venom composition, are directly linked to clinical manifestations of the bites. Viperidae fangs extend from the maxillary bones and are mobile, long, and hollow, making it easy for the snake to control fang movement and envenomation.⁹ Viperidae snakes are uniquely capable of inflicting puncture wounds without the injection of venom, known as dry bites. In contrast, Elapidae snakes have short, hollow, and fixed fangs, and thus patients can protect themselves by wearing appropriate clothing and covered footwear.⁹ Currently, identifying the type of snake responsible for the bite relies on visualization of the snake and/or the identification of clinical symptoms of envenomation by a dermatologist.

Clinical Manifestations of Venomous Snake Bites

Clinical manifestations and cutaneous findings often are used to grade the severity of venomous snake bites as well as to dictate treatment procedures. Grade 0 indicates a bite has occurred without envenomation, while grades I to V describe the progression and severity of envenomation.¹⁰ Grade I describes minimal erythema and edema around the site (fang marks may or may not be present) and no systemic symptoms. Grade II describes erythema and edema extending up the extremity to the first joint (eg, hand to wrist), pain, some systemic symptoms if there is rapid progression, and potential bleeding at the site. Grade III describes erythema and edema spreading to the second joint in the extremity, pain, and systemic symptoms, including coagulation defects. Grade IV describes erythema and edema of the whole extremity, a rapid reaction and progression following the bite, and risk for compartment syndrome. Grade V includes erythema and edema beyond the extremity and increasing systemic symptoms.¹⁰

Local pain and edema, usually on easily accessible or exposed extremities, are the most common clinical symptoms reported following a Viperidae snake bite.¹¹ Due to their capability of producing a dry bite, puncture markings alone do not indicate envenomation. Patients will need to be monitored for several hours for signs of envenomation, which may include swelling, pain, ecchymosis, and indications of systemic manifestation (eg, weakness, dizziness, nausea, severe hypotension, thrombocytopenia).¹¹ Viperidae venom hemorrhagic metalloproteinases act on capillary blood vessels by cleaving basement membrane proteins and allowing for extravasation of fluid into local tissue.¹² The inflammatory response produced at the site of envenomation likely is due to the release of tumor necrosis factor á and endogenous matrix metalloprotein.¹² There is a higher risk for death associated with bites from rattlesnakes within the Viperidae family because their venom contains a unique neurotoxin that works by blocking presynaptic junctions and causing a range of paralytic symptoms from ptosis to respiratory failure.¹³

The severity of Elapidae bites is thought to be related to the amount of venom injected, the size of the victim, and the length of the snake. Though clothing may offer protection, envenomation occurs in 75% of coral snake bites and can produce devastating consequences due to the venom content.¹⁴ In a retrospective study between 2002 and 2004, 90% of Elapidae snake bite patients (n=82) reported local pain, redness, and paresthesia, while around 7% developed systemic symptoms.¹⁵ Elapidae venom primarily is neurotoxic and is thought to spread via lymphatics.¹⁶ Delayed reactions are common and may take up to 12 hours to develop. Patients should be monitored, as local reactions may progress to weakness, fasciculations, extremity paralysis, and lastly, respiratory paralysis. Due to the risk for progression, all patients with likely coral snake bites should be given antivenin.^8,15,17

Much like the North American coral snake, the venomous snake species Gloydius blomhoffii—referred to as the salmosa or mamushi snake depending on the region of origin (ie, Korea or Japan)—is a frequent source of devastating rural snake bites due to neurotoxins (Figure 5). The species’ slender fangs are thought to directly inject the snake’s potent venom, which contains hemorrhagic toxins and α-neurotoxins and Β-neurotoxins, into the bloodstream; however, the salmosa is considered a viper like the North American cottonmouth and copperhead because of its triangular head shape and hollow fangs, which allow for the accommodation of venom-containing glands and mechanism of venom injection. Salmosa venom shares both Viperidae and Elapidae characteristics. Cutaneous findings such as progressive edema, erythema, and bleeding frequently are reported and are attributed to the proteases and hemorrhagic toxins characteristic of vipers (Figure 6). α-Neurotoxins and Β-neurotoxins, similar to the proteolytic venom of the Elapidae family, are responsible for the unique visual disturbances (binocular diplopia) caused by the salmosa.^12,18,19

Treatment

Treating snake bites begins with assessing the patient’s airway, breathing, and circulation, followed by a thorough medical and encounter history (including description of how the bite occurred). Due to the range of Viperidae symptoms, it generally is recommended that patients remove any restrictive clothing or jewelry near the bite and/or over the affected limb or body part, place the affected body part at the level of the heart, and go to the nearest medical facility for prompt care. Historically, empiric antibiotics often were used to prevent wound infections; however, studies have since demonstrated that antibiotics are not necessary and lack efficacy in uncomplicated snake bites.^16,20 In a study of 114 pediatric cases from 1995 to 2005, it was determined that most patients could be managed with conservative treatment directed at pain management and swelling reduction via elevation of the affected extremity.⁶ While conservative management may be all that is needed to care for the majority of cases, one retrospective study from Texas indicated that 70% of pediatric venomous snake bites were treated with either intravenous antibiotics and/or antivenin, highlighting the variability in management and opportunity for improvement.²¹

Antivenin, specifically antivenin (Crotalidae) polyvalent, is the indicated treatment for Viperidae hemorrhagic or coagulopathic envenomation.^13,22 Per guidelines from the World Health Organization, physical examination will yield a grading of the snake bite based on cutaneous findings. Grades III to V are considered moderate to severe and should be given antivenin.²³ Physicians should look for signs of progressive injury and coagulopathy, such as increased swelling, bruising, hypotension, or altered mental status.²² Due to the major neurotoxic risks associated with Elapidae venom, all coral snake bites should be treated with antivenin; early intubation and ventilation may be considered.¹³ Similarly, patients who report a salmosa snake bite require prompt treatment with antivenin and/or cepharanthine, an additive agent to reduce swelling and pain.¹⁸ Due to the nature of the neurotoxins contained in the salmosa venom (α-neurotoxin causing postsynaptic inhibition of the neuromuscular junction and Β-neurotoxin inhibiting neurotransmitter release from the presynaptic terminal), anticholinesterases, which work by blocking the enzymatic breakdown of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, should not be used.¹⁹ While bleeding and skin and systemic changes may be reversed by antivenin, visual changes are unlikely to resolve with antivenin administration due to the presynaptic binding of Β-neurotoxin and the blockade of neuromuscular signaling.¹⁹

Antivenin should be administered intravenously for the fastest onset of action in a setting suitable for the management of anaphylaxis.²⁴ In situations when the benefits may outweigh the risks (eg, if the patient has had a prior allergic reaction or is not in an environment where they can be watched for at least 8 hours for progression of envenomation or adverse reactions), premedication with an antihistamine or epinephrine may be considered.17 Per the World Allergy Organization and World Health Organization, adverse reactions should be treated with crystalloid solutions and antihistamines, corticosteroids, or epinephrine as indicated.²⁵ In a qualitative analysis of emergency physicians’ attitudes toward antivenin, most expressed treatment hesitancy due to lack of knowledge and experience using the medication.²⁶ When possible, snake bites should thus be managed in consultation with a toxicologist.²

Conclusion

Snake bites and envenomation occur commonly in the United States due to exposure to a variety of venomous snakes in the North American Viperidae and Elapidae families. Appropriate and successful management of snake bites by physicians requires general knowledge of regional snakes, the cutaneous and systemic manifestations of snake bites and envenomation, and current treatment methods.

North American venomous snakes traditionally are classified as members of either the Viperidae (eg, rattlesnakes, copperheads, cottonmouths) or Elapidae (eg, coral snakes) families and account for roughly 5000 to 10,000 reported envenomations annually.^1,2 In 2021, America’s Poison Centers reported 2287 calls related to copperheads, 71 related to coral snakes, 229 related to cottonmouths, 1184 related to rattlesnakes, and 524 related to unknown snakes.³ The majority of calls related to snake bites were for adult patients, resulting in absent to minor outcomes. Only 1 death due to a rattlesnake bite was reported.³ Death by envenomation from a North American snake species is considered rare and typically is attributed to a lapse in medical attention; however, rattlesnakes are the most common reported cause of death by snake envenomation (Figure 1).^1,3 A study comparing snake bites and hospital stays in the southeast vs southwest United States found that the southeast had the highest incidence of copperhead bites (37%), while the southwest had a higher incidence of rattlesnake bites (70%); those who were bitten by a rattlesnake were reported to have more severe symptoms and greater need for medical attention and antivenin.⁴ Some reports have linked pediatric and elderly patients to worse outcomes.⁵ However, one study examining 24,388 emergency department visits for snake bites from 2006 through 2014 found that the majority of pediatric cases were handled by non– trauma centers in the southern United States,⁶ supporting evidence found by Campbell et al⁷ indicating that most snake bites in children can be managed with conservative care. Though reported complications—including weakness, paralysis, hypovolemic shock, thrombocytopenia, and death—from North American venomous snake bites are low, they are still considered a medical emergency.⁸ It is essential for physicians to understand the clinical manifestations and treatment of North American venomous snake bites and to educate patients on how to protect themselves against and avoid provoking snakes, particularly in rural areas.² In this article, we review the characteristics of common North American venomous snakes and the clinical manifestations of their bites. We also discuss the appropriate measures for staging, evaluating, and treating snake envenomation to improve patient management and care.

Features of North American Venomous Snakes

Individual snakes within the Viperidae family vary in size, markings and coloration, activity, and region, and physicians should consult their local health departments regarding snakes that are common in their area.² Cottonmouth snakes are semiaquatic and traditionally are found within the southern and central United States. With a spade-shaped head and distinct two-tone coloration, cottonmouths may be mistaken for other nonvenomous water snakes in these regions (Figure 2).² Copperheads, true to their name, are red in color; they inhabit a large portion of the southeastern United States and eastern Texas regions and are the cause of the majority of venomous snake bites in North America (Figure 3). Both cottonmouths and copperheads are believed to bite and envenomate as a defensive mechanism when provoked.

Coral snakes, found in the eastern United States and Texas regions, are the only subspecies of the Elapidae family (Figure 4).^2,9 They can be distinguished from the nonvenomous milk snake by their characteristic banding, as coral snakes are patterned in a red-yellow-black band sequence and milk snakes are patterned in a red-black-yellow or white sequence. The differences in appearance of these snakes often is remembered by the phrase “red on yellow kills a fellow.”

Anatomic differences between the Viperidae and Elapidae families, including fang size, placement, and type, as well as venom composition, are directly linked to clinical manifestations of the bites. Viperidae fangs extend from the maxillary bones and are mobile, long, and hollow, making it easy for the snake to control fang movement and envenomation.⁹ Viperidae snakes are uniquely capable of inflicting puncture wounds without the injection of venom, known as dry bites. In contrast, Elapidae snakes have short, hollow, and fixed fangs, and thus patients can protect themselves by wearing appropriate clothing and covered footwear.⁹ Currently, identifying the type of snake responsible for the bite relies on visualization of the snake and/or the identification of clinical symptoms of envenomation by a dermatologist.

Clinical Manifestations of Venomous Snake Bites

Clinical manifestations and cutaneous findings often are used to grade the severity of venomous snake bites as well as to dictate treatment procedures. Grade 0 indicates a bite has occurred without envenomation, while grades I to V describe the progression and severity of envenomation.¹⁰ Grade I describes minimal erythema and edema around the site (fang marks may or may not be present) and no systemic symptoms. Grade II describes erythema and edema extending up the extremity to the first joint (eg, hand to wrist), pain, some systemic symptoms if there is rapid progression, and potential bleeding at the site. Grade III describes erythema and edema spreading to the second joint in the extremity, pain, and systemic symptoms, including coagulation defects. Grade IV describes erythema and edema of the whole extremity, a rapid reaction and progression following the bite, and risk for compartment syndrome. Grade V includes erythema and edema beyond the extremity and increasing systemic symptoms.¹⁰

Local pain and edema, usually on easily accessible or exposed extremities, are the most common clinical symptoms reported following a Viperidae snake bite.¹¹ Due to their capability of producing a dry bite, puncture markings alone do not indicate envenomation. Patients will need to be monitored for several hours for signs of envenomation, which may include swelling, pain, ecchymosis, and indications of systemic manifestation (eg, weakness, dizziness, nausea, severe hypotension, thrombocytopenia).¹¹ Viperidae venom hemorrhagic metalloproteinases act on capillary blood vessels by cleaving basement membrane proteins and allowing for extravasation of fluid into local tissue.¹² The inflammatory response produced at the site of envenomation likely is due to the release of tumor necrosis factor á and endogenous matrix metalloprotein.¹² There is a higher risk for death associated with bites from rattlesnakes within the Viperidae family because their venom contains a unique neurotoxin that works by blocking presynaptic junctions and causing a range of paralytic symptoms from ptosis to respiratory failure.¹³

The severity of Elapidae bites is thought to be related to the amount of venom injected, the size of the victim, and the length of the snake. Though clothing may offer protection, envenomation occurs in 75% of coral snake bites and can produce devastating consequences due to the venom content.¹⁴ In a retrospective study between 2002 and 2004, 90% of Elapidae snake bite patients (n=82) reported local pain, redness, and paresthesia, while around 7% developed systemic symptoms.¹⁵ Elapidae venom primarily is neurotoxic and is thought to spread via lymphatics.¹⁶ Delayed reactions are common and may take up to 12 hours to develop. Patients should be monitored, as local reactions may progress to weakness, fasciculations, extremity paralysis, and lastly, respiratory paralysis. Due to the risk for progression, all patients with likely coral snake bites should be given antivenin.^8,15,17

Much like the North American coral snake, the venomous snake species Gloydius blomhoffii—referred to as the salmosa or mamushi snake depending on the region of origin (ie, Korea or Japan)—is a frequent source of devastating rural snake bites due to neurotoxins (Figure 5). The species’ slender fangs are thought to directly inject the snake’s potent venom, which contains hemorrhagic toxins and α-neurotoxins and Β-neurotoxins, into the bloodstream; however, the salmosa is considered a viper like the North American cottonmouth and copperhead because of its triangular head shape and hollow fangs, which allow for the accommodation of venom-containing glands and mechanism of venom injection. Salmosa venom shares both Viperidae and Elapidae characteristics. Cutaneous findings such as progressive edema, erythema, and bleeding frequently are reported and are attributed to the proteases and hemorrhagic toxins characteristic of vipers (Figure 6). α-Neurotoxins and Β-neurotoxins, similar to the proteolytic venom of the Elapidae family, are responsible for the unique visual disturbances (binocular diplopia) caused by the salmosa.^12,18,19

Treatment

Treating snake bites begins with assessing the patient’s airway, breathing, and circulation, followed by a thorough medical and encounter history (including description of how the bite occurred). Due to the range of Viperidae symptoms, it generally is recommended that patients remove any restrictive clothing or jewelry near the bite and/or over the affected limb or body part, place the affected body part at the level of the heart, and go to the nearest medical facility for prompt care. Historically, empiric antibiotics often were used to prevent wound infections; however, studies have since demonstrated that antibiotics are not necessary and lack efficacy in uncomplicated snake bites.^16,20 In a study of 114 pediatric cases from 1995 to 2005, it was determined that most patients could be managed with conservative treatment directed at pain management and swelling reduction via elevation of the affected extremity.⁶ While conservative management may be all that is needed to care for the majority of cases, one retrospective study from Texas indicated that 70% of pediatric venomous snake bites were treated with either intravenous antibiotics and/or antivenin, highlighting the variability in management and opportunity for improvement.²¹

Antivenin, specifically antivenin (Crotalidae) polyvalent, is the indicated treatment for Viperidae hemorrhagic or coagulopathic envenomation.^13,22 Per guidelines from the World Health Organization, physical examination will yield a grading of the snake bite based on cutaneous findings. Grades III to V are considered moderate to severe and should be given antivenin.²³ Physicians should look for signs of progressive injury and coagulopathy, such as increased swelling, bruising, hypotension, or altered mental status.²² Due to the major neurotoxic risks associated with Elapidae venom, all coral snake bites should be treated with antivenin; early intubation and ventilation may be considered.¹³ Similarly, patients who report a salmosa snake bite require prompt treatment with antivenin and/or cepharanthine, an additive agent to reduce swelling and pain.¹⁸ Due to the nature of the neurotoxins contained in the salmosa venom (α-neurotoxin causing postsynaptic inhibition of the neuromuscular junction and Β-neurotoxin inhibiting neurotransmitter release from the presynaptic terminal), anticholinesterases, which work by blocking the enzymatic breakdown of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, should not be used.¹⁹ While bleeding and skin and systemic changes may be reversed by antivenin, visual changes are unlikely to resolve with antivenin administration due to the presynaptic binding of Β-neurotoxin and the blockade of neuromuscular signaling.¹⁹

Antivenin should be administered intravenously for the fastest onset of action in a setting suitable for the management of anaphylaxis.²⁴ In situations when the benefits may outweigh the risks (eg, if the patient has had a prior allergic reaction or is not in an environment where they can be watched for at least 8 hours for progression of envenomation or adverse reactions), premedication with an antihistamine or epinephrine may be considered.17 Per the World Allergy Organization and World Health Organization, adverse reactions should be treated with crystalloid solutions and antihistamines, corticosteroids, or epinephrine as indicated.²⁵ In a qualitative analysis of emergency physicians’ attitudes toward antivenin, most expressed treatment hesitancy due to lack of knowledge and experience using the medication.²⁶ When possible, snake bites should thus be managed in consultation with a toxicologist.²

Conclusion

Snake bites and envenomation occur commonly in the United States due to exposure to a variety of venomous snakes in the North American Viperidae and Elapidae families. Appropriate and successful management of snake bites by physicians requires general knowledge of regional snakes, the cutaneous and systemic manifestations of snake bites and envenomation, and current treatment methods.

North American venomous snakes traditionally are classified as members of either the Viperidae (eg, rattlesnakes, copperheads, cottonmouths) or Elapidae (eg, coral snakes) families and account for roughly 5000 to 10,000 reported envenomations annually.^1,2 In 2021, America’s Poison Centers reported 2287 calls related to copperheads, 71 related to coral snakes, 229 related to cottonmouths, 1184 related to rattlesnakes, and 524 related to unknown snakes.³ The majority of calls related to snake bites were for adult patients, resulting in absent to minor outcomes. Only 1 death due to a rattlesnake bite was reported.³ Death by envenomation from a North American snake species is considered rare and typically is attributed to a lapse in medical attention; however, rattlesnakes are the most common reported cause of death by snake envenomation (Figure 1).^1,3 A study comparing snake bites and hospital stays in the southeast vs southwest United States found that the southeast had the highest incidence of copperhead bites (37%), while the southwest had a higher incidence of rattlesnake bites (70%); those who were bitten by a rattlesnake were reported to have more severe symptoms and greater need for medical attention and antivenin.⁴ Some reports have linked pediatric and elderly patients to worse outcomes.⁵ However, one study examining 24,388 emergency department visits for snake bites from 2006 through 2014 found that the majority of pediatric cases were handled by non– trauma centers in the southern United States,⁶ supporting evidence found by Campbell et al⁷ indicating that most snake bites in children can be managed with conservative care. Though reported complications—including weakness, paralysis, hypovolemic shock, thrombocytopenia, and death—from North American venomous snake bites are low, they are still considered a medical emergency.⁸ It is essential for physicians to understand the clinical manifestations and treatment of North American venomous snake bites and to educate patients on how to protect themselves against and avoid provoking snakes, particularly in rural areas.² In this article, we review the characteristics of common North American venomous snakes and the clinical manifestations of their bites. We also discuss the appropriate measures for staging, evaluating, and treating snake envenomation to improve patient management and care.

Features of North American Venomous Snakes

Individual snakes within the Viperidae family vary in size, markings and coloration, activity, and region, and physicians should consult their local health departments regarding snakes that are common in their area.² Cottonmouth snakes are semiaquatic and traditionally are found within the southern and central United States. With a spade-shaped head and distinct two-tone coloration, cottonmouths may be mistaken for other nonvenomous water snakes in these regions (Figure 2).² Copperheads, true to their name, are red in color; they inhabit a large portion of the southeastern United States and eastern Texas regions and are the cause of the majority of venomous snake bites in North America (Figure 3). Both cottonmouths and copperheads are believed to bite and envenomate as a defensive mechanism when provoked.

Coral snakes, found in the eastern United States and Texas regions, are the only subspecies of the Elapidae family (Figure 4).^2,9 They can be distinguished from the nonvenomous milk snake by their characteristic banding, as coral snakes are patterned in a red-yellow-black band sequence and milk snakes are patterned in a red-black-yellow or white sequence. The differences in appearance of these snakes often is remembered by the phrase “red on yellow kills a fellow.”

Anatomic differences between the Viperidae and Elapidae families, including fang size, placement, and type, as well as venom composition, are directly linked to clinical manifestations of the bites. Viperidae fangs extend from the maxillary bones and are mobile, long, and hollow, making it easy for the snake to control fang movement and envenomation.⁹ Viperidae snakes are uniquely capable of inflicting puncture wounds without the injection of venom, known as dry bites. In contrast, Elapidae snakes have short, hollow, and fixed fangs, and thus patients can protect themselves by wearing appropriate clothing and covered footwear.⁹ Currently, identifying the type of snake responsible for the bite relies on visualization of the snake and/or the identification of clinical symptoms of envenomation by a dermatologist.

Clinical Manifestations of Venomous Snake Bites

Clinical manifestations and cutaneous findings often are used to grade the severity of venomous snake bites as well as to dictate treatment procedures. Grade 0 indicates a bite has occurred without envenomation, while grades I to V describe the progression and severity of envenomation.¹⁰ Grade I describes minimal erythema and edema around the site (fang marks may or may not be present) and no systemic symptoms. Grade II describes erythema and edema extending up the extremity to the first joint (eg, hand to wrist), pain, some systemic symptoms if there is rapid progression, and potential bleeding at the site. Grade III describes erythema and edema spreading to the second joint in the extremity, pain, and systemic symptoms, including coagulation defects. Grade IV describes erythema and edema of the whole extremity, a rapid reaction and progression following the bite, and risk for compartment syndrome. Grade V includes erythema and edema beyond the extremity and increasing systemic symptoms.¹⁰

Local pain and edema, usually on easily accessible or exposed extremities, are the most common clinical symptoms reported following a Viperidae snake bite.¹¹ Due to their capability of producing a dry bite, puncture markings alone do not indicate envenomation. Patients will need to be monitored for several hours for signs of envenomation, which may include swelling, pain, ecchymosis, and indications of systemic manifestation (eg, weakness, dizziness, nausea, severe hypotension, thrombocytopenia).¹¹ Viperidae venom hemorrhagic metalloproteinases act on capillary blood vessels by cleaving basement membrane proteins and allowing for extravasation of fluid into local tissue.¹² The inflammatory response produced at the site of envenomation likely is due to the release of tumor necrosis factor á and endogenous matrix metalloprotein.¹² There is a higher risk for death associated with bites from rattlesnakes within the Viperidae family because their venom contains a unique neurotoxin that works by blocking presynaptic junctions and causing a range of paralytic symptoms from ptosis to respiratory failure.¹³

The severity of Elapidae bites is thought to be related to the amount of venom injected, the size of the victim, and the length of the snake. Though clothing may offer protection, envenomation occurs in 75% of coral snake bites and can produce devastating consequences due to the venom content.¹⁴ In a retrospective study between 2002 and 2004, 90% of Elapidae snake bite patients (n=82) reported local pain, redness, and paresthesia, while around 7% developed systemic symptoms.¹⁵ Elapidae venom primarily is neurotoxic and is thought to spread via lymphatics.¹⁶ Delayed reactions are common and may take up to 12 hours to develop. Patients should be monitored, as local reactions may progress to weakness, fasciculations, extremity paralysis, and lastly, respiratory paralysis. Due to the risk for progression, all patients with likely coral snake bites should be given antivenin.^8,15,17

Much like the North American coral snake, the venomous snake species Gloydius blomhoffii—referred to as the salmosa or mamushi snake depending on the region of origin (ie, Korea or Japan)—is a frequent source of devastating rural snake bites due to neurotoxins (Figure 5). The species’ slender fangs are thought to directly inject the snake’s potent venom, which contains hemorrhagic toxins and α-neurotoxins and Β-neurotoxins, into the bloodstream; however, the salmosa is considered a viper like the North American cottonmouth and copperhead because of its triangular head shape and hollow fangs, which allow for the accommodation of venom-containing glands and mechanism of venom injection. Salmosa venom shares both Viperidae and Elapidae characteristics. Cutaneous findings such as progressive edema, erythema, and bleeding frequently are reported and are attributed to the proteases and hemorrhagic toxins characteristic of vipers (Figure 6). α-Neurotoxins and Β-neurotoxins, similar to the proteolytic venom of the Elapidae family, are responsible for the unique visual disturbances (binocular diplopia) caused by the salmosa.^12,18,19

Treatment

Treating snake bites begins with assessing the patient’s airway, breathing, and circulation, followed by a thorough medical and encounter history (including description of how the bite occurred). Due to the range of Viperidae symptoms, it generally is recommended that patients remove any restrictive clothing or jewelry near the bite and/or over the affected limb or body part, place the affected body part at the level of the heart, and go to the nearest medical facility for prompt care. Historically, empiric antibiotics often were used to prevent wound infections; however, studies have since demonstrated that antibiotics are not necessary and lack efficacy in uncomplicated snake bites.^16,20 In a study of 114 pediatric cases from 1995 to 2005, it was determined that most patients could be managed with conservative treatment directed at pain management and swelling reduction via elevation of the affected extremity.⁶ While conservative management may be all that is needed to care for the majority of cases, one retrospective study from Texas indicated that 70% of pediatric venomous snake bites were treated with either intravenous antibiotics and/or antivenin, highlighting the variability in management and opportunity for improvement.²¹

Antivenin, specifically antivenin (Crotalidae) polyvalent, is the indicated treatment for Viperidae hemorrhagic or coagulopathic envenomation.^13,22 Per guidelines from the World Health Organization, physical examination will yield a grading of the snake bite based on cutaneous findings. Grades III to V are considered moderate to severe and should be given antivenin.²³ Physicians should look for signs of progressive injury and coagulopathy, such as increased swelling, bruising, hypotension, or altered mental status.²² Due to the major neurotoxic risks associated with Elapidae venom, all coral snake bites should be treated with antivenin; early intubation and ventilation may be considered.¹³ Similarly, patients who report a salmosa snake bite require prompt treatment with antivenin and/or cepharanthine, an additive agent to reduce swelling and pain.¹⁸ Due to the nature of the neurotoxins contained in the salmosa venom (α-neurotoxin causing postsynaptic inhibition of the neuromuscular junction and Β-neurotoxin inhibiting neurotransmitter release from the presynaptic terminal), anticholinesterases, which work by blocking the enzymatic breakdown of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, should not be used.¹⁹ While bleeding and skin and systemic changes may be reversed by antivenin, visual changes are unlikely to resolve with antivenin administration due to the presynaptic binding of Β-neurotoxin and the blockade of neuromuscular signaling.¹⁹

Antivenin should be administered intravenously for the fastest onset of action in a setting suitable for the management of anaphylaxis.²⁴ In situations when the benefits may outweigh the risks (eg, if the patient has had a prior allergic reaction or is not in an environment where they can be watched for at least 8 hours for progression of envenomation or adverse reactions), premedication with an antihistamine or epinephrine may be considered.17 Per the World Allergy Organization and World Health Organization, adverse reactions should be treated with crystalloid solutions and antihistamines, corticosteroids, or epinephrine as indicated.²⁵ In a qualitative analysis of emergency physicians’ attitudes toward antivenin, most expressed treatment hesitancy due to lack of knowledge and experience using the medication.²⁶ When possible, snake bites should thus be managed in consultation with a toxicologist.²

Conclusion

Snake bites and envenomation occur commonly in the United States due to exposure to a variety of venomous snakes in the North American Viperidae and Elapidae families. Appropriate and successful management of snake bites by physicians requires general knowledge of regional snakes, the cutaneous and systemic manifestations of snake bites and envenomation, and current treatment methods.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Tinea Corporis

Due to the scaly and acute nature of the rash, a potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparation was performed, and hyphal elements were floridly present. After further questioning, the patient reported finding a stray kitten a few weeks before the onset of the eruption and shared a picture of it lying on her chest in the area corresponding with the main distribution of the rash (Figure). Based on the patient’s personal history and the positive KOH preparation, a diagnosis of tinea corporis was made. She was immediately started on fluconazole 300 mg once weekly for 4 weeks and naftifine gel 1%, which she used for 6 to 8 weeks with complete resolution of the eruption.

Tinea corporis is a dermatophyte infection that typically affects exposed areas of the skin such as the chest, arms, and legs. Spread via human-to-human contact, Trichophyton rubrum is the most common cause worldwide. The second most common is Trichophyton mentagrophytes, which is spread through animal-to-human contact.^1,2

Symptoms of tinea corporis usually appear 1 to 3 weeks after exposure and manifest as itchy scaly papules that spread outward, forming annular, circinate, and petaloid erythematous plaques with central clearing. The condition most commonly is diagnosed through the examination of scale from the affected area using a KOH preparation, which will reveal hyphae when positive.^2-4 Cultures are the gold standard for identifying dermatophyte species,⁵ but results can take several weeks. Biopsy also can confirm the diagnosis by showing the presence of hyphae in the stratum corneum, which can be highlighted using periodic acid–Schiff or silver stains.³

Topical antifungals are the first-line treatment for cutaneous dermatophyte infections.^3-5 The most effective topical therapies are allylamines and azoles, which work by inhibiting the growth of the fungus. Allylamines are more effective than azoles due to their fungicidal properties and ability to penetrate the skin more effectively.^6,7 Topical medications should be applied at least 2 cm beyond the infected area for 2 to 4 weeks or until the infection has cleared.³ Systemic antifungals may be necessary in more complicated cases.

It is important to consider a broad differential and take into consideration the distribution of the plaques, the patient’s history, and other clinical features when differentiating tinea corporis from other conditions. Erythema annulare centrifugum more often presents as nonpruritic annular plaques with a trailing scale instead of a leading scale seen in tinea corporis. Biopsy exhibits a dense, perivascular, lymphocytic infiltrate in superficial vessels, resembling a coat sleeve.^3,8 Pemphigus foliaceous can manifest with painful crusted scaly plaques and vesicles in a seborrheic distribution. Biopsy reveals subcorneal acantholytic vesicles and can be confirmed on direct immunofluorescence.^3,8 Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus presents with annular plaques that often are symmetric and most prominent in sun-exposed areas, sparing the face.^3,9,10 It can be associated with other autoimmune conditions as well as medications such as thiazides, terbinafine, and calcium channel blockers. Additionally, 76% to 90% of patients are Ro/SSA antibody positive.³ Biopsy often demonstrates follicular plugging, perivascular and periadnexal lymphocytic infiltrates, and mucin.^3,10 Lastly, pityriasis rosea typically begins with a herald patch, followed by a widespread rash that often appears in a Christmas tree distribution.³

THE DIAGNOSIS: Tinea Corporis

Due to the scaly and acute nature of the rash, a potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparation was performed, and hyphal elements were floridly present. After further questioning, the patient reported finding a stray kitten a few weeks before the onset of the eruption and shared a picture of it lying on her chest in the area corresponding with the main distribution of the rash (Figure). Based on the patient’s personal history and the positive KOH preparation, a diagnosis of tinea corporis was made. She was immediately started on fluconazole 300 mg once weekly for 4 weeks and naftifine gel 1%, which she used for 6 to 8 weeks with complete resolution of the eruption.

Tinea corporis is a dermatophyte infection that typically affects exposed areas of the skin such as the chest, arms, and legs. Spread via human-to-human contact, Trichophyton rubrum is the most common cause worldwide. The second most common is Trichophyton mentagrophytes, which is spread through animal-to-human contact.^1,2

Symptoms of tinea corporis usually appear 1 to 3 weeks after exposure and manifest as itchy scaly papules that spread outward, forming annular, circinate, and petaloid erythematous plaques with central clearing. The condition most commonly is diagnosed through the examination of scale from the affected area using a KOH preparation, which will reveal hyphae when positive.^2-4 Cultures are the gold standard for identifying dermatophyte species,⁵ but results can take several weeks. Biopsy also can confirm the diagnosis by showing the presence of hyphae in the stratum corneum, which can be highlighted using periodic acid–Schiff or silver stains.³

Topical antifungals are the first-line treatment for cutaneous dermatophyte infections.^3-5 The most effective topical therapies are allylamines and azoles, which work by inhibiting the growth of the fungus. Allylamines are more effective than azoles due to their fungicidal properties and ability to penetrate the skin more effectively.^6,7 Topical medications should be applied at least 2 cm beyond the infected area for 2 to 4 weeks or until the infection has cleared.³ Systemic antifungals may be necessary in more complicated cases.

It is important to consider a broad differential and take into consideration the distribution of the plaques, the patient’s history, and other clinical features when differentiating tinea corporis from other conditions. Erythema annulare centrifugum more often presents as nonpruritic annular plaques with a trailing scale instead of a leading scale seen in tinea corporis. Biopsy exhibits a dense, perivascular, lymphocytic infiltrate in superficial vessels, resembling a coat sleeve.^3,8 Pemphigus foliaceous can manifest with painful crusted scaly plaques and vesicles in a seborrheic distribution. Biopsy reveals subcorneal acantholytic vesicles and can be confirmed on direct immunofluorescence.^3,8 Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus presents with annular plaques that often are symmetric and most prominent in sun-exposed areas, sparing the face.^3,9,10 It can be associated with other autoimmune conditions as well as medications such as thiazides, terbinafine, and calcium channel blockers. Additionally, 76% to 90% of patients are Ro/SSA antibody positive.³ Biopsy often demonstrates follicular plugging, perivascular and periadnexal lymphocytic infiltrates, and mucin.^3,10 Lastly, pityriasis rosea typically begins with a herald patch, followed by a widespread rash that often appears in a Christmas tree distribution.³

THE DIAGNOSIS: Tinea Corporis

Due to the scaly and acute nature of the rash, a potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparation was performed, and hyphal elements were floridly present. After further questioning, the patient reported finding a stray kitten a few weeks before the onset of the eruption and shared a picture of it lying on her chest in the area corresponding with the main distribution of the rash (Figure). Based on the patient’s personal history and the positive KOH preparation, a diagnosis of tinea corporis was made. She was immediately started on fluconazole 300 mg once weekly for 4 weeks and naftifine gel 1%, which she used for 6 to 8 weeks with complete resolution of the eruption.

Tinea corporis is a dermatophyte infection that typically affects exposed areas of the skin such as the chest, arms, and legs. Spread via human-to-human contact, Trichophyton rubrum is the most common cause worldwide. The second most common is Trichophyton mentagrophytes, which is spread through animal-to-human contact.^1,2

Symptoms of tinea corporis usually appear 1 to 3 weeks after exposure and manifest as itchy scaly papules that spread outward, forming annular, circinate, and petaloid erythematous plaques with central clearing. The condition most commonly is diagnosed through the examination of scale from the affected area using a KOH preparation, which will reveal hyphae when positive.^2-4 Cultures are the gold standard for identifying dermatophyte species,⁵ but results can take several weeks. Biopsy also can confirm the diagnosis by showing the presence of hyphae in the stratum corneum, which can be highlighted using periodic acid–Schiff or silver stains.³

Topical antifungals are the first-line treatment for cutaneous dermatophyte infections.^3-5 The most effective topical therapies are allylamines and azoles, which work by inhibiting the growth of the fungus. Allylamines are more effective than azoles due to their fungicidal properties and ability to penetrate the skin more effectively.^6,7 Topical medications should be applied at least 2 cm beyond the infected area for 2 to 4 weeks or until the infection has cleared.³ Systemic antifungals may be necessary in more complicated cases.

It is important to consider a broad differential and take into consideration the distribution of the plaques, the patient’s history, and other clinical features when differentiating tinea corporis from other conditions. Erythema annulare centrifugum more often presents as nonpruritic annular plaques with a trailing scale instead of a leading scale seen in tinea corporis. Biopsy exhibits a dense, perivascular, lymphocytic infiltrate in superficial vessels, resembling a coat sleeve.^3,8 Pemphigus foliaceous can manifest with painful crusted scaly plaques and vesicles in a seborrheic distribution. Biopsy reveals subcorneal acantholytic vesicles and can be confirmed on direct immunofluorescence.^3,8 Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus presents with annular plaques that often are symmetric and most prominent in sun-exposed areas, sparing the face.^3,9,10 It can be associated with other autoimmune conditions as well as medications such as thiazides, terbinafine, and calcium channel blockers. Additionally, 76% to 90% of patients are Ro/SSA antibody positive.³ Biopsy often demonstrates follicular plugging, perivascular and periadnexal lymphocytic infiltrates, and mucin.^3,10 Lastly, pityriasis rosea typically begins with a herald patch, followed by a widespread rash that often appears in a Christmas tree distribution.³

Electronic health records (EHRs) are an integral part of modern health care. The 2009, Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act established financial incentives for US hospitals to adopt EHRs. In 2009 only 12% of nonfederal acute care hospitals had adopted a certified EHR system, which increased to 96% by 2021.¹

EHRs have transformed the way patient data are stored and accessed, streamlining the process of providing quality patient care with improvements in efficiency, effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and safety.² Despite their widespread adoption and benefits, EHRs have generally been met with mixed physician satisfaction.³ Interactions with EHRs are linked to disproportionate time at the computer and physician burnout.^4-6

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was at the forefront of EHR development, establishing the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) in the 1970s. The VA released the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) in 1997, the first clinical user interface for VistA. In May 2018, the VA signed a $10 billion contract with Cerner (now Oracle Health) to modernize its EHR.⁷ This was later revised to $16.1 billion, and the Institute for Defense Analyses estimates it will cost $49.8 billion.⁸ The transition to Oracle Health has been faced with significant challenges, including patient safety risks and workflow inefficiencies, leading to a pause in rollout.⁹

Due to the known challenges with EHRs and the aging CPRS system (without a scheduled replacement date), innovations that facilitate the synthesis and display of clinical information are needed. To address this gap, the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) developed the Inpatient Dashboard, an online EHR companion tool. The Inpatient Dashboard was designed to draw data from VistA to reduce time spent at the computer by streamlining clinical information presentation, standardizing inpatient notes, improving safety measures, and enhancing overall clinician satisfaction. This study evaluated the adoption and user experience with the Inpatient Dashboard.

INPATIENT DASHBOARD

The Inpatient Dashboard consists of several modules created by a contractor for the VAAAHS that is housed on VA servers with access restricted to individuals with patient health data privileges. As the Inpatient Dashboard draws data from VistA, it can display laboratory information, studies, and notes from all VA sites.

The main dashboard is a snapshot summary of patient information, including patient location, code status, last vital sign readings, vital sign ranges over the previous 24 hours, intake/output, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis, the presence of telemetry orders, or use of Foley or central catheters (Figure). It also includes a customizable to-do list and contact information for the patient’s clinician and nurse. Significant events, such as abnormal vital signs or speciation/sensitivities for blood cultures, are automatically populated on the to-do list. From this main dashboard overview, clinicians can customize which patients are displayed, create and print a rounding list, print a sign-out sheet, or select individual patients to open a progress note module.

Notes can be written in the patient history and physical module, progress note module, and discharge summary module. The patient history and physical module has text blocks allocated to the traditional components of a history and physical note (ie, chief complaint, history of present illness, review of systems, past medical history, family history, social history, allergies, medications, physical examination, assessment, and plan) (eAppendix 1). Some elements, such as past medical history, family history, and social history are prepopulated if the patient was previously admitted. Vital signs, laboratory results, studies, microbiology/ pathology reports, and other CPRS notes are displayed in this module.

The progress note module contains text blocks allocated to the traditional components of a progress note, such as subjective/interval events, physical examination, assessment, and plan (eAppendix 2). Vital signs, laboratory results, studies, microbiology/ pathology reports, other CPRS notes, and the patient’s medication administration record are also displayed in this module. Lastly, the discharge summary module includes patient follow-up, patient instructions, hospitalization summary, medication reconciliation, laboratory results, and studies/procedures, ensuring a comprehensive discharge summary for patients and clinicians (eAppendix 3).

A medication reconciliation tool was embedded within the history and physical and discharge summary modules. This tool has been shown to reduce medication errors in patients admitted from the emergency department to the hospital (eAppendix 4).¹⁰ The handoff/sign-out tool (eAppendix 5) accessible through the main dashboard page is modeled on the I-PASS handoff framework.^11,12 This includes the patient identifier, interval events, inpatient medications, specific sign-out guidance, sign-out tasks/to-dos, and any other pertinent information.

The Inpatient Dashboard is a team-based construct shared by the attending physicians, residents, and medical students. Each team (eg, general medicine, general surgery) is its own entity; only team members can change the content or add to the documentation. Each facility can have multiple teams caring for the same patient (eg, primary and consulting teams). Additional care members can also be incorporated (eg, pharmacists assist with medication reconciliation for admission and discharge at VAAAHS). The Inpatient Dashboard can export information directly to CPRS for clinicians to review and sign. It can also generate a note that can be pasted into CPRS.

Clinician Feedback and Satisfaction

A survey was developed to evaluate clinician experiences with using the Inpatient Dashboard as an adjunct to the CPRS. The Inpatient Dashboard was made available to general medicine teams in November 2018. The survey was conducted from December 2018 to September 2019. The study was conducted at the VAAAHS and included 4 general medicine teams. Each team included an attending physician, a senior resident, 2 to 3 interns, and 3 to 4 medical students. Eligibility was extended to any team member who used both the CPRS and Inpatient Dashboard. Participation in the survey was voluntary. All respondents were informed of the study’s purpose and encouraged to provide candid feedback to ensure the reliability and validity of the findings.

Data were collected through a semistructured survey administered via the Qualtrics platform. The questionnaire was designed to capture multidimensional insights into clinician experience, with particular focus on satisfaction, efficiency, and perceived safety when using the tool as an adjunct to CPRS compared to using CPRS alone. The questionnaire primarily used a Likert scale for responses. Surveys were emailed at the completion of a team’s 1-month inpatient block. An answer was not required for every question, resulting in slightly different response numbers for some questions.

A question regarding the tool’s impact on workload stress was added halfway through the study period, which resulted in fewer responses. Adoption was assessed by counting the Inpatient Dashboard unique users. Descriptive statistics were used within individual survey responses to report the distribution of responses. Differences in response between levels of training were assessed using a X² test of independence.

Survey Results

From September 2023 through November 2023, there were 1549 rounding printouts across 144 unique users (5 nurses, 40 medical students, 87 residents, and 12 attending physicians) and 1468 handoff printouts across 148 unique users (5 nurses, 10 medical students, 111 residents, and 22 attending physicians). The clinician survey received 68 responses from users at various levels of medical training: 23 medical students, 31 interns, 12 senior residents, and 2 attending physicians. All 68 participants confirmed they had used the Inpatient Dashboard.

User satisfaction and preference for the Inpatient Dashboard vs CPRS were assessed. Sixty-one respondents (90%) expressed overall satisfaction with the Inpatient Dashboard; 22 (32%) were extremely satisfied, and 39 (57%) were somewhat satisfied (Table 1). Three respondents (4%) were neutral, 2 (3%) were somewhat dissatisfied, and 2 (3%) were extremely dissatisfied with the Inpatient Dashboard. Responses differed by level of training (P = .03), with medical students trending towards higher satisfaction.

Respondents preferred the Inpatient Dashboard over CPRS for gathering information and writing progress notes; 42 (64%) respondents mostly favored the Inpatient Dashboard, 15 (23%) slightly favored the Inpatient Dashboard over CPRS, and 8 (12%) were neutral. One respondent (2%) slightly favored CPRS to the Inpatient Dashboard (Table 2).

Sixty-five respondents (100%) found the Inpatient Dashboard’s ability to summarize patient information in a central place helpful (Table 3). Among them, 53 (82%) respondents reported it was very or extremely helpful, 10 (15%) respondents reported it was moderately helpful, and 2 (3%) respondents reported it was slightly helpful. This feature positively impacted users’ awareness of patients with DVT prophylaxis or a Foley catheter. Ten (15%) respondents reported being much more aware, and 29 (45%) respondents reporting they were slightly more aware. The remaining 26 (40%) respondents reported no change in awareness.

The Inpatient Dashboard was reported to save time preparing for physician rounds by 52 (80%) respondents, contributing to much greater efficiency for 29 (45%) respondents and slightly more efficiency for 23 (35%) respondents. However, 10 (15%) respondents reported no change in efficiency, and 3 (5%) respondents reduced efficiency, with 1 (2%) respondent reporting it slightly less efficient and 2 (3%) respondents reporting it much less efficient. Responses differed by level of training (P = .01), with medical students trending towards higher efficiency. Of the 23 respondents who reported on the Inpatient Dashboard’s impact on daily workload stress level, 22 (96%) indicated the tool had a stress-reducing effect, with 9 (39%) experiencing a major reduction in stress level, and 13 (57%) experiencing somewhat reduced stress level. Only 1 participant (4%) reported no change in stress. No participants reported an increase in stress.

DISCUSSION

The adoption of EHRs has transformed operational modalities in contemporary health care systems, heralding advancements in patient satisfaction, safety, and overall quality and efficiency of care.^1,2 However, EHRs still present challenges, predominantly around clinician satisfaction, marked by instances of burnout and increased time spent on computers.^2-6 In this context, the Inpatient Dashboard, an online companion to the CPRS, exemplifies how user-centered innovations in EHRs can address and mitigate associated challenges.

The Inpatient Dashboard has been well received with most respondents of the survey conducted in this study indicating they were both satisfied with the instrument and preferring it to CPRS. This high approval aligns with existing literature on the potential advantages of user-centered design in health care technology.¹³ The tool has gained widespread acceptance at the VAAAHS even in the absence of obligatory usage or institutional incentives. The appeal of the Inpatient Dashboard may stem from its increased efficiency, with most users affirming its timesaving nature. While CPRS can only display local notes, laboratory results, and studies, the Inpatient Dashboard can display data from across all VA sites. The VA Joint Longitudinal Viewer can similarly display data from across all sites, but the display is not streamlined as it is in the Inpatient Dashboard. The Inpatient Dashboard incorporates this clinical information into a single page to facilitate day-to-day workflow and dynamic documentation (ie, reviewing laboratory results, medications, writing notes, and signing out patients). This increased efficiency allows clinicians to counter 2 common barriers to EHR implementation: productivity loss and insufficient time.¹⁴

The association between EHRs and improved quality and safety in health care is well-documented.³ The Inpatient Dashboard fortifies this association by enhancing awareness around patient status, evidenced by a majority of respondents, and by integrating a medication reconciliation tool to decrease medication errors on transition from the emergency department to inpatient hospitalization.¹⁰

The Inpatient Dashboard’s impact on alleviating daily workload stress is noteworthy, with almost all respondents experiencing reduced stress levels and physician burnout, which has been linked to deteriorating well-being, compromised patient safety, and escalated health care costs.^15,16 The heightened susceptibility of physicians to burnout compared to other professionals underscores the imperative for incorporating stress-mitigating interventions in the EHR.^17,18

While responses to most questions did not significantly differ by training levels, overall satisfaction with the Inpatient Dashboard and its ability to save time preparing for rounds were rated higher by medical students. This may be attributable to a greater derived benefit from collating and presenting data to learners with less familiarity with the native EHR. It is also notable that the Inpatient Dashboard allows medical students to directly contribute to a patient’s note, which could be another driver in satisfaction. While most interns still felt the Inpatient Dashboard enabled them to save time preparing for rounds, there were a considerable number of ‘no change’ responses, which suggests some interns may not have modified their existing prerounding strategies. These associations are limited by the relatively small number of respondents by learner category, with senior medical residents and attending physicians being underrepresented.

While there are a multitude of dashboards available at the VA, most are made to track certain quality metrics and are used more by administrative and leadership staff. The Inpatient Dashboard was created specifically for frontline clinicians to facilitate their day-to-day workflow and dynamic documentation. This tool can additionally help with quality metrics, though its main purpose was and is to make clinician workflow easier and more efficient.

These results are especially timely because the VA is modernizing its EHR by transitioning to Oracle Health.⁷ Due to the numerous reports both from veterans and VA clinicians that the Oracle Health EHR is not meeting expectations, deployment at further sites has been halted while improving the experience of the 5 institutions using Oracle Health is prioritized.⁹ The Inpatient Dashboard, instead of being merely an enhancement to CPRS, could emerge as a potential bridge to Oracle Health if adapted to display data from Oracle Health as it does VistA. This would facilitate a smoother, more integrated transition for those health care institutions employing the Inpatient Dashboard.

Limitations

The reliance on self-reported data inherently carries the risk of bias, and the absence of objective measures, like time-tracking studies, limits the quantifiable assessment of the Inpatient Dashboard efficacy. The single-center nature of the study also may restrict the generalizability of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal integration of EHRs into health care delivery is critical to high-quality patient care and operational efficiency. The Inpatient Dashboard is an example of an innovative, user-centric solution that integrated and presented clinical information in a way that produced high satisfaction and adoption by users at a VA hospital.

Electronic health records (EHRs) are an integral part of modern health care. The 2009, Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act established financial incentives for US hospitals to adopt EHRs. In 2009 only 12% of nonfederal acute care hospitals had adopted a certified EHR system, which increased to 96% by 2021.¹

EHRs have transformed the way patient data are stored and accessed, streamlining the process of providing quality patient care with improvements in efficiency, effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and safety.² Despite their widespread adoption and benefits, EHRs have generally been met with mixed physician satisfaction.³ Interactions with EHRs are linked to disproportionate time at the computer and physician burnout.^4-6

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was at the forefront of EHR development, establishing the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) in the 1970s. The VA released the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) in 1997, the first clinical user interface for VistA. In May 2018, the VA signed a $10 billion contract with Cerner (now Oracle Health) to modernize its EHR.⁷ This was later revised to $16.1 billion, and the Institute for Defense Analyses estimates it will cost $49.8 billion.⁸ The transition to Oracle Health has been faced with significant challenges, including patient safety risks and workflow inefficiencies, leading to a pause in rollout.⁹

Due to the known challenges with EHRs and the aging CPRS system (without a scheduled replacement date), innovations that facilitate the synthesis and display of clinical information are needed. To address this gap, the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) developed the Inpatient Dashboard, an online EHR companion tool. The Inpatient Dashboard was designed to draw data from VistA to reduce time spent at the computer by streamlining clinical information presentation, standardizing inpatient notes, improving safety measures, and enhancing overall clinician satisfaction. This study evaluated the adoption and user experience with the Inpatient Dashboard.

INPATIENT DASHBOARD

The Inpatient Dashboard consists of several modules created by a contractor for the VAAAHS that is housed on VA servers with access restricted to individuals with patient health data privileges. As the Inpatient Dashboard draws data from VistA, it can display laboratory information, studies, and notes from all VA sites.

The main dashboard is a snapshot summary of patient information, including patient location, code status, last vital sign readings, vital sign ranges over the previous 24 hours, intake/output, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis, the presence of telemetry orders, or use of Foley or central catheters (Figure). It also includes a customizable to-do list and contact information for the patient’s clinician and nurse. Significant events, such as abnormal vital signs or speciation/sensitivities for blood cultures, are automatically populated on the to-do list. From this main dashboard overview, clinicians can customize which patients are displayed, create and print a rounding list, print a sign-out sheet, or select individual patients to open a progress note module.

Notes can be written in the patient history and physical module, progress note module, and discharge summary module. The patient history and physical module has text blocks allocated to the traditional components of a history and physical note (ie, chief complaint, history of present illness, review of systems, past medical history, family history, social history, allergies, medications, physical examination, assessment, and plan) (eAppendix 1). Some elements, such as past medical history, family history, and social history are prepopulated if the patient was previously admitted. Vital signs, laboratory results, studies, microbiology/ pathology reports, and other CPRS notes are displayed in this module.

The progress note module contains text blocks allocated to the traditional components of a progress note, such as subjective/interval events, physical examination, assessment, and plan (eAppendix 2). Vital signs, laboratory results, studies, microbiology/ pathology reports, other CPRS notes, and the patient’s medication administration record are also displayed in this module. Lastly, the discharge summary module includes patient follow-up, patient instructions, hospitalization summary, medication reconciliation, laboratory results, and studies/procedures, ensuring a comprehensive discharge summary for patients and clinicians (eAppendix 3).

A medication reconciliation tool was embedded within the history and physical and discharge summary modules. This tool has been shown to reduce medication errors in patients admitted from the emergency department to the hospital (eAppendix 4).¹⁰ The handoff/sign-out tool (eAppendix 5) accessible through the main dashboard page is modeled on the I-PASS handoff framework.^11,12 This includes the patient identifier, interval events, inpatient medications, specific sign-out guidance, sign-out tasks/to-dos, and any other pertinent information.

The Inpatient Dashboard is a team-based construct shared by the attending physicians, residents, and medical students. Each team (eg, general medicine, general surgery) is its own entity; only team members can change the content or add to the documentation. Each facility can have multiple teams caring for the same patient (eg, primary and consulting teams). Additional care members can also be incorporated (eg, pharmacists assist with medication reconciliation for admission and discharge at VAAAHS). The Inpatient Dashboard can export information directly to CPRS for clinicians to review and sign. It can also generate a note that can be pasted into CPRS.

Clinician Feedback and Satisfaction

A survey was developed to evaluate clinician experiences with using the Inpatient Dashboard as an adjunct to the CPRS. The Inpatient Dashboard was made available to general medicine teams in November 2018. The survey was conducted from December 2018 to September 2019. The study was conducted at the VAAAHS and included 4 general medicine teams. Each team included an attending physician, a senior resident, 2 to 3 interns, and 3 to 4 medical students. Eligibility was extended to any team member who used both the CPRS and Inpatient Dashboard. Participation in the survey was voluntary. All respondents were informed of the study’s purpose and encouraged to provide candid feedback to ensure the reliability and validity of the findings.

Data were collected through a semistructured survey administered via the Qualtrics platform. The questionnaire was designed to capture multidimensional insights into clinician experience, with particular focus on satisfaction, efficiency, and perceived safety when using the tool as an adjunct to CPRS compared to using CPRS alone. The questionnaire primarily used a Likert scale for responses. Surveys were emailed at the completion of a team’s 1-month inpatient block. An answer was not required for every question, resulting in slightly different response numbers for some questions.

A question regarding the tool’s impact on workload stress was added halfway through the study period, which resulted in fewer responses. Adoption was assessed by counting the Inpatient Dashboard unique users. Descriptive statistics were used within individual survey responses to report the distribution of responses. Differences in response between levels of training were assessed using a X² test of independence.

Survey Results

From September 2023 through November 2023, there were 1549 rounding printouts across 144 unique users (5 nurses, 40 medical students, 87 residents, and 12 attending physicians) and 1468 handoff printouts across 148 unique users (5 nurses, 10 medical students, 111 residents, and 22 attending physicians). The clinician survey received 68 responses from users at various levels of medical training: 23 medical students, 31 interns, 12 senior residents, and 2 attending physicians. All 68 participants confirmed they had used the Inpatient Dashboard.

User satisfaction and preference for the Inpatient Dashboard vs CPRS were assessed. Sixty-one respondents (90%) expressed overall satisfaction with the Inpatient Dashboard; 22 (32%) were extremely satisfied, and 39 (57%) were somewhat satisfied (Table 1). Three respondents (4%) were neutral, 2 (3%) were somewhat dissatisfied, and 2 (3%) were extremely dissatisfied with the Inpatient Dashboard. Responses differed by level of training (P = .03), with medical students trending towards higher satisfaction.

Respondents preferred the Inpatient Dashboard over CPRS for gathering information and writing progress notes; 42 (64%) respondents mostly favored the Inpatient Dashboard, 15 (23%) slightly favored the Inpatient Dashboard over CPRS, and 8 (12%) were neutral. One respondent (2%) slightly favored CPRS to the Inpatient Dashboard (Table 2).

Sixty-five respondents (100%) found the Inpatient Dashboard’s ability to summarize patient information in a central place helpful (Table 3). Among them, 53 (82%) respondents reported it was very or extremely helpful, 10 (15%) respondents reported it was moderately helpful, and 2 (3%) respondents reported it was slightly helpful. This feature positively impacted users’ awareness of patients with DVT prophylaxis or a Foley catheter. Ten (15%) respondents reported being much more aware, and 29 (45%) respondents reporting they were slightly more aware. The remaining 26 (40%) respondents reported no change in awareness.

The Inpatient Dashboard was reported to save time preparing for physician rounds by 52 (80%) respondents, contributing to much greater efficiency for 29 (45%) respondents and slightly more efficiency for 23 (35%) respondents. However, 10 (15%) respondents reported no change in efficiency, and 3 (5%) respondents reduced efficiency, with 1 (2%) respondent reporting it slightly less efficient and 2 (3%) respondents reporting it much less efficient. Responses differed by level of training (P = .01), with medical students trending towards higher efficiency. Of the 23 respondents who reported on the Inpatient Dashboard’s impact on daily workload stress level, 22 (96%) indicated the tool had a stress-reducing effect, with 9 (39%) experiencing a major reduction in stress level, and 13 (57%) experiencing somewhat reduced stress level. Only 1 participant (4%) reported no change in stress. No participants reported an increase in stress.

DISCUSSION

The adoption of EHRs has transformed operational modalities in contemporary health care systems, heralding advancements in patient satisfaction, safety, and overall quality and efficiency of care.^1,2 However, EHRs still present challenges, predominantly around clinician satisfaction, marked by instances of burnout and increased time spent on computers.^2-6 In this context, the Inpatient Dashboard, an online companion to the CPRS, exemplifies how user-centered innovations in EHRs can address and mitigate associated challenges.

The Inpatient Dashboard has been well received with most respondents of the survey conducted in this study indicating they were both satisfied with the instrument and preferring it to CPRS. This high approval aligns with existing literature on the potential advantages of user-centered design in health care technology.¹³ The tool has gained widespread acceptance at the VAAAHS even in the absence of obligatory usage or institutional incentives. The appeal of the Inpatient Dashboard may stem from its increased efficiency, with most users affirming its timesaving nature. While CPRS can only display local notes, laboratory results, and studies, the Inpatient Dashboard can display data from across all VA sites. The VA Joint Longitudinal Viewer can similarly display data from across all sites, but the display is not streamlined as it is in the Inpatient Dashboard. The Inpatient Dashboard incorporates this clinical information into a single page to facilitate day-to-day workflow and dynamic documentation (ie, reviewing laboratory results, medications, writing notes, and signing out patients). This increased efficiency allows clinicians to counter 2 common barriers to EHR implementation: productivity loss and insufficient time.¹⁴

The association between EHRs and improved quality and safety in health care is well-documented.³ The Inpatient Dashboard fortifies this association by enhancing awareness around patient status, evidenced by a majority of respondents, and by integrating a medication reconciliation tool to decrease medication errors on transition from the emergency department to inpatient hospitalization.¹⁰

The Inpatient Dashboard’s impact on alleviating daily workload stress is noteworthy, with almost all respondents experiencing reduced stress levels and physician burnout, which has been linked to deteriorating well-being, compromised patient safety, and escalated health care costs.^15,16 The heightened susceptibility of physicians to burnout compared to other professionals underscores the imperative for incorporating stress-mitigating interventions in the EHR.^17,18

While responses to most questions did not significantly differ by training levels, overall satisfaction with the Inpatient Dashboard and its ability to save time preparing for rounds were rated higher by medical students. This may be attributable to a greater derived benefit from collating and presenting data to learners with less familiarity with the native EHR. It is also notable that the Inpatient Dashboard allows medical students to directly contribute to a patient’s note, which could be another driver in satisfaction. While most interns still felt the Inpatient Dashboard enabled them to save time preparing for rounds, there were a considerable number of ‘no change’ responses, which suggests some interns may not have modified their existing prerounding strategies. These associations are limited by the relatively small number of respondents by learner category, with senior medical residents and attending physicians being underrepresented.

While there are a multitude of dashboards available at the VA, most are made to track certain quality metrics and are used more by administrative and leadership staff. The Inpatient Dashboard was created specifically for frontline clinicians to facilitate their day-to-day workflow and dynamic documentation. This tool can additionally help with quality metrics, though its main purpose was and is to make clinician workflow easier and more efficient.

These results are especially timely because the VA is modernizing its EHR by transitioning to Oracle Health.⁷ Due to the numerous reports both from veterans and VA clinicians that the Oracle Health EHR is not meeting expectations, deployment at further sites has been halted while improving the experience of the 5 institutions using Oracle Health is prioritized.⁹ The Inpatient Dashboard, instead of being merely an enhancement to CPRS, could emerge as a potential bridge to Oracle Health if adapted to display data from Oracle Health as it does VistA. This would facilitate a smoother, more integrated transition for those health care institutions employing the Inpatient Dashboard.

Limitations

The reliance on self-reported data inherently carries the risk of bias, and the absence of objective measures, like time-tracking studies, limits the quantifiable assessment of the Inpatient Dashboard efficacy. The single-center nature of the study also may restrict the generalizability of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal integration of EHRs into health care delivery is critical to high-quality patient care and operational efficiency. The Inpatient Dashboard is an example of an innovative, user-centric solution that integrated and presented clinical information in a way that produced high satisfaction and adoption by users at a VA hospital.

Electronic health records (EHRs) are an integral part of modern health care. The 2009, Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act established financial incentives for US hospitals to adopt EHRs. In 2009 only 12% of nonfederal acute care hospitals had adopted a certified EHR system, which increased to 96% by 2021.¹

EHRs have transformed the way patient data are stored and accessed, streamlining the process of providing quality patient care with improvements in efficiency, effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and safety.² Despite their widespread adoption and benefits, EHRs have generally been met with mixed physician satisfaction.³ Interactions with EHRs are linked to disproportionate time at the computer and physician burnout.^4-6

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was at the forefront of EHR development, establishing the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) in the 1970s. The VA released the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) in 1997, the first clinical user interface for VistA. In May 2018, the VA signed a $10 billion contract with Cerner (now Oracle Health) to modernize its EHR.⁷ This was later revised to $16.1 billion, and the Institute for Defense Analyses estimates it will cost $49.8 billion.⁸ The transition to Oracle Health has been faced with significant challenges, including patient safety risks and workflow inefficiencies, leading to a pause in rollout.⁹

Due to the known challenges with EHRs and the aging CPRS system (without a scheduled replacement date), innovations that facilitate the synthesis and display of clinical information are needed. To address this gap, the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) developed the Inpatient Dashboard, an online EHR companion tool. The Inpatient Dashboard was designed to draw data from VistA to reduce time spent at the computer by streamlining clinical information presentation, standardizing inpatient notes, improving safety measures, and enhancing overall clinician satisfaction. This study evaluated the adoption and user experience with the Inpatient Dashboard.

INPATIENT DASHBOARD

The Inpatient Dashboard consists of several modules created by a contractor for the VAAAHS that is housed on VA servers with access restricted to individuals with patient health data privileges. As the Inpatient Dashboard draws data from VistA, it can display laboratory information, studies, and notes from all VA sites.

The main dashboard is a snapshot summary of patient information, including patient location, code status, last vital sign readings, vital sign ranges over the previous 24 hours, intake/output, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis, the presence of telemetry orders, or use of Foley or central catheters (Figure). It also includes a customizable to-do list and contact information for the patient’s clinician and nurse. Significant events, such as abnormal vital signs or speciation/sensitivities for blood cultures, are automatically populated on the to-do list. From this main dashboard overview, clinicians can customize which patients are displayed, create and print a rounding list, print a sign-out sheet, or select individual patients to open a progress note module.

Notes can be written in the patient history and physical module, progress note module, and discharge summary module. The patient history and physical module has text blocks allocated to the traditional components of a history and physical note (ie, chief complaint, history of present illness, review of systems, past medical history, family history, social history, allergies, medications, physical examination, assessment, and plan) (eAppendix 1). Some elements, such as past medical history, family history, and social history are prepopulated if the patient was previously admitted. Vital signs, laboratory results, studies, microbiology/ pathology reports, and other CPRS notes are displayed in this module.

The progress note module contains text blocks allocated to the traditional components of a progress note, such as subjective/interval events, physical examination, assessment, and plan (eAppendix 2). Vital signs, laboratory results, studies, microbiology/ pathology reports, other CPRS notes, and the patient’s medication administration record are also displayed in this module. Lastly, the discharge summary module includes patient follow-up, patient instructions, hospitalization summary, medication reconciliation, laboratory results, and studies/procedures, ensuring a comprehensive discharge summary for patients and clinicians (eAppendix 3).

A medication reconciliation tool was embedded within the history and physical and discharge summary modules. This tool has been shown to reduce medication errors in patients admitted from the emergency department to the hospital (eAppendix 4).¹⁰ The handoff/sign-out tool (eAppendix 5) accessible through the main dashboard page is modeled on the I-PASS handoff framework.^11,12 This includes the patient identifier, interval events, inpatient medications, specific sign-out guidance, sign-out tasks/to-dos, and any other pertinent information.

The Inpatient Dashboard is a team-based construct shared by the attending physicians, residents, and medical students. Each team (eg, general medicine, general surgery) is its own entity; only team members can change the content or add to the documentation. Each facility can have multiple teams caring for the same patient (eg, primary and consulting teams). Additional care members can also be incorporated (eg, pharmacists assist with medication reconciliation for admission and discharge at VAAAHS). The Inpatient Dashboard can export information directly to CPRS for clinicians to review and sign. It can also generate a note that can be pasted into CPRS.

Clinician Feedback and Satisfaction

A survey was developed to evaluate clinician experiences with using the Inpatient Dashboard as an adjunct to the CPRS. The Inpatient Dashboard was made available to general medicine teams in November 2018. The survey was conducted from December 2018 to September 2019. The study was conducted at the VAAAHS and included 4 general medicine teams. Each team included an attending physician, a senior resident, 2 to 3 interns, and 3 to 4 medical students. Eligibility was extended to any team member who used both the CPRS and Inpatient Dashboard. Participation in the survey was voluntary. All respondents were informed of the study’s purpose and encouraged to provide candid feedback to ensure the reliability and validity of the findings.

Data were collected through a semistructured survey administered via the Qualtrics platform. The questionnaire was designed to capture multidimensional insights into clinician experience, with particular focus on satisfaction, efficiency, and perceived safety when using the tool as an adjunct to CPRS compared to using CPRS alone. The questionnaire primarily used a Likert scale for responses. Surveys were emailed at the completion of a team’s 1-month inpatient block. An answer was not required for every question, resulting in slightly different response numbers for some questions.

A question regarding the tool’s impact on workload stress was added halfway through the study period, which resulted in fewer responses. Adoption was assessed by counting the Inpatient Dashboard unique users. Descriptive statistics were used within individual survey responses to report the distribution of responses. Differences in response between levels of training were assessed using a X² test of independence.

Survey Results

From September 2023 through November 2023, there were 1549 rounding printouts across 144 unique users (5 nurses, 40 medical students, 87 residents, and 12 attending physicians) and 1468 handoff printouts across 148 unique users (5 nurses, 10 medical students, 111 residents, and 22 attending physicians). The clinician survey received 68 responses from users at various levels of medical training: 23 medical students, 31 interns, 12 senior residents, and 2 attending physicians. All 68 participants confirmed they had used the Inpatient Dashboard.

User satisfaction and preference for the Inpatient Dashboard vs CPRS were assessed. Sixty-one respondents (90%) expressed overall satisfaction with the Inpatient Dashboard; 22 (32%) were extremely satisfied, and 39 (57%) were somewhat satisfied (Table 1). Three respondents (4%) were neutral, 2 (3%) were somewhat dissatisfied, and 2 (3%) were extremely dissatisfied with the Inpatient Dashboard. Responses differed by level of training (P = .03), with medical students trending towards higher satisfaction.

Respondents preferred the Inpatient Dashboard over CPRS for gathering information and writing progress notes; 42 (64%) respondents mostly favored the Inpatient Dashboard, 15 (23%) slightly favored the Inpatient Dashboard over CPRS, and 8 (12%) were neutral. One respondent (2%) slightly favored CPRS to the Inpatient Dashboard (Table 2).

Sixty-five respondents (100%) found the Inpatient Dashboard’s ability to summarize patient information in a central place helpful (Table 3). Among them, 53 (82%) respondents reported it was very or extremely helpful, 10 (15%) respondents reported it was moderately helpful, and 2 (3%) respondents reported it was slightly helpful. This feature positively impacted users’ awareness of patients with DVT prophylaxis or a Foley catheter. Ten (15%) respondents reported being much more aware, and 29 (45%) respondents reporting they were slightly more aware. The remaining 26 (40%) respondents reported no change in awareness.

The Inpatient Dashboard was reported to save time preparing for physician rounds by 52 (80%) respondents, contributing to much greater efficiency for 29 (45%) respondents and slightly more efficiency for 23 (35%) respondents. However, 10 (15%) respondents reported no change in efficiency, and 3 (5%) respondents reduced efficiency, with 1 (2%) respondent reporting it slightly less efficient and 2 (3%) respondents reporting it much less efficient. Responses differed by level of training (P = .01), with medical students trending towards higher efficiency. Of the 23 respondents who reported on the Inpatient Dashboard’s impact on daily workload stress level, 22 (96%) indicated the tool had a stress-reducing effect, with 9 (39%) experiencing a major reduction in stress level, and 13 (57%) experiencing somewhat reduced stress level. Only 1 participant (4%) reported no change in stress. No participants reported an increase in stress.

DISCUSSION

The adoption of EHRs has transformed operational modalities in contemporary health care systems, heralding advancements in patient satisfaction, safety, and overall quality and efficiency of care.^1,2 However, EHRs still present challenges, predominantly around clinician satisfaction, marked by instances of burnout and increased time spent on computers.^2-6 In this context, the Inpatient Dashboard, an online companion to the CPRS, exemplifies how user-centered innovations in EHRs can address and mitigate associated challenges.

The Inpatient Dashboard has been well received with most respondents of the survey conducted in this study indicating they were both satisfied with the instrument and preferring it to CPRS. This high approval aligns with existing literature on the potential advantages of user-centered design in health care technology.¹³ The tool has gained widespread acceptance at the VAAAHS even in the absence of obligatory usage or institutional incentives. The appeal of the Inpatient Dashboard may stem from its increased efficiency, with most users affirming its timesaving nature. While CPRS can only display local notes, laboratory results, and studies, the Inpatient Dashboard can display data from across all VA sites. The VA Joint Longitudinal Viewer can similarly display data from across all sites, but the display is not streamlined as it is in the Inpatient Dashboard. The Inpatient Dashboard incorporates this clinical information into a single page to facilitate day-to-day workflow and dynamic documentation (ie, reviewing laboratory results, medications, writing notes, and signing out patients). This increased efficiency allows clinicians to counter 2 common barriers to EHR implementation: productivity loss and insufficient time.¹⁴

The association between EHRs and improved quality and safety in health care is well-documented.³ The Inpatient Dashboard fortifies this association by enhancing awareness around patient status, evidenced by a majority of respondents, and by integrating a medication reconciliation tool to decrease medication errors on transition from the emergency department to inpatient hospitalization.¹⁰

The Inpatient Dashboard’s impact on alleviating daily workload stress is noteworthy, with almost all respondents experiencing reduced stress levels and physician burnout, which has been linked to deteriorating well-being, compromised patient safety, and escalated health care costs.^15,16 The heightened susceptibility of physicians to burnout compared to other professionals underscores the imperative for incorporating stress-mitigating interventions in the EHR.^17,18

While responses to most questions did not significantly differ by training levels, overall satisfaction with the Inpatient Dashboard and its ability to save time preparing for rounds were rated higher by medical students. This may be attributable to a greater derived benefit from collating and presenting data to learners with less familiarity with the native EHR. It is also notable that the Inpatient Dashboard allows medical students to directly contribute to a patient’s note, which could be another driver in satisfaction. While most interns still felt the Inpatient Dashboard enabled them to save time preparing for rounds, there were a considerable number of ‘no change’ responses, which suggests some interns may not have modified their existing prerounding strategies. These associations are limited by the relatively small number of respondents by learner category, with senior medical residents and attending physicians being underrepresented.

While there are a multitude of dashboards available at the VA, most are made to track certain quality metrics and are used more by administrative and leadership staff. The Inpatient Dashboard was created specifically for frontline clinicians to facilitate their day-to-day workflow and dynamic documentation. This tool can additionally help with quality metrics, though its main purpose was and is to make clinician workflow easier and more efficient.

These results are especially timely because the VA is modernizing its EHR by transitioning to Oracle Health.⁷ Due to the numerous reports both from veterans and VA clinicians that the Oracle Health EHR is not meeting expectations, deployment at further sites has been halted while improving the experience of the 5 institutions using Oracle Health is prioritized.⁹ The Inpatient Dashboard, instead of being merely an enhancement to CPRS, could emerge as a potential bridge to Oracle Health if adapted to display data from Oracle Health as it does VistA. This would facilitate a smoother, more integrated transition for those health care institutions employing the Inpatient Dashboard.

Limitations

The reliance on self-reported data inherently carries the risk of bias, and the absence of objective measures, like time-tracking studies, limits the quantifiable assessment of the Inpatient Dashboard efficacy. The single-center nature of the study also may restrict the generalizability of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal integration of EHRs into health care delivery is critical to high-quality patient care and operational efficiency. The Inpatient Dashboard is an example of an innovative, user-centric solution that integrated and presented clinical information in a way that produced high satisfaction and adoption by users at a VA hospital.

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in about 1% to 2% of joint replacements. ¹ Risk factors include immunosuppression, diabetes, chronic illnesses, and prolonged operative time.² Bacterial infections constitute most of these infections, while fungal pathogens account for about 1%. Candida (C.) species, predominantly C. albicans, are responsible for most PJIs.^1,3 In contrast, C. glabrata is a rare cause of fungal PJI, with only 18 PJI cases currently reported in the literature.⁴C. glabrata PJI occurs more frequently among immunosuppressed patients and is associated with a higher treatment failure rate despite antifungal therapy.⁵ Treatment of fungal PJI is often complicated, involving multiple surgical debridements, prolonged antifungal therapy, and in some cases, prosthesis removal.⁶ However, given the rarity of C. glabrata as a PJI pathogen, no standardized treatment guidelines exist, leading to potential delays in diagnosis and tailored treatment.^7,8

CASE PRESENTATION

A male Vietnam veteran aged 75 years presented to the emergency department in July 2023 with a fluid collection over his left hip surgical incision site. The patient had a complex medical history that included chronic kidney disease, well-controlled type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and osteoarthritis. His history was further complicated by nonalcoholic steatohepatitis with hepatocellular carcinoma that was treated with transarterial radioembolization and yttrium-90. The patient had undergone a left total hip arthroplasty in 1996 and subsequent open reduction and internal fixation about 9 months prior to his presentation. The patient reported the fluid had been present for about 6 weeks, while he received outpatient monitoring by the orthopedic surgery service. He sought emergency care after noting a moderate amount of purulent discharge on his clothing originating from his hip. In the week prior to admission, the patient observed progressive erythema, warmth, and tenderness over the incision site. Despite these symptoms, the patient remained ambulatory and able to walk long distances with the use of an assistive device.

Upon presentation, the patient was afebrile and normotensive. Laboratory testing revealed an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 77 mm/h (reference range, 0-20 mm/h) and a C-reactive protein of 9.8 mg/L (reference range, 0-2.5 mg/L), suggesting an underlying infectious process. A physical examination revealed a well-healed incision over the left hip with a poorly defined area of fluctuance and evidence of wound dehiscence. The left lower extremity was swollen with 2+ pitting edema, but tenderness was localized to the incision site. Magnetic resonance imaging of the left hip revealed a multiloculated fluid collection abutting the left greater trochanter with extension to the skin surface and inferior extension along the entire length of the surgical fixation hardware (Figure).

Upon admission, orthopedic surgery performed a bedside aspiration of the fluid collection. Samples were sent for analysis, including cell count and bacterial and fungal cultures. Initial blood cultures were sterile. Due to concerns for a bacterial infection, the patient was started on empiric intravenous (IV) ceftriaxone 2 g/day and IV vancomycin 1250 mg/day. Synovial fluid analysis revealed an elevated white blood cell count of 45,000/ìL, but bacterial cultures were negative. Five days after admission, the fungal culture from the left hip wound was notable for presence of C. glabrata, prompting an infectious diseases (ID) consultation. IV micafungin 100 mg/day was initiated as empiric antifungal therapy.

ID and orthopedic surgery teams determined that a combined medical and surgical approach would be best suited for infection control. They proposed 2 main approaches: complete hardware replacement with washout, which carried a higher morbidity risk but a better chance of infection resolution, or partial hardware replacement with washout, which was associated with a lower morbidity risk but a higher risk of infection persistence and recurrence. This decision was particularly challenging for the patient, who prioritized maintaining his functional status, including his ability to continue dancing for pleasure. The patient opted for a more conservative approach, electing to proceed with antifungal therapy and debridement while retaining the prosthetic joint.

After 11 days of hospitalization, the patient was discharged with a peripherally inserted central catheter for long-term antifungal infusions of micafungin 150 mg/day at home. Fungal sensitivity test results several days after discharge confirmed susceptibility to micafungin.

About 2 weeks after discharge, the patient underwent debridement and implant retention (DAIR). Wound cultures were positive for C. glabrata, Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Corynebacterium tuberculostearicum. Based on susceptibilities, he completed a 2-month course of IV micafungin 150 mg daily and daptomycin 750 mg daily, followed by an oral suppressive regimen consisting of doxycycline 100 mg twice daily, amoxicillin-clavulanate 2 g twice daily, and fluconazole initially 800 mg daily adjusted to 400 mg daily. The patient continued wound management with twice-daily dressing changes.

Nine months after DAIR, the patient remained on suppressive antifungal and antibacterial therapy. He continued to experience serous drainage from the wound, which greatly affected his quality of life. After discussion with his family and the orthopedic surgery team, he agreed to proceed with a 2-staged revision arthroplasty involving prosthetic explant and antibiotic spacer placement. However, the surgery was postponed due to findings of anemia (hemoglobin, 8.9 g/dL) and thrombocytopenia (platelet count, 73 x 10³/λL). At the time of this report, the patient was being monitored closely with his multidisciplinary care team for the planned orthopedic procedure.

DISCUSSION

PJI is the most common cause of primary hip arthroplasty failure; however, fungal species only make up about 1% of PJIs.^3,9-11 Patients are typically immunocompromised, undergoing antineoplastic therapies for malignancy, or have other comorbid conditions such as diabetes.^12,13C. glabrata presents a unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenge as it is not only rare but also notorious for its resistance to common antifungal agents. C. glabrata is known to develop multidrug resistance through the rapid accumulation of genomic mutations.¹⁴ Its propensity towards forming protective biofilm also arms it with intrinsic resistance to agents like fluconazole.¹⁵ Furthermore, based on a review of the available reports in the literature, C. glabrata PJIs are often insidious and present with symptoms closely mimicking those of bacterial PJIs, as it did in the patient in this case.¹⁶

Synovial fluid analysis, fungal cultures, and sensitivity testing are paramount for ensuring proper diagnosis for fungal PJI. The patient in this case was empirically treated with micafungin based on recommendations from the ID team. When the sensitivities results were reviewed, the same antifungal therapy was continued. Echinocandins have a favorable toxicity profile in long-term use, as well as efficacy against biofilm-producing organisms like C. glabrata.^17,18

While there are a few cases citing DAIR as a feasible surgical strategy for treating fungal PJI, more recent studies have reported greater success with a 2-staged revision arthroplasty involving some combination of debridement, placement of antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacers, and partial or total exchange of the infected prosthetic joint.^4,19-23 In this case, complete hardware replacement would have offered the patient the most favorable outlook for eliminating this fungal infection. However, given the patient’s advanced age, significant underlying comorbidities, and functional status, medical management with antifungal therapy and DAIR was favored.

Based on the discussion from the 6-month follow-up visit, the patient was experiencing progressive and persistent wound drainage and frequent dressing changes, highlighting the limitations of medical management for PJI in the setting of retained prosthesis. If the patient ultimately proceeds with a more invasive surgical intervention, another important consideration will be the likelihood of fungal PJI recurrence. At present, fungal PJI recurrence rates following antifungal and surgical treatment have been reported to range between 0% to 50%, which is too imprecise to be considered clinically useful.^22-24

Given the ambiguity surrounding management guidelines and limited treatment options, it is crucial to emphasize the timeline of this patient’s clinical presentation and subsequent course of treatment. Upon presentation to the ED in late July, fungal PJI was considered less likely. Initial blood cultures from presentation were negative, which is common with PJIs. It was not until 5 days later that the left hip wound culture showed moderate growth of C. glabrata. Identifying a PJI is clinically challenging due to the lack of standardized diagnostic criteria. However, timely identification and diagnosis of fungal PJI with appropriate antifungal therapy, in patients with limited curative options due to comorbidities, can significantly improve quality of life and overall outcomes.²⁵ Routine fungal and mycobacterial cultures are not currently recommended in PJI guidelines, but this case illustrates it is imperative in immunocompromised hosts.²⁶

This case and the current paucity of similar cases in the literature stress the importance of clinicians publishing their experience in the management of fungal PJI. We strongly recommend that clinicians approach each suspected PJI with careful consideration of the patient’s unique risk factors, comorbidities, and goals of care, when deciding on a curative vs suppressive approach to therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This case report highlights the importance of considering fungal pathogens for PJIs, especially in high-risk patients, the value of obtaining fungal cultures, the necessity of a multidisciplinary approach, the role of antifungal susceptibility testing, and consideration for the feasibility of a surgical intervention. It underscores the challenges in diagnosis and treatment of C. glabrata-associated PJI, emphasizing the importance of clinician experience-sharing in developing evidence-based management strategies. As the understanding of fungal PJI evolves, continued research and clinical data collection remain crucial for improving patient outcomes in the management of these complex cases.

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in about 1% to 2% of joint replacements. ¹ Risk factors include immunosuppression, diabetes, chronic illnesses, and prolonged operative time.² Bacterial infections constitute most of these infections, while fungal pathogens account for about 1%. Candida (C.) species, predominantly C. albicans, are responsible for most PJIs.^1,3 In contrast, C. glabrata is a rare cause of fungal PJI, with only 18 PJI cases currently reported in the literature.⁴C. glabrata PJI occurs more frequently among immunosuppressed patients and is associated with a higher treatment failure rate despite antifungal therapy.⁵ Treatment of fungal PJI is often complicated, involving multiple surgical debridements, prolonged antifungal therapy, and in some cases, prosthesis removal.⁶ However, given the rarity of C. glabrata as a PJI pathogen, no standardized treatment guidelines exist, leading to potential delays in diagnosis and tailored treatment.^7,8

CASE PRESENTATION

A male Vietnam veteran aged 75 years presented to the emergency department in July 2023 with a fluid collection over his left hip surgical incision site. The patient had a complex medical history that included chronic kidney disease, well-controlled type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and osteoarthritis. His history was further complicated by nonalcoholic steatohepatitis with hepatocellular carcinoma that was treated with transarterial radioembolization and yttrium-90. The patient had undergone a left total hip arthroplasty in 1996 and subsequent open reduction and internal fixation about 9 months prior to his presentation. The patient reported the fluid had been present for about 6 weeks, while he received outpatient monitoring by the orthopedic surgery service. He sought emergency care after noting a moderate amount of purulent discharge on his clothing originating from his hip. In the week prior to admission, the patient observed progressive erythema, warmth, and tenderness over the incision site. Despite these symptoms, the patient remained ambulatory and able to walk long distances with the use of an assistive device.

Upon presentation, the patient was afebrile and normotensive. Laboratory testing revealed an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 77 mm/h (reference range, 0-20 mm/h) and a C-reactive protein of 9.8 mg/L (reference range, 0-2.5 mg/L), suggesting an underlying infectious process. A physical examination revealed a well-healed incision over the left hip with a poorly defined area of fluctuance and evidence of wound dehiscence. The left lower extremity was swollen with 2+ pitting edema, but tenderness was localized to the incision site. Magnetic resonance imaging of the left hip revealed a multiloculated fluid collection abutting the left greater trochanter with extension to the skin surface and inferior extension along the entire length of the surgical fixation hardware (Figure).

Upon admission, orthopedic surgery performed a bedside aspiration of the fluid collection. Samples were sent for analysis, including cell count and bacterial and fungal cultures. Initial blood cultures were sterile. Due to concerns for a bacterial infection, the patient was started on empiric intravenous (IV) ceftriaxone 2 g/day and IV vancomycin 1250 mg/day. Synovial fluid analysis revealed an elevated white blood cell count of 45,000/ìL, but bacterial cultures were negative. Five days after admission, the fungal culture from the left hip wound was notable for presence of C. glabrata, prompting an infectious diseases (ID) consultation. IV micafungin 100 mg/day was initiated as empiric antifungal therapy.

ID and orthopedic surgery teams determined that a combined medical and surgical approach would be best suited for infection control. They proposed 2 main approaches: complete hardware replacement with washout, which carried a higher morbidity risk but a better chance of infection resolution, or partial hardware replacement with washout, which was associated with a lower morbidity risk but a higher risk of infection persistence and recurrence. This decision was particularly challenging for the patient, who prioritized maintaining his functional status, including his ability to continue dancing for pleasure. The patient opted for a more conservative approach, electing to proceed with antifungal therapy and debridement while retaining the prosthetic joint.

After 11 days of hospitalization, the patient was discharged with a peripherally inserted central catheter for long-term antifungal infusions of micafungin 150 mg/day at home. Fungal sensitivity test results several days after discharge confirmed susceptibility to micafungin.

About 2 weeks after discharge, the patient underwent debridement and implant retention (DAIR). Wound cultures were positive for C. glabrata, Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Corynebacterium tuberculostearicum. Based on susceptibilities, he completed a 2-month course of IV micafungin 150 mg daily and daptomycin 750 mg daily, followed by an oral suppressive regimen consisting of doxycycline 100 mg twice daily, amoxicillin-clavulanate 2 g twice daily, and fluconazole initially 800 mg daily adjusted to 400 mg daily. The patient continued wound management with twice-daily dressing changes.

