Migraines

In this episode of PEM Currents: The Pediatric Emergency Medicine Podcast, we take a structured, evidence-based approach to the acute treatment of migraine in children and adolescents. From confirming the diagnosis and screening for concerning features to optimizing outpatient therapy and executing a protocolized emergency department strategy, this episode walks through what works. We review the role of NSAIDs and triptans, clarify how IV fluids and ketorolac fit into care, and provide a stepwise framework for dopamine antagonists, valproate bridge therapy, DHE protocols, steroids, discharge planning, and admission decisions. Practical dosing, reassessment timing, and family-centered communication strategies are emphasized throughout. Learning Objectives Recognize the clinical features of pediatric migraine and distinguish it from secondary causes of headache. Implement a stepwise, evidence-based emergency department approach to acute pediatric migraine, including appropriate medication selection and timing of reassessment. Develop safe discharge and follow-up plans by defining treatment endpoints, minimizing medication overuse, and identifying patients who require referral or inpatient management. References 1. Oskoui M, Pringsheim T, Holler-Managan Y, et al. Practice Guideline Update Summary: Acute Treatment of Migraine in Children and Adolescents: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Neurology. 2019;93(11):487-499. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000008095. 2. Patterson-Gentile C, Szperka CL. The Changing Landscape of Pediatric Migraine Therapy: A Review. JAMA Neurology. 2018;75(7):881-887. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.0046. 3. Bachur RG, Monuteaux MC, Neuman MI. A Comparison of Acute Treatment Regimens for Migraine in the Emergency Department. Pediatrics. 2015;135(2):232-238. doi:10.1542/peds.2014-2432. 4. Ashina M. Migraine. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2020;383(19):1866-1876. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1915327. 5. Richer L, Billinghurst L, Linsdell MA, et al. Drugs for the Acute Treatment of Migraine in Children and Adolescents. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016;4:CD005220. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005220.pub2. Transcript This transcript was generated using Descript automated transcription software and has been reviewed and edited for accuracy by the episode’s author. Edits were limited to correcting names, titles, medical terminology, and transcription errors. The content reflects the original spoken audio and was not substantively altered. And today we’re gonna talk about the acute treatment of migraine headache in children and adolescents. This is bread and butter for the PED, requires precise diagnosis and evidence-based treatment. We’re gonna talk about making that diagnosis, red flags, outpatient and ED treatment, as well as some second-line agents, admission decisions, and a whole lot more. So migraine in children is defined by three criteria, and at least five attacks lasting two to 72 hours. So you gotta have at least two of the following: pulsating or throbbing quality, moderate to severe intensity, aggravation by routine activity, and a unilateral location. Although in children, it’s often bilateral, plus at least one of nausea or vomiting and photophobia and/or phonophobia. In children headaches are frequently bilateral, bifrontal, bitemporal. The duration might be shorter than adults, especially in kids under second or third grade. And you may have to infer whether or not they have photophobia from their behavior. Like does the child close their eyes or wanna go into a dark room? In the emergency department, we’re often diagnosing based on pattern recognition plus exclusion of dangerous secondary causes. Or even more often than that, the patient comes in and says, I’ve got a migraine. Before I move on to treatments, let’s talk about some red flags where you might wanna pause and not just jump to migraine therapy. And the mnemonic SNOOP can be helpful here. And it stands for S for systemic symptoms such as fevers, myalgia, weight loss, or another S, secondary risk factors such as an immune deficiency, cancer, pregnancy, N for neurologic signs, papilledema, focal deficit, confusion, seizures. O onset sudden, or thunderclap. Migraines are often a little more gradual than that. The other O is older age, or technically younger age too, younger than five years or older than 50. Hopefully those patients are not coming into the pediatric emergency department. And then pattern changes, these new symptoms in a previously stable pattern. Don’t ignore that. And precipitants, you know, is it worse with Valsalva, position change, or under significant exertion? If these signs are present, you’ll probably wanna take a pause and just not throw migraine treatment at the patient. If they’re stable, MRI is the preferred imaging modality, but a very sick patient, it’d be okay to get a head CT. If you’ve got a normal neurologic exam, there’s no red flags. Again, you don’t need routine imaging for migraine headaches. So let’s talk about treatment. So hopefully patients have actually started to treat their headache before they arrive in the emergency department. If they haven’t, it’s a good idea to have some triage protocols in place. So ibuprofen, 7.5 to 10 milligrams per kilogram, 10 milligrams per kilogram is superior to placebo and it’s superior to acetaminophen at two hours. So that’s what we would use. Early treatment’s critical. So ideally within the first hour of onset. So that’s why triage protocols help. We’ll give kids 10 mg per kg of ibuprofen and like 30 ounces of Gatorade. Blue is often the first Gatorade choice, though that’s not an evidence-based statement. You can also use naproxen, but most of the studies are on ibuprofen. If NSAIDs fail, many adolescents and some older children will be prescribed triptans. The best evidence currently supports sumatriptan plus naproxen or zolmitriptan nasal spray. Rizatriptan is FDA approved down to age six. Adolescents respond to these agents better than younger children, and the route matters. The nasal formulations help when nausea is prominent. Families should be counseled to treat early, use weight-appropriate dosing, and avoid using acute medications more than 10 days per month. Often patients will have already taken an NSAID and a triptan before they get to the ED, and that’s where we get into the treatment of refractory migraine. Now this is most of the patients that I will see, and before we push medications, let’s briefly review ED treatment goals. You either want the patient headache free. Back to their baseline or mild descending pain. So a pain score of one to three. If you don’t reach one of those endpoints and it’s not agreed upon with the patient and their family, you’ve not completed treatments. You should do a reassessment within one hour after each intervention. And let’s face it, if you’re not reassessing within an hour and defining treatment goals, you’re not practicing protocolized migraine care. So in the emergency department, many of you may be familiar with the migraine cocktail. So what is that? In general, it’s a dopaminergic agent such as prochlorperazine or metoclopramide plus ketorolac, plus IV fluids. Let’s take a look at all three of those components and see if you can guess which one is actually the one that can abort the migraine. So fluids are commonly given in pediatric migraine, but they alone do not treat it. They’re helpful. Many patients have been throwing up or a bit dehydrated, but there are small randomized trials that show essentially no meaningful pain reduction in patients that get IV fluids alone. Well, what about ketorolac? Toradol, like that’s the first thing you give to a kid with a kidney stone, right? It does help, but it’s really adjunctive. So the main first-line agents for refractory or status migrainosus in the emergency department are the dopamine antagonists, and the first-line treatment for most patients is prochlorperazine or Compazine. The dose is 0.15 milligram per kilogram IV. The max is 10 milligrams. This is the backbone of ED migraine care. And why do they work? Well, migraines aren’t just some random vascular headