Imaging

Breast concerns account for approximately 3% of all female visits to a primary care practice.¹ The most common symptoms are breast lumps and breast pain.

Because breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women in the United States, affecting nearly 1 in 8 women in their lifetime, women with breast problems often fear the worst. However, only about 3.5% of women reporting a concern have cancer; most problems are benign (Table 1).¹

Here, we present an evidence-based review of common breast problems in primary care practice and discuss how to evaluate and manage them.

GENERAL APPROACH

The evaluation of a breast concern requires a systematic approach, beginning with a history that documents the onset, severity, and frequency of symptoms. If the concern is a lump or mass, ask whether it becomes more tender or increases in size at any point during the menstrual cycle.

Focus the physical examination on the cervical, supraclavicular, infraclavicular, and axillary lymph nodes and on the breast itself. Assess breast symmetry, note any skin changes such as dimpling, and check the nipples for discharge and inversion. Palpate the breasts for masses.

PALPABLE BREAST MASS: IMAGING NEEDED

If a mass is present, it is more likely to be malignant if any of the following is true:

• Firm to hard texture or indistinct margins
• Attached to the underlying deep fascia or skin
• Associated nipple inversion or skin dimpling.²

Breast masses are more likely benign if they have discrete, well-defined margins, are mobile with a soft to rubbery consistency, and change with the menstrual cycle. However, clinical features are unreliable indicators of cause, and thus additional investigation with breast imaging is warranted.

Mammography remains the diagnostic test of choice for all women age 30 or older who have a palpable breast mass. It is less effective in younger women because they are more likely to have extremely dense fibroglandular tissue that will limit its sensitivity to imaging.

Order diagnostic mammography, which includes additional views focused on the area of concern, rather than screening mammography, which includes only standard cranio­caudal and mediolateral oblique views. A skin marker should be applied over the palpable lump to aid imaging. Because a breast that contains a mass may be denser than the opposite breast or may show asymmetry, both breasts should be imaged. The sensitivity of diagnostic mammography varies from 85% to 90%, so a negative mammogram does not rule out malignancy.^2,3

Targeted ultrasonography of the palpable mass helps identify solid masses such as fibroadenomas or malignant tumors, classifies the margins (lobulated, smooth, or irregular), and assesses vascularity. Ultrasonography is particularly useful for characterizing cystic lesions (eg, simple, septated, or clustered cysts) and cysts with internal echoes. It can also identify lipomas or sebaceous cysts.

If the findings on both mammography and ultrasonography are benign, the likelihood of cancer is very low, with an estimated negative predictive value of 97% to 100%.^2,3 Additionally, the likelihood of nonmalignant findings on biopsy after benign imaging is approximately 99%.³

Although radiologic imaging can define palpable masses, it is intended as a clinical aid. Suspicious findings on clinical examination should never be ignored even if findings on imaging are reassuring, as studies have documented that about 5% of breast cancers may be detected on clinical breast examination alone.⁴

Other imaging tests such as magnetic resonance imaging may be considered occasionally if clinical suspicion remains high after negative mammography and ultrasonography, but they cannot confirm a diagnosis of malignancy. In that case, refer the patient to a surgeon for consideration of excisional biopsy.

Patients with an indeterminate lesion can return in 3 to 12 weeks for a follow-up examination and repeat imaging, which helps assess interval clinical stability. The latter option is especially helpful for patients with masses that are of low suspicion or for patients who prefer to avoid invasive tissue biopsy.

Patients with clinical and radiologic findings that suggest a benign cause can return for short-term follow-up in 6 months or in 12 months for their regular mammogram.

More than 50% of women experience breast pain at some point in their life.⁵ Of these, 35% report that the pain adversely affects their sleep, and 41% note that the pain detrimentally affects their sexual quality of life. Up to 66% of breast pain correlates directly with the patient’s menstrual cycle.⁵ Breast pain is rarely associated with malignancy.

Regardless of its severity and the low likelihood of malignancy, breast pain can be a significant source of distress for the patient, primarily because of concerns about underlying malignancy. If the patient has a focal area of pain on examination, order mammography in combination with targeted ultrasonography. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of benign findings on combination mammography and ultrasonography in this setting are as high as 100%. The incidence of underlying cancer in patients with focal breast pain and no palpable mass is approximately 1.2%.⁶

The long-term prognosis in women with diffuse, often bilateral breast pain (in the absence of additional clinical findings) is excellent. In one study, the incidence of a breast cancer diagnosis was 1.8% after a median of 51 months of follow-up.⁷ Therefore, patients presenting with diffuse pain, no palpable abnormalities, and benign imaging can be safely reassured. Magnetic resonance imaging is rarely indicated in patients with breast pain unless other clinical findings, such as a mass or skin changes, are noted and the results of mammography and ultrasonography are negative.

Treating breast pain

Treating breast pain remains a challenge. The first step is to reassure the patient about her prognosis and help her make appropriate lifestyle modifications.

A well-fitting bra. Suggest getting a professional bra fitting. Wearing a well-fitted bra that offers lift, support, and compression and reduces excess motion can help improve benign breast pain. A bra fitting is especially important for women with large breasts because it can be difficult for these women to get an accurate size. Wearing a lightly fitted bra at night may also provide comfort if there is nighttime pain with breast tissue movement.

Reducing daily caffeine intake is often advised for pain management, but strong evidence of its efficacy is lacking.

Anti-inflammatory drugs can be beneficial if used short-term, especially if costochondritis is suspected.

Danazol improves pain in more than 70% of patients with cyclical symptoms and in up to 48% of those with noncyclical symptoms.

Bromocriptine is effective in up to 54% of those with cyclical symptoms and in up to 33% of those with noncyclical symptoms.⁸ However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdrew approval for this indication because of adverse effects.

Tamoxifen, in contrast, provides relief in 94% of those with cyclical symptoms and in 56% of those with noncyclical symptoms.⁹

Adverse effects, however, limit the use of danazol, bromocriptine, and tamoxifen, and they should be prescribed only for short-term use (3 to 6 months) and only in women with chronic debilitating pain.

A few small studies have evaluated alternative options.

Toremifene is a triphenylethylene derivative similar to tamoxifen that is also used in the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer (but with fewer adverse effects). It has been documented to have a significant effect on premenstrual breast pain, with a 64% reduction in breast pain scores compared with a 26% reduction with placebo.¹⁰ However, the FDA has not approved it for this indication, and it can be cost-prohibitive.

Over-the-counter medications that may provide relief for cyclic breast pain include vitamin E or B₆, products containing oil of Vitex agnus castus (chaste tree or chasteberry), and flaxseed.^11,12

Acupuncture has been evaluated in patients with noncyclic breast pain and was found to reduce pain by 56% to 67% in one study,¹³ although it did not affect quality of life.

NIPPLE DISCHARGE

From 5% to 7% of women seek medical attention for nipple discharge.^14,15 Breast cancer is found in 5% to 15% of women who undergo surgery for nipple discharge.^16,17

Review the patient’s current medications and inquire about health conditions such as thyroid dysfunction or visual field changes that suggest a pituitary mass (which can lead to nipple discharge by causing hormonal dysregulation or hyperprolactinemia).

Palpate the breasts for an underlying mass, look for lesions on the nipple, and assess the color of the fluid. Also note whether there is discharge from one or both breasts, whether it is spontaneous or expressive, and whether it occurs from a single or multiple ducts. Nipple lesions may require further testing with punch biopsy.

Nonlactational nipple discharge is classified as physiologic or pathologic. Physiologic nipple discharge is typically bilateral, involving multiple ducts, and is often clear or straw-colored but may also be green, gray, or brown.

White, opaque fluid is often related to galactorrhea as a result of hyperprolactinemia, hypothyroidism, or medications such as antipsychotic drugs (eg, haloperidol and fluphenazine) and gastrointestinal motility agents such as metoclopramide. Discharge also commonly results from benign underlying ductal abnormalities such as intraductal papilloma, periductal mastitis, and duct ectasia.

Pathologic nipple discharge is often unilateral and persistent, occurring spontaneously from a solitary duct, and may be bloody or serous.

For women with pathologic nipple discharge who are 30 or older, diagnostic imaging with mammography and subareolar ultrasonography is recommended. If the patient is younger than 30, ultrasonography of the subareolar region alone can be used. Targeted ultrasonography of any palpable area is also advised.

Cytologic assessment of the fluid is not recommended because it can often lead to a false-positive finding of atypical cells. Imaging studies such as ductography, duct lavage, ductoscopy, and magnetic resonance imaging are also generally unnecessary; instead, a persistent clinical concern should prompt a surgical referral for consideration of duct excision.

When a patient has pathologic nipple discharge with a negative physical examination and breast imaging, studies have shown that the risk of cancer is 3% or less.¹⁸

Patients with spontaneous bloody or serous single-duct discharge with negative results on mammography and ultrasonography should be reassured that they have a low risk of underlying cancer. If the patient prefers, one approachto management is follow-up mammography and ultrasonography at 6 months and clinical examination for up to 2 years or until the discharge resolves on its own.

On the other hand, if the discharge is distressing to the patient, subareolar duct excision can be performed with both a diagnostic and therapeutic purpose.

A rash on the nipple or areolar region warrants careful evaluation because it may be the first sign of Paget disease of the breast.

In the clinical breast examination, assess the extent of the rash and the presence of any underlying breast mass or nipple discharge. Dermatitis often starts on the areola and resolves quickly with topical therapy. However, Paget disease tends to start directly on the nipple itself, is unresponsive or only partially responsive to topical therapy, and progresses gradually, leading to erosions and ultimately effacement of the nipple itself.

If the clinical examination suggests mild dermatitis and the results of breast imaging are negative, treat the patient with a topical medication because benign conditions such as dermatitis and eczema are common. However, continued follow-up is mandatory until the rash completely resolves: Paget disease sometimes initially improves with topical therapy due to its inflammatory nature.

If you suspect Paget disease or the rash does not fully resolve after 2 to 3 weeks of topical therapy, refer the patient to a dermatologist for full-thickness punch biopsy to establish the diagnosis.

Paget disease of the breast may or may not be associated with underlying ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer.¹⁹ The absence of clinical or imaging abnormalities in a patient with Paget disease does not rule out underlying malignancy.²⁰

DENSE BREASTS

Increased breast density has been shown to be a risk factor for breast cancer and may be prognostically useful when combined with the Tyrer-Cuzick model or the Gail model of breast cancer risk.²⁴

Additionally, increased density can mask cancers on mammography, significantly reducing its sensitivity. In women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts, the sensitivity of mammography for detecting cancer is only 25% to 50%.²¹ Due to this low sensitivity, supplemental imaging is helpful, particularly in women already at risk of breast cancer based on family history.

Supplemental screening

Digital mammography with tomosynthesis was approved by the FDA in 2011 for use in combination with standard digital mammography for breast cancer screening. Compared with traditional 2-dimensional mammography alone, adding 3-D tomosynthesis decreases the recall rate and increases the cancer detection rate.²⁵

Tomosynthesis tends to perform better in women with heterogeneously dense breasts (BI-RADS category C). There is no significant improvement in cancer detection in women with extremely dense breasts (BI-RADS category D).²⁶

Depending on the methodology, radiation exposure can be either higher or lower than with traditional mammography. However, in all forms, the very small amount of radiation is considered safe.

Whole breast ultrasonography. When whole breast ultrasonography is used to supplement mammography, the recall rate is higher than when mammography is used alone (14% vs 7%–11%).²² It also increases the cancer detection rate by 4.4 additional cancers per 1,000 examinations. However, the false-positive rate with whole breast ultrasonography is higher; the positive predictive value of combined mammography and ultrasonography is 11.2% vs 22.6% for mammography alone.²² Therefore, we do not generally recommend whole breast ultrasonography as a supplement to mammography in women with dense breast tissue unless other studies are not an option.

Molecular breast imaging is not widely available because it requires special equipment, injection of a radiopharamceutical (technetium Tc 99m sestamibi), and a radiologist who specializes in breast imaging to interpret the results. When it is available, however, it increases the cancer detection rate by 8.8 in 1,000 examinations; the positive predictive value is similar to that of screening mammography alone.²¹ It is particularly useful in patients with dense breasts who do not qualify for screening magnetic resonance imaging (lifetime risk of < 20% to 25%).

Technetium sestamibi is associated with a minimal amount of radiation exposure (2.4 mSv vs 1.2 mSV with standard mammography). However, this exposure is much less than background radiation exposure and is considered safe.²¹

Screening mammography can disclose abnormalities such as calcifications, masses, asymmetry, or architectural distortion.²⁷ Abnormalities are reported using standardized BI-RADS categories designated with the numbers 0 through 6 (Table 3).²³

A report of BI-RADS category 0 (incomplete), 4 (suspicious), or 5 (highly suspicious) requires additional workup.

Category 1 (negative) requires no further follow-up, and the patient should resume age-appropriate screening.

For patients with category 2 (benign) findings, routine screening is recommended, whereas patients with category 3 (probably benign) are advised to come back in 6 months for follow-up imaging.

Diagnostic mammography includes additional assessments for focal symptoms or areas of abnormality noted on screening imaging or clinical examination. These may include spot magnification views of areas of asymmetry, mass, architectural distortion, or calcifications. Ultrasonography of focal breast abnormalities can help determine if there is an underlying cyst or solid mass.

MANAGEMENT OF BENIGN FINDINGS ON BREAST BIOPSY

Benign breast disease is diagnosed when a patient with a palpable or radiographic abnormality undergoes breast biopsy with benign findings.^28,29 It can be largely grouped into 3 categories: nonproliferative, proliferative without atypia, and proliferative with atypia (Table 4).^28,29

If core-needle biopsy study results are benign, the next step is to establish radiologic-pathologic and clinical-pathologic concordance. If the findings on clinical examination or imaging are not consistent with those on pathologic study, excisional biopsy should be performed, as imaging-directed biopsy may not have adequately sampled the lesion.³⁰

Nonproliferative lesions account for about 65% of findings on core-needle biopsy and include simple cysts, fibroadenomas, columnar cell changes, apocrine metaplasia, and mild ductal hyperplasia of the usual type. These lesions do not significantly increase the risk of breast cancer; the relative risk is 1.2 to 1.4.^28,29 Additionally, the risk of “upstaging” after excisional biopsy—ie, to a higher-risk lesion or to malignancy—is minimal. Therefore, no additional action is necessary when these findings alone are noted on core-needle biopsy.

Proliferative lesions without atypia account for about 30% of biopsy results and include usual ductal hyperplasia, sclerosing adenosis, columnar hyperplasia, papilloma, and radial scar. Generally, there is a slightly increased risk of subsequent breast cancer, with a relative risk of 1.7 to 2.1.²⁸ Usual ductal hyperplasia and columnar hyperplasia have little risk of upstaging with excision, and therefore, surgical consultation is not recommended.

Previously, surgical excision was recommended for any intraductal papilloma due to risk of upgrade in pathologic diagnosis at the time of excision. However, more recent data suggest that the upgrade rate is about 2.2% for a solitary papilloma that is less than 1 cm in diameter and without associated mass lesion (either clinically or radiographically), is concordant with radiographic findings, and has no associated atypical cells on biopsy.³¹ In this case, observation and short-interval clinical follow-up are reasonable. If there are multiple papillomas, the patient has symptoms such as persistent bloody nipple discharge, or any of the above criteria are not met, surgical excision is recommended.²⁸

Similarly, radial scars and complex sclerosing lesions are increasingly likely to be associated with malignancy based on size. Upstaging ranges from 0% to 12%. It is again important when evaluating radial scars that there is pathologic concordance and that there were no associated high-risk lesions on pathology. If this is the case, it is reasonable to clinically monitor patients with small radial scars, particularly in those who do not have an elevated risk of developing breast cancer.³⁰

For all patients who have undergone biopsy and whose pathology study results are benign, a thorough risk evaluation should be performed, including calculation of their lifetime risk of breast cancer. This can be done with the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool, the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) risk calculator, or other model using family history as a basis for calculations. Patients found to have a lifetime risk of breast cancer of greater than 20% to 25% should be offered annual screening with magnetic resonance imaging in addition to mammography.

ATYPICAL HYPERPLASIA: INCREASED RISK

When biopsy study shows atypical ductal hyperplasia or atypical lobular hyperplasia, there is an increased risk of breast cancer.^28,32 The absolute overall risk of developing breast cancer in 25 years is 30%, and that risk is further stratified based on the number of foci of atypia noted in the specimen.²⁹

When core-needle biopsy study reveals atypical ductal hyperplasia in the tissue, there is a 15% to 30% risk of finding breast cancer with surgical excision.²⁸ Surgical excision is therefore recommended for atypical ductal hyperplasia noted on core-needle biopsy.²⁸

In contrast, when atypical lobular hyperplasia alone is noted, the risk of upstagingto malignancy varies widely—from 0% to 67%—although recent studies have noted risks of 1% to 3%.^33,34 Thus, the decision for surgical excision is more variable. Generally, if the atypical lobular hyperplasia is noted incidentally, is not associated with a higher grade lesion, and is concordant with imaging, it is reasonable to closely monitor with serial imaging and physical examination. Excision is unnecessary.³⁵

Patients found to have atypical hyperplasia on breast biopsy should receive counseling about risk-reducing medications. Selective estrogen receptor modulators such as tamoxifen and raloxifene have been shown to reduce the risk of breast cancer by as much as 86% in patients with atypical hyperplasia.³⁶ Similarly, aromatase inhibitors such as exemestane and anastrozole reduce breast cancer risk by approximately 65%.³⁷

Breast concerns account for approximately 3% of all female visits to a primary care practice.¹ The most common symptoms are breast lumps and breast pain.

Because breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women in the United States, affecting nearly 1 in 8 women in their lifetime, women with breast problems often fear the worst. However, only about 3.5% of women reporting a concern have cancer; most problems are benign (Table 1).¹

Here, we present an evidence-based review of common breast problems in primary care practice and discuss how to evaluate and manage them.

GENERAL APPROACH

The evaluation of a breast concern requires a systematic approach, beginning with a history that documents the onset, severity, and frequency of symptoms. If the concern is a lump or mass, ask whether it becomes more tender or increases in size at any point during the menstrual cycle.

Focus the physical examination on the cervical, supraclavicular, infraclavicular, and axillary lymph nodes and on the breast itself. Assess breast symmetry, note any skin changes such as dimpling, and check the nipples for discharge and inversion. Palpate the breasts for masses.

PALPABLE BREAST MASS: IMAGING NEEDED

If a mass is present, it is more likely to be malignant if any of the following is true:

• Firm to hard texture or indistinct margins
• Attached to the underlying deep fascia or skin
• Associated nipple inversion or skin dimpling.²

Breast masses are more likely benign if they have discrete, well-defined margins, are mobile with a soft to rubbery consistency, and change with the menstrual cycle. However, clinical features are unreliable indicators of cause, and thus additional investigation with breast imaging is warranted.

Mammography remains the diagnostic test of choice for all women age 30 or older who have a palpable breast mass. It is less effective in younger women because they are more likely to have extremely dense fibroglandular tissue that will limit its sensitivity to imaging.

Order diagnostic mammography, which includes additional views focused on the area of concern, rather than screening mammography, which includes only standard cranio­caudal and mediolateral oblique views. A skin marker should be applied over the palpable lump to aid imaging. Because a breast that contains a mass may be denser than the opposite breast or may show asymmetry, both breasts should be imaged. The sensitivity of diagnostic mammography varies from 85% to 90%, so a negative mammogram does not rule out malignancy.^2,3

Targeted ultrasonography of the palpable mass helps identify solid masses such as fibroadenomas or malignant tumors, classifies the margins (lobulated, smooth, or irregular), and assesses vascularity. Ultrasonography is particularly useful for characterizing cystic lesions (eg, simple, septated, or clustered cysts) and cysts with internal echoes. It can also identify lipomas or sebaceous cysts.

If the findings on both mammography and ultrasonography are benign, the likelihood of cancer is very low, with an estimated negative predictive value of 97% to 100%.^2,3 Additionally, the likelihood of nonmalignant findings on biopsy after benign imaging is approximately 99%.³

Although radiologic imaging can define palpable masses, it is intended as a clinical aid. Suspicious findings on clinical examination should never be ignored even if findings on imaging are reassuring, as studies have documented that about 5% of breast cancers may be detected on clinical breast examination alone.⁴

Other imaging tests such as magnetic resonance imaging may be considered occasionally if clinical suspicion remains high after negative mammography and ultrasonography, but they cannot confirm a diagnosis of malignancy. In that case, refer the patient to a surgeon for consideration of excisional biopsy.

Patients with an indeterminate lesion can return in 3 to 12 weeks for a follow-up examination and repeat imaging, which helps assess interval clinical stability. The latter option is especially helpful for patients with masses that are of low suspicion or for patients who prefer to avoid invasive tissue biopsy.

Patients with clinical and radiologic findings that suggest a benign cause can return for short-term follow-up in 6 months or in 12 months for their regular mammogram.

More than 50% of women experience breast pain at some point in their life.⁵ Of these, 35% report that the pain adversely affects their sleep, and 41% note that the pain detrimentally affects their sexual quality of life. Up to 66% of breast pain correlates directly with the patient’s menstrual cycle.⁵ Breast pain is rarely associated with malignancy.

Regardless of its severity and the low likelihood of malignancy, breast pain can be a significant source of distress for the patient, primarily because of concerns about underlying malignancy. If the patient has a focal area of pain on examination, order mammography in combination with targeted ultrasonography. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of benign findings on combination mammography and ultrasonography in this setting are as high as 100%. The incidence of underlying cancer in patients with focal breast pain and no palpable mass is approximately 1.2%.⁶

The long-term prognosis in women with diffuse, often bilateral breast pain (in the absence of additional clinical findings) is excellent. In one study, the incidence of a breast cancer diagnosis was 1.8% after a median of 51 months of follow-up.⁷ Therefore, patients presenting with diffuse pain, no palpable abnormalities, and benign imaging can be safely reassured. Magnetic resonance imaging is rarely indicated in patients with breast pain unless other clinical findings, such as a mass or skin changes, are noted and the results of mammography and ultrasonography are negative.

Treating breast pain

Treating breast pain remains a challenge. The first step is to reassure the patient about her prognosis and help her make appropriate lifestyle modifications.

A well-fitting bra. Suggest getting a professional bra fitting. Wearing a well-fitted bra that offers lift, support, and compression and reduces excess motion can help improve benign breast pain. A bra fitting is especially important for women with large breasts because it can be difficult for these women to get an accurate size. Wearing a lightly fitted bra at night may also provide comfort if there is nighttime pain with breast tissue movement.

Reducing daily caffeine intake is often advised for pain management, but strong evidence of its efficacy is lacking.

Anti-inflammatory drugs can be beneficial if used short-term, especially if costochondritis is suspected.

Danazol improves pain in more than 70% of patients with cyclical symptoms and in up to 48% of those with noncyclical symptoms.

Bromocriptine is effective in up to 54% of those with cyclical symptoms and in up to 33% of those with noncyclical symptoms.⁸ However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdrew approval for this indication because of adverse effects.

Tamoxifen, in contrast, provides relief in 94% of those with cyclical symptoms and in 56% of those with noncyclical symptoms.⁹

Adverse effects, however, limit the use of danazol, bromocriptine, and tamoxifen, and they should be prescribed only for short-term use (3 to 6 months) and only in women with chronic debilitating pain.

A few small studies have evaluated alternative options.

Toremifene is a triphenylethylene derivative similar to tamoxifen that is also used in the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer (but with fewer adverse effects). It has been documented to have a significant effect on premenstrual breast pain, with a 64% reduction in breast pain scores compared with a 26% reduction with placebo.¹⁰ However, the FDA has not approved it for this indication, and it can be cost-prohibitive.

Over-the-counter medications that may provide relief for cyclic breast pain include vitamin E or B₆, products containing oil of Vitex agnus castus (chaste tree or chasteberry), and flaxseed.^11,12

Acupuncture has been evaluated in patients with noncyclic breast pain and was found to reduce pain by 56% to 67% in one study,¹³ although it did not affect quality of life.

NIPPLE DISCHARGE

From 5% to 7% of women seek medical attention for nipple discharge.^14,15 Breast cancer is found in 5% to 15% of women who undergo surgery for nipple discharge.^16,17

Review the patient’s current medications and inquire about health conditions such as thyroid dysfunction or visual field changes that suggest a pituitary mass (which can lead to nipple discharge by causing hormonal dysregulation or hyperprolactinemia).

Palpate the breasts for an underlying mass, look for lesions on the nipple, and assess the color of the fluid. Also note whether there is discharge from one or both breasts, whether it is spontaneous or expressive, and whether it occurs from a single or multiple ducts. Nipple lesions may require further testing with punch biopsy.

Nonlactational nipple discharge is classified as physiologic or pathologic. Physiologic nipple discharge is typically bilateral, involving multiple ducts, and is often clear or straw-colored but may also be green, gray, or brown.

White, opaque fluid is often related to galactorrhea as a result of hyperprolactinemia, hypothyroidism, or medications such as antipsychotic drugs (eg, haloperidol and fluphenazine) and gastrointestinal motility agents such as metoclopramide. Discharge also commonly results from benign underlying ductal abnormalities such as intraductal papilloma, periductal mastitis, and duct ectasia.

Pathologic nipple discharge is often unilateral and persistent, occurring spontaneously from a solitary duct, and may be bloody or serous.

For women with pathologic nipple discharge who are 30 or older, diagnostic imaging with mammography and subareolar ultrasonography is recommended. If the patient is younger than 30, ultrasonography of the subareolar region alone can be used. Targeted ultrasonography of any palpable area is also advised.

Cytologic assessment of the fluid is not recommended because it can often lead to a false-positive finding of atypical cells. Imaging studies such as ductography, duct lavage, ductoscopy, and magnetic resonance imaging are also generally unnecessary; instead, a persistent clinical concern should prompt a surgical referral for consideration of duct excision.

When a patient has pathologic nipple discharge with a negative physical examination and breast imaging, studies have shown that the risk of cancer is 3% or less.¹⁸

Patients with spontaneous bloody or serous single-duct discharge with negative results on mammography and ultrasonography should be reassured that they have a low risk of underlying cancer. If the patient prefers, one approachto management is follow-up mammography and ultrasonography at 6 months and clinical examination for up to 2 years or until the discharge resolves on its own.

On the other hand, if the discharge is distressing to the patient, subareolar duct excision can be performed with both a diagnostic and therapeutic purpose.

A rash on the nipple or areolar region warrants careful evaluation because it may be the first sign of Paget disease of the breast.

In the clinical breast examination, assess the extent of the rash and the presence of any underlying breast mass or nipple discharge. Dermatitis often starts on the areola and resolves quickly with topical therapy. However, Paget disease tends to start directly on the nipple itself, is unresponsive or only partially responsive to topical therapy, and progresses gradually, leading to erosions and ultimately effacement of the nipple itself.

If the clinical examination suggests mild dermatitis and the results of breast imaging are negative, treat the patient with a topical medication because benign conditions such as dermatitis and eczema are common. However, continued follow-up is mandatory until the rash completely resolves: Paget disease sometimes initially improves with topical therapy due to its inflammatory nature.

If you suspect Paget disease or the rash does not fully resolve after 2 to 3 weeks of topical therapy, refer the patient to a dermatologist for full-thickness punch biopsy to establish the diagnosis.

Paget disease of the breast may or may not be associated with underlying ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer.¹⁹ The absence of clinical or imaging abnormalities in a patient with Paget disease does not rule out underlying malignancy.²⁰

DENSE BREASTS

Increased breast density has been shown to be a risk factor for breast cancer and may be prognostically useful when combined with the Tyrer-Cuzick model or the Gail model of breast cancer risk.²⁴

Additionally, increased density can mask cancers on mammography, significantly reducing its sensitivity. In women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts, the sensitivity of mammography for detecting cancer is only 25% to 50%.²¹ Due to this low sensitivity, supplemental imaging is helpful, particularly in women already at risk of breast cancer based on family history.

Supplemental screening

Digital mammography with tomosynthesis was approved by the FDA in 2011 for use in combination with standard digital mammography for breast cancer screening. Compared with traditional 2-dimensional mammography alone, adding 3-D tomosynthesis decreases the recall rate and increases the cancer detection rate.²⁵

Tomosynthesis tends to perform better in women with heterogeneously dense breasts (BI-RADS category C). There is no significant improvement in cancer detection in women with extremely dense breasts (BI-RADS category D).²⁶

Depending on the methodology, radiation exposure can be either higher or lower than with traditional mammography. However, in all forms, the very small amount of radiation is considered safe.

Whole breast ultrasonography. When whole breast ultrasonography is used to supplement mammography, the recall rate is higher than when mammography is used alone (14% vs 7%–11%).²² It also increases the cancer detection rate by 4.4 additional cancers per 1,000 examinations. However, the false-positive rate with whole breast ultrasonography is higher; the positive predictive value of combined mammography and ultrasonography is 11.2% vs 22.6% for mammography alone.²² Therefore, we do not generally recommend whole breast ultrasonography as a supplement to mammography in women with dense breast tissue unless other studies are not an option.

Molecular breast imaging is not widely available because it requires special equipment, injection of a radiopharamceutical (technetium Tc 99m sestamibi), and a radiologist who specializes in breast imaging to interpret the results. When it is available, however, it increases the cancer detection rate by 8.8 in 1,000 examinations; the positive predictive value is similar to that of screening mammography alone.²¹ It is particularly useful in patients with dense breasts who do not qualify for screening magnetic resonance imaging (lifetime risk of < 20% to 25%).

Technetium sestamibi is associated with a minimal amount of radiation exposure (2.4 mSv vs 1.2 mSV with standard mammography). However, this exposure is much less than background radiation exposure and is considered safe.²¹

Screening mammography can disclose abnormalities such as calcifications, masses, asymmetry, or architectural distortion.²⁷ Abnormalities are reported using standardized BI-RADS categories designated with the numbers 0 through 6 (Table 3).²³

A report of BI-RADS category 0 (incomplete), 4 (suspicious), or 5 (highly suspicious) requires additional workup.

Category 1 (negative) requires no further follow-up, and the patient should resume age-appropriate screening.

For patients with category 2 (benign) findings, routine screening is recommended, whereas patients with category 3 (probably benign) are advised to come back in 6 months for follow-up imaging.

Diagnostic mammography includes additional assessments for focal symptoms or areas of abnormality noted on screening imaging or clinical examination. These may include spot magnification views of areas of asymmetry, mass, architectural distortion, or calcifications. Ultrasonography of focal breast abnormalities can help determine if there is an underlying cyst or solid mass.

MANAGEMENT OF BENIGN FINDINGS ON BREAST BIOPSY

Benign breast disease is diagnosed when a patient with a palpable or radiographic abnormality undergoes breast biopsy with benign findings.^28,29 It can be largely grouped into 3 categories: nonproliferative, proliferative without atypia, and proliferative with atypia (Table 4).^28,29

If core-needle biopsy study results are benign, the next step is to establish radiologic-pathologic and clinical-pathologic concordance. If the findings on clinical examination or imaging are not consistent with those on pathologic study, excisional biopsy should be performed, as imaging-directed biopsy may not have adequately sampled the lesion.³⁰

Nonproliferative lesions account for about 65% of findings on core-needle biopsy and include simple cysts, fibroadenomas, columnar cell changes, apocrine metaplasia, and mild ductal hyperplasia of the usual type. These lesions do not significantly increase the risk of breast cancer; the relative risk is 1.2 to 1.4.^28,29 Additionally, the risk of “upstaging” after excisional biopsy—ie, to a higher-risk lesion or to malignancy—is minimal. Therefore, no additional action is necessary when these findings alone are noted on core-needle biopsy.

Proliferative lesions without atypia account for about 30% of biopsy results and include usual ductal hyperplasia, sclerosing adenosis, columnar hyperplasia, papilloma, and radial scar. Generally, there is a slightly increased risk of subsequent breast cancer, with a relative risk of 1.7 to 2.1.²⁸ Usual ductal hyperplasia and columnar hyperplasia have little risk of upstaging with excision, and therefore, surgical consultation is not recommended.

Previously, surgical excision was recommended for any intraductal papilloma due to risk of upgrade in pathologic diagnosis at the time of excision. However, more recent data suggest that the upgrade rate is about 2.2% for a solitary papilloma that is less than 1 cm in diameter and without associated mass lesion (either clinically or radiographically), is concordant with radiographic findings, and has no associated atypical cells on biopsy.³¹ In this case, observation and short-interval clinical follow-up are reasonable. If there are multiple papillomas, the patient has symptoms such as persistent bloody nipple discharge, or any of the above criteria are not met, surgical excision is recommended.²⁸

Similarly, radial scars and complex sclerosing lesions are increasingly likely to be associated with malignancy based on size. Upstaging ranges from 0% to 12%. It is again important when evaluating radial scars that there is pathologic concordance and that there were no associated high-risk lesions on pathology. If this is the case, it is reasonable to clinically monitor patients with small radial scars, particularly in those who do not have an elevated risk of developing breast cancer.³⁰

For all patients who have undergone biopsy and whose pathology study results are benign, a thorough risk evaluation should be performed, including calculation of their lifetime risk of breast cancer. This can be done with the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool, the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) risk calculator, or other model using family history as a basis for calculations. Patients found to have a lifetime risk of breast cancer of greater than 20% to 25% should be offered annual screening with magnetic resonance imaging in addition to mammography.

ATYPICAL HYPERPLASIA: INCREASED RISK

When biopsy study shows atypical ductal hyperplasia or atypical lobular hyperplasia, there is an increased risk of breast cancer.^28,32 The absolute overall risk of developing breast cancer in 25 years is 30%, and that risk is further stratified based on the number of foci of atypia noted in the specimen.²⁹

When core-needle biopsy study reveals atypical ductal hyperplasia in the tissue, there is a 15% to 30% risk of finding breast cancer with surgical excision.²⁸ Surgical excision is therefore recommended for atypical ductal hyperplasia noted on core-needle biopsy.²⁸

In contrast, when atypical lobular hyperplasia alone is noted, the risk of upstagingto malignancy varies widely—from 0% to 67%—although recent studies have noted risks of 1% to 3%.^33,34 Thus, the decision for surgical excision is more variable. Generally, if the atypical lobular hyperplasia is noted incidentally, is not associated with a higher grade lesion, and is concordant with imaging, it is reasonable to closely monitor with serial imaging and physical examination. Excision is unnecessary.³⁵

Patients found to have atypical hyperplasia on breast biopsy should receive counseling about risk-reducing medications. Selective estrogen receptor modulators such as tamoxifen and raloxifene have been shown to reduce the risk of breast cancer by as much as 86% in patients with atypical hyperplasia.³⁶ Similarly, aromatase inhibitors such as exemestane and anastrozole reduce breast cancer risk by approximately 65%.³⁷

Breast concerns account for approximately 3% of all female visits to a primary care practice.¹ The most common symptoms are breast lumps and breast pain.

Because breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women in the United States, affecting nearly 1 in 8 women in their lifetime, women with breast problems often fear the worst. However, only about 3.5% of women reporting a concern have cancer; most problems are benign (Table 1).¹

Here, we present an evidence-based review of common breast problems in primary care practice and discuss how to evaluate and manage them.

GENERAL APPROACH

The evaluation of a breast concern requires a systematic approach, beginning with a history that documents the onset, severity, and frequency of symptoms. If the concern is a lump or mass, ask whether it becomes more tender or increases in size at any point during the menstrual cycle.

Focus the physical examination on the cervical, supraclavicular, infraclavicular, and axillary lymph nodes and on the breast itself. Assess breast symmetry, note any skin changes such as dimpling, and check the nipples for discharge and inversion. Palpate the breasts for masses.

PALPABLE BREAST MASS: IMAGING NEEDED

If a mass is present, it is more likely to be malignant if any of the following is true:

• Firm to hard texture or indistinct margins
• Attached to the underlying deep fascia or skin
• Associated nipple inversion or skin dimpling.²

Breast masses are more likely benign if they have discrete, well-defined margins, are mobile with a soft to rubbery consistency, and change with the menstrual cycle. However, clinical features are unreliable indicators of cause, and thus additional investigation with breast imaging is warranted.

Mammography remains the diagnostic test of choice for all women age 30 or older who have a palpable breast mass. It is less effective in younger women because they are more likely to have extremely dense fibroglandular tissue that will limit its sensitivity to imaging.

Order diagnostic mammography, which includes additional views focused on the area of concern, rather than screening mammography, which includes only standard cranio­caudal and mediolateral oblique views. A skin marker should be applied over the palpable lump to aid imaging. Because a breast that contains a mass may be denser than the opposite breast or may show asymmetry, both breasts should be imaged. The sensitivity of diagnostic mammography varies from 85% to 90%, so a negative mammogram does not rule out malignancy.^2,3

Targeted ultrasonography of the palpable mass helps identify solid masses such as fibroadenomas or malignant tumors, classifies the margins (lobulated, smooth, or irregular), and assesses vascularity. Ultrasonography is particularly useful for characterizing cystic lesions (eg, simple, septated, or clustered cysts) and cysts with internal echoes. It can also identify lipomas or sebaceous cysts.

If the findings on both mammography and ultrasonography are benign, the likelihood of cancer is very low, with an estimated negative predictive value of 97% to 100%.^2,3 Additionally, the likelihood of nonmalignant findings on biopsy after benign imaging is approximately 99%.³

Although radiologic imaging can define palpable masses, it is intended as a clinical aid. Suspicious findings on clinical examination should never be ignored even if findings on imaging are reassuring, as studies have documented that about 5% of breast cancers may be detected on clinical breast examination alone.⁴

Other imaging tests such as magnetic resonance imaging may be considered occasionally if clinical suspicion remains high after negative mammography and ultrasonography, but they cannot confirm a diagnosis of malignancy. In that case, refer the patient to a surgeon for consideration of excisional biopsy.

Patients with an indeterminate lesion can return in 3 to 12 weeks for a follow-up examination and repeat imaging, which helps assess interval clinical stability. The latter option is especially helpful for patients with masses that are of low suspicion or for patients who prefer to avoid invasive tissue biopsy.

Patients with clinical and radiologic findings that suggest a benign cause can return for short-term follow-up in 6 months or in 12 months for their regular mammogram.

More than 50% of women experience breast pain at some point in their life.⁵ Of these, 35% report that the pain adversely affects their sleep, and 41% note that the pain detrimentally affects their sexual quality of life. Up to 66% of breast pain correlates directly with the patient’s menstrual cycle.⁵ Breast pain is rarely associated with malignancy.

Regardless of its severity and the low likelihood of malignancy, breast pain can be a significant source of distress for the patient, primarily because of concerns about underlying malignancy. If the patient has a focal area of pain on examination, order mammography in combination with targeted ultrasonography. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of benign findings on combination mammography and ultrasonography in this setting are as high as 100%. The incidence of underlying cancer in patients with focal breast pain and no palpable mass is approximately 1.2%.⁶

The long-term prognosis in women with diffuse, often bilateral breast pain (in the absence of additional clinical findings) is excellent. In one study, the incidence of a breast cancer diagnosis was 1.8% after a median of 51 months of follow-up.⁷ Therefore, patients presenting with diffuse pain, no palpable abnormalities, and benign imaging can be safely reassured. Magnetic resonance imaging is rarely indicated in patients with breast pain unless other clinical findings, such as a mass or skin changes, are noted and the results of mammography and ultrasonography are negative.

Treating breast pain

Treating breast pain remains a challenge. The first step is to reassure the patient about her prognosis and help her make appropriate lifestyle modifications.

A well-fitting bra. Suggest getting a professional bra fitting. Wearing a well-fitted bra that offers lift, support, and compression and reduces excess motion can help improve benign breast pain. A bra fitting is especially important for women with large breasts because it can be difficult for these women to get an accurate size. Wearing a lightly fitted bra at night may also provide comfort if there is nighttime pain with breast tissue movement.

Reducing daily caffeine intake is often advised for pain management, but strong evidence of its efficacy is lacking.

Anti-inflammatory drugs can be beneficial if used short-term, especially if costochondritis is suspected.

Danazol improves pain in more than 70% of patients with cyclical symptoms and in up to 48% of those with noncyclical symptoms.

Bromocriptine is effective in up to 54% of those with cyclical symptoms and in up to 33% of those with noncyclical symptoms.⁸ However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdrew approval for this indication because of adverse effects.

Tamoxifen, in contrast, provides relief in 94% of those with cyclical symptoms and in 56% of those with noncyclical symptoms.⁹

Adverse effects, however, limit the use of danazol, bromocriptine, and tamoxifen, and they should be prescribed only for short-term use (3 to 6 months) and only in women with chronic debilitating pain.

A few small studies have evaluated alternative options.

Toremifene is a triphenylethylene derivative similar to tamoxifen that is also used in the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer (but with fewer adverse effects). It has been documented to have a significant effect on premenstrual breast pain, with a 64% reduction in breast pain scores compared with a 26% reduction with placebo.¹⁰ However, the FDA has not approved it for this indication, and it can be cost-prohibitive.

Over-the-counter medications that may provide relief for cyclic breast pain include vitamin E or B₆, products containing oil of Vitex agnus castus (chaste tree or chasteberry), and flaxseed.^11,12

Acupuncture has been evaluated in patients with noncyclic breast pain and was found to reduce pain by 56% to 67% in one study,¹³ although it did not affect quality of life.

NIPPLE DISCHARGE

From 5% to 7% of women seek medical attention for nipple discharge.^14,15 Breast cancer is found in 5% to 15% of women who undergo surgery for nipple discharge.^16,17

Review the patient’s current medications and inquire about health conditions such as thyroid dysfunction or visual field changes that suggest a pituitary mass (which can lead to nipple discharge by causing hormonal dysregulation or hyperprolactinemia).

Palpate the breasts for an underlying mass, look for lesions on the nipple, and assess the color of the fluid. Also note whether there is discharge from one or both breasts, whether it is spontaneous or expressive, and whether it occurs from a single or multiple ducts. Nipple lesions may require further testing with punch biopsy.

Nonlactational nipple discharge is classified as physiologic or pathologic. Physiologic nipple discharge is typically bilateral, involving multiple ducts, and is often clear or straw-colored but may also be green, gray, or brown.

White, opaque fluid is often related to galactorrhea as a result of hyperprolactinemia, hypothyroidism, or medications such as antipsychotic drugs (eg, haloperidol and fluphenazine) and gastrointestinal motility agents such as metoclopramide. Discharge also commonly results from benign underlying ductal abnormalities such as intraductal papilloma, periductal mastitis, and duct ectasia.

Pathologic nipple discharge is often unilateral and persistent, occurring spontaneously from a solitary duct, and may be bloody or serous.

For women with pathologic nipple discharge who are 30 or older, diagnostic imaging with mammography and subareolar ultrasonography is recommended. If the patient is younger than 30, ultrasonography of the subareolar region alone can be used. Targeted ultrasonography of any palpable area is also advised.

Cytologic assessment of the fluid is not recommended because it can often lead to a false-positive finding of atypical cells. Imaging studies such as ductography, duct lavage, ductoscopy, and magnetic resonance imaging are also generally unnecessary; instead, a persistent clinical concern should prompt a surgical referral for consideration of duct excision.

When a patient has pathologic nipple discharge with a negative physical examination and breast imaging, studies have shown that the risk of cancer is 3% or less.¹⁸

Patients with spontaneous bloody or serous single-duct discharge with negative results on mammography and ultrasonography should be reassured that they have a low risk of underlying cancer. If the patient prefers, one approachto management is follow-up mammography and ultrasonography at 6 months and clinical examination for up to 2 years or until the discharge resolves on its own.

On the other hand, if the discharge is distressing to the patient, subareolar duct excision can be performed with both a diagnostic and therapeutic purpose.

A rash on the nipple or areolar region warrants careful evaluation because it may be the first sign of Paget disease of the breast.

In the clinical breast examination, assess the extent of the rash and the presence of any underlying breast mass or nipple discharge. Dermatitis often starts on the areola and resolves quickly with topical therapy. However, Paget disease tends to start directly on the nipple itself, is unresponsive or only partially responsive to topical therapy, and progresses gradually, leading to erosions and ultimately effacement of the nipple itself.

If the clinical examination suggests mild dermatitis and the results of breast imaging are negative, treat the patient with a topical medication because benign conditions such as dermatitis and eczema are common. However, continued follow-up is mandatory until the rash completely resolves: Paget disease sometimes initially improves with topical therapy due to its inflammatory nature.

If you suspect Paget disease or the rash does not fully resolve after 2 to 3 weeks of topical therapy, refer the patient to a dermatologist for full-thickness punch biopsy to establish the diagnosis.

Paget disease of the breast may or may not be associated with underlying ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer.¹⁹ The absence of clinical or imaging abnormalities in a patient with Paget disease does not rule out underlying malignancy.²⁰

DENSE BREASTS

Increased breast density has been shown to be a risk factor for breast cancer and may be prognostically useful when combined with the Tyrer-Cuzick model or the Gail model of breast cancer risk.²⁴

Additionally, increased density can mask cancers on mammography, significantly reducing its sensitivity. In women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts, the sensitivity of mammography for detecting cancer is only 25% to 50%.²¹ Due to this low sensitivity, supplemental imaging is helpful, particularly in women already at risk of breast cancer based on family history.

Supplemental screening

Digital mammography with tomosynthesis was approved by the FDA in 2011 for use in combination with standard digital mammography for breast cancer screening. Compared with traditional 2-dimensional mammography alone, adding 3-D tomosynthesis decreases the recall rate and increases the cancer detection rate.²⁵

Tomosynthesis tends to perform better in women with heterogeneously dense breasts (BI-RADS category C). There is no significant improvement in cancer detection in women with extremely dense breasts (BI-RADS category D).²⁶

Depending on the methodology, radiation exposure can be either higher or lower than with traditional mammography. However, in all forms, the very small amount of radiation is considered safe.

Whole breast ultrasonography. When whole breast ultrasonography is used to supplement mammography, the recall rate is higher than when mammography is used alone (14% vs 7%–11%).²² It also increases the cancer detection rate by 4.4 additional cancers per 1,000 examinations. However, the false-positive rate with whole breast ultrasonography is higher; the positive predictive value of combined mammography and ultrasonography is 11.2% vs 22.6% for mammography alone.²² Therefore, we do not generally recommend whole breast ultrasonography as a supplement to mammography in women with dense breast tissue unless other studies are not an option.

Molecular breast imaging is not widely available because it requires special equipment, injection of a radiopharamceutical (technetium Tc 99m sestamibi), and a radiologist who specializes in breast imaging to interpret the results. When it is available, however, it increases the cancer detection rate by 8.8 in 1,000 examinations; the positive predictive value is similar to that of screening mammography alone.²¹ It is particularly useful in patients with dense breasts who do not qualify for screening magnetic resonance imaging (lifetime risk of < 20% to 25%).

Technetium sestamibi is associated with a minimal amount of radiation exposure (2.4 mSv vs 1.2 mSV with standard mammography). However, this exposure is much less than background radiation exposure and is considered safe.²¹

Screening mammography can disclose abnormalities such as calcifications, masses, asymmetry, or architectural distortion.²⁷ Abnormalities are reported using standardized BI-RADS categories designated with the numbers 0 through 6 (Table 3).²³

A report of BI-RADS category 0 (incomplete), 4 (suspicious), or 5 (highly suspicious) requires additional workup.

Category 1 (negative) requires no further follow-up, and the patient should resume age-appropriate screening.

For patients with category 2 (benign) findings, routine screening is recommended, whereas patients with category 3 (probably benign) are advised to come back in 6 months for follow-up imaging.

Diagnostic mammography includes additional assessments for focal symptoms or areas of abnormality noted on screening imaging or clinical examination. These may include spot magnification views of areas of asymmetry, mass, architectural distortion, or calcifications. Ultrasonography of focal breast abnormalities can help determine if there is an underlying cyst or solid mass.

MANAGEMENT OF BENIGN FINDINGS ON BREAST BIOPSY

Benign breast disease is diagnosed when a patient with a palpable or radiographic abnormality undergoes breast biopsy with benign findings.^28,29 It can be largely grouped into 3 categories: nonproliferative, proliferative without atypia, and proliferative with atypia (Table 4).^28,29

If core-needle biopsy study results are benign, the next step is to establish radiologic-pathologic and clinical-pathologic concordance. If the findings on clinical examination or imaging are not consistent with those on pathologic study, excisional biopsy should be performed, as imaging-directed biopsy may not have adequately sampled the lesion.³⁰

Nonproliferative lesions account for about 65% of findings on core-needle biopsy and include simple cysts, fibroadenomas, columnar cell changes, apocrine metaplasia, and mild ductal hyperplasia of the usual type. These lesions do not significantly increase the risk of breast cancer; the relative risk is 1.2 to 1.4.^28,29 Additionally, the risk of “upstaging” after excisional biopsy—ie, to a higher-risk lesion or to malignancy—is minimal. Therefore, no additional action is necessary when these findings alone are noted on core-needle biopsy.

Proliferative lesions without atypia account for about 30% of biopsy results and include usual ductal hyperplasia, sclerosing adenosis, columnar hyperplasia, papilloma, and radial scar. Generally, there is a slightly increased risk of subsequent breast cancer, with a relative risk of 1.7 to 2.1.²⁸ Usual ductal hyperplasia and columnar hyperplasia have little risk of upstaging with excision, and therefore, surgical consultation is not recommended.

Previously, surgical excision was recommended for any intraductal papilloma due to risk of upgrade in pathologic diagnosis at the time of excision. However, more recent data suggest that the upgrade rate is about 2.2% for a solitary papilloma that is less than 1 cm in diameter and without associated mass lesion (either clinically or radiographically), is concordant with radiographic findings, and has no associated atypical cells on biopsy.³¹ In this case, observation and short-interval clinical follow-up are reasonable. If there are multiple papillomas, the patient has symptoms such as persistent bloody nipple discharge, or any of the above criteria are not met, surgical excision is recommended.²⁸

Similarly, radial scars and complex sclerosing lesions are increasingly likely to be associated with malignancy based on size. Upstaging ranges from 0% to 12%. It is again important when evaluating radial scars that there is pathologic concordance and that there were no associated high-risk lesions on pathology. If this is the case, it is reasonable to clinically monitor patients with small radial scars, particularly in those who do not have an elevated risk of developing breast cancer.³⁰

For all patients who have undergone biopsy and whose pathology study results are benign, a thorough risk evaluation should be performed, including calculation of their lifetime risk of breast cancer. This can be done with the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool, the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) risk calculator, or other model using family history as a basis for calculations. Patients found to have a lifetime risk of breast cancer of greater than 20% to 25% should be offered annual screening with magnetic resonance imaging in addition to mammography.

ATYPICAL HYPERPLASIA: INCREASED RISK

When biopsy study shows atypical ductal hyperplasia or atypical lobular hyperplasia, there is an increased risk of breast cancer.^28,32 The absolute overall risk of developing breast cancer in 25 years is 30%, and that risk is further stratified based on the number of foci of atypia noted in the specimen.²⁹

When core-needle biopsy study reveals atypical ductal hyperplasia in the tissue, there is a 15% to 30% risk of finding breast cancer with surgical excision.²⁸ Surgical excision is therefore recommended for atypical ductal hyperplasia noted on core-needle biopsy.²⁸

In contrast, when atypical lobular hyperplasia alone is noted, the risk of upstagingto malignancy varies widely—from 0% to 67%—although recent studies have noted risks of 1% to 3%.^33,34 Thus, the decision for surgical excision is more variable. Generally, if the atypical lobular hyperplasia is noted incidentally, is not associated with a higher grade lesion, and is concordant with imaging, it is reasonable to closely monitor with serial imaging and physical examination. Excision is unnecessary.³⁵

Patients found to have atypical hyperplasia on breast biopsy should receive counseling about risk-reducing medications. Selective estrogen receptor modulators such as tamoxifen and raloxifene have been shown to reduce the risk of breast cancer by as much as 86% in patients with atypical hyperplasia.³⁶ Similarly, aromatase inhibitors such as exemestane and anastrozole reduce breast cancer risk by approximately 65%.³⁷

A 79-year-old man presented with sudden-onset bilateral weakness in the lower and upper extremities that had started 6 hours earlier. He reported no vision disturbances or urinary incontinence. He was afebrile, with a blood pressure of 148/94 mm Hg, heart rate 98 bpm, and oxygen saturation of 95% on room air.

Physical examination revealed quadriplegia with hyperreflexia, sustained ankle clonus, and bilateral Babinski reflex, as well as spontaneous adductor and extensor spasms of the lower extremities.

Funduscopy was negative for optic neuritis. Results of a complete blood cell count and renal and liver function testing were within normal limits.

The patient was admitted to the intensive care unit. Methylprednisolone 1 g was given intravenously once daily for 5 days, with plasma exchange every other day for 5 sessions. A workup for neoplastic, autoimmune, and infectious disease was negative, as was testing for serum aquaporin-4 antibody (ie, neuromyelitis optica immunoglobulin G antibody).

Over the course of 7 days, the patient’s motor strength improved, and he was able to walk without assistance. Steroid therapy was tapered, and he was prescribed rituximab to prevent recurrence.

LONGITUDINALLY EXTENSIVE TRANSVERSE MYELITIS

A subtype of transverse myelitis, LETM is defined by partial or complete spinal cord dysfunction due to a lesion extending 3 or more vertebrae as confirmed on MRI. The clinical presentation can include paraparesis, sensory disturbances, and gait, bladder, bowel, or sexual dysfunction.¹ Identifying the cause requires an extensive workup, as the differential diagnosis includes a wide range of conditions²:

• Autoimmune disorders such as Behçet disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, and Sjögren syndrome
• Infectious disorders such as syphilis, tuberculosis, and viral and parasitic infections
• Demyelinating disorders such as multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis optica
• Neoplastic conditions such as intramedullary metastasis and lymphoma
• Paraneoplastic syndromes.

In our patient, the evaluation did not identify a specific underlying condition, and testing for serum aquaporin-4 antibody was negative. Therefore, the LETM was ruled an isolated idiopathic episode.

Idiopathic seronegative LETM has been associated with fewer recurrences than sero­positive LETM.³ Management consists of high-dose intravenous steroids and plasma exchange. Rituximab can be used to prevent recurrence.⁴

A 79-year-old man presented with sudden-onset bilateral weakness in the lower and upper extremities that had started 6 hours earlier. He reported no vision disturbances or urinary incontinence. He was afebrile, with a blood pressure of 148/94 mm Hg, heart rate 98 bpm, and oxygen saturation of 95% on room air.

Physical examination revealed quadriplegia with hyperreflexia, sustained ankle clonus, and bilateral Babinski reflex, as well as spontaneous adductor and extensor spasms of the lower extremities.

Funduscopy was negative for optic neuritis. Results of a complete blood cell count and renal and liver function testing were within normal limits.

The patient was admitted to the intensive care unit. Methylprednisolone 1 g was given intravenously once daily for 5 days, with plasma exchange every other day for 5 sessions. A workup for neoplastic, autoimmune, and infectious disease was negative, as was testing for serum aquaporin-4 antibody (ie, neuromyelitis optica immunoglobulin G antibody).

Over the course of 7 days, the patient’s motor strength improved, and he was able to walk without assistance. Steroid therapy was tapered, and he was prescribed rituximab to prevent recurrence.

LONGITUDINALLY EXTENSIVE TRANSVERSE MYELITIS

A subtype of transverse myelitis, LETM is defined by partial or complete spinal cord dysfunction due to a lesion extending 3 or more vertebrae as confirmed on MRI. The clinical presentation can include paraparesis, sensory disturbances, and gait, bladder, bowel, or sexual dysfunction.¹ Identifying the cause requires an extensive workup, as the differential diagnosis includes a wide range of conditions²:

• Autoimmune disorders such as Behçet disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, and Sjögren syndrome
• Infectious disorders such as syphilis, tuberculosis, and viral and parasitic infections
• Demyelinating disorders such as multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis optica
• Neoplastic conditions such as intramedullary metastasis and lymphoma
• Paraneoplastic syndromes.

In our patient, the evaluation did not identify a specific underlying condition, and testing for serum aquaporin-4 antibody was negative. Therefore, the LETM was ruled an isolated idiopathic episode.

Idiopathic seronegative LETM has been associated with fewer recurrences than sero­positive LETM.³ Management consists of high-dose intravenous steroids and plasma exchange. Rituximab can be used to prevent recurrence.⁴

A 79-year-old man presented with sudden-onset bilateral weakness in the lower and upper extremities that had started 6 hours earlier. He reported no vision disturbances or urinary incontinence. He was afebrile, with a blood pressure of 148/94 mm Hg, heart rate 98 bpm, and oxygen saturation of 95% on room air.

Physical examination revealed quadriplegia with hyperreflexia, sustained ankle clonus, and bilateral Babinski reflex, as well as spontaneous adductor and extensor spasms of the lower extremities.

Funduscopy was negative for optic neuritis. Results of a complete blood cell count and renal and liver function testing were within normal limits.

The patient was admitted to the intensive care unit. Methylprednisolone 1 g was given intravenously once daily for 5 days, with plasma exchange every other day for 5 sessions. A workup for neoplastic, autoimmune, and infectious disease was negative, as was testing for serum aquaporin-4 antibody (ie, neuromyelitis optica immunoglobulin G antibody).

Over the course of 7 days, the patient’s motor strength improved, and he was able to walk without assistance. Steroid therapy was tapered, and he was prescribed rituximab to prevent recurrence.

LONGITUDINALLY EXTENSIVE TRANSVERSE MYELITIS

A subtype of transverse myelitis, LETM is defined by partial or complete spinal cord dysfunction due to a lesion extending 3 or more vertebrae as confirmed on MRI. The clinical presentation can include paraparesis, sensory disturbances, and gait, bladder, bowel, or sexual dysfunction.¹ Identifying the cause requires an extensive workup, as the differential diagnosis includes a wide range of conditions²:

• Autoimmune disorders such as Behçet disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, and Sjögren syndrome
• Infectious disorders such as syphilis, tuberculosis, and viral and parasitic infections
• Demyelinating disorders such as multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis optica
• Neoplastic conditions such as intramedullary metastasis and lymphoma
• Paraneoplastic syndromes.

In our patient, the evaluation did not identify a specific underlying condition, and testing for serum aquaporin-4 antibody was negative. Therefore, the LETM was ruled an isolated idiopathic episode.

Idiopathic seronegative LETM has been associated with fewer recurrences than sero­positive LETM.³ Management consists of high-dose intravenous steroids and plasma exchange. Rituximab can be used to prevent recurrence.⁴

A 59-year-old woman with a history of chronic kidney disease and atonic bladder was brought to the hospital by emergency medical services. She had fallen in her home 2 days earlier and remained on the floor until neighbors eventually heard her cries and called 911. She complained of abdominal pain and distention along with emesis.

On presentation, she had tachycardia and tachypnea. The examination was notable for pronounced abdominal distention, diminished bowel sounds, and costovertebral angle tenderness.

While laboratory work was being done, the patient’s tachypnea progressed to respiratory distress, and she ultimately required intubation. Vasopressors were started, as the patient was hemodynamically unstable. A Foley catheter was placed, which yielded about 1,100 mL of purulent urine.

Laboratory workup showed:

• Procalcitonin 189 ng/mL (reference range < 2.0 ng/mL)  
• White blood cell count 10.7 × 10⁹/L (4.5–10.0)
• Myoglobin 20,000 ng/mL (< 71)
• Serum creatinine 4.8 mg/dL (0.06–1.10).

Urinalysis was positive for infection; blood and urine cultures later were positive for Escherichia coli.

The patient went into shock that was refractory to pressors, culminating in cardiac arrest despite resuscitative measures.

EMPHYSEMATOUS CYSTITIS, A FORM OF URINARY TRACT INFECTION

Emphysematous cystitis is a rare form of complicated urinary tract infection characterized by gas inside the bladder and in the bladder wall. While the exact mechanisms underlying gas formation are not clear, gas-producing pathogens are clearly implicated in severe infection. E coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae are the most common organisms associated with emphysematous cystitis; others include Proteus mirabilis, and Enterobacter and Streptococcus species.^1,2

More than 50% of patients with emphysematous cystitis have diabetes mellitus. Other risk factors include bladder outlet obstruction, neurogenic bladder, and female sex.³ The severity of disease ranges from asymptomatic pneumaturia (up to 7% of cases)² to fulminant emphysematous cystitis, as in our patient.

The clinical presentation of emphysematous cystitis is nonspecific and can range from minimally symptomatic urinary tract infection to acute abdomen and septic shock.⁴

Some patients present with pneumaturia (the passing of gas through the urethra with micturition). Pneumaturia arises from 3 discrete causes: urologic instrumentation, fistula between the bladder and large or small bowel, and gas-producing bacteria in the bladder (emphysematous cystitis).⁵ Pneumaturia should always raise the suspicion of emphysematous cystitis.

The diagnosis can be made with either radiographic or computed tomographic evidence of gas within the bladder and bladder wall, in the absence of both bladder fistula and history of iatrogenic pneumaturia. Emphysematous cystitis should prompt urine and blood cultures to direct antimicrobial therapy, as 50% of patients with emphysematous cystitis have concomitant bacteremia.⁶

Our patient had an elevated serum level of procalcitonin, a marker of bacterial infection. Procalcitonin is a more specific biomarker of bacterial infection than acute-phase reactants such as the erythrocyte sedimentation rate or the C-reactive protein level. Measuring procalcitonin may help physicians make the diagnosis earlier, differentiate infectious from sterile causes of severe systemic inflammation, assess the severity of systemic inflammation caused by bacterial infections, and decide whether to start or discontinue antibiotic therapy.⁷

Most cases of emphysematous cystitis can be treated with antibiotics, though early diagnosis is crucial to a favorable outcome. Delay in diagnosis may contribute to the 20% mortality rate associated with this condition.⁶    

A 59-year-old woman with a history of chronic kidney disease and atonic bladder was brought to the hospital by emergency medical services. She had fallen in her home 2 days earlier and remained on the floor until neighbors eventually heard her cries and called 911. She complained of abdominal pain and distention along with emesis.

On presentation, she had tachycardia and tachypnea. The examination was notable for pronounced abdominal distention, diminished bowel sounds, and costovertebral angle tenderness.

While laboratory work was being done, the patient’s tachypnea progressed to respiratory distress, and she ultimately required intubation. Vasopressors were started, as the patient was hemodynamically unstable. A Foley catheter was placed, which yielded about 1,100 mL of purulent urine.

Laboratory workup showed:

• Procalcitonin 189 ng/mL (reference range < 2.0 ng/mL)  
• White blood cell count 10.7 × 10⁹/L (4.5–10.0)
• Myoglobin 20,000 ng/mL (< 71)
• Serum creatinine 4.8 mg/dL (0.06–1.10).

Urinalysis was positive for infection; blood and urine cultures later were positive for Escherichia coli.

The patient went into shock that was refractory to pressors, culminating in cardiac arrest despite resuscitative measures.

EMPHYSEMATOUS CYSTITIS, A FORM OF URINARY TRACT INFECTION

Emphysematous cystitis is a rare form of complicated urinary tract infection characterized by gas inside the bladder and in the bladder wall. While the exact mechanisms underlying gas formation are not clear, gas-producing pathogens are clearly implicated in severe infection. E coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae are the most common organisms associated with emphysematous cystitis; others include Proteus mirabilis, and Enterobacter and Streptococcus species.^1,2

More than 50% of patients with emphysematous cystitis have diabetes mellitus. Other risk factors include bladder outlet obstruction, neurogenic bladder, and female sex.³ The severity of disease ranges from asymptomatic pneumaturia (up to 7% of cases)² to fulminant emphysematous cystitis, as in our patient.

The clinical presentation of emphysematous cystitis is nonspecific and can range from minimally symptomatic urinary tract infection to acute abdomen and septic shock.⁴

Some patients present with pneumaturia (the passing of gas through the urethra with micturition). Pneumaturia arises from 3 discrete causes: urologic instrumentation, fistula between the bladder and large or small bowel, and gas-producing bacteria in the bladder (emphysematous cystitis).⁵ Pneumaturia should always raise the suspicion of emphysematous cystitis.

The diagnosis can be made with either radiographic or computed tomographic evidence of gas within the bladder and bladder wall, in the absence of both bladder fistula and history of iatrogenic pneumaturia. Emphysematous cystitis should prompt urine and blood cultures to direct antimicrobial therapy, as 50% of patients with emphysematous cystitis have concomitant bacteremia.⁶

Our patient had an elevated serum level of procalcitonin, a marker of bacterial infection. Procalcitonin is a more specific biomarker of bacterial infection than acute-phase reactants such as the erythrocyte sedimentation rate or the C-reactive protein level. Measuring procalcitonin may help physicians make the diagnosis earlier, differentiate infectious from sterile causes of severe systemic inflammation, assess the severity of systemic inflammation caused by bacterial infections, and decide whether to start or discontinue antibiotic therapy.⁷

Most cases of emphysematous cystitis can be treated with antibiotics, though early diagnosis is crucial to a favorable outcome. Delay in diagnosis may contribute to the 20% mortality rate associated with this condition.⁶    

A 59-year-old woman with a history of chronic kidney disease and atonic bladder was brought to the hospital by emergency medical services. She had fallen in her home 2 days earlier and remained on the floor until neighbors eventually heard her cries and called 911. She complained of abdominal pain and distention along with emesis.

On presentation, she had tachycardia and tachypnea. The examination was notable for pronounced abdominal distention, diminished bowel sounds, and costovertebral angle tenderness.

While laboratory work was being done, the patient’s tachypnea progressed to respiratory distress, and she ultimately required intubation. Vasopressors were started, as the patient was hemodynamically unstable. A Foley catheter was placed, which yielded about 1,100 mL of purulent urine.

Laboratory workup showed:

• Procalcitonin 189 ng/mL (reference range < 2.0 ng/mL)  
• White blood cell count 10.7 × 10⁹/L (4.5–10.0)
• Myoglobin 20,000 ng/mL (< 71)
• Serum creatinine 4.8 mg/dL (0.06–1.10).

Urinalysis was positive for infection; blood and urine cultures later were positive for Escherichia coli.

The patient went into shock that was refractory to pressors, culminating in cardiac arrest despite resuscitative measures.

EMPHYSEMATOUS CYSTITIS, A FORM OF URINARY TRACT INFECTION

Emphysematous cystitis is a rare form of complicated urinary tract infection characterized by gas inside the bladder and in the bladder wall. While the exact mechanisms underlying gas formation are not clear, gas-producing pathogens are clearly implicated in severe infection. E coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae are the most common organisms associated with emphysematous cystitis; others include Proteus mirabilis, and Enterobacter and Streptococcus species.^1,2

More than 50% of patients with emphysematous cystitis have diabetes mellitus. Other risk factors include bladder outlet obstruction, neurogenic bladder, and female sex.³ The severity of disease ranges from asymptomatic pneumaturia (up to 7% of cases)² to fulminant emphysematous cystitis, as in our patient.

The clinical presentation of emphysematous cystitis is nonspecific and can range from minimally symptomatic urinary tract infection to acute abdomen and septic shock.⁴

Some patients present with pneumaturia (the passing of gas through the urethra with micturition). Pneumaturia arises from 3 discrete causes: urologic instrumentation, fistula between the bladder and large or small bowel, and gas-producing bacteria in the bladder (emphysematous cystitis).⁵ Pneumaturia should always raise the suspicion of emphysematous cystitis.

The diagnosis can be made with either radiographic or computed tomographic evidence of gas within the bladder and bladder wall, in the absence of both bladder fistula and history of iatrogenic pneumaturia. Emphysematous cystitis should prompt urine and blood cultures to direct antimicrobial therapy, as 50% of patients with emphysematous cystitis have concomitant bacteremia.⁶

Our patient had an elevated serum level of procalcitonin, a marker of bacterial infection. Procalcitonin is a more specific biomarker of bacterial infection than acute-phase reactants such as the erythrocyte sedimentation rate or the C-reactive protein level. Measuring procalcitonin may help physicians make the diagnosis earlier, differentiate infectious from sterile causes of severe systemic inflammation, assess the severity of systemic inflammation caused by bacterial infections, and decide whether to start or discontinue antibiotic therapy.⁷

Most cases of emphysematous cystitis can be treated with antibiotics, though early diagnosis is crucial to a favorable outcome. Delay in diagnosis may contribute to the 20% mortality rate associated with this condition.⁶    

A 33-year-old male nonsmoker with no significant medical history presented to the pulmonary clinic with severe left-sided pleuritic chest pain and mild breathlessness for the past 5 days. He denied fever, chills, cough, phlegm, runny nose, or congestion.

Five days before this visit, he had been seen in the emergency department with mild left-sided pleuritic chest pain. His vital signs at that time had been as follows:

• Blood pressure 141/77 mm Hg
• Heart rate 77 beats/minute
• Respiratory rate 17 breaths/minute
• Temperature 36.8°C (98.2°F)
• Oxygen saturation 98% on room air.

• White blood cell count 6.89 × 10⁹/L (reference range 3.70–11.00)
• Neutrophils 58% (40%–70%)
• Lymphocytes 29.6% (22%–44%)
• Monocytes 10.7% (0–11%)
• Eosinophils 1% (0–4%)
• Basophils 0.6% (0–1%)
• Troponin T and D-dimer levels normal.

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS OF PLEURITIC CHEST PAIN

1. What is the most likely cause of his pleuritic chest pain?

• Pleuritis
• Pneumonia
• Pulmonary embolism
• Malignancy

The differential diagnosis of pleuritic chest pain is broad.

The patient’s symptoms at presentation to the emergency department did not suggest an infectious process. There was no fever, cough, or phlegm, and his white blood cell count was normal. Nonetheless, pneumonia could not be ruled out, as the lung parenchyma was not normal on radiography, and the findings could have been consistent with an early or resolving infectious process.

Pulmonary embolism was a possibility, but his normal D-dimer level argued against it. Further, the patient subsequently underwent CT angiography, which ruled out pulmonary embolism.

Malignancy was unlikely in a young nonsmoker, but follow-up imaging would be needed to ensure resolution and rule this out.

The emergency department physician diagnosed inflammatory pleuritis and discharged him home on a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

CLINIC VISIT 5 DAYS LATER

At his pulmonary clinic visit 5 days later, the patient reported persistent but stable left-sided pleuritic chest pain and mild breathlessness on exertion. His blood pressure was 137/81 mm Hg, heart rate 109 beats per minute, temperature 37.1°C (98.8°F), and oxygen saturation 97% on room air.

Auscultation of the lungs revealed rales and slightly decreased breath sounds at the left base. No dullness to percussion could be detected.

Because the patient had developed mild tachycardia and breathlessness along with clinical signs that suggested worsening infiltrates, consolidation, or the development of pleural effusion, he underwent further investigation with chest radiography, a complete blood cell count, and measurement of serum inflammatory markers.

• White blood cell count 13.08 × 10⁹/L
• Neutrophils 81%
• Lymphocytes 7.4%
• Monocytes 7.2%
• Eeosinophils 0.2%
• Basophils 0.2%
• Procalcitonin 0.34 µg/L (reference range < 0.09).

Bedside ultrasonography to assess the effusion’s size and characteristics and the need for thoracentesis indicated that the effusion was too small to tap, and there were no fibrinous strands or loculations to suggest empyema.

2. What was the best management strategy for this patient at this time?

• Admit to the hospital for thoracentesis and intravenous antibiotics
• Give oral antibiotics with close follow-up
• Perform thoracentesis on an outpatient basis and give oral antibiotics
• Repeat chest CT

The patient had worsening pleuritic pain with development of a small left pleural effusion. His symptoms had not improved on a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. He now had an elevated white blood cell count with a “left shift” (ie, an increase in neutrophils, indicating more immature cells in circulation) and elevated procalcitonin. The most likely diagnosis was pneumonia with a resulting pleural effusion, ie, parapneumonic effusion, requiring appropriate antibiotic therapy. Ideally, the pleural effusion should be sampled by thoracentesis, with management on an outpatient or inpatient basis.

5 DAYS LATER, THE EFFUSION HAD BECOME MASSIVE

On follow-up 5 days later, the patient’s chest pain was better, but he was significantly more short of breath. His blood pressure was 137/90 mm Hg, heart rate 117 beats/minute, respiratory rate 16 breaths/minute, oxygen saturation 97% on room air, and temperature 36.9°C (98.4°F). Chest auscultation revealed decreased breath sounds over the left hemithorax, with dullness to percussion and decreased fremitus.

RAPIDLY PROGRESSIVE PLEURAL EFFUSIONS

A rapidly progressive pleural effusion in a healthy patient suggests parapneumonic effusion. The most likely organism is streptococcal.²

Explosive pleuritis is defined as a pleural effusion that increases in size in less than 24 hours. It was first described by Braman and Donat³ in 1986 as an effusion that develops within hours of admission. In 2001, Sharma and Marrie⁴ refined the definition as rapid development of pleural effusion involving more than 90% of the hemithorax within 24 hours, causing compression of pulmonary tissue and a mediastinal shift. It is a medical emergency that requires prompt investigation and treatment with drainage and antibiotics. All reported cases of explosive pleuritis have been parapneumonic effusion.

The organisms implicated in explosive pleuritis include gram-positive cocci such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, S pyogenes, other streptococci, staphylococci, and gram-negative cocci such as Neisseria meningitidis and Moraxella catarrhalis. Gram-negative bacilli include Haemophilus influenzae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas species, Escherichia coli, Proteus species, Enterobacter species, Bacteroides species, and Legionella species.^4,5 However, malignancy is the most common cause of massive pleural effusion, accounting for 54% of cases; 17% of cases are idiopathic, 13% are parapneumonic, and 12% are hydrothorax related to liver cirrhosis.⁶

CASE CONTINUED

Our patient’s massive effusion needed drainage, and he was admitted to the hospital for further management. Samples of blood and sputum were sent for culture. Intravenous piperacillin-tazobactam was started, and an intercostal chest tube was inserted into the pleural cavity under ultrasonographic guidance to drain turbid fluid.

Multiple pleural fluid samples sent for bacterial, fungal, and acid-fast bacilli culture were negative. Blood and sputum cultures also showed no growth. The administration of oral antibiotics for 5 days on an outpatient basis before pleural fluid culture could have led to sterility of all cultures.

Our patient had inadequate pleural fluid output through his chest tube, and radiography showed that the pleural collections failed to clear. In fact, an apical locule did not appear to be connecting with the lower aspect of the pleural collection. In such cases, instillation of intrapleural agents through the chest tube has become common practice in an attempt to lyse adhesions, to connect various locules or pockets of pleural fluid, and to improve drainage.

3. What was the best management strategy for this loculated empyema?

• Continue intravenous antibiotics and existing chest tube drainage for 5 to 7 days, then reassess
• Continue intravenous antibiotics and instill intrapleural fibrinolytics (eg, tissue plasminogen activator [tPA]) through the existing chest tube
• Continue intravenous antibiotics and instill intrapleural fibrinolytics with deoxyribonuclease (DNase) into the existing chest tube
• Continue intravenous antibiotics, insert a second chest tube into the apical pocket under imaging guidance, and instill tPA and DNase
• Surgical decortication

Continuing antibiotics with existing chest tube drainage and the two options of using single-agent intrapleural fibrinolytics have been shown to be less effective than combining tPA and DNase when managing a loculated empyema. As such, surgical decortication, attempting intrapleural instillation of fibrinolytics and DNase (with or without further chest tube insertion into noncommunicating locules), or both were the most appropriate options at this stage.

MANAGEMENT OF PARAPNEUMONIC PLEURAL EFFUSION IN ADULTS

There are several options for managing parapneumonic effusion, and clinicians can use the classification system in Table 1 to assess the risk of a poor outcome and to plan the management. Based on radiographic findings and pleural fluid sampling, a pleural effusion can be either observed or drained.

Options for drainage of the pleural space include repeat thoracentesis, surgical insertion of a chest tube, or image-guided insertion of a small-bore catheter. Although no randomized trial has been done to compare tube sizes, a large retrospective series showed that small-bore tubes (< 14 F) perform similarly to standard large-bore tubes.⁸ However, in another study, Keeling et al⁹ reported higher failure rates when tubes smaller than 12 F were used. Regular flushing of the chest tube (ideally twice a day) is recommended to keep it patent, particularly with small-bore tubes. Multiloculated empyema may require multiple intercostal chest tubes to drain completely, and therefore small-bore tubes are recommended.

In cases that do not improve radiographically and clinically, one must consider whether the antibiotic choice is adequate, review the position of the chest tube, and assess for loculations. As such, repeating chest CT within 24 to 48 hours of tube insertion and drainage is recommended to confirm adequate tube positioning, assess effective drainage, look for different locules and pockets, and determine the degree of communication between them.

The largest well-powered randomized controlled trials of intrapleural agents in the management of pleural infection, the Multicentre Intrapleural Sepsis Trial (MIST1)¹⁰ and MIST2,¹¹ clearly demonstrated that intrapleural fibrinolytics were not beneficial when used alone compared with placebo. However, in MIST2, the combination of tPA and DNase led to clinically significant benefits including radiologic improvement, shorter hospital stay, and less need for surgical decortication.

At our hospital, we follow the MIST2 protocol using a combination of tPA and DNase given intrapleurally twice daily for 3 days. In our patient, we inserted a chest tube into the apical pocket under ultrasonographic guidance, as 2 instillations of intrapleural tPA and DNase did not result in drainage of the apical locule.

Success rates with intrapleural tPA-DNase for complicated pleural effusion and empyema range from 68% to 92%.^12–15 Pleural thickening and necrotizing pneumonia and abscess are important predictors of failure of tPA-DNase therapy and of the need for surgery.^13,14

Early surgical intervention was another reasonable option in this case. The decision to proceed with surgery is based on need to debride multiloculated empyemas or uniloculated empyemas that fail to resolve with antibiotics and tube thoracostomy drainage. Nonetheless, the decision must be individualized and based on factors such as the patient’s risks vs possible benefit from a surgical procedure under general anesthesia, the patient’s ability to tolerate multiple thoracentesis procedures and chest tubes for a potentially lengthy period, the patient’s pain threshold, the patient’s wishes to avoid a surgical procedure balanced against a longer hospital stay, and cultural norms and beliefs.

Surgical options include video-assisted thoracoscopy, thoracotomy, and open drainage. Decortication can be considered early to control pleural sepsis, or late (after 3 to 6 months) if the lung does not expand. Debate continues on the optimal timing for video-assisted thoracoscopy, with data suggesting that when the procedure is performed later in the course of the disease there is a greater chance of complications and of the need to convert to thoracotomy.

A 2017 Cochrane review¹⁶ of surgical vs nonsurgical management of empyema identified 8 randomized trials, 6 in children and 2 in adults, with a total of 391 patients. The authors compared video-assisted thoracoscopy vs tube thoracotomy, with and without intrapleural fibrinolytics. They noted no difference in rates of mortality or procedural complications. However, the mean length of hospital stay was shorter with video-assisted thoracoscopy than with tube thoracotomy (5.9 vs 15.4 days). They could not assess the impact of fibrinolytic therapy on total cost of treatment in the 2 groups.

A randomized trial is planned to compare early video-assisted thoracoscopy vs treatment with chest tube drainage and t-PA-DNase.¹⁷

At our institution, we use a multidisciplinary approach, discussing cases at weekly meetings with thoracic surgeons, pulmonologists, infectious disease specialists, and interventional radiologists. We generally try conservative management first, with chest tube drainage and intrapleural agents for 5 to 7 days, before considering surgery if the response is unsatisfactory.

THE PATIENT RECOVERED

In our patient, the multiloculated empyema was successfully cleared after intrapleural instillation of 4 doses of tPA and DNAse over 3 days and insertion of a second intercostal chest tube into the noncommunicating apical locule. He completed 14 days of intravenous piperacillin-tazobactam treatment and, after discharge home, completed another 4 weeks of oral amoxicillin-clavulanate. He made a full recovery and was back at work 2 weeks after discharge. Chest radiography 10 weeks after discharge showed normal results.

A 33-year-old male nonsmoker with no significant medical history presented to the pulmonary clinic with severe left-sided pleuritic chest pain and mild breathlessness for the past 5 days. He denied fever, chills, cough, phlegm, runny nose, or congestion.

Five days before this visit, he had been seen in the emergency department with mild left-sided pleuritic chest pain. His vital signs at that time had been as follows:

• Blood pressure 141/77 mm Hg
• Heart rate 77 beats/minute
• Respiratory rate 17 breaths/minute
• Temperature 36.8°C (98.2°F)
• Oxygen saturation 98% on room air.

• White blood cell count 6.89 × 10⁹/L (reference range 3.70–11.00)
• Neutrophils 58% (40%–70%)
• Lymphocytes 29.6% (22%–44%)
• Monocytes 10.7% (0–11%)
• Eosinophils 1% (0–4%)
• Basophils 0.6% (0–1%)
• Troponin T and D-dimer levels normal.

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS OF PLEURITIC CHEST PAIN

1. What is the most likely cause of his pleuritic chest pain?

• Pleuritis
• Pneumonia
• Pulmonary embolism
• Malignancy

The differential diagnosis of pleuritic chest pain is broad.

The patient’s symptoms at presentation to the emergency department did not suggest an infectious process. There was no fever, cough, or phlegm, and his white blood cell count was normal. Nonetheless, pneumonia could not be ruled out, as the lung parenchyma was not normal on radiography, and the findings could have been consistent with an early or resolving infectious process.

Pulmonary embolism was a possibility, but his normal D-dimer level argued against it. Further, the patient subsequently underwent CT angiography, which ruled out pulmonary embolism.

Malignancy was unlikely in a young nonsmoker, but follow-up imaging would be needed to ensure resolution and rule this out.

The emergency department physician diagnosed inflammatory pleuritis and discharged him home on a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

CLINIC VISIT 5 DAYS LATER

At his pulmonary clinic visit 5 days later, the patient reported persistent but stable left-sided pleuritic chest pain and mild breathlessness on exertion. His blood pressure was 137/81 mm Hg, heart rate 109 beats per minute, temperature 37.1°C (98.8°F), and oxygen saturation 97% on room air.

Auscultation of the lungs revealed rales and slightly decreased breath sounds at the left base. No dullness to percussion could be detected.

Because the patient had developed mild tachycardia and breathlessness along with clinical signs that suggested worsening infiltrates, consolidation, or the development of pleural effusion, he underwent further investigation with chest radiography, a complete blood cell count, and measurement of serum inflammatory markers.

• White blood cell count 13.08 × 10⁹/L
• Neutrophils 81%
• Lymphocytes 7.4%
• Monocytes 7.2%
• Eeosinophils 0.2%
• Basophils 0.2%
• Procalcitonin 0.34 µg/L (reference range < 0.09).

Bedside ultrasonography to assess the effusion’s size and characteristics and the need for thoracentesis indicated that the effusion was too small to tap, and there were no fibrinous strands or loculations to suggest empyema.

2. What was the best management strategy for this patient at this time?

• Admit to the hospital for thoracentesis and intravenous antibiotics
• Give oral antibiotics with close follow-up
• Perform thoracentesis on an outpatient basis and give oral antibiotics
• Repeat chest CT

The patient had worsening pleuritic pain with development of a small left pleural effusion. His symptoms had not improved on a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. He now had an elevated white blood cell count with a “left shift” (ie, an increase in neutrophils, indicating more immature cells in circulation) and elevated procalcitonin. The most likely diagnosis was pneumonia with a resulting pleural effusion, ie, parapneumonic effusion, requiring appropriate antibiotic therapy. Ideally, the pleural effusion should be sampled by thoracentesis, with management on an outpatient or inpatient basis.

5 DAYS LATER, THE EFFUSION HAD BECOME MASSIVE

On follow-up 5 days later, the patient’s chest pain was better, but he was significantly more short of breath. His blood pressure was 137/90 mm Hg, heart rate 117 beats/minute, respiratory rate 16 breaths/minute, oxygen saturation 97% on room air, and temperature 36.9°C (98.4°F). Chest auscultation revealed decreased breath sounds over the left hemithorax, with dullness to percussion and decreased fremitus.

RAPIDLY PROGRESSIVE PLEURAL EFFUSIONS

A rapidly progressive pleural effusion in a healthy patient suggests parapneumonic effusion. The most likely organism is streptococcal.²

Explosive pleuritis is defined as a pleural effusion that increases in size in less than 24 hours. It was first described by Braman and Donat³ in 1986 as an effusion that develops within hours of admission. In 2001, Sharma and Marrie⁴ refined the definition as rapid development of pleural effusion involving more than 90% of the hemithorax within 24 hours, causing compression of pulmonary tissue and a mediastinal shift. It is a medical emergency that requires prompt investigation and treatment with drainage and antibiotics. All reported cases of explosive pleuritis have been parapneumonic effusion.

The organisms implicated in explosive pleuritis include gram-positive cocci such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, S pyogenes, other streptococci, staphylococci, and gram-negative cocci such as Neisseria meningitidis and Moraxella catarrhalis. Gram-negative bacilli include Haemophilus influenzae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas species, Escherichia coli, Proteus species, Enterobacter species, Bacteroides species, and Legionella species.^4,5 However, malignancy is the most common cause of massive pleural effusion, accounting for 54% of cases; 17% of cases are idiopathic, 13% are parapneumonic, and 12% are hydrothorax related to liver cirrhosis.⁶

CASE CONTINUED

Our patient’s massive effusion needed drainage, and he was admitted to the hospital for further management. Samples of blood and sputum were sent for culture. Intravenous piperacillin-tazobactam was started, and an intercostal chest tube was inserted into the pleural cavity under ultrasonographic guidance to drain turbid fluid.

Multiple pleural fluid samples sent for bacterial, fungal, and acid-fast bacilli culture were negative. Blood and sputum cultures also showed no growth. The administration of oral antibiotics for 5 days on an outpatient basis before pleural fluid culture could have led to sterility of all cultures.

Our patient had inadequate pleural fluid output through his chest tube, and radiography showed that the pleural collections failed to clear. In fact, an apical locule did not appear to be connecting with the lower aspect of the pleural collection. In such cases, instillation of intrapleural agents through the chest tube has become common practice in an attempt to lyse adhesions, to connect various locules or pockets of pleural fluid, and to improve drainage.

3. What was the best management strategy for this loculated empyema?

• Continue intravenous antibiotics and existing chest tube drainage for 5 to 7 days, then reassess
• Continue intravenous antibiotics and instill intrapleural fibrinolytics (eg, tissue plasminogen activator [tPA]) through the existing chest tube
• Continue intravenous antibiotics and instill intrapleural fibrinolytics with deoxyribonuclease (DNase) into the existing chest tube
• Continue intravenous antibiotics, insert a second chest tube into the apical pocket under imaging guidance, and instill tPA and DNase
• Surgical decortication

Continuing antibiotics with existing chest tube drainage and the two options of using single-agent intrapleural fibrinolytics have been shown to be less effective than combining tPA and DNase when managing a loculated empyema. As such, surgical decortication, attempting intrapleural instillation of fibrinolytics and DNase (with or without further chest tube insertion into noncommunicating locules), or both were the most appropriate options at this stage.

MANAGEMENT OF PARAPNEUMONIC PLEURAL EFFUSION IN ADULTS

There are several options for managing parapneumonic effusion, and clinicians can use the classification system in Table 1 to assess the risk of a poor outcome and to plan the management. Based on radiographic findings and pleural fluid sampling, a pleural effusion can be either observed or drained.

Options for drainage of the pleural space include repeat thoracentesis, surgical insertion of a chest tube, or image-guided insertion of a small-bore catheter. Although no randomized trial has been done to compare tube sizes, a large retrospective series showed that small-bore tubes (< 14 F) perform similarly to standard large-bore tubes.⁸ However, in another study, Keeling et al⁹ reported higher failure rates when tubes smaller than 12 F were used. Regular flushing of the chest tube (ideally twice a day) is recommended to keep it patent, particularly with small-bore tubes. Multiloculated empyema may require multiple intercostal chest tubes to drain completely, and therefore small-bore tubes are recommended.

In cases that do not improve radiographically and clinically, one must consider whether the antibiotic choice is adequate, review the position of the chest tube, and assess for loculations. As such, repeating chest CT within 24 to 48 hours of tube insertion and drainage is recommended to confirm adequate tube positioning, assess effective drainage, look for different locules and pockets, and determine the degree of communication between them.

The largest well-powered randomized controlled trials of intrapleural agents in the management of pleural infection, the Multicentre Intrapleural Sepsis Trial (MIST1)¹⁰ and MIST2,¹¹ clearly demonstrated that intrapleural fibrinolytics were not beneficial when used alone compared with placebo. However, in MIST2, the combination of tPA and DNase led to clinically significant benefits including radiologic improvement, shorter hospital stay, and less need for surgical decortication.

At our hospital, we follow the MIST2 protocol using a combination of tPA and DNase given intrapleurally twice daily for 3 days. In our patient, we inserted a chest tube into the apical pocket under ultrasonographic guidance, as 2 instillations of intrapleural tPA and DNase did not result in drainage of the apical locule.

Success rates with intrapleural tPA-DNase for complicated pleural effusion and empyema range from 68% to 92%.^12–15 Pleural thickening and necrotizing pneumonia and abscess are important predictors of failure of tPA-DNase therapy and of the need for surgery.^13,14

Early surgical intervention was another reasonable option in this case. The decision to proceed with surgery is based on need to debride multiloculated empyemas or uniloculated empyemas that fail to resolve with antibiotics and tube thoracostomy drainage. Nonetheless, the decision must be individualized and based on factors such as the patient’s risks vs possible benefit from a surgical procedure under general anesthesia, the patient’s ability to tolerate multiple thoracentesis procedures and chest tubes for a potentially lengthy period, the patient’s pain threshold, the patient’s wishes to avoid a surgical procedure balanced against a longer hospital stay, and cultural norms and beliefs.

Surgical options include video-assisted thoracoscopy, thoracotomy, and open drainage. Decortication can be considered early to control pleural sepsis, or late (after 3 to 6 months) if the lung does not expand. Debate continues on the optimal timing for video-assisted thoracoscopy, with data suggesting that when the procedure is performed later in the course of the disease there is a greater chance of complications and of the need to convert to thoracotomy.

A 2017 Cochrane review¹⁶ of surgical vs nonsurgical management of empyema identified 8 randomized trials, 6 in children and 2 in adults, with a total of 391 patients. The authors compared video-assisted thoracoscopy vs tube thoracotomy, with and without intrapleural fibrinolytics. They noted no difference in rates of mortality or procedural complications. However, the mean length of hospital stay was shorter with video-assisted thoracoscopy than with tube thoracotomy (5.9 vs 15.4 days). They could not assess the impact of fibrinolytic therapy on total cost of treatment in the 2 groups.

A randomized trial is planned to compare early video-assisted thoracoscopy vs treatment with chest tube drainage and t-PA-DNase.¹⁷

At our institution, we use a multidisciplinary approach, discussing cases at weekly meetings with thoracic surgeons, pulmonologists, infectious disease specialists, and interventional radiologists. We generally try conservative management first, with chest tube drainage and intrapleural agents for 5 to 7 days, before considering surgery if the response is unsatisfactory.

THE PATIENT RECOVERED

In our patient, the multiloculated empyema was successfully cleared after intrapleural instillation of 4 doses of tPA and DNAse over 3 days and insertion of a second intercostal chest tube into the noncommunicating apical locule. He completed 14 days of intravenous piperacillin-tazobactam treatment and, after discharge home, completed another 4 weeks of oral amoxicillin-clavulanate. He made a full recovery and was back at work 2 weeks after discharge. Chest radiography 10 weeks after discharge showed normal results.

A 33-year-old male nonsmoker with no significant medical history presented to the pulmonary clinic with severe left-sided pleuritic chest pain and mild breathlessness for the past 5 days. He denied fever, chills, cough, phlegm, runny nose, or congestion.

Five days before this visit, he had been seen in the emergency department with mild left-sided pleuritic chest pain. His vital signs at that time had been as follows:

• Blood pressure 141/77 mm Hg
• Heart rate 77 beats/minute
• Respiratory rate 17 breaths/minute
• Temperature 36.8°C (98.2°F)
• Oxygen saturation 98% on room air.

• White blood cell count 6.89 × 10⁹/L (reference range 3.70–11.00)
• Neutrophils 58% (40%–70%)
• Lymphocytes 29.6% (22%–44%)
• Monocytes 10.7% (0–11%)
• Eosinophils 1% (0–4%)
• Basophils 0.6% (0–1%)
• Troponin T and D-dimer levels normal.

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS OF PLEURITIC CHEST PAIN

1. What is the most likely cause of his pleuritic chest pain?

• Pleuritis
• Pneumonia
• Pulmonary embolism
• Malignancy

The differential diagnosis of pleuritic chest pain is broad.

The patient’s symptoms at presentation to the emergency department did not suggest an infectious process. There was no fever, cough, or phlegm, and his white blood cell count was normal. Nonetheless, pneumonia could not be ruled out, as the lung parenchyma was not normal on radiography, and the findings could have been consistent with an early or resolving infectious process.

Pulmonary embolism was a possibility, but his normal D-dimer level argued against it. Further, the patient subsequently underwent CT angiography, which ruled out pulmonary embolism.

Malignancy was unlikely in a young nonsmoker, but follow-up imaging would be needed to ensure resolution and rule this out.

The emergency department physician diagnosed inflammatory pleuritis and discharged him home on a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

CLINIC VISIT 5 DAYS LATER

At his pulmonary clinic visit 5 days later, the patient reported persistent but stable left-sided pleuritic chest pain and mild breathlessness on exertion. His blood pressure was 137/81 mm Hg, heart rate 109 beats per minute, temperature 37.1°C (98.8°F), and oxygen saturation 97% on room air.

Auscultation of the lungs revealed rales and slightly decreased breath sounds at the left base. No dullness to percussion could be detected.

Because the patient had developed mild tachycardia and breathlessness along with clinical signs that suggested worsening infiltrates, consolidation, or the development of pleural effusion, he underwent further investigation with chest radiography, a complete blood cell count, and measurement of serum inflammatory markers.

• White blood cell count 13.08 × 10⁹/L
• Neutrophils 81%
• Lymphocytes 7.4%
• Monocytes 7.2%
• Eeosinophils 0.2%
• Basophils 0.2%
• Procalcitonin 0.34 µg/L (reference range < 0.09).

Bedside ultrasonography to assess the effusion’s size and characteristics and the need for thoracentesis indicated that the effusion was too small to tap, and there were no fibrinous strands or loculations to suggest empyema.

2. What was the best management strategy for this patient at this time?

• Admit to the hospital for thoracentesis and intravenous antibiotics
• Give oral antibiotics with close follow-up
• Perform thoracentesis on an outpatient basis and give oral antibiotics
• Repeat chest CT

The patient had worsening pleuritic pain with development of a small left pleural effusion. His symptoms had not improved on a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. He now had an elevated white blood cell count with a “left shift” (ie, an increase in neutrophils, indicating more immature cells in circulation) and elevated procalcitonin. The most likely diagnosis was pneumonia with a resulting pleural effusion, ie, parapneumonic effusion, requiring appropriate antibiotic therapy. Ideally, the pleural effusion should be sampled by thoracentesis, with management on an outpatient or inpatient basis.

5 DAYS LATER, THE EFFUSION HAD BECOME MASSIVE

On follow-up 5 days later, the patient’s chest pain was better, but he was significantly more short of breath. His blood pressure was 137/90 mm Hg, heart rate 117 beats/minute, respiratory rate 16 breaths/minute, oxygen saturation 97% on room air, and temperature 36.9°C (98.4°F). Chest auscultation revealed decreased breath sounds over the left hemithorax, with dullness to percussion and decreased fremitus.

RAPIDLY PROGRESSIVE PLEURAL EFFUSIONS

A rapidly progressive pleural effusion in a healthy patient suggests parapneumonic effusion. The most likely organism is streptococcal.²

Explosive pleuritis is defined as a pleural effusion that increases in size in less than 24 hours. It was first described by Braman and Donat³ in 1986 as an effusion that develops within hours of admission. In 2001, Sharma and Marrie⁴ refined the definition as rapid development of pleural effusion involving more than 90% of the hemithorax within 24 hours, causing compression of pulmonary tissue and a mediastinal shift. It is a medical emergency that requires prompt investigation and treatment with drainage and antibiotics. All reported cases of explosive pleuritis have been parapneumonic effusion.

The organisms implicated in explosive pleuritis include gram-positive cocci such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, S pyogenes, other streptococci, staphylococci, and gram-negative cocci such as Neisseria meningitidis and Moraxella catarrhalis. Gram-negative bacilli include Haemophilus influenzae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas species, Escherichia coli, Proteus species, Enterobacter species, Bacteroides species, and Legionella species.^4,5 However, malignancy is the most common cause of massive pleural effusion, accounting for 54% of cases; 17% of cases are idiopathic, 13% are parapneumonic, and 12% are hydrothorax related to liver cirrhosis.⁶

CASE CONTINUED

Our patient’s massive effusion needed drainage, and he was admitted to the hospital for further management. Samples of blood and sputum were sent for culture. Intravenous piperacillin-tazobactam was started, and an intercostal chest tube was inserted into the pleural cavity under ultrasonographic guidance to drain turbid fluid.

Multiple pleural fluid samples sent for bacterial, fungal, and acid-fast bacilli culture were negative. Blood and sputum cultures also showed no growth. The administration of oral antibiotics for 5 days on an outpatient basis before pleural fluid culture could have led to sterility of all cultures.

Our patient had inadequate pleural fluid output through his chest tube, and radiography showed that the pleural collections failed to clear. In fact, an apical locule did not appear to be connecting with the lower aspect of the pleural collection. In such cases, instillation of intrapleural agents through the chest tube has become common practice in an attempt to lyse adhesions, to connect various locules or pockets of pleural fluid, and to improve drainage.

3. What was the best management strategy for this loculated empyema?

• Continue intravenous antibiotics and existing chest tube drainage for 5 to 7 days, then reassess
• Continue intravenous antibiotics and instill intrapleural fibrinolytics (eg, tissue plasminogen activator [tPA]) through the existing chest tube
• Continue intravenous antibiotics and instill intrapleural fibrinolytics with deoxyribonuclease (DNase) into the existing chest tube
• Continue intravenous antibiotics, insert a second chest tube into the apical pocket under imaging guidance, and instill tPA and DNase
• Surgical decortication

Continuing antibiotics with existing chest tube drainage and the two options of using single-agent intrapleural fibrinolytics have been shown to be less effective than combining tPA and DNase when managing a loculated empyema. As such, surgical decortication, attempting intrapleural instillation of fibrinolytics and DNase (with or without further chest tube insertion into noncommunicating locules), or both were the most appropriate options at this stage.

MANAGEMENT OF PARAPNEUMONIC PLEURAL EFFUSION IN ADULTS

There are several options for managing parapneumonic effusion, and clinicians can use the classification system in Table 1 to assess the risk of a poor outcome and to plan the management. Based on radiographic findings and pleural fluid sampling, a pleural effusion can be either observed or drained.

Options for drainage of the pleural space include repeat thoracentesis, surgical insertion of a chest tube, or image-guided insertion of a small-bore catheter. Although no randomized trial has been done to compare tube sizes, a large retrospective series showed that small-bore tubes (< 14 F) perform similarly to standard large-bore tubes.⁸ However, in another study, Keeling et al⁹ reported higher failure rates when tubes smaller than 12 F were used. Regular flushing of the chest tube (ideally twice a day) is recommended to keep it patent, particularly with small-bore tubes. Multiloculated empyema may require multiple intercostal chest tubes to drain completely, and therefore small-bore tubes are recommended.

In cases that do not improve radiographically and clinically, one must consider whether the antibiotic choice is adequate, review the position of the chest tube, and assess for loculations. As such, repeating chest CT within 24 to 48 hours of tube insertion and drainage is recommended to confirm adequate tube positioning, assess effective drainage, look for different locules and pockets, and determine the degree of communication between them.

The largest well-powered randomized controlled trials of intrapleural agents in the management of pleural infection, the Multicentre Intrapleural Sepsis Trial (MIST1)¹⁰ and MIST2,¹¹ clearly demonstrated that intrapleural fibrinolytics were not beneficial when used alone compared with placebo. However, in MIST2, the combination of tPA and DNase led to clinically significant benefits including radiologic improvement, shorter hospital stay, and less need for surgical decortication.

At our hospital, we follow the MIST2 protocol using a combination of tPA and DNase given intrapleurally twice daily for 3 days. In our patient, we inserted a chest tube into the apical pocket under ultrasonographic guidance, as 2 instillations of intrapleural tPA and DNase did not result in drainage of the apical locule.

Success rates with intrapleural tPA-DNase for complicated pleural effusion and empyema range from 68% to 92%.^12–15 Pleural thickening and necrotizing pneumonia and abscess are important predictors of failure of tPA-DNase therapy and of the need for surgery.^13,14

Early surgical intervention was another reasonable option in this case. The decision to proceed with surgery is based on need to debride multiloculated empyemas or uniloculated empyemas that fail to resolve with antibiotics and tube thoracostomy drainage. Nonetheless, the decision must be individualized and based on factors such as the patient’s risks vs possible benefit from a surgical procedure under general anesthesia, the patient’s ability to tolerate multiple thoracentesis procedures and chest tubes for a potentially lengthy period, the patient’s pain threshold, the patient’s wishes to avoid a surgical procedure balanced against a longer hospital stay, and cultural norms and beliefs.

Surgical options include video-assisted thoracoscopy, thoracotomy, and open drainage. Decortication can be considered early to control pleural sepsis, or late (after 3 to 6 months) if the lung does not expand. Debate continues on the optimal timing for video-assisted thoracoscopy, with data suggesting that when the procedure is performed later in the course of the disease there is a greater chance of complications and of the need to convert to thoracotomy.

A 2017 Cochrane review¹⁶ of surgical vs nonsurgical management of empyema identified 8 randomized trials, 6 in children and 2 in adults, with a total of 391 patients. The authors compared video-assisted thoracoscopy vs tube thoracotomy, with and without intrapleural fibrinolytics. They noted no difference in rates of mortality or procedural complications. However, the mean length of hospital stay was shorter with video-assisted thoracoscopy than with tube thoracotomy (5.9 vs 15.4 days). They could not assess the impact of fibrinolytic therapy on total cost of treatment in the 2 groups.

A randomized trial is planned to compare early video-assisted thoracoscopy vs treatment with chest tube drainage and t-PA-DNase.¹⁷

At our institution, we use a multidisciplinary approach, discussing cases at weekly meetings with thoracic surgeons, pulmonologists, infectious disease specialists, and interventional radiologists. We generally try conservative management first, with chest tube drainage and intrapleural agents for 5 to 7 days, before considering surgery if the response is unsatisfactory.

THE PATIENT RECOVERED

In our patient, the multiloculated empyema was successfully cleared after intrapleural instillation of 4 doses of tPA and DNAse over 3 days and insertion of a second intercostal chest tube into the noncommunicating apical locule. He completed 14 days of intravenous piperacillin-tazobactam treatment and, after discharge home, completed another 4 weeks of oral amoxicillin-clavulanate. He made a full recovery and was back at work 2 weeks after discharge. Chest radiography 10 weeks after discharge showed normal results.

CASE Altered mental status after stroke workup

Ms. L, age 91, is admitted to the hospital for a neurologic evaluation of a recent episode of left-sided weakness that occurred 1 week ago. This left-sided weakness resolved without intervention within 2 hours while at home. This presentation is typical of a transient ischemic attack (TIA). She has a history of hypertension, bradycardia, and pacemaker implantation. On initial evaluation, her memory is intact, and she is able to walk normally. Her score on the St. Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) exam is 25, which suggests normal cognitive functioning for her academic background. A CT scan of the head reveals a subacute stroke of the right posterior limb of the internal capsule consistent with recent TIA.

Ms. L is admitted for a routine stroke workup and prepares to undergo a CT angiogram (CTA) with the use of the iodinated agent iopamidol (100 mL, 76%) to evaluate patency of cerebral vessels. Her baseline blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine levels are within normal limits.

A day after undergoing CTA, Ms. L starts mumbling to herself, has unpredictable mood outbursts, and is not oriented to time, place, or person.

[polldaddy:10199351]

The authors’ observations

Due to her acute altered mental status (AMS), Ms. L underwent an emergent CT scan of the head to rule out any acute intracranial hemorrhages or thromboembolic events. The results of this test were negative. Urinalysis, BUN, creatinine, basic chemistry, and complete blood count panels were unrevealing. On a repeat SLUMS exam, Ms. L scored 9, indicating cognitive impairment.

Ms. L also underwent a comprehensive metabolic profile, which excluded any electrolyte abnormalities, or any hepatic or renal causes of AMS. There was no sign of dehydration, acidosis, hypoglycemia, hypoxemia, hypotension, or bradycardia/tachycardia. A urinalysis, chest X-ray, complete blood count, and 2 blood cultures conducted 24 hours apart did not reveal any signs of infection. There were no recent changes in her medications and she was not taking any sleep medications or other psychiatric medications that might precipitate a withdrawal syndrome.

There have been multiple reports of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), which may be evidenced by high BUN-to-creatinine ratios and could cause AMS in geriatric patients. However, CIN was ruled out as a potential cause in our patient because her BUN-to-creatinine was unremarkable.

Continue to: Routine EEG was clinically...

Routine EEG was clinically inconclusive. Diffusion-weighted MRI may have been helpful to identify ischemic strokes that a CT scan of the head might miss,¹ but we were unable to conduct this test because Ms. L had a pacemaker. Barber et al² suggested that in the setting of acute stroke, the use of MRI may not have an added advantage over the CT scan of the head.

[polldaddy:10199352]

TREATMENT Rapid improvement with supportive therapy

Intravenous fluids are administered as supportive therapy to Ms. L for suspected contrast-induced encephalopathy (CIE). The next day, Ms. L experiences a notable improvement in cognition, beyond that attributed to IV hydration. By 3 days post-contrast injection, her SLUMS score increases to 15. By 72 hours after contrast administration, Ms. L’s cognition returns to baseline. She is monitored for 24 hours after returning to baseline cognitive functioning. After observing her to be in no physical or medical distress and at baseline functioning, she is discharged home under the care of her son with outpatient follow-up and rehab services.

The authors’ observations

For Ms. L, the differential diagnosis included post-ictal phenomenon, new-onset ischemic or hemorrhagic changes, hyperperfusion syndrome, and CIE.

Seizures were ruled out because EEG was inconclusive, and Ms. L did not have the clinical features one would expect in an ictal episode. Transient ischemic attack is, by definition, an ischemic event with clinical return to baseline within 24 hours. Although a CT scan of the head may not be the most sensitive way to detect early ischemic changes and small ischemic zones, the self-limiting course and complete resolution of Ms. L’s symptoms with return to baseline is indicative of a more benign pathology, such as CIE. New hemorrhagic conversions have a dramatic presentation on radiologic studies. Historically, CIE presentations on imaging have been closely associated with the hyperattentuation seen in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). The absence of typical radiologic and clinical findings in our case ruled out SAH.

Continue to: Typical CT scan findings in CIE include...

Typical CT scan findings in CIE include abnormal cortical contrast enhancement and edema, subarachnoid contrast enhancement, and striatal contrast enhancement (Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3). Since the first clinical description, reports of 39 CT-/MRI-confirmed cases of CIE have been published in English language medical literature, with documented clinical follow-up³ and a median recovery time of 2.5 days. In a case report by Ito et al,⁴ there were no supportive radiographic findings. Ours is the second documented case that showed no radiologic signs of CIE. With a paucity of other etiologic evidence, negative lab tests for other causes of delirium, and the rapid resolution of Ms. L’s AMS after providing IV fluids as supportive treatment, a temporal correlation can be deduced, which implicates iodine-based contrast as the inciting factor.

Iodine-based contrast agents have been used since the 1920s. Today, >75 million procedures requiring iodine dyes are performed annually worldwide.⁵ This level of routine iodine contrast usage compels a mention of risk factors and complications from using such dyes. As a general rule, contrast agent reactions can be categorized as immediate (<1 day) or delayed (1 to 7 days after contrast administration). Immediate reactions are immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated anaphylactic reactions. Delayed reactions involve a T-cell mediated response that ranges from pruritus and urticaria (approximately 70%) to cardiac complications such as cardiovascular shock, arrhythmia, arrest, and Kounis syndrome. Other less prevalent complications include hypotension, bronchospasm, and CIN. Patients with the following factors may be at higher risk for contrast-induced reactions:

• asthma
• cardiac arrhythmias
• central myasthenia gravis
• >70 years of age
• pheochromocytoma
• sickle cell anemia
• hyperthyroidism
• dehydration
• hypotension.

Although some older literature reported correlations between seafood and shellfish allergies and iodine contrast reactions, more recent reports suggest there may not be a direct correlation, or any correlation at all.^5,6

Iodinated CIE is a rare complication of contrast angiography. It was first reported in 1970 as transient cortical blindness after coronary angiography.⁷ Clinical manifestations include encephalopathy evidenced by AMS, affected orientation, and acute psychotic changes, including paranoia and hallucinations, seizures, cortical blindness, and focal neurologic deficits. Neuroimaging has been pivotal in confirming the diagnosis and in excluding thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications of angiography.⁸

Encephalopathy has been documented after administration of iopromide,^9,10iohexol,¹¹ioxilan,⁴ and metrizamide. The mechanism of neurotoxicity is unclear, but several theories have been formulated. The contrast agent may disturb the blood-brain barrier and enter the brain. This may be a primary mechanism leading to encephalopathy when the hypertonic contrast agent draws water out of the endothelial cells of brain capillaries, arterioles, and venules. This may cause the endothelial cells to shrink and to separate at tight junctions directly affecting the blood-brain barrier. Alternatively, the increase in intraluminal pressure caused by injection of the contrast agent, in concert with contrast agent-induced cerebral vasodilatation, might contribute to increasing vascular wall tension, further separating tight junctions. A third theory suggests that vesicular transport may be a mechanism of osmotic barrier opening. Further studies would be required to investigate these mechanisms.

Continue to: Regardless of the mechanism...

Regardless of the mechanism, all the above-mentioned studies note a reversal of radiologic and neurologic findings without any deficits within 48 to 72 hours (median recovery time of 2.5 days).³ All reported cases of CIE, including ours, were found to be completely reversible without any neurologic or radiologic deficits after resolution (48 to 72 hours post-contrast administration).

Clinicians should have a high index of suspicion for CIE in patients with recent iodine-based contrast exposure. From a practical standpoint, such a mechanism could be easily missed because while use of a single-administration contrast agent may appear in procedure notes or medication administration records, it might not necessarily appear in documentation of currently administered medications. Also, such cases might not always present with unique radiologic findings, as illustrated by Ms. L’s case.

Bottom Line

Have a high index of suspicion for contrast-induced encephalopathy, especially in geriatric patients, even in the absence of radiologic findings. A full delirium/dementia workup is warranted to rule out other life-threatening causes of altered mental status. Timely recognition could enable implementation of medicationsparing approaches to the disorder, such as IV fluids and frequent reorientation.

Related Resources

• Donepudi B, Trottier S. A seizure and hemiplegia following contrast exposure: Understanding contrast-induced encephalopathy. Case Rep Med. 2018;2018:9278526. doi:10.1155/2018/9278526.
• Hamra M, Bakhit Y, Khan M, et al. Case report and literature review on contrast-induced encephalopathy. Future Cardiol. 2017;13(4):331-335.

Drug Brand Names

Iohexol • Omnipaque
Iopamidol • Isovue-370
Iopromide • Ultravist
Ioxilan • Oxilan

CASE Altered mental status after stroke workup

Ms. L, age 91, is admitted to the hospital for a neurologic evaluation of a recent episode of left-sided weakness that occurred 1 week ago. This left-sided weakness resolved without intervention within 2 hours while at home. This presentation is typical of a transient ischemic attack (TIA). She has a history of hypertension, bradycardia, and pacemaker implantation. On initial evaluation, her memory is intact, and she is able to walk normally. Her score on the St. Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) exam is 25, which suggests normal cognitive functioning for her academic background. A CT scan of the head reveals a subacute stroke of the right posterior limb of the internal capsule consistent with recent TIA.

Ms. L is admitted for a routine stroke workup and prepares to undergo a CT angiogram (CTA) with the use of the iodinated agent iopamidol (100 mL, 76%) to evaluate patency of cerebral vessels. Her baseline blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine levels are within normal limits.

A day after undergoing CTA, Ms. L starts mumbling to herself, has unpredictable mood outbursts, and is not oriented to time, place, or person.

[polldaddy:10199351]

The authors’ observations

Due to her acute altered mental status (AMS), Ms. L underwent an emergent CT scan of the head to rule out any acute intracranial hemorrhages or thromboembolic events. The results of this test were negative. Urinalysis, BUN, creatinine, basic chemistry, and complete blood count panels were unrevealing. On a repeat SLUMS exam, Ms. L scored 9, indicating cognitive impairment.

Ms. L also underwent a comprehensive metabolic profile, which excluded any electrolyte abnormalities, or any hepatic or renal causes of AMS. There was no sign of dehydration, acidosis, hypoglycemia, hypoxemia, hypotension, or bradycardia/tachycardia. A urinalysis, chest X-ray, complete blood count, and 2 blood cultures conducted 24 hours apart did not reveal any signs of infection. There were no recent changes in her medications and she was not taking any sleep medications or other psychiatric medications that might precipitate a withdrawal syndrome.

There have been multiple reports of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), which may be evidenced by high BUN-to-creatinine ratios and could cause AMS in geriatric patients. However, CIN was ruled out as a potential cause in our patient because her BUN-to-creatinine was unremarkable.

Continue to: Routine EEG was clinically...

Routine EEG was clinically inconclusive. Diffusion-weighted MRI may have been helpful to identify ischemic strokes that a CT scan of the head might miss,¹ but we were unable to conduct this test because Ms. L had a pacemaker. Barber et al² suggested that in the setting of acute stroke, the use of MRI may not have an added advantage over the CT scan of the head.

[polldaddy:10199352]

TREATMENT Rapid improvement with supportive therapy

Intravenous fluids are administered as supportive therapy to Ms. L for suspected contrast-induced encephalopathy (CIE). The next day, Ms. L experiences a notable improvement in cognition, beyond that attributed to IV hydration. By 3 days post-contrast injection, her SLUMS score increases to 15. By 72 hours after contrast administration, Ms. L’s cognition returns to baseline. She is monitored for 24 hours after returning to baseline cognitive functioning. After observing her to be in no physical or medical distress and at baseline functioning, she is discharged home under the care of her son with outpatient follow-up and rehab services.

The authors’ observations

For Ms. L, the differential diagnosis included post-ictal phenomenon, new-onset ischemic or hemorrhagic changes, hyperperfusion syndrome, and CIE.

Seizures were ruled out because EEG was inconclusive, and Ms. L did not have the clinical features one would expect in an ictal episode. Transient ischemic attack is, by definition, an ischemic event with clinical return to baseline within 24 hours. Although a CT scan of the head may not be the most sensitive way to detect early ischemic changes and small ischemic zones, the self-limiting course and complete resolution of Ms. L’s symptoms with return to baseline is indicative of a more benign pathology, such as CIE. New hemorrhagic conversions have a dramatic presentation on radiologic studies. Historically, CIE presentations on imaging have been closely associated with the hyperattentuation seen in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). The absence of typical radiologic and clinical findings in our case ruled out SAH.

Continue to: Typical CT scan findings in CIE include...

Typical CT scan findings in CIE include abnormal cortical contrast enhancement and edema, subarachnoid contrast enhancement, and striatal contrast enhancement (Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3). Since the first clinical description, reports of 39 CT-/MRI-confirmed cases of CIE have been published in English language medical literature, with documented clinical follow-up³ and a median recovery time of 2.5 days. In a case report by Ito et al,⁴ there were no supportive radiographic findings. Ours is the second documented case that showed no radiologic signs of CIE. With a paucity of other etiologic evidence, negative lab tests for other causes of delirium, and the rapid resolution of Ms. L’s AMS after providing IV fluids as supportive treatment, a temporal correlation can be deduced, which implicates iodine-based contrast as the inciting factor.

Iodine-based contrast agents have been used since the 1920s. Today, >75 million procedures requiring iodine dyes are performed annually worldwide.⁵ This level of routine iodine contrast usage compels a mention of risk factors and complications from using such dyes. As a general rule, contrast agent reactions can be categorized as immediate (<1 day) or delayed (1 to 7 days after contrast administration). Immediate reactions are immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated anaphylactic reactions. Delayed reactions involve a T-cell mediated response that ranges from pruritus and urticaria (approximately 70%) to cardiac complications such as cardiovascular shock, arrhythmia, arrest, and Kounis syndrome. Other less prevalent complications include hypotension, bronchospasm, and CIN. Patients with the following factors may be at higher risk for contrast-induced reactions:

• asthma
• cardiac arrhythmias
• central myasthenia gravis
• >70 years of age
• pheochromocytoma
• sickle cell anemia
• hyperthyroidism
• dehydration
• hypotension.

Although some older literature reported correlations between seafood and shellfish allergies and iodine contrast reactions, more recent reports suggest there may not be a direct correlation, or any correlation at all.^5,6

Iodinated CIE is a rare complication of contrast angiography. It was first reported in 1970 as transient cortical blindness after coronary angiography.⁷ Clinical manifestations include encephalopathy evidenced by AMS, affected orientation, and acute psychotic changes, including paranoia and hallucinations, seizures, cortical blindness, and focal neurologic deficits. Neuroimaging has been pivotal in confirming the diagnosis and in excluding thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications of angiography.⁸

Encephalopathy has been documented after administration of iopromide,^9,10iohexol,¹¹ioxilan,⁴ and metrizamide. The mechanism of neurotoxicity is unclear, but several theories have been formulated. The contrast agent may disturb the blood-brain barrier and enter the brain. This may be a primary mechanism leading to encephalopathy when the hypertonic contrast agent draws water out of the endothelial cells of brain capillaries, arterioles, and venules. This may cause the endothelial cells to shrink and to separate at tight junctions directly affecting the blood-brain barrier. Alternatively, the increase in intraluminal pressure caused by injection of the contrast agent, in concert with contrast agent-induced cerebral vasodilatation, might contribute to increasing vascular wall tension, further separating tight junctions. A third theory suggests that vesicular transport may be a mechanism of osmotic barrier opening. Further studies would be required to investigate these mechanisms.

Continue to: Regardless of the mechanism...

Regardless of the mechanism, all the above-mentioned studies note a reversal of radiologic and neurologic findings without any deficits within 48 to 72 hours (median recovery time of 2.5 days).³ All reported cases of CIE, including ours, were found to be completely reversible without any neurologic or radiologic deficits after resolution (48 to 72 hours post-contrast administration).

Clinicians should have a high index of suspicion for CIE in patients with recent iodine-based contrast exposure. From a practical standpoint, such a mechanism could be easily missed because while use of a single-administration contrast agent may appear in procedure notes or medication administration records, it might not necessarily appear in documentation of currently administered medications. Also, such cases might not always present with unique radiologic findings, as illustrated by Ms. L’s case.

Bottom Line

Have a high index of suspicion for contrast-induced encephalopathy, especially in geriatric patients, even in the absence of radiologic findings. A full delirium/dementia workup is warranted to rule out other life-threatening causes of altered mental status. Timely recognition could enable implementation of medicationsparing approaches to the disorder, such as IV fluids and frequent reorientation.

Related Resources

• Donepudi B, Trottier S. A seizure and hemiplegia following contrast exposure: Understanding contrast-induced encephalopathy. Case Rep Med. 2018;2018:9278526. doi:10.1155/2018/9278526.
• Hamra M, Bakhit Y, Khan M, et al. Case report and literature review on contrast-induced encephalopathy. Future Cardiol. 2017;13(4):331-335.

Drug Brand Names

Iohexol • Omnipaque
Iopamidol • Isovue-370
Iopromide • Ultravist
Ioxilan • Oxilan

CASE Altered mental status after stroke workup

Ms. L, age 91, is admitted to the hospital for a neurologic evaluation of a recent episode of left-sided weakness that occurred 1 week ago. This left-sided weakness resolved without intervention within 2 hours while at home. This presentation is typical of a transient ischemic attack (TIA). She has a history of hypertension, bradycardia, and pacemaker implantation. On initial evaluation, her memory is intact, and she is able to walk normally. Her score on the St. Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) exam is 25, which suggests normal cognitive functioning for her academic background. A CT scan of the head reveals a subacute stroke of the right posterior limb of the internal capsule consistent with recent TIA.

Ms. L is admitted for a routine stroke workup and prepares to undergo a CT angiogram (CTA) with the use of the iodinated agent iopamidol (100 mL, 76%) to evaluate patency of cerebral vessels. Her baseline blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine levels are within normal limits.

A day after undergoing CTA, Ms. L starts mumbling to herself, has unpredictable mood outbursts, and is not oriented to time, place, or person.

[polldaddy:10199351]

The authors’ observations

Due to her acute altered mental status (AMS), Ms. L underwent an emergent CT scan of the head to rule out any acute intracranial hemorrhages or thromboembolic events. The results of this test were negative. Urinalysis, BUN, creatinine, basic chemistry, and complete blood count panels were unrevealing. On a repeat SLUMS exam, Ms. L scored 9, indicating cognitive impairment.

Ms. L also underwent a comprehensive metabolic profile, which excluded any electrolyte abnormalities, or any hepatic or renal causes of AMS. There was no sign of dehydration, acidosis, hypoglycemia, hypoxemia, hypotension, or bradycardia/tachycardia. A urinalysis, chest X-ray, complete blood count, and 2 blood cultures conducted 24 hours apart did not reveal any signs of infection. There were no recent changes in her medications and she was not taking any sleep medications or other psychiatric medications that might precipitate a withdrawal syndrome.

There have been multiple reports of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), which may be evidenced by high BUN-to-creatinine ratios and could cause AMS in geriatric patients. However, CIN was ruled out as a potential cause in our patient because her BUN-to-creatinine was unremarkable.

Continue to: Routine EEG was clinically...

Routine EEG was clinically inconclusive. Diffusion-weighted MRI may have been helpful to identify ischemic strokes that a CT scan of the head might miss,¹ but we were unable to conduct this test because Ms. L had a pacemaker. Barber et al² suggested that in the setting of acute stroke, the use of MRI may not have an added advantage over the CT scan of the head.

[polldaddy:10199352]

TREATMENT Rapid improvement with supportive therapy

Intravenous fluids are administered as supportive therapy to Ms. L for suspected contrast-induced encephalopathy (CIE). The next day, Ms. L experiences a notable improvement in cognition, beyond that attributed to IV hydration. By 3 days post-contrast injection, her SLUMS score increases to 15. By 72 hours after contrast administration, Ms. L’s cognition returns to baseline. She is monitored for 24 hours after returning to baseline cognitive functioning. After observing her to be in no physical or medical distress and at baseline functioning, she is discharged home under the care of her son with outpatient follow-up and rehab services.

The authors’ observations

For Ms. L, the differential diagnosis included post-ictal phenomenon, new-onset ischemic or hemorrhagic changes, hyperperfusion syndrome, and CIE.

Seizures were ruled out because EEG was inconclusive, and Ms. L did not have the clinical features one would expect in an ictal episode. Transient ischemic attack is, by definition, an ischemic event with clinical return to baseline within 24 hours. Although a CT scan of the head may not be the most sensitive way to detect early ischemic changes and small ischemic zones, the self-limiting course and complete resolution of Ms. L’s symptoms with return to baseline is indicative of a more benign pathology, such as CIE. New hemorrhagic conversions have a dramatic presentation on radiologic studies. Historically, CIE presentations on imaging have been closely associated with the hyperattentuation seen in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). The absence of typical radiologic and clinical findings in our case ruled out SAH.

Continue to: Typical CT scan findings in CIE include...

Typical CT scan findings in CIE include abnormal cortical contrast enhancement and edema, subarachnoid contrast enhancement, and striatal contrast enhancement (Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3). Since the first clinical description, reports of 39 CT-/MRI-confirmed cases of CIE have been published in English language medical literature, with documented clinical follow-up³ and a median recovery time of 2.5 days. In a case report by Ito et al,⁴ there were no supportive radiographic findings. Ours is the second documented case that showed no radiologic signs of CIE. With a paucity of other etiologic evidence, negative lab tests for other causes of delirium, and the rapid resolution of Ms. L’s AMS after providing IV fluids as supportive treatment, a temporal correlation can be deduced, which implicates iodine-based contrast as the inciting factor.

Iodine-based contrast agents have been used since the 1920s. Today, >75 million procedures requiring iodine dyes are performed annually worldwide.⁵ This level of routine iodine contrast usage compels a mention of risk factors and complications from using such dyes. As a general rule, contrast agent reactions can be categorized as immediate (<1 day) or delayed (1 to 7 days after contrast administration). Immediate reactions are immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated anaphylactic reactions. Delayed reactions involve a T-cell mediated response that ranges from pruritus and urticaria (approximately 70%) to cardiac complications such as cardiovascular shock, arrhythmia, arrest, and Kounis syndrome. Other less prevalent complications include hypotension, bronchospasm, and CIN. Patients with the following factors may be at higher risk for contrast-induced reactions:

• asthma
• cardiac arrhythmias
• central myasthenia gravis
• >70 years of age
• pheochromocytoma
• sickle cell anemia
• hyperthyroidism
• dehydration
• hypotension.

Although some older literature reported correlations between seafood and shellfish allergies and iodine contrast reactions, more recent reports suggest there may not be a direct correlation, or any correlation at all.^5,6

Iodinated CIE is a rare complication of contrast angiography. It was first reported in 1970 as transient cortical blindness after coronary angiography.⁷ Clinical manifestations include encephalopathy evidenced by AMS, affected orientation, and acute psychotic changes, including paranoia and hallucinations, seizures, cortical blindness, and focal neurologic deficits. Neuroimaging has been pivotal in confirming the diagnosis and in excluding thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications of angiography.⁸

Encephalopathy has been documented after administration of iopromide,^9,10iohexol,¹¹ioxilan,⁴ and metrizamide. The mechanism of neurotoxicity is unclear, but several theories have been formulated. The contrast agent may disturb the blood-brain barrier and enter the brain. This may be a primary mechanism leading to encephalopathy when the hypertonic contrast agent draws water out of the endothelial cells of brain capillaries, arterioles, and venules. This may cause the endothelial cells to shrink and to separate at tight junctions directly affecting the blood-brain barrier. Alternatively, the increase in intraluminal pressure caused by injection of the contrast agent, in concert with contrast agent-induced cerebral vasodilatation, might contribute to increasing vascular wall tension, further separating tight junctions. A third theory suggests that vesicular transport may be a mechanism of osmotic barrier opening. Further studies would be required to investigate these mechanisms.

Continue to: Regardless of the mechanism...

Regardless of the mechanism, all the above-mentioned studies note a reversal of radiologic and neurologic findings without any deficits within 48 to 72 hours (median recovery time of 2.5 days).³ All reported cases of CIE, including ours, were found to be completely reversible without any neurologic or radiologic deficits after resolution (48 to 72 hours post-contrast administration).

Clinicians should have a high index of suspicion for CIE in patients with recent iodine-based contrast exposure. From a practical standpoint, such a mechanism could be easily missed because while use of a single-administration contrast agent may appear in procedure notes or medication administration records, it might not necessarily appear in documentation of currently administered medications. Also, such cases might not always present with unique radiologic findings, as illustrated by Ms. L’s case.

Bottom Line

Have a high index of suspicion for contrast-induced encephalopathy, especially in geriatric patients, even in the absence of radiologic findings. A full delirium/dementia workup is warranted to rule out other life-threatening causes of altered mental status. Timely recognition could enable implementation of medicationsparing approaches to the disorder, such as IV fluids and frequent reorientation.

Related Resources

• Donepudi B, Trottier S. A seizure and hemiplegia following contrast exposure: Understanding contrast-induced encephalopathy. Case Rep Med. 2018;2018:9278526. doi:10.1155/2018/9278526.
• Hamra M, Bakhit Y, Khan M, et al. Case report and literature review on contrast-induced encephalopathy. Future Cardiol. 2017;13(4):331-335.

Drug Brand Names

Iohexol • Omnipaque
Iopamidol • Isovue-370
Iopromide • Ultravist
Ioxilan • Oxilan

The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by emergency physicians (EPs) is increasing steadily, as new MRI indications arise, technology evolves, and machines become faster and more widely available. It is therefore critically important that EPs understand the basics of this imaging modality, its uses, limitations, cautions, and contraindications.

