Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a feared complication of lumbar disc herniation. It is generally accepted that CES requires decompression within 6 hours of symptom onset, but this time goal is rarely met, and the relative benefit of delayed decompression on functional status and quality of life (QOL) remains unknown. The study objective was to describe the functional status and quality of life outcomes for patients who undergo delayed surgical decompression for CES.

Patients with CES who underwent decompression of a herniated lumbar disc during a 10-year period were assessed at hospital discharge and at least 4 months after the procedure. Evaluation of functional outcomes was based on a previously validated scale and QOL outcomes on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire.

During the study period, 1100 patients with herniated discs were identified, and 14 underwent surgical decompression for CES. All 14 had had symptoms for more than 38 hours before surgery. Ten patients were available for long-term follow-up. There was a strong correlation between long CES symptom duration and poor functional outcome: of 8 patients with symptoms for less than 10 days before decompression (range, 1.6–7.5 d), all had good functional outcomes. The 2 patients with more prolonged symptoms (10.6 and 14.2 d) had poor outcomes. SF-36 scores demonstrated declines in physical roles (p = 0.03), social function (p = 0.03) and increased pain (p = 0.003) compared with population norms. Correlation between SF-36 domain scores and CES symptom duration failed to achieve statistical significance, perhaps because of small sample size.

Patients who undergo delayed decompression for CES have increased pain and impaired social and physical function. Longer delays correlate with worse functional outcomes. Beyond 24 hours, decompression delay may be associated with a poorer quality of life but, because of the rarity of CES, the sample size in this study was too small to provide definitive conclusions. Since no patients underwent surgery within 38.4 hours of symptoms, it is not possible to comment on the importance of emergent decompression in early presenters.

Our primary objective was to assess the agreement between urine pregnancy tests done in the emergency department (ED) and those done by the Calgary Laboratory Services (CLS). Our secondary objective was to compare turnaround times for tests done in the ED and those done in the laboratory.

This prospective study enrolled a convenience sample of ED patients who required a pregnancy test at 1 of 3 urban Calgary EDs. Using the same urine sample from each patient, testing was done in both the ED and by the CLS using the Abbott TestPak Plus (Abbott Laboratories, Mississauga, Ont.) urine pregnancy kit. The ED data included time of urine collection, β-hCG (human chorionic gonadotropin) result, urine specific gravity, and the time the ED nurse reported the result. The CLS data included the time sample was sent to the laboratory, time of laboratory reporting, time ED nurse was aware of the result, the urine β-hCG result and uring specific gravity. When the ED result and CLS result differed, a serum β-hCG assay was performed and used as the diagnostic “gold standard.”

There was a high level of agreement between the CLS and the ED, as indicated by a kappa value of 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95–0.98). The ED was significantly faster in time to initial report and time to availability on the chart, with mean differences of 25 minutes (95% CI, 22–27) and 60 minutes (95% CI, 56–64), respectively.

ED nurses can perform urine pregnancy tests as accurately as laboratory technicians, and can provide results on which to base care much faster than the laboratory can. Point-of-care urine pregnancy testing may expedite the ED management of patients who require pregnancy tests.

To clarify case mix, mode of transport and reasons for interfacility transfer from rural emergency departments (EDs) and to make recommendations for improved emergency health care delivery in rural settings.

This was a multi-centre descriptive study, based in 5 rural Ontario EDs. Over a 1-year period, all ED patients who required transfer to another hospital were studied. Data collection forms were completed prospectively by the most responsible nurse involved in the transfer. Main measurements included patient age, gender, place of residence, circumstances and reason for transfer, primary diagnosis, mode of transport and receiving hospital.

Of 53 796 patients who presented to the 5 participating EDs, 98.4% were managed locally and 836 (1.6%) were transferred to referral centres. Most patients (86%) were transferred because they required treatment beyond the scope of the local hospital. The need for orthopedic care, CT and pediatric care accounted for 23.6%, 14.1% and 8.7% of transfers respectively.

These data suggest that rural family physicians may benefit from increased orthopedic and pediatric training and support. The study also identified a need for increased specialist availability in our rural setting. The high number of transfers for CT scans suggests that some rural health regions should consider acquiring a “regional” CT scanner. The development of a regional hospital, with a CT scanner and specialist resources, especially a general surgery on-call system, would reduce the need for transfer outside the region.

We conducted a qualitative systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of propofol for direct current cardioversion (DCC), rapid sequence intubation (RSI) and procedural sedation in adult emergency department (ED) patients.

MEDLINE (1966 to September 2000), PubMed (to September 2000), EMBASE (1988 to September 2000), Database of Systematic Reviews (to September 2000), Best Evidence (1991 to September 2000) and Current Contents (1996 to September 2000) databases.

English-language, randomized, comparative evaluations of propofol for procedures routinely conducted in adults (>18 years) were included. Direct current cardioversion, RSI and procedural sedation were considered.

Efficacy and safety endpoints were evaluated for all trials. For DCC and procedural sedation trials, efficacy measures included induction and recovery times, as well as the association for successful procedure. For the RSI trials, optimal intubating conditions were evaluated as the primary efficacy endpoint. Safety measures included hemodynamic changes, apnea rates and adverse effects.

In the setting of DCC, efficacy and safety outcomes were similar for propofol, thiopental, etomidate and methohexital. All of these agents provided markedly shorter induction and recovery times than midazolam. Patients who were pre-medicated with fentanyl exhibited prolonged recovery times and greater decreases in blood pressure. When used for RSI, propofol administration was associated with satisfactory intubating conditions that were comparable to those seen with thiopental and etomidate. Blood pressure reductions were seen in both DCC and RSI studies. Apneic episodes (>30 seconds) occurred in 23% of propofol recipients, 28% of thiopental recipients and 7% of etomidate and midazolam recipients. Apart from the DCC studies described, no procedural sedation studies met our predefined review eligibility criteria.

The body of literature evaluating propofol for DCC and RSI in the ED is limited. There is evidence to support the use of propofol for DCC and RSI, but this evidence comes from stable patients in non-ED settings. Further ED-based randomized comparative trials should be conducted before propofol is adopted for widespread use in the ED.