Nine months after DAIR, the patient remained on suppressive antifungal and antibacterial therapy. He continued to experience serous drainage from the wound, which greatly affected his quality of life. After discussion with his family and the orthopedic surgery team, he agreed to proceed with a 2-staged revision arthroplasty involving prosthetic explant and antibiotic spacer placement. However, the surgery was postponed due to findings of anemia (hemoglobin, 8.9 g/dL) and thrombocytopenia (platelet count, 73 x 10³/λL). At the time of this report, the patient was being monitored closely with his multidisciplinary care team for the planned orthopedic procedure.

DISCUSSION

PJI is the most common cause of primary hip arthroplasty failure; however, fungal species only make up about 1% of PJIs.^3,9-11 Patients are typically immunocompromised, undergoing antineoplastic therapies for malignancy, or have other comorbid conditions such as diabetes.^12,13C. glabrata presents a unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenge as it is not only rare but also notorious for its resistance to common antifungal agents. C. glabrata is known to develop multidrug resistance through the rapid accumulation of genomic mutations.¹⁴ Its propensity towards forming protective biofilm also arms it with intrinsic resistance to agents like fluconazole.¹⁵ Furthermore, based on a review of the available reports in the literature, C. glabrata PJIs are often insidious and present with symptoms closely mimicking those of bacterial PJIs, as it did in the patient in this case.¹⁶

Synovial fluid analysis, fungal cultures, and sensitivity testing are paramount for ensuring proper diagnosis for fungal PJI. The patient in this case was empirically treated with micafungin based on recommendations from the ID team. When the sensitivities results were reviewed, the same antifungal therapy was continued. Echinocandins have a favorable toxicity profile in long-term use, as well as efficacy against biofilm-producing organisms like C. glabrata.^17,18

While there are a few cases citing DAIR as a feasible surgical strategy for treating fungal PJI, more recent studies have reported greater success with a 2-staged revision arthroplasty involving some combination of debridement, placement of antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacers, and partial or total exchange of the infected prosthetic joint.^4,19-23 In this case, complete hardware replacement would have offered the patient the most favorable outlook for eliminating this fungal infection. However, given the patient’s advanced age, significant underlying comorbidities, and functional status, medical management with antifungal therapy and DAIR was favored.

Based on the discussion from the 6-month follow-up visit, the patient was experiencing progressive and persistent wound drainage and frequent dressing changes, highlighting the limitations of medical management for PJI in the setting of retained prosthesis. If the patient ultimately proceeds with a more invasive surgical intervention, another important consideration will be the likelihood of fungal PJI recurrence. At present, fungal PJI recurrence rates following antifungal and surgical treatment have been reported to range between 0% to 50%, which is too imprecise to be considered clinically useful.^22-24

Given the ambiguity surrounding management guidelines and limited treatment options, it is crucial to emphasize the timeline of this patient’s clinical presentation and subsequent course of treatment. Upon presentation to the ED in late July, fungal PJI was considered less likely. Initial blood cultures from presentation were negative, which is common with PJIs. It was not until 5 days later that the left hip wound culture showed moderate growth of C. glabrata. Identifying a PJI is clinically challenging due to the lack of standardized diagnostic criteria. However, timely identification and diagnosis of fungal PJI with appropriate antifungal therapy, in patients with limited curative options due to comorbidities, can significantly improve quality of life and overall outcomes.²⁵ Routine fungal and mycobacterial cultures are not currently recommended in PJI guidelines, but this case illustrates it is imperative in immunocompromised hosts.²⁶

This case and the current paucity of similar cases in the literature stress the importance of clinicians publishing their experience in the management of fungal PJI. We strongly recommend that clinicians approach each suspected PJI with careful consideration of the patient’s unique risk factors, comorbidities, and goals of care, when deciding on a curative vs suppressive approach to therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This case report highlights the importance of considering fungal pathogens for PJIs, especially in high-risk patients, the value of obtaining fungal cultures, the necessity of a multidisciplinary approach, the role of antifungal susceptibility testing, and consideration for the feasibility of a surgical intervention. It underscores the challenges in diagnosis and treatment of C. glabrata-associated PJI, emphasizing the importance of clinician experience-sharing in developing evidence-based management strategies. As the understanding of fungal PJI evolves, continued research and clinical data collection remain crucial for improving patient outcomes in the management of these complex cases.

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in about 1% to 2% of joint replacements. ¹ Risk factors include immunosuppression, diabetes, chronic illnesses, and prolonged operative time.² Bacterial infections constitute most of these infections, while fungal pathogens account for about 1%. Candida (C.) species, predominantly C. albicans, are responsible for most PJIs.^1,3 In contrast, C. glabrata is a rare cause of fungal PJI, with only 18 PJI cases currently reported in the literature.⁴C. glabrata PJI occurs more frequently among immunosuppressed patients and is associated with a higher treatment failure rate despite antifungal therapy.⁵ Treatment of fungal PJI is often complicated, involving multiple surgical debridements, prolonged antifungal therapy, and in some cases, prosthesis removal.⁶ However, given the rarity of C. glabrata as a PJI pathogen, no standardized treatment guidelines exist, leading to potential delays in diagnosis and tailored treatment.^7,8

CASE PRESENTATION

A male Vietnam veteran aged 75 years presented to the emergency department in July 2023 with a fluid collection over his left hip surgical incision site. The patient had a complex medical history that included chronic kidney disease, well-controlled type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and osteoarthritis. His history was further complicated by nonalcoholic steatohepatitis with hepatocellular carcinoma that was treated with transarterial radioembolization and yttrium-90. The patient had undergone a left total hip arthroplasty in 1996 and subsequent open reduction and internal fixation about 9 months prior to his presentation. The patient reported the fluid had been present for about 6 weeks, while he received outpatient monitoring by the orthopedic surgery service. He sought emergency care after noting a moderate amount of purulent discharge on his clothing originating from his hip. In the week prior to admission, the patient observed progressive erythema, warmth, and tenderness over the incision site. Despite these symptoms, the patient remained ambulatory and able to walk long distances with the use of an assistive device.

Upon presentation, the patient was afebrile and normotensive. Laboratory testing revealed an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 77 mm/h (reference range, 0-20 mm/h) and a C-reactive protein of 9.8 mg/L (reference range, 0-2.5 mg/L), suggesting an underlying infectious process. A physical examination revealed a well-healed incision over the left hip with a poorly defined area of fluctuance and evidence of wound dehiscence. The left lower extremity was swollen with 2+ pitting edema, but tenderness was localized to the incision site. Magnetic resonance imaging of the left hip revealed a multiloculated fluid collection abutting the left greater trochanter with extension to the skin surface and inferior extension along the entire length of the surgical fixation hardware (Figure).

Upon admission, orthopedic surgery performed a bedside aspiration of the fluid collection. Samples were sent for analysis, including cell count and bacterial and fungal cultures. Initial blood cultures were sterile. Due to concerns for a bacterial infection, the patient was started on empiric intravenous (IV) ceftriaxone 2 g/day and IV vancomycin 1250 mg/day. Synovial fluid analysis revealed an elevated white blood cell count of 45,000/ìL, but bacterial cultures were negative. Five days after admission, the fungal culture from the left hip wound was notable for presence of C. glabrata, prompting an infectious diseases (ID) consultation. IV micafungin 100 mg/day was initiated as empiric antifungal therapy.

ID and orthopedic surgery teams determined that a combined medical and surgical approach would be best suited for infection control. They proposed 2 main approaches: complete hardware replacement with washout, which carried a higher morbidity risk but a better chance of infection resolution, or partial hardware replacement with washout, which was associated with a lower morbidity risk but a higher risk of infection persistence and recurrence. This decision was particularly challenging for the patient, who prioritized maintaining his functional status, including his ability to continue dancing for pleasure. The patient opted for a more conservative approach, electing to proceed with antifungal therapy and debridement while retaining the prosthetic joint.

After 11 days of hospitalization, the patient was discharged with a peripherally inserted central catheter for long-term antifungal infusions of micafungin 150 mg/day at home. Fungal sensitivity test results several days after discharge confirmed susceptibility to micafungin.

About 2 weeks after discharge, the patient underwent debridement and implant retention (DAIR). Wound cultures were positive for C. glabrata, Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Corynebacterium tuberculostearicum. Based on susceptibilities, he completed a 2-month course of IV micafungin 150 mg daily and daptomycin 750 mg daily, followed by an oral suppressive regimen consisting of doxycycline 100 mg twice daily, amoxicillin-clavulanate 2 g twice daily, and fluconazole initially 800 mg daily adjusted to 400 mg daily. The patient continued wound management with twice-daily dressing changes.

Nine months after DAIR, the patient remained on suppressive antifungal and antibacterial therapy. He continued to experience serous drainage from the wound, which greatly affected his quality of life. After discussion with his family and the orthopedic surgery team, he agreed to proceed with a 2-staged revision arthroplasty involving prosthetic explant and antibiotic spacer placement. However, the surgery was postponed due to findings of anemia (hemoglobin, 8.9 g/dL) and thrombocytopenia (platelet count, 73 x 10³/λL). At the time of this report, the patient was being monitored closely with his multidisciplinary care team for the planned orthopedic procedure.

DISCUSSION

PJI is the most common cause of primary hip arthroplasty failure; however, fungal species only make up about 1% of PJIs.^3,9-11 Patients are typically immunocompromised, undergoing antineoplastic therapies for malignancy, or have other comorbid conditions such as diabetes.^12,13C. glabrata presents a unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenge as it is not only rare but also notorious for its resistance to common antifungal agents. C. glabrata is known to develop multidrug resistance through the rapid accumulation of genomic mutations.¹⁴ Its propensity towards forming protective biofilm also arms it with intrinsic resistance to agents like fluconazole.¹⁵ Furthermore, based on a review of the available reports in the literature, C. glabrata PJIs are often insidious and present with symptoms closely mimicking those of bacterial PJIs, as it did in the patient in this case.¹⁶

Synovial fluid analysis, fungal cultures, and sensitivity testing are paramount for ensuring proper diagnosis for fungal PJI. The patient in this case was empirically treated with micafungin based on recommendations from the ID team. When the sensitivities results were reviewed, the same antifungal therapy was continued. Echinocandins have a favorable toxicity profile in long-term use, as well as efficacy against biofilm-producing organisms like C. glabrata.^17,18

While there are a few cases citing DAIR as a feasible surgical strategy for treating fungal PJI, more recent studies have reported greater success with a 2-staged revision arthroplasty involving some combination of debridement, placement of antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacers, and partial or total exchange of the infected prosthetic joint.^4,19-23 In this case, complete hardware replacement would have offered the patient the most favorable outlook for eliminating this fungal infection. However, given the patient’s advanced age, significant underlying comorbidities, and functional status, medical management with antifungal therapy and DAIR was favored.

Based on the discussion from the 6-month follow-up visit, the patient was experiencing progressive and persistent wound drainage and frequent dressing changes, highlighting the limitations of medical management for PJI in the setting of retained prosthesis. If the patient ultimately proceeds with a more invasive surgical intervention, another important consideration will be the likelihood of fungal PJI recurrence. At present, fungal PJI recurrence rates following antifungal and surgical treatment have been reported to range between 0% to 50%, which is too imprecise to be considered clinically useful.^22-24

Given the ambiguity surrounding management guidelines and limited treatment options, it is crucial to emphasize the timeline of this patient’s clinical presentation and subsequent course of treatment. Upon presentation to the ED in late July, fungal PJI was considered less likely. Initial blood cultures from presentation were negative, which is common with PJIs. It was not until 5 days later that the left hip wound culture showed moderate growth of C. glabrata. Identifying a PJI is clinically challenging due to the lack of standardized diagnostic criteria. However, timely identification and diagnosis of fungal PJI with appropriate antifungal therapy, in patients with limited curative options due to comorbidities, can significantly improve quality of life and overall outcomes.²⁵ Routine fungal and mycobacterial cultures are not currently recommended in PJI guidelines, but this case illustrates it is imperative in immunocompromised hosts.²⁶

This case and the current paucity of similar cases in the literature stress the importance of clinicians publishing their experience in the management of fungal PJI. We strongly recommend that clinicians approach each suspected PJI with careful consideration of the patient’s unique risk factors, comorbidities, and goals of care, when deciding on a curative vs suppressive approach to therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This case report highlights the importance of considering fungal pathogens for PJIs, especially in high-risk patients, the value of obtaining fungal cultures, the necessity of a multidisciplinary approach, the role of antifungal susceptibility testing, and consideration for the feasibility of a surgical intervention. It underscores the challenges in diagnosis and treatment of C. glabrata-associated PJI, emphasizing the importance of clinician experience-sharing in developing evidence-based management strategies. As the understanding of fungal PJI evolves, continued research and clinical data collection remain crucial for improving patient outcomes in the management of these complex cases.