A full explanation of the physics underpinning MRI is beyond this article’s scope. However, a comprehensive discussion of the topic is available in a 2013 review entitled, "Understanding MRI: basic MR physics for physicians."¹ In short, three elements are necessary for an MRI machine to generate images: a strong magnetic field, radio waves, and a computer system. The body’s hydrogen nuclei with their single protons and north-south poles act as mini bar magnets with randomly aligned axes. However, when the body is subjected to the MRI machine magnetic field, these axes line up. When radio waves are applied to the magnetic field, the strength and direction of the magnetic field changes. Then, when the radio waves are turned off, the magnetic field strength and direction return to baseline and a signal is emitted. It is this signal that is interpreted by a computer system to generate images.²

Cautions and Limitations

Although limited availability is often cited as a reason for not obtaining MRI studies in the emergency department (ED), this limitation is institution specific and will likely improve over time. Recent statistics indicate that MRI availability in the United States is second only to that in Japan and climbing. MRI usage in the United States is the highest in the world.³

MRI cost (and the resultant patient bill) exceeds that of other commonly performed ED imaging roughly by a factor of 2:1 when compared to computed tomography (CT). This is unlikely to improve in the near term.

The time to complete an MRI study continues to fall for some indications, but significantly exceeds the time to obtain CT images. MRI scan times range from 20 to 60 minutes depending on test type.

Body habitus, particularly obesity, may limit the ability of certain patients to undergo MRI. Claustrophobia or the inability to lie still for the test’s entire duration may present a challenge for some patients. Be prepared to safely sedate patients with these issues. This is particularly relevant for pediatric patients. Consider a pre-MRI trial of sedation to assess which medication is best suited for individual patients.

Patients with certain medical devices may be unable to undergo MRI. Medical devices and implants from the U.S. and Europe manufactured within the past 30 years are non-ferromagnetic. This generally means they are MR-safe or MR-conditional. Realize, however, that certain non-ferromagnetic implants can heat during MR imaging.⁴ A free searchable database exists listing MRI-safe devices and implants along with limitations and cautions (http://www.mrisafety.com/TheList_search.asp).⁵

Pacemakers and defibrillators are worthy of special mention. Some are now considered MR-conditional in limited circumstances, and this situation will continue to evolve. Consult your radiologist and/or the physician who placed the medical device with any safety concerns.

Intraocular metallic foreign bodies are an MRI contraindication. If any concern exists for an intraocular metallic foreign body, perform an orbital CT before considering an MRI. Headphones and ear plugs are used during MRI examinations to prevent hearing damage due to machine noise or nerve and muscle stimulation.

A 2016 JAMA study of MRI in pregnancy involving more than 1.4 million deliveries concluded “exposure to MRI during the first trimester of pregnancy compared with non¬exposure was not associated with increased risk of harm to the fetus or in early childhood. Gadolinium MRI at any time during pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of a broad set of rheumatological, inflammatory, or infiltrative skin conditions and for stillbirth or neonatal death.”⁶

There is limited data on the use of MRI in pediatric patients, but a 2015 study noted, “to date, no studies have demonstrated any definite risk to the fetus, mother, or neonate when MR scanners are operated within the regulatory guidelines set forth by the FDA and other regulatory agencies.”⁷

A variety of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are currently used. GBCA administrations in renally impaired patients has been linked to nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF), a rare, progressive, potentially fatal, incompletely understood, systemic disorder with a spectrum of manifestations. Its occurrence has prompted alerts, and a recent set of recommendations for at-risk patients (ie, those with acute kidney injury or an eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² and those who are dialysis dependent) specifies that (1) a low-risk GBCA should be used; (2) GBCA dose should be as low as possible; and (3) dialysis should be performed as indicated immediately after GBCA-enhanced MRI.^8,9 Additionally, the EP may wish to obtain informed consent from at-risk patients prior to the administration of GBCAs.

Central nervous system MRI

Spinal cord compression may occur due to a neoplastic process, either primary or metastatic, infection (epidural abscess is a particular concern), or hematoma. CT myelography is another diagnostic option, but MRI offers ease of performance, superior resolution, multiplanar imaging, lack of ionizing radiation, and the ability to detect multiple lesions with a single scan. For non-traumatic myelopathy evaluation (most commonly due to cancer), perform a non-contrast MRI of the entire spinal canal since multiple lesions may be present. Repeat the MRI with contrast if the cause of the myelopathy is not clear after the non-contrast study.¹⁰ Gadolinium does help detect and define inflammatory, infectious, and neoplastic lesions, but spinal cord compression can be diagnosed without it if the patient cannot receive gadolinium (see Cautions and Limitations section).¹¹ Only a non-enhanced MRI, limited to the traumatized area, is required in the evaluation of trauma-induced myelopathy.¹⁰

Dural venous sinus thrombosis (DVST) is best assessed with a combination of MRI and MR venography.¹⁰ DVST is clot formation within any of five major dural venous sinuses. DVST risk factors include: dehydration; infections, both systemic and local; pregnancy and the puerperium; neoplastic incursion; trauma; and coagulopathies.^10,12 MR venography is an essential part of DVST evaluation since it assesses patency of the involved dural venous sinus.¹⁰

Carotid artery dissection is a leading cause of stroke in those younger than 45 years of age.¹³ Carotid and vertebral artery dissection, due to trauma, hypertension, vascular disease, or local infections, can be diagnosed with endovascular angiography.^10,14 However, MRI in combination with MRA can be diagnostic as well.^10,13,14 MRI delineates the intramural clots while MRA shows the degree and extent of endovascular compromise.^10,13

Meningoencephalitis and vasculitis are usually diagnosed with a combination of clinical findings, laboratory data, CT, and lumbar puncture results. However, MRI is highly sensitive for the CNS lesions associated with infection or vasculitis. Consider MRI as an alternative to the usual work up in selected patients if aggressive early therapy for viral infection (eg, herpes) or vasculitis is being contemplated.¹⁰

Acute subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is usually best demonstrated on CT. However, MRI may have a role, especially in posterior fossa SAH.¹⁰

Cerebral Ischemia (TIA and Stroke) - The 2018 guidelines for early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke both recommended and considered equal (in patients selected for mechanical thrombectomy) CT, diffusion weighted MRI or MRI perfusion.¹⁵ This guideline was promulgated by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and endorsed by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, among other professional organizations.

In a joint statement published by the American Society of Neuroradiology, the American College of Radiology, and the Society of Neurointerventional Surgery, MRI was reported to be equivalent to a non-contrast brain CT. MRI was also found to have superior accuracy in detecting microhemorrhages.¹⁶

Spine MRI

Spine and spinal cord emergencies must be promptly and correctly diagnosed to avoid or minimize functional loss. Knowledge of the most appropriate imaging modalities is essential to facilitate diagnosis and treatment for patients presenting with spine-related emergencies.

Low back pain prompts many ED visits and is a major cause of disability in the United States.

MRI is unwarranted for those patients with acute (< 6 weeks duration) low back pain in whom serious pathology, such as cauda equina, malignancy, epidural hematoma, or infection is not suspected. Manage most low back pain patients conservatively and without imaging.¹⁷

Trauma is the most common reason for spine MRI. CT, and now increasingly MRI, have supplanted plain radiography in the evaluation of spinal trauma. Currently, CT alone is considered sufficient in the evaluation of thoracic and lumbar skeletal injuries. This is not true for cervical spine injuries.¹⁸

Initially, use either the NEXUS or Canadian C-Spine Rule criteria to determine if a trauma patient needs any imaging. Then, consider whether CT or MRI or both will be required, while realizing that the literature on this thorny issue continues to evolve. CT is the current standard for detecting bony injuries. MRI is usually reserved for patient in whom a soft-tissue, particularly ligamentous, injury is suspected. MRI is also required for the evaluation of any patient suspected of having sustained spinal cord injury.¹⁸ The downside of our increased MRI usage in the evaluation of potentially spine-injured patients has been the detection of many clinically insignificant findings.

Acute cauda equina syndrome is a neurosurgical emergency requiring prompt recognition, imaging, and immediate neurosurgical consultation. Common findings include: recent onset or worsening severe low back pain; bowel and/or bladder dysfunction; neurological deficits; and saddle anesthesia. Many processes can lead to the syndrome, but the most common is disc herniation with resultant cauda equina compression. The American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria cite MRI as the correct imaging modality for the diagnosis of acute cauda equina syndrome.¹⁹ In patients who’ve undergone previous herniated disc surgery, MRI with and without contrast must be obtained to differentiate between contrast-enhancing granulation tissue at the site of the surgery and nonenhancing herniated disc tissue.¹⁸

Infection is an important item in the differential diagnosis of back pain, with or without radiculopathy, and particularly important to consider if the patient has infectious disease risk factors. These risk factors include: spinal instrumentation via injections or surgery; intravenous drug use; prosthetic heart valves; systemic infections; other infectious sources in the body; and immunocompromising conditions.¹⁸ All spinal elements, including the spinal cord, meninges, joints, discs, and vertebrae can be affected. Realize that infection can occur by direct inoculation or contiguous or hematogenous spread. An MRI with and without contrast is essential to confirm the diagnosis.¹⁹ Your neurosurgical consultant will likely recommend imaging the entire spinal axis, since infectious lesions may be present at multiple levels.¹⁸

Pregnant patients with abdominal pain - concern for appendicitis (see the Cautions and Limitations section above on MRI in pregnancy)

Appendicitis occurs commonly in pregnancy. Missing the diagnosis can lead to fetal loss and other untoward outcomes. The 2018 American College of Radiology guidelines list MRI and ultrasound as imaging studies of choice in gravid patients in whom appendicitis is a concern.²⁰ Ultrasound is more commonly available and less expensive but is limited by high rates of appendiceal non-visualization, likely due to appendix displacement by the uterus, patient habitus, bowel gas, and discomfort during the exam.²¹

MRI has high sensitivity and very high specificity for the diagnosis of appendicitis. Abnormal diagnostic findings include an appendiceal diameter > 7 mm and surrounding inflammatory changes.22 The low negative predictive value of MRI obviates the need for risky surgeries in pregnant patients in whom appendicitis is ruled out. MRI also allows for the diagnosis of other etiologies of abdominal pain in these patients.²¹

Pediatric patients with abdominal pain -concern for appendicitis (see the Cautions and Limitations section above on MRI in pediatric patients)

For pediatric patients with possible appendicitis, ultrasound is the first imaging modality of choice, followed by CT. However, ultrasound is operator dependent, with wide variability in its ability to correctly diagnose appendicitis, often leading to equivocal results. CT involves ionizing radiation exposure.²⁰ Non-contrast MRI is the emerging imaging modality for these patients. A systematic review of almost 2000 pediatric patients found MRI sensitivity and specificity to be 97% and 97% with a low negative appendectomy rate.²³

Cost and image acquisition time are limitations for MRI use for children. Pediatric patients may require sedation with long acquisition times in order to ensure that high-quality images are obtained, potentially introducing more associated costs and safety concerns. Shorter image-acquisition times would make MRI a more widely applicable test.²³

Orthopedics

Various orthopedic conditions can be investigated by MRI, but this is not commonly done in the ED. Acute knee trauma with a concern for ligamentous, cartilaginous, or meniscal injury is one example. The patient with a concern for occult fracture or injury to the shoulder, elbow, or scaphoid represent others.

However, the special case of the patient with hip trauma with negative radiographs who will not weight bear or has significant pain is worth considering. MRI to either diagnose or exclude occult hip, pelvic, or acetabular fracture is traditionally considered to be the criterion standard. However, a 2016 study called this widely-held belief into question. It found that CT and MRI were similarly sensitive and concluded that starting with CT was a reasonable approach.²⁴ MRI can be considered if the diagnosis remains in doubt.

Musculoskeletal infections

A wide variety of bone, joint, and soft-tissue infections can be diagnosed by MRI, which is often the imaging modality of choice. Some of these infections may be limb- or even life-threatening. One, epidural abscess, is both life-threatening and function-threatening and has been discussed briefly already.

If you are concerned about the possibility of a serious soft-tissue or bone infection, strongly consider giving gadolinium contrast, which is particularly useful for detecting abscesses, sinus tracts, and spine infections, and for providing other important anatomic details.²⁵

Conclusion

MRI utilization by EPs will continue to increase as the factors governing its use evolves. These factors include: decreasing scan times; wider availability; possible cost reductions; new and changing indications; more research; and the always-present pressure on EPs to care for a broader spectrum of evermore challenging patients. It therefore benefits us to understand more about this dynamic part of our practice. Look to the scientific literature on stroke, neurosurgical emergencies, orthopedics, pediatrics, infectious disease and other fields that impact emergency medicine practice and MRI use as they continue to change.

The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by emergency physicians (EPs) is increasing steadily, as new MRI indications arise, technology evolves, and machines become faster and more widely available. It is therefore critically important that EPs understand the basics of this imaging modality, its uses, limitations, cautions, and contraindications.

A full explanation of the physics underpinning MRI is beyond this article’s scope. However, a comprehensive discussion of the topic is available in a 2013 review entitled, "Understanding MRI: basic MR physics for physicians."¹ In short, three elements are necessary for an MRI machine to generate images: a strong magnetic field, radio waves, and a computer system. The body’s hydrogen nuclei with their single protons and north-south poles act as mini bar magnets with randomly aligned axes. However, when the body is subjected to the MRI machine magnetic field, these axes line up. When radio waves are applied to the magnetic field, the strength and direction of the magnetic field changes. Then, when the radio waves are turned off, the magnetic field strength and direction return to baseline and a signal is emitted. It is this signal that is interpreted by a computer system to generate images.²

Cautions and Limitations

Although limited availability is often cited as a reason for not obtaining MRI studies in the emergency department (ED), this limitation is institution specific and will likely improve over time. Recent statistics indicate that MRI availability in the United States is second only to that in Japan and climbing. MRI usage in the United States is the highest in the world.³

MRI cost (and the resultant patient bill) exceeds that of other commonly performed ED imaging roughly by a factor of 2:1 when compared to computed tomography (CT). This is unlikely to improve in the near term.

The time to complete an MRI study continues to fall for some indications, but significantly exceeds the time to obtain CT images. MRI scan times range from 20 to 60 minutes depending on test type.

Body habitus, particularly obesity, may limit the ability of certain patients to undergo MRI. Claustrophobia or the inability to lie still for the test’s entire duration may present a challenge for some patients. Be prepared to safely sedate patients with these issues. This is particularly relevant for pediatric patients. Consider a pre-MRI trial of sedation to assess which medication is best suited for individual patients.

Patients with certain medical devices may be unable to undergo MRI. Medical devices and implants from the U.S. and Europe manufactured within the past 30 years are non-ferromagnetic. This generally means they are MR-safe or MR-conditional. Realize, however, that certain non-ferromagnetic implants can heat during MR imaging.⁴ A free searchable database exists listing MRI-safe devices and implants along with limitations and cautions (http://www.mrisafety.com/TheList_search.asp).⁵

Pacemakers and defibrillators are worthy of special mention. Some are now considered MR-conditional in limited circumstances, and this situation will continue to evolve. Consult your radiologist and/or the physician who placed the medical device with any safety concerns.

Intraocular metallic foreign bodies are an MRI contraindication. If any concern exists for an intraocular metallic foreign body, perform an orbital CT before considering an MRI. Headphones and ear plugs are used during MRI examinations to prevent hearing damage due to machine noise or nerve and muscle stimulation.

A 2016 JAMA study of MRI in pregnancy involving more than 1.4 million deliveries concluded “exposure to MRI during the first trimester of pregnancy compared with non¬exposure was not associated with increased risk of harm to the fetus or in early childhood. Gadolinium MRI at any time during pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of a broad set of rheumatological, inflammatory, or infiltrative skin conditions and for stillbirth or neonatal death.”⁶

There is limited data on the use of MRI in pediatric patients, but a 2015 study noted, “to date, no studies have demonstrated any definite risk to the fetus, mother, or neonate when MR scanners are operated within the regulatory guidelines set forth by the FDA and other regulatory agencies.”⁷

A variety of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are currently used. GBCA administrations in renally impaired patients has been linked to nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF), a rare, progressive, potentially fatal, incompletely understood, systemic disorder with a spectrum of manifestations. Its occurrence has prompted alerts, and a recent set of recommendations for at-risk patients (ie, those with acute kidney injury or an eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² and those who are dialysis dependent) specifies that (1) a low-risk GBCA should be used; (2) GBCA dose should be as low as possible; and (3) dialysis should be performed as indicated immediately after GBCA-enhanced MRI.^8,9 Additionally, the EP may wish to obtain informed consent from at-risk patients prior to the administration of GBCAs.

Central nervous system MRI

Spinal cord compression may occur due to a neoplastic process, either primary or metastatic, infection (epidural abscess is a particular concern), or hematoma. CT myelography is another diagnostic option, but MRI offers ease of performance, superior resolution, multiplanar imaging, lack of ionizing radiation, and the ability to detect multiple lesions with a single scan. For non-traumatic myelopathy evaluation (most commonly due to cancer), perform a non-contrast MRI of the entire spinal canal since multiple lesions may be present. Repeat the MRI with contrast if the cause of the myelopathy is not clear after the non-contrast study.¹⁰ Gadolinium does help detect and define inflammatory, infectious, and neoplastic lesions, but spinal cord compression can be diagnosed without it if the patient cannot receive gadolinium (see Cautions and Limitations section).¹¹ Only a non-enhanced MRI, limited to the traumatized area, is required in the evaluation of trauma-induced myelopathy.¹⁰

Dural venous sinus thrombosis (DVST) is best assessed with a combination of MRI and MR venography.¹⁰ DVST is clot formation within any of five major dural venous sinuses. DVST risk factors include: dehydration; infections, both systemic and local; pregnancy and the puerperium; neoplastic incursion; trauma; and coagulopathies.^10,12 MR venography is an essential part of DVST evaluation since it assesses patency of the involved dural venous sinus.¹⁰

Carotid artery dissection is a leading cause of stroke in those younger than 45 years of age.¹³ Carotid and vertebral artery dissection, due to trauma, hypertension, vascular disease, or local infections, can be diagnosed with endovascular angiography.^10,14 However, MRI in combination with MRA can be diagnostic as well.^10,13,14 MRI delineates the intramural clots while MRA shows the degree and extent of endovascular compromise.^10,13

Meningoencephalitis and vasculitis are usually diagnosed with a combination of clinical findings, laboratory data, CT, and lumbar puncture results. However, MRI is highly sensitive for the CNS lesions associated with infection or vasculitis. Consider MRI as an alternative to the usual work up in selected patients if aggressive early therapy for viral infection (eg, herpes) or vasculitis is being contemplated.¹⁰

Acute subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is usually best demonstrated on CT. However, MRI may have a role, especially in posterior fossa SAH.¹⁰

Cerebral Ischemia (TIA and Stroke) - The 2018 guidelines for early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke both recommended and considered equal (in patients selected for mechanical thrombectomy) CT, diffusion weighted MRI or MRI perfusion.¹⁵ This guideline was promulgated by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and endorsed by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, among other professional organizations.

In a joint statement published by the American Society of Neuroradiology, the American College of Radiology, and the Society of Neurointerventional Surgery, MRI was reported to be equivalent to a non-contrast brain CT. MRI was also found to have superior accuracy in detecting microhemorrhages.¹⁶

Spine MRI

Spine and spinal cord emergencies must be promptly and correctly diagnosed to avoid or minimize functional loss. Knowledge of the most appropriate imaging modalities is essential to facilitate diagnosis and treatment for patients presenting with spine-related emergencies.

Low back pain prompts many ED visits and is a major cause of disability in the United States.

MRI is unwarranted for those patients with acute (< 6 weeks duration) low back pain in whom serious pathology, such as cauda equina, malignancy, epidural hematoma, or infection is not suspected. Manage most low back pain patients conservatively and without imaging.¹⁷

Trauma is the most common reason for spine MRI. CT, and now increasingly MRI, have supplanted plain radiography in the evaluation of spinal trauma. Currently, CT alone is considered sufficient in the evaluation of thoracic and lumbar skeletal injuries. This is not true for cervical spine injuries.¹⁸

Initially, use either the NEXUS or Canadian C-Spine Rule criteria to determine if a trauma patient needs any imaging. Then, consider whether CT or MRI or both will be required, while realizing that the literature on this thorny issue continues to evolve. CT is the current standard for detecting bony injuries. MRI is usually reserved for patient in whom a soft-tissue, particularly ligamentous, injury is suspected. MRI is also required for the evaluation of any patient suspected of having sustained spinal cord injury.¹⁸ The downside of our increased MRI usage in the evaluation of potentially spine-injured patients has been the detection of many clinically insignificant findings.

Acute cauda equina syndrome is a neurosurgical emergency requiring prompt recognition, imaging, and immediate neurosurgical consultation. Common findings include: recent onset or worsening severe low back pain; bowel and/or bladder dysfunction; neurological deficits; and saddle anesthesia. Many processes can lead to the syndrome, but the most common is disc herniation with resultant cauda equina compression. The American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria cite MRI as the correct imaging modality for the diagnosis of acute cauda equina syndrome.¹⁹ In patients who’ve undergone previous herniated disc surgery, MRI with and without contrast must be obtained to differentiate between contrast-enhancing granulation tissue at the site of the surgery and nonenhancing herniated disc tissue.¹⁸

Infection is an important item in the differential diagnosis of back pain, with or without radiculopathy, and particularly important to consider if the patient has infectious disease risk factors. These risk factors include: spinal instrumentation via injections or surgery; intravenous drug use; prosthetic heart valves; systemic infections; other infectious sources in the body; and immunocompromising conditions.¹⁸ All spinal elements, including the spinal cord, meninges, joints, discs, and vertebrae can be affected. Realize that infection can occur by direct inoculation or contiguous or hematogenous spread. An MRI with and without contrast is essential to confirm the diagnosis.¹⁹ Your neurosurgical consultant will likely recommend imaging the entire spinal axis, since infectious lesions may be present at multiple levels.¹⁸

Pregnant patients with abdominal pain - concern for appendicitis (see the Cautions and Limitations section above on MRI in pregnancy)

Appendicitis occurs commonly in pregnancy. Missing the diagnosis can lead to fetal loss and other untoward outcomes. The 2018 American College of Radiology guidelines list MRI and ultrasound as imaging studies of choice in gravid patients in whom appendicitis is a concern.²⁰ Ultrasound is more commonly available and less expensive but is limited by high rates of appendiceal non-visualization, likely due to appendix displacement by the uterus, patient habitus, bowel gas, and discomfort during the exam.²¹

MRI has high sensitivity and very high specificity for the diagnosis of appendicitis. Abnormal diagnostic findings include an appendiceal diameter > 7 mm and surrounding inflammatory changes.22 The low negative predictive value of MRI obviates the need for risky surgeries in pregnant patients in whom appendicitis is ruled out. MRI also allows for the diagnosis of other etiologies of abdominal pain in these patients.²¹

Pediatric patients with abdominal pain -concern for appendicitis (see the Cautions and Limitations section above on MRI in pediatric patients)

For pediatric patients with possible appendicitis, ultrasound is the first imaging modality of choice, followed by CT. However, ultrasound is operator dependent, with wide variability in its ability to correctly diagnose appendicitis, often leading to equivocal results. CT involves ionizing radiation exposure.²⁰ Non-contrast MRI is the emerging imaging modality for these patients. A systematic review of almost 2000 pediatric patients found MRI sensitivity and specificity to be 97% and 97% with a low negative appendectomy rate.²³

Cost and image acquisition time are limitations for MRI use for children. Pediatric patients may require sedation with long acquisition times in order to ensure that high-quality images are obtained, potentially introducing more associated costs and safety concerns. Shorter image-acquisition times would make MRI a more widely applicable test.²³

Orthopedics

Various orthopedic conditions can be investigated by MRI, but this is not commonly done in the ED. Acute knee trauma with a concern for ligamentous, cartilaginous, or meniscal injury is one example. The patient with a concern for occult fracture or injury to the shoulder, elbow, or scaphoid represent others.

However, the special case of the patient with hip trauma with negative radiographs who will not weight bear or has significant pain is worth considering. MRI to either diagnose or exclude occult hip, pelvic, or acetabular fracture is traditionally considered to be the criterion standard. However, a 2016 study called this widely-held belief into question. It found that CT and MRI were similarly sensitive and concluded that starting with CT was a reasonable approach.²⁴ MRI can be considered if the diagnosis remains in doubt.

Musculoskeletal infections

A wide variety of bone, joint, and soft-tissue infections can be diagnosed by MRI, which is often the imaging modality of choice. Some of these infections may be limb- or even life-threatening. One, epidural abscess, is both life-threatening and function-threatening and has been discussed briefly already.

If you are concerned about the possibility of a serious soft-tissue or bone infection, strongly consider giving gadolinium contrast, which is particularly useful for detecting abscesses, sinus tracts, and spine infections, and for providing other important anatomic details.²⁵

Conclusion

MRI utilization by EPs will continue to increase as the factors governing its use evolves. These factors include: decreasing scan times; wider availability; possible cost reductions; new and changing indications; more research; and the always-present pressure on EPs to care for a broader spectrum of evermore challenging patients. It therefore benefits us to understand more about this dynamic part of our practice. Look to the scientific literature on stroke, neurosurgical emergencies, orthopedics, pediatrics, infectious disease and other fields that impact emergency medicine practice and MRI use as they continue to change.

The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by emergency physicians (EPs) is increasing steadily, as new MRI indications arise, technology evolves, and machines become faster and more widely available. It is therefore critically important that EPs understand the basics of this imaging modality, its uses, limitations, cautions, and contraindications.

A full explanation of the physics underpinning MRI is beyond this article’s scope. However, a comprehensive discussion of the topic is available in a 2013 review entitled, "Understanding MRI: basic MR physics for physicians."¹ In short, three elements are necessary for an MRI machine to generate images: a strong magnetic field, radio waves, and a computer system. The body’s hydrogen nuclei with their single protons and north-south poles act as mini bar magnets with randomly aligned axes. However, when the body is subjected to the MRI machine magnetic field, these axes line up. When radio waves are applied to the magnetic field, the strength and direction of the magnetic field changes. Then, when the radio waves are turned off, the magnetic field strength and direction return to baseline and a signal is emitted. It is this signal that is interpreted by a computer system to generate images.²

Cautions and Limitations

Although limited availability is often cited as a reason for not obtaining MRI studies in the emergency department (ED), this limitation is institution specific and will likely improve over time. Recent statistics indicate that MRI availability in the United States is second only to that in Japan and climbing. MRI usage in the United States is the highest in the world.³

MRI cost (and the resultant patient bill) exceeds that of other commonly performed ED imaging roughly by a factor of 2:1 when compared to computed tomography (CT). This is unlikely to improve in the near term.

The time to complete an MRI study continues to fall for some indications, but significantly exceeds the time to obtain CT images. MRI scan times range from 20 to 60 minutes depending on test type.

Body habitus, particularly obesity, may limit the ability of certain patients to undergo MRI. Claustrophobia or the inability to lie still for the test’s entire duration may present a challenge for some patients. Be prepared to safely sedate patients with these issues. This is particularly relevant for pediatric patients. Consider a pre-MRI trial of sedation to assess which medication is best suited for individual patients.

Patients with certain medical devices may be unable to undergo MRI. Medical devices and implants from the U.S. and Europe manufactured within the past 30 years are non-ferromagnetic. This generally means they are MR-safe or MR-conditional. Realize, however, that certain non-ferromagnetic implants can heat during MR imaging.⁴ A free searchable database exists listing MRI-safe devices and implants along with limitations and cautions (http://www.mrisafety.com/TheList_search.asp).⁵

Pacemakers and defibrillators are worthy of special mention. Some are now considered MR-conditional in limited circumstances, and this situation will continue to evolve. Consult your radiologist and/or the physician who placed the medical device with any safety concerns.

Intraocular metallic foreign bodies are an MRI contraindication. If any concern exists for an intraocular metallic foreign body, perform an orbital CT before considering an MRI. Headphones and ear plugs are used during MRI examinations to prevent hearing damage due to machine noise or nerve and muscle stimulation.

A 2016 JAMA study of MRI in pregnancy involving more than 1.4 million deliveries concluded “exposure to MRI during the first trimester of pregnancy compared with non¬exposure was not associated with increased risk of harm to the fetus or in early childhood. Gadolinium MRI at any time during pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of a broad set of rheumatological, inflammatory, or infiltrative skin conditions and for stillbirth or neonatal death.”⁶

There is limited data on the use of MRI in pediatric patients, but a 2015 study noted, “to date, no studies have demonstrated any definite risk to the fetus, mother, or neonate when MR scanners are operated within the regulatory guidelines set forth by the FDA and other regulatory agencies.”⁷

A variety of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are currently used. GBCA administrations in renally impaired patients has been linked to nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF), a rare, progressive, potentially fatal, incompletely understood, systemic disorder with a spectrum of manifestations. Its occurrence has prompted alerts, and a recent set of recommendations for at-risk patients (ie, those with acute kidney injury or an eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² and those who are dialysis dependent) specifies that (1) a low-risk GBCA should be used; (2) GBCA dose should be as low as possible; and (3) dialysis should be performed as indicated immediately after GBCA-enhanced MRI.^8,9 Additionally, the EP may wish to obtain informed consent from at-risk patients prior to the administration of GBCAs.

Central nervous system MRI

Spinal cord compression may occur due to a neoplastic process, either primary or metastatic, infection (epidural abscess is a particular concern), or hematoma. CT myelography is another diagnostic option, but MRI offers ease of performance, superior resolution, multiplanar imaging, lack of ionizing radiation, and the ability to detect multiple lesions with a single scan. For non-traumatic myelopathy evaluation (most commonly due to cancer), perform a non-contrast MRI of the entire spinal canal since multiple lesions may be present. Repeat the MRI with contrast if the cause of the myelopathy is not clear after the non-contrast study.¹⁰ Gadolinium does help detect and define inflammatory, infectious, and neoplastic lesions, but spinal cord compression can be diagnosed without it if the patient cannot receive gadolinium (see Cautions and Limitations section).¹¹ Only a non-enhanced MRI, limited to the traumatized area, is required in the evaluation of trauma-induced myelopathy.¹⁰

Dural venous sinus thrombosis (DVST) is best assessed with a combination of MRI and MR venography.¹⁰ DVST is clot formation within any of five major dural venous sinuses. DVST risk factors include: dehydration; infections, both systemic and local; pregnancy and the puerperium; neoplastic incursion; trauma; and coagulopathies.^10,12 MR venography is an essential part of DVST evaluation since it assesses patency of the involved dural venous sinus.¹⁰

Carotid artery dissection is a leading cause of stroke in those younger than 45 years of age.¹³ Carotid and vertebral artery dissection, due to trauma, hypertension, vascular disease, or local infections, can be diagnosed with endovascular angiography.^10,14 However, MRI in combination with MRA can be diagnostic as well.^10,13,14 MRI delineates the intramural clots while MRA shows the degree and extent of endovascular compromise.^10,13

Meningoencephalitis and vasculitis are usually diagnosed with a combination of clinical findings, laboratory data, CT, and lumbar puncture results. However, MRI is highly sensitive for the CNS lesions associated with infection or vasculitis. Consider MRI as an alternative to the usual work up in selected patients if aggressive early therapy for viral infection (eg, herpes) or vasculitis is being contemplated.¹⁰

Acute subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is usually best demonstrated on CT. However, MRI may have a role, especially in posterior fossa SAH.¹⁰

Cerebral Ischemia (TIA and Stroke) - The 2018 guidelines for early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke both recommended and considered equal (in patients selected for mechanical thrombectomy) CT, diffusion weighted MRI or MRI perfusion.¹⁵ This guideline was promulgated by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and endorsed by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, among other professional organizations.

In a joint statement published by the American Society of Neuroradiology, the American College of Radiology, and the Society of Neurointerventional Surgery, MRI was reported to be equivalent to a non-contrast brain CT. MRI was also found to have superior accuracy in detecting microhemorrhages.¹⁶

Spine MRI

Spine and spinal cord emergencies must be promptly and correctly diagnosed to avoid or minimize functional loss. Knowledge of the most appropriate imaging modalities is essential to facilitate diagnosis and treatment for patients presenting with spine-related emergencies.

Low back pain prompts many ED visits and is a major cause of disability in the United States.

MRI is unwarranted for those patients with acute (< 6 weeks duration) low back pain in whom serious pathology, such as cauda equina, malignancy, epidural hematoma, or infection is not suspected. Manage most low back pain patients conservatively and without imaging.¹⁷

Trauma is the most common reason for spine MRI. CT, and now increasingly MRI, have supplanted plain radiography in the evaluation of spinal trauma. Currently, CT alone is considered sufficient in the evaluation of thoracic and lumbar skeletal injuries. This is not true for cervical spine injuries.¹⁸

Initially, use either the NEXUS or Canadian C-Spine Rule criteria to determine if a trauma patient needs any imaging. Then, consider whether CT or MRI or both will be required, while realizing that the literature on this thorny issue continues to evolve. CT is the current standard for detecting bony injuries. MRI is usually reserved for patient in whom a soft-tissue, particularly ligamentous, injury is suspected. MRI is also required for the evaluation of any patient suspected of having sustained spinal cord injury.¹⁸ The downside of our increased MRI usage in the evaluation of potentially spine-injured patients has been the detection of many clinically insignificant findings.

Acute cauda equina syndrome is a neurosurgical emergency requiring prompt recognition, imaging, and immediate neurosurgical consultation. Common findings include: recent onset or worsening severe low back pain; bowel and/or bladder dysfunction; neurological deficits; and saddle anesthesia. Many processes can lead to the syndrome, but the most common is disc herniation with resultant cauda equina compression. The American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria cite MRI as the correct imaging modality for the diagnosis of acute cauda equina syndrome.¹⁹ In patients who’ve undergone previous herniated disc surgery, MRI with and without contrast must be obtained to differentiate between contrast-enhancing granulation tissue at the site of the surgery and nonenhancing herniated disc tissue.¹⁸

Infection is an important item in the differential diagnosis of back pain, with or without radiculopathy, and particularly important to consider if the patient has infectious disease risk factors. These risk factors include: spinal instrumentation via injections or surgery; intravenous drug use; prosthetic heart valves; systemic infections; other infectious sources in the body; and immunocompromising conditions.¹⁸ All spinal elements, including the spinal cord, meninges, joints, discs, and vertebrae can be affected. Realize that infection can occur by direct inoculation or contiguous or hematogenous spread. An MRI with and without contrast is essential to confirm the diagnosis.¹⁹ Your neurosurgical consultant will likely recommend imaging the entire spinal axis, since infectious lesions may be present at multiple levels.¹⁸

Pregnant patients with abdominal pain - concern for appendicitis (see the Cautions and Limitations section above on MRI in pregnancy)

Appendicitis occurs commonly in pregnancy. Missing the diagnosis can lead to fetal loss and other untoward outcomes. The 2018 American College of Radiology guidelines list MRI and ultrasound as imaging studies of choice in gravid patients in whom appendicitis is a concern.²⁰ Ultrasound is more commonly available and less expensive but is limited by high rates of appendiceal non-visualization, likely due to appendix displacement by the uterus, patient habitus, bowel gas, and discomfort during the exam.²¹

MRI has high sensitivity and very high specificity for the diagnosis of appendicitis. Abnormal diagnostic findings include an appendiceal diameter > 7 mm and surrounding inflammatory changes.22 The low negative predictive value of MRI obviates the need for risky surgeries in pregnant patients in whom appendicitis is ruled out. MRI also allows for the diagnosis of other etiologies of abdominal pain in these patients.²¹

Pediatric patients with abdominal pain -concern for appendicitis (see the Cautions and Limitations section above on MRI in pediatric patients)

For pediatric patients with possible appendicitis, ultrasound is the first imaging modality of choice, followed by CT. However, ultrasound is operator dependent, with wide variability in its ability to correctly diagnose appendicitis, often leading to equivocal results. CT involves ionizing radiation exposure.²⁰ Non-contrast MRI is the emerging imaging modality for these patients. A systematic review of almost 2000 pediatric patients found MRI sensitivity and specificity to be 97% and 97% with a low negative appendectomy rate.²³

Cost and image acquisition time are limitations for MRI use for children. Pediatric patients may require sedation with long acquisition times in order to ensure that high-quality images are obtained, potentially introducing more associated costs and safety concerns. Shorter image-acquisition times would make MRI a more widely applicable test.²³

Orthopedics

Various orthopedic conditions can be investigated by MRI, but this is not commonly done in the ED. Acute knee trauma with a concern for ligamentous, cartilaginous, or meniscal injury is one example. The patient with a concern for occult fracture or injury to the shoulder, elbow, or scaphoid represent others.

However, the special case of the patient with hip trauma with negative radiographs who will not weight bear or has significant pain is worth considering. MRI to either diagnose or exclude occult hip, pelvic, or acetabular fracture is traditionally considered to be the criterion standard. However, a 2016 study called this widely-held belief into question. It found that CT and MRI were similarly sensitive and concluded that starting with CT was a reasonable approach.²⁴ MRI can be considered if the diagnosis remains in doubt.

Musculoskeletal infections

A wide variety of bone, joint, and soft-tissue infections can be diagnosed by MRI, which is often the imaging modality of choice. Some of these infections may be limb- or even life-threatening. One, epidural abscess, is both life-threatening and function-threatening and has been discussed briefly already.

If you are concerned about the possibility of a serious soft-tissue or bone infection, strongly consider giving gadolinium contrast, which is particularly useful for detecting abscesses, sinus tracts, and spine infections, and for providing other important anatomic details.²⁵

Conclusion

MRI utilization by EPs will continue to increase as the factors governing its use evolves. These factors include: decreasing scan times; wider availability; possible cost reductions; new and changing indications; more research; and the always-present pressure on EPs to care for a broader spectrum of evermore challenging patients. It therefore benefits us to understand more about this dynamic part of our practice. Look to the scientific literature on stroke, neurosurgical emergencies, orthopedics, pediatrics, infectious disease and other fields that impact emergency medicine practice and MRI use as they continue to change.

A pictorial representation of carotid ultrasound coupled with a follow-up phone call from a nurse led to reduced cardiovascular disease risk at 1-year follow-up, according to a randomized, controlled study of northern Sweden residents at risk of cardiovascular disease.

pixologicstudio/Thinkstock.com

“Our study supports further attempts to solve the major problem of prevention failure because of low adherence, despite effective, cost-effective, and evidence-based medications and methods for a healthier lifestyle,” wrote lead author Ulf Näslund, of Umeå (Sweden) University, and his coauthors. The study was published online in the Lancet.

In this trial of 3,532 individuals who were aged 40-60 years with one or more conventional cardiovascular risk factors, the intervention group (1,749) received pictorial information of atherosclerosis as an add-on to normal care. Their primary care physician received the same information, and these participants also received a follow-up phone call from a nurse 2-4 weeks later. The other participants (1,783) received standard care but neither the presentation nor the phone call.

Both the Framingham risk score (FRS) and European Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) were both used to assess outcomes; at 1-year follow-up, the intervention group had an FRS that decreased from baseline (–0.58; 95% confidence interval, –0.86 to –0.30), compared with an increase in the control group (0.35; 95% CI, 0.08-0.63). SCORE values increased twice as much in the control group (0.27; 95% CI, 0.23-0.30), compared with the intervention group (0.13; 95% CI, 0.09-0.18). The authors also observed no differential responses for education level, surmising that “this type of risk communication might contribute to reduction of the social gap in health.”

The authors shared their study’s limitations, including notable differences between dropouts and participants at 1-year follow-up with regard to metabolic risk factors and such fast-developing imaging technologies as CT and MRI out-dating ultrasound findings. They also acknowledged that more research needs to be undertaken to prove that these outcomes are genuine.

This study was funded by Västerbotten County Council, the Swedish Research Council, the Heart and Lung Foundation, and the Swedish Society of Medicine. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Näslund U et al. Lancet. 2018 Dec 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32818-6.

A pictorial representation of carotid ultrasound coupled with a follow-up phone call from a nurse led to reduced cardiovascular disease risk at 1-year follow-up, according to a randomized, controlled study of northern Sweden residents at risk of cardiovascular disease.

pixologicstudio/Thinkstock.com

“Our study supports further attempts to solve the major problem of prevention failure because of low adherence, despite effective, cost-effective, and evidence-based medications and methods for a healthier lifestyle,” wrote lead author Ulf Näslund, of Umeå (Sweden) University, and his coauthors. The study was published online in the Lancet.

In this trial of 3,532 individuals who were aged 40-60 years with one or more conventional cardiovascular risk factors, the intervention group (1,749) received pictorial information of atherosclerosis as an add-on to normal care. Their primary care physician received the same information, and these participants also received a follow-up phone call from a nurse 2-4 weeks later. The other participants (1,783) received standard care but neither the presentation nor the phone call.

Both the Framingham risk score (FRS) and European Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) were both used to assess outcomes; at 1-year follow-up, the intervention group had an FRS that decreased from baseline (–0.58; 95% confidence interval, –0.86 to –0.30), compared with an increase in the control group (0.35; 95% CI, 0.08-0.63). SCORE values increased twice as much in the control group (0.27; 95% CI, 0.23-0.30), compared with the intervention group (0.13; 95% CI, 0.09-0.18). The authors also observed no differential responses for education level, surmising that “this type of risk communication might contribute to reduction of the social gap in health.”

The authors shared their study’s limitations, including notable differences between dropouts and participants at 1-year follow-up with regard to metabolic risk factors and such fast-developing imaging technologies as CT and MRI out-dating ultrasound findings. They also acknowledged that more research needs to be undertaken to prove that these outcomes are genuine.

This study was funded by Västerbotten County Council, the Swedish Research Council, the Heart and Lung Foundation, and the Swedish Society of Medicine. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Näslund U et al. Lancet. 2018 Dec 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32818-6.

A pictorial representation of carotid ultrasound coupled with a follow-up phone call from a nurse led to reduced cardiovascular disease risk at 1-year follow-up, according to a randomized, controlled study of northern Sweden residents at risk of cardiovascular disease.

pixologicstudio/Thinkstock.com

“Our study supports further attempts to solve the major problem of prevention failure because of low adherence, despite effective, cost-effective, and evidence-based medications and methods for a healthier lifestyle,” wrote lead author Ulf Näslund, of Umeå (Sweden) University, and his coauthors. The study was published online in the Lancet.

In this trial of 3,532 individuals who were aged 40-60 years with one or more conventional cardiovascular risk factors, the intervention group (1,749) received pictorial information of atherosclerosis as an add-on to normal care. Their primary care physician received the same information, and these participants also received a follow-up phone call from a nurse 2-4 weeks later. The other participants (1,783) received standard care but neither the presentation nor the phone call.

Both the Framingham risk score (FRS) and European Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) were both used to assess outcomes; at 1-year follow-up, the intervention group had an FRS that decreased from baseline (–0.58; 95% confidence interval, –0.86 to –0.30), compared with an increase in the control group (0.35; 95% CI, 0.08-0.63). SCORE values increased twice as much in the control group (0.27; 95% CI, 0.23-0.30), compared with the intervention group (0.13; 95% CI, 0.09-0.18). The authors also observed no differential responses for education level, surmising that “this type of risk communication might contribute to reduction of the social gap in health.”

The authors shared their study’s limitations, including notable differences between dropouts and participants at 1-year follow-up with regard to metabolic risk factors and such fast-developing imaging technologies as CT and MRI out-dating ultrasound findings. They also acknowledged that more research needs to be undertaken to prove that these outcomes are genuine.

This study was funded by Västerbotten County Council, the Swedish Research Council, the Heart and Lung Foundation, and the Swedish Society of Medicine. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Näslund U et al. Lancet. 2018 Dec 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32818-6.

A 39-year-old woman presented to the emergency department with a 2-day history of exertional dyspnea, left-sided chest pain with pleuritic characteristics, and cough without fever or chills. She had a history of severe postprandial nausea and vomiting, weight loss, and malnutrition, which had necessitated placement of a peripherally inserted central catheter in her right arm for total parenteral nutrition.

On physical examination, the patient was afebrile but tachycardic and tachypneic. Her oxygen saturation on room air by pulse oximetry was 91%, though she was not in significant distress. Breath sounds were equal bilaterally and clear, with symmetrical chest wall expansion.

Her white blood cell count was 18.5 × 10⁹/L (reference range 3.5–10.5), with 19.3% eosinophils (reference range 1%–7%); her D-dimer level was also elevated.

Conditions to consider in a patient with these imaging findings in the setting of leukocytosis and eosinophilia include mycobacterial infection, hypersensitivity reaction, diffuse fungal infiltrates, and possibly metastatic disease such as thyroid carcinoma or melanoma. The patient reported having had a purified protein derivative test that was positive for tuberculosis, but she denied having had active disease.

She underwent bronchosocopy. Bronchoalveolar lavage specimen study showed an elevated eosinophil count of 17%. Acid-fast staining detected no organisms. Transbronchial biopsy study revealed foreign-body granulomas from microcrystalline cellulose microemboli deposited in the microvasculature of the patient’s lungs. Upon further questioning the patient admitted she had crushed oral tablets of prescribed opioids and injected them intravenously.

A COMPLICATION OF INJECTING ORAL TABLETS

Oral tablets typically contain talc, cellulose, cornstarch, or combinations of these substances as binding agents. When pulverized, the powder can be combined with water to form an injectable solution with higher and more rapid bioavailability.^1,2 The binders, however, are insoluble and accumulate in various tissues.

Intravenous injection of microcellulose has been shown to produce pulmonary and peripheral eosinophilia in birds. In humans, the immune response in foreign body granulomatosis can vary, and case reports have not mentioned eosinophils in the lungs or serum.^3,4

Deposition of these particles in pulmonary vessels is common and can trigger a potentially fatal reaction, presenting as acute onset of cough, chest pain, dyspnea, fever, and pulmonary hypertension. The severity of these clinical findings is relative to the degree of pulmonary hypertension created by the arteriolar involvement of these emboli.^2,5

Our patient’s exertional dyspnea and hypoxemia resolved during 1 week of hospitalization with conservative management and supplemental oxygen. She was referred to our pain rehabilitation clinic, where she was successfully weaned from narcotics. Her pulmonary findings on computed tomography were still present 3 years after her initial images, though less prominent.

A 39-year-old woman presented to the emergency department with a 2-day history of exertional dyspnea, left-sided chest pain with pleuritic characteristics, and cough without fever or chills. She had a history of severe postprandial nausea and vomiting, weight loss, and malnutrition, which had necessitated placement of a peripherally inserted central catheter in her right arm for total parenteral nutrition.

On physical examination, the patient was afebrile but tachycardic and tachypneic. Her oxygen saturation on room air by pulse oximetry was 91%, though she was not in significant distress. Breath sounds were equal bilaterally and clear, with symmetrical chest wall expansion.

Her white blood cell count was 18.5 × 10⁹/L (reference range 3.5–10.5), with 19.3% eosinophils (reference range 1%–7%); her D-dimer level was also elevated.

Conditions to consider in a patient with these imaging findings in the setting of leukocytosis and eosinophilia include mycobacterial infection, hypersensitivity reaction, diffuse fungal infiltrates, and possibly metastatic disease such as thyroid carcinoma or melanoma. The patient reported having had a purified protein derivative test that was positive for tuberculosis, but she denied having had active disease.

She underwent bronchosocopy. Bronchoalveolar lavage specimen study showed an elevated eosinophil count of 17%. Acid-fast staining detected no organisms. Transbronchial biopsy study revealed foreign-body granulomas from microcrystalline cellulose microemboli deposited in the microvasculature of the patient’s lungs. Upon further questioning the patient admitted she had crushed oral tablets of prescribed opioids and injected them intravenously.

A COMPLICATION OF INJECTING ORAL TABLETS

Oral tablets typically contain talc, cellulose, cornstarch, or combinations of these substances as binding agents. When pulverized, the powder can be combined with water to form an injectable solution with higher and more rapid bioavailability.^1,2 The binders, however, are insoluble and accumulate in various tissues.

Intravenous injection of microcellulose has been shown to produce pulmonary and peripheral eosinophilia in birds. In humans, the immune response in foreign body granulomatosis can vary, and case reports have not mentioned eosinophils in the lungs or serum.^3,4

Deposition of these particles in pulmonary vessels is common and can trigger a potentially fatal reaction, presenting as acute onset of cough, chest pain, dyspnea, fever, and pulmonary hypertension. The severity of these clinical findings is relative to the degree of pulmonary hypertension created by the arteriolar involvement of these emboli.^2,5

Our patient’s exertional dyspnea and hypoxemia resolved during 1 week of hospitalization with conservative management and supplemental oxygen. She was referred to our pain rehabilitation clinic, where she was successfully weaned from narcotics. Her pulmonary findings on computed tomography were still present 3 years after her initial images, though less prominent.

A 39-year-old woman presented to the emergency department with a 2-day history of exertional dyspnea, left-sided chest pain with pleuritic characteristics, and cough without fever or chills. She had a history of severe postprandial nausea and vomiting, weight loss, and malnutrition, which had necessitated placement of a peripherally inserted central catheter in her right arm for total parenteral nutrition.

On physical examination, the patient was afebrile but tachycardic and tachypneic. Her oxygen saturation on room air by pulse oximetry was 91%, though she was not in significant distress. Breath sounds were equal bilaterally and clear, with symmetrical chest wall expansion.

Her white blood cell count was 18.5 × 10⁹/L (reference range 3.5–10.5), with 19.3% eosinophils (reference range 1%–7%); her D-dimer level was also elevated.

Conditions to consider in a patient with these imaging findings in the setting of leukocytosis and eosinophilia include mycobacterial infection, hypersensitivity reaction, diffuse fungal infiltrates, and possibly metastatic disease such as thyroid carcinoma or melanoma. The patient reported having had a purified protein derivative test that was positive for tuberculosis, but she denied having had active disease.

She underwent bronchosocopy. Bronchoalveolar lavage specimen study showed an elevated eosinophil count of 17%. Acid-fast staining detected no organisms. Transbronchial biopsy study revealed foreign-body granulomas from microcrystalline cellulose microemboli deposited in the microvasculature of the patient’s lungs. Upon further questioning the patient admitted she had crushed oral tablets of prescribed opioids and injected them intravenously.

A COMPLICATION OF INJECTING ORAL TABLETS

Oral tablets typically contain talc, cellulose, cornstarch, or combinations of these substances as binding agents. When pulverized, the powder can be combined with water to form an injectable solution with higher and more rapid bioavailability.^1,2 The binders, however, are insoluble and accumulate in various tissues.

Intravenous injection of microcellulose has been shown to produce pulmonary and peripheral eosinophilia in birds. In humans, the immune response in foreign body granulomatosis can vary, and case reports have not mentioned eosinophils in the lungs or serum.^3,4

Deposition of these particles in pulmonary vessels is common and can trigger a potentially fatal reaction, presenting as acute onset of cough, chest pain, dyspnea, fever, and pulmonary hypertension. The severity of these clinical findings is relative to the degree of pulmonary hypertension created by the arteriolar involvement of these emboli.^2,5

Our patient’s exertional dyspnea and hypoxemia resolved during 1 week of hospitalization with conservative management and supplemental oxygen. She was referred to our pain rehabilitation clinic, where she was successfully weaned from narcotics. Her pulmonary findings on computed tomography were still present 3 years after her initial images, though less prominent.

Small bowel obstruction (SBO) accounts for 2% of all cases of abdominal pain presenting to the ED and 15% of abdominal pain admissions to surgical units from the ED.^1,2 SBO can be a difficult diagnosis; the most common symptoms include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, obstipation, and constipation. The symptomatology depends on multiple factors: the area of the blockage, length of obstruction, and degree of the obstruction (either partial or complete).³ An upper gastrointestinal (GI) blockage classically presents with nausea and vomiting, while a lower GI blockage often presents with abdominal pain, constipation, and obstipation. Complications of obstruction range from significant morbidity—such as bowel strangulation (23%) and sepsis (31%)—to mortality (9%).⁴ ED POCUS allows for rapid and accurate diagnosis of SBO.

CASE

A 60-year-old female with a past medical history of peptic ulcer disease and multiple abdominal surgeries, including umbilical hernia repair, appendectomy, and total abdominal hysterectomy, presented to the ED with an 8-hour history of nausea and vomiting. She reported that her abdomen felt bloated. She had experienced non-bloody, watery stools for the prior 3 weeks. She also reported three to four weeks of epigastric abdominal pain similar to her previous “ulcer pain.” Of note, she was evaluated in GI clinic one day prior to her ED visit for dysphagia, abdominal distention, and diarrhea and was scheduled for an outpatient upper endoscopy. Initial vitals were significant for a heart rate of 100 beats/min. Physical exam was significant for a mildly distended abdomen, tender to palpation at epigastrium without rebound or guarding. Labs showed a white blood cell count of 11.8 K/uL and otherwise unremarkable complete blood count, basic metabolic panel, liver function tests, and lactate measurement. Given the patient’s history of multiple abdominal surgeries and clinical presentation, POCUS was performed to evaluate for SBO. Dilated loops of small bowel were visualized in the lower abdomen gas, suggestive of SBO.

Since the small bowel encompasses a large portion of the abdomen, to fully evaluate for SBO, multiple views are necessary. These include the epigastrium, bilateral colic gutters, and suprapubic regions.5 Use the low-frequency curvilinear transducer to obtain these views, scanning in the transverse and sagittal planes (see Figures 1 and 2). Scan while moving the transducer in columns (ie, “mowing the lawn”), making sure to cover the entire abdomen. To assure that you are evaluating the small bowel, and not the large bowel, look for the characteristic plicae circularis of the small bowel (shown in Figure 3). In children and very slender adults, the high-frequency linear probe may provide enough depth to obtain adequate views.

A fluid-filled small intestinal segment >2.5 cm is consistent with a diagnosis of SBO. Measuring the diameter of the small bowel is both the most sensitive and specific sign; a measurement of greater than 2.5 cm is diagnostic, with a sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 91% (see Figure 4).⁶ This can be somewhat difficult to visualize, as bowel loops are multidirectional and diameters can mistakenly be taken on an indirect cut; to avoid over- or underestimation of bowel diameter, you may want to measure in the short axis using a transverse cross-sectional view of the bowel.

Lack of peristalsis is suggestive of a closed-loop obstruction. However, this finding may be more difficult to visualize, as it requires several continuous minutes of scanning or repeated exams to truly establish absent peristalsis. In prolonged courses of SBO, the bowel wall can measure >3 mm, which suggests necrosis, warranting accelerated surgical intervention. In addition, the detection of extraluminal peritoneal fluid can help determine the severity of the SBO, and small versus large fluid amounts can help determine whether medical or surgical management is warranted (see Figure 5).⁷

DISCUSSION

Increased time to diagnosis of SBO can lead to prolonged patient suffering and greater complication rates. The gold standard for diagnosing SBO—CT with intravenous and oral contrast—can take hours, requiring patients, who are often nauseated, to ingest and tolerate oral contrast. In the past, an “obstructive series” of x-rays would have been used early in the work-up of possible SBO.⁶

Recent literature suggests that POCUS is not only faster, more cost effective, and advantageous (involving no ionizing radiation), but also more accurate than x-rays. Specifically, a meta-analysis by Taylor et al showed pooled estimates for obstructive series x-rays have a sensitivity (Sn) of 75%, a specificity (Sp) of 66%, a positive likelihood ratio (+LR) of 1.6, and a negative likelihood ratio (-LR) of 0.43.¹ On the other hand, pooled results from ED studies of emergency medicine (EM) residents performing POCUS in patients with signs and symptoms suspicious for SBO showed POCUS had a Sn of 97%, Sp of 90%, +LR of 9.5, and a -LR of 0.04.^1,5,8  While detractors point to the operator-dependent nature of POCUS, literature suggests that with EM residents novice to POCUS for SBO (defined as less than 5 previous scans for SBO) were given a 10-minute didactic session and yielded Sn 94%, Sp 81%, +LR 5.0, -LR 0.07.⁵ Unluer et al trained novice EM residents for 6 hours and found them to yield Sn 98%, Sp 95%, +LR 19.5, and -LR 0.02.⁸ Thus, while it is no surprise that those with more training attain better results, both studies show it does not take much time for EM providers to surpass the accuracy of x-rays with POCUS.

CASE CONCLUSION

The findings on POCUS highly suggested the diagnosis of an SBO. A CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis with intravenous and oral contrast was ordered to further evaluate obstruction, transition point, and possible complications, including signs of ischemia per surgical request. CT demonstrated dilated loops of small bowel with transition point in the right lower quadrant, with a small amount of mesenteric fluid consistent with SBO with possible early bowel compromise due to ischemia. General surgery admitted the patient; conservative treatment with serial abdominal exams, nasogastric tube, NPO and bowel rest was ordered. The patient’s diet was gradually advanced, and she was discharged on the eleventh day of hospitalization.

SUMMARY

POCUS is a useful non-invasive tool that can accurately diagnose SBO. POCUS has increased sensitivity and specificity when compared to abdominal X-rays. This bedside imaging will not only give the ED provider rapid diagnostic information but also lead to expedited surgical intervention.

Small bowel obstruction (SBO) accounts for 2% of all cases of abdominal pain presenting to the ED and 15% of abdominal pain admissions to surgical units from the ED.^1,2 SBO can be a difficult diagnosis; the most common symptoms include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, obstipation, and constipation. The symptomatology depends on multiple factors: the area of the blockage, length of obstruction, and degree of the obstruction (either partial or complete).³ An upper gastrointestinal (GI) blockage classically presents with nausea and vomiting, while a lower GI blockage often presents with abdominal pain, constipation, and obstipation. Complications of obstruction range from significant morbidity—such as bowel strangulation (23%) and sepsis (31%)—to mortality (9%).⁴ ED POCUS allows for rapid and accurate diagnosis of SBO.

CASE

A 60-year-old female with a past medical history of peptic ulcer disease and multiple abdominal surgeries, including umbilical hernia repair, appendectomy, and total abdominal hysterectomy, presented to the ED with an 8-hour history of nausea and vomiting. She reported that her abdomen felt bloated. She had experienced non-bloody, watery stools for the prior 3 weeks. She also reported three to four weeks of epigastric abdominal pain similar to her previous “ulcer pain.” Of note, she was evaluated in GI clinic one day prior to her ED visit for dysphagia, abdominal distention, and diarrhea and was scheduled for an outpatient upper endoscopy. Initial vitals were significant for a heart rate of 100 beats/min. Physical exam was significant for a mildly distended abdomen, tender to palpation at epigastrium without rebound or guarding. Labs showed a white blood cell count of 11.8 K/uL and otherwise unremarkable complete blood count, basic metabolic panel, liver function tests, and lactate measurement. Given the patient’s history of multiple abdominal surgeries and clinical presentation, POCUS was performed to evaluate for SBO. Dilated loops of small bowel were visualized in the lower abdomen gas, suggestive of SBO.

Since the small bowel encompasses a large portion of the abdomen, to fully evaluate for SBO, multiple views are necessary. These include the epigastrium, bilateral colic gutters, and suprapubic regions.5 Use the low-frequency curvilinear transducer to obtain these views, scanning in the transverse and sagittal planes (see Figures 1 and 2). Scan while moving the transducer in columns (ie, “mowing the lawn”), making sure to cover the entire abdomen. To assure that you are evaluating the small bowel, and not the large bowel, look for the characteristic plicae circularis of the small bowel (shown in Figure 3). In children and very slender adults, the high-frequency linear probe may provide enough depth to obtain adequate views.

A fluid-filled small intestinal segment >2.5 cm is consistent with a diagnosis of SBO. Measuring the diameter of the small bowel is both the most sensitive and specific sign; a measurement of greater than 2.5 cm is diagnostic, with a sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 91% (see Figure 4).⁶ This can be somewhat difficult to visualize, as bowel loops are multidirectional and diameters can mistakenly be taken on an indirect cut; to avoid over- or underestimation of bowel diameter, you may want to measure in the short axis using a transverse cross-sectional view of the bowel.

Lack of peristalsis is suggestive of a closed-loop obstruction. However, this finding may be more difficult to visualize, as it requires several continuous minutes of scanning or repeated exams to truly establish absent peristalsis. In prolonged courses of SBO, the bowel wall can measure >3 mm, which suggests necrosis, warranting accelerated surgical intervention. In addition, the detection of extraluminal peritoneal fluid can help determine the severity of the SBO, and small versus large fluid amounts can help determine whether medical or surgical management is warranted (see Figure 5).⁷

DISCUSSION

Increased time to diagnosis of SBO can lead to prolonged patient suffering and greater complication rates. The gold standard for diagnosing SBO—CT with intravenous and oral contrast—can take hours, requiring patients, who are often nauseated, to ingest and tolerate oral contrast. In the past, an “obstructive series” of x-rays would have been used early in the work-up of possible SBO.⁶

Recent literature suggests that POCUS is not only faster, more cost effective, and advantageous (involving no ionizing radiation), but also more accurate than x-rays. Specifically, a meta-analysis by Taylor et al showed pooled estimates for obstructive series x-rays have a sensitivity (Sn) of 75%, a specificity (Sp) of 66%, a positive likelihood ratio (+LR) of 1.6, and a negative likelihood ratio (-LR) of 0.43.¹ On the other hand, pooled results from ED studies of emergency medicine (EM) residents performing POCUS in patients with signs and symptoms suspicious for SBO showed POCUS had a Sn of 97%, Sp of 90%, +LR of 9.5, and a -LR of 0.04.^1,5,8  While detractors point to the operator-dependent nature of POCUS, literature suggests that with EM residents novice to POCUS for SBO (defined as less than 5 previous scans for SBO) were given a 10-minute didactic session and yielded Sn 94%, Sp 81%, +LR 5.0, -LR 0.07.⁵ Unluer et al trained novice EM residents for 6 hours and found them to yield Sn 98%, Sp 95%, +LR 19.5, and -LR 0.02.⁸ Thus, while it is no surprise that those with more training attain better results, both studies show it does not take much time for EM providers to surpass the accuracy of x-rays with POCUS.

CASE CONCLUSION

The findings on POCUS highly suggested the diagnosis of an SBO. A CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis with intravenous and oral contrast was ordered to further evaluate obstruction, transition point, and possible complications, including signs of ischemia per surgical request. CT demonstrated dilated loops of small bowel with transition point in the right lower quadrant, with a small amount of mesenteric fluid consistent with SBO with possible early bowel compromise due to ischemia. General surgery admitted the patient; conservative treatment with serial abdominal exams, nasogastric tube, NPO and bowel rest was ordered. The patient’s diet was gradually advanced, and she was discharged on the eleventh day of hospitalization.

SUMMARY

POCUS is a useful non-invasive tool that can accurately diagnose SBO. POCUS has increased sensitivity and specificity when compared to abdominal X-rays. This bedside imaging will not only give the ED provider rapid diagnostic information but also lead to expedited surgical intervention.

Small bowel obstruction (SBO) accounts for 2% of all cases of abdominal pain presenting to the ED and 15% of abdominal pain admissions to surgical units from the ED.^1,2 SBO can be a difficult diagnosis; the most common symptoms include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, obstipation, and constipation. The symptomatology depends on multiple factors: the area of the blockage, length of obstruction, and degree of the obstruction (either partial or complete).³ An upper gastrointestinal (GI) blockage classically presents with nausea and vomiting, while a lower GI blockage often presents with abdominal pain, constipation, and obstipation. Complications of obstruction range from significant morbidity—such as bowel strangulation (23%) and sepsis (31%)—to mortality (9%).⁴ ED POCUS allows for rapid and accurate diagnosis of SBO.

CASE

A 60-year-old female with a past medical history of peptic ulcer disease and multiple abdominal surgeries, including umbilical hernia repair, appendectomy, and total abdominal hysterectomy, presented to the ED with an 8-hour history of nausea and vomiting. She reported that her abdomen felt bloated. She had experienced non-bloody, watery stools for the prior 3 weeks. She also reported three to four weeks of epigastric abdominal pain similar to her previous “ulcer pain.” Of note, she was evaluated in GI clinic one day prior to her ED visit for dysphagia, abdominal distention, and diarrhea and was scheduled for an outpatient upper endoscopy. Initial vitals were significant for a heart rate of 100 beats/min. Physical exam was significant for a mildly distended abdomen, tender to palpation at epigastrium without rebound or guarding. Labs showed a white blood cell count of 11.8 K/uL and otherwise unremarkable complete blood count, basic metabolic panel, liver function tests, and lactate measurement. Given the patient’s history of multiple abdominal surgeries and clinical presentation, POCUS was performed to evaluate for SBO. Dilated loops of small bowel were visualized in the lower abdomen gas, suggestive of SBO.

Since the small bowel encompasses a large portion of the abdomen, to fully evaluate for SBO, multiple views are necessary. These include the epigastrium, bilateral colic gutters, and suprapubic regions.5 Use the low-frequency curvilinear transducer to obtain these views, scanning in the transverse and sagittal planes (see Figures 1 and 2). Scan while moving the transducer in columns (ie, “mowing the lawn”), making sure to cover the entire abdomen. To assure that you are evaluating the small bowel, and not the large bowel, look for the characteristic plicae circularis of the small bowel (shown in Figure 3). In children and very slender adults, the high-frequency linear probe may provide enough depth to obtain adequate views.

A fluid-filled small intestinal segment >2.5 cm is consistent with a diagnosis of SBO. Measuring the diameter of the small bowel is both the most sensitive and specific sign; a measurement of greater than 2.5 cm is diagnostic, with a sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 91% (see Figure 4).⁶ This can be somewhat difficult to visualize, as bowel loops are multidirectional and diameters can mistakenly be taken on an indirect cut; to avoid over- or underestimation of bowel diameter, you may want to measure in the short axis using a transverse cross-sectional view of the bowel.

Lack of peristalsis is suggestive of a closed-loop obstruction. However, this finding may be more difficult to visualize, as it requires several continuous minutes of scanning or repeated exams to truly establish absent peristalsis. In prolonged courses of SBO, the bowel wall can measure >3 mm, which suggests necrosis, warranting accelerated surgical intervention. In addition, the detection of extraluminal peritoneal fluid can help determine the severity of the SBO, and small versus large fluid amounts can help determine whether medical or surgical management is warranted (see Figure 5).⁷

DISCUSSION

Increased time to diagnosis of SBO can lead to prolonged patient suffering and greater complication rates. The gold standard for diagnosing SBO—CT with intravenous and oral contrast—can take hours, requiring patients, who are often nauseated, to ingest and tolerate oral contrast. In the past, an “obstructive series” of x-rays would have been used early in the work-up of possible SBO.⁶

Recent literature suggests that POCUS is not only faster, more cost effective, and advantageous (involving no ionizing radiation), but also more accurate than x-rays. Specifically, a meta-analysis by Taylor et al showed pooled estimates for obstructive series x-rays have a sensitivity (Sn) of 75%, a specificity (Sp) of 66%, a positive likelihood ratio (+LR) of 1.6, and a negative likelihood ratio (-LR) of 0.43.¹ On the other hand, pooled results from ED studies of emergency medicine (EM) residents performing POCUS in patients with signs and symptoms suspicious for SBO showed POCUS had a Sn of 97%, Sp of 90%, +LR of 9.5, and a -LR of 0.04.^1,5,8  While detractors point to the operator-dependent nature of POCUS, literature suggests that with EM residents novice to POCUS for SBO (defined as less than 5 previous scans for SBO) were given a 10-minute didactic session and yielded Sn 94%, Sp 81%, +LR 5.0, -LR 0.07.⁵ Unluer et al trained novice EM residents for 6 hours and found them to yield Sn 98%, Sp 95%, +LR 19.5, and -LR 0.02.⁸ Thus, while it is no surprise that those with more training attain better results, both studies show it does not take much time for EM providers to surpass the accuracy of x-rays with POCUS.

CASE CONCLUSION

The findings on POCUS highly suggested the diagnosis of an SBO. A CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis with intravenous and oral contrast was ordered to further evaluate obstruction, transition point, and possible complications, including signs of ischemia per surgical request. CT demonstrated dilated loops of small bowel with transition point in the right lower quadrant, with a small amount of mesenteric fluid consistent with SBO with possible early bowel compromise due to ischemia. General surgery admitted the patient; conservative treatment with serial abdominal exams, nasogastric tube, NPO and bowel rest was ordered. The patient’s diet was gradually advanced, and she was discharged on the eleventh day of hospitalization.

SUMMARY

POCUS is a useful non-invasive tool that can accurately diagnose SBO. POCUS has increased sensitivity and specificity when compared to abdominal X-rays. This bedside imaging will not only give the ED provider rapid diagnostic information but also lead to expedited surgical intervention.

CHICAGO – Roughly 70% of some 1,200 adult patients with type 1 diabetes screened for coronary artery calcium had a score of zero, about the same prevalence as in the general, U.S. adult population, suggesting the unexpected conclusion that a majority of middle-aged patients with type 1 diabetes do not have an elevated risk for coronary artery disease, in contrast to patients with type 2 diabetes.

Among 1,205 asymptomatic people with type 1 diabetes who underwent coronary artery calcium (CAC) measurement and were followed for an average of about 11 years, 71% had a CAC score of zero at baseline followed by a cardiovascular disease event rate of 5.6 events/1,000 patient years of follow-up, a “very low” event rate that made these patients no more likely to have an event than any adult of similar age and sex in the general U.S. population, Matthew J. Budoff, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

In prior reports, about half of patients with type 2 diabetes had a CAC score of zero, noted Dr. Budoff, professor of medicine and a specialist in cardiac CT imaging and preventive cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. In a general adult population that’s about 45 years old roughly three-quarters would have a CAC score of zero, he noted.

Until now, little has been known about CAC scores in asymptomatic, middle-aged adults with type 1 diabetes. The findings reported by Dr. Budoff raise questions about the 2018 revision of the cholesterol guideline from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association, released during the meeting (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.003), which lumps type 1 and type 2 diabetes together as a special high-risk category for cholesterol management.

The guideline should instead “advocate for more therapy with a CAC score of more than 100 and less therapy with a CAC score of zero in patients with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Budoff suggested. “A statin for someone with a CAC score of zero probably won’t result in event reduction. The 70% of patients with type 1 diabetes who have a CAC score of zero potentially may not benefit from a statin,” he said in a video interview.

Dr. Budoff and his associates used CAC scores and outcomes data collected on 1,205 asymptomatic people with type 1 diabetes enrolled in the EDIC (Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications) trial who underwent CAC scoring as part of the study protocol when they averaged 43 years of age. Follow-up tracked the incidence of cardiovascular disease events in 1,156 of these patients for an average of about 11 years. During follow-up, 105 patients had a cardiovascular disease event, an overall rate of 8.5 events/1,000 patient years of follow-up.

The results also confirmed the prognostic power of the CAC score in these patients. Compared with the very low event rate among those with a zero score, patients with a score of 1-100 had 71% more events, patients with a CAC score of 101-300 had a 5.4-fold higher event rate as those with no coronary calcium, and patients with a CAC score of greater than 300 had a 6.9-fold higher event rate than those with no coronary calcium, Dr. Budoff reported.

Coronary calcium deposits, a direct reflection of atheroma load, can change over time, but somewhat slowly. A CAC score of zero is very reliable for predicting a very low rate of cardiovascular disease events over the subsequent 5 years, and in many people it can reliably predict for as long as 10 years, Dr. Budoff said. Beyond that, follow-up CAC scoring is necessary to check for changes in coronary status, “especially in patients with type 1 diabetes,”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Budoff M et al. Abstract 13133.

CHICAGO – Roughly 70% of some 1,200 adult patients with type 1 diabetes screened for coronary artery calcium had a score of zero, about the same prevalence as in the general, U.S. adult population, suggesting the unexpected conclusion that a majority of middle-aged patients with type 1 diabetes do not have an elevated risk for coronary artery disease, in contrast to patients with type 2 diabetes.

Among 1,205 asymptomatic people with type 1 diabetes who underwent coronary artery calcium (CAC) measurement and were followed for an average of about 11 years, 71% had a CAC score of zero at baseline followed by a cardiovascular disease event rate of 5.6 events/1,000 patient years of follow-up, a “very low” event rate that made these patients no more likely to have an event than any adult of similar age and sex in the general U.S. population, Matthew J. Budoff, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

In prior reports, about half of patients with type 2 diabetes had a CAC score of zero, noted Dr. Budoff, professor of medicine and a specialist in cardiac CT imaging and preventive cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. In a general adult population that’s about 45 years old roughly three-quarters would have a CAC score of zero, he noted.

Until now, little has been known about CAC scores in asymptomatic, middle-aged adults with type 1 diabetes. The findings reported by Dr. Budoff raise questions about the 2018 revision of the cholesterol guideline from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association, released during the meeting (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.003), which lumps type 1 and type 2 diabetes together as a special high-risk category for cholesterol management.

The guideline should instead “advocate for more therapy with a CAC score of more than 100 and less therapy with a CAC score of zero in patients with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Budoff suggested. “A statin for someone with a CAC score of zero probably won’t result in event reduction. The 70% of patients with type 1 diabetes who have a CAC score of zero potentially may not benefit from a statin,” he said in a video interview.

Dr. Budoff and his associates used CAC scores and outcomes data collected on 1,205 asymptomatic people with type 1 diabetes enrolled in the EDIC (Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications) trial who underwent CAC scoring as part of the study protocol when they averaged 43 years of age. Follow-up tracked the incidence of cardiovascular disease events in 1,156 of these patients for an average of about 11 years. During follow-up, 105 patients had a cardiovascular disease event, an overall rate of 8.5 events/1,000 patient years of follow-up.

The results also confirmed the prognostic power of the CAC score in these patients. Compared with the very low event rate among those with a zero score, patients with a score of 1-100 had 71% more events, patients with a CAC score of 101-300 had a 5.4-fold higher event rate as those with no coronary calcium, and patients with a CAC score of greater than 300 had a 6.9-fold higher event rate than those with no coronary calcium, Dr. Budoff reported.

Coronary calcium deposits, a direct reflection of atheroma load, can change over time, but somewhat slowly. A CAC score of zero is very reliable for predicting a very low rate of cardiovascular disease events over the subsequent 5 years, and in many people it can reliably predict for as long as 10 years, Dr. Budoff said. Beyond that, follow-up CAC scoring is necessary to check for changes in coronary status, “especially in patients with type 1 diabetes,”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Budoff M et al. Abstract 13133.

CHICAGO – Roughly 70% of some 1,200 adult patients with type 1 diabetes screened for coronary artery calcium had a score of zero, about the same prevalence as in the general, U.S. adult population, suggesting the unexpected conclusion that a majority of middle-aged patients with type 1 diabetes do not have an elevated risk for coronary artery disease, in contrast to patients with type 2 diabetes.

Among 1,205 asymptomatic people with type 1 diabetes who underwent coronary artery calcium (CAC) measurement and were followed for an average of about 11 years, 71% had a CAC score of zero at baseline followed by a cardiovascular disease event rate of 5.6 events/1,000 patient years of follow-up, a “very low” event rate that made these patients no more likely to have an event than any adult of similar age and sex in the general U.S. population, Matthew J. Budoff, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

In prior reports, about half of patients with type 2 diabetes had a CAC score of zero, noted Dr. Budoff, professor of medicine and a specialist in cardiac CT imaging and preventive cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. In a general adult population that’s about 45 years old roughly three-quarters would have a CAC score of zero, he noted.

Until now, little has been known about CAC scores in asymptomatic, middle-aged adults with type 1 diabetes. The findings reported by Dr. Budoff raise questions about the 2018 revision of the cholesterol guideline from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association, released during the meeting (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.003), which lumps type 1 and type 2 diabetes together as a special high-risk category for cholesterol management.

The guideline should instead “advocate for more therapy with a CAC score of more than 100 and less therapy with a CAC score of zero in patients with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Budoff suggested. “A statin for someone with a CAC score of zero probably won’t result in event reduction. The 70% of patients with type 1 diabetes who have a CAC score of zero potentially may not benefit from a statin,” he said in a video interview.

Dr. Budoff and his associates used CAC scores and outcomes data collected on 1,205 asymptomatic people with type 1 diabetes enrolled in the EDIC (Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications) trial who underwent CAC scoring as part of the study protocol when they averaged 43 years of age. Follow-up tracked the incidence of cardiovascular disease events in 1,156 of these patients for an average of about 11 years. During follow-up, 105 patients had a cardiovascular disease event, an overall rate of 8.5 events/1,000 patient years of follow-up.

The results also confirmed the prognostic power of the CAC score in these patients. Compared with the very low event rate among those with a zero score, patients with a score of 1-100 had 71% more events, patients with a CAC score of 101-300 had a 5.4-fold higher event rate as those with no coronary calcium, and patients with a CAC score of greater than 300 had a 6.9-fold higher event rate than those with no coronary calcium, Dr. Budoff reported.

Coronary calcium deposits, a direct reflection of atheroma load, can change over time, but somewhat slowly. A CAC score of zero is very reliable for predicting a very low rate of cardiovascular disease events over the subsequent 5 years, and in many people it can reliably predict for as long as 10 years, Dr. Budoff said. Beyond that, follow-up CAC scoring is necessary to check for changes in coronary status, “especially in patients with type 1 diabetes,”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Budoff M et al. Abstract 13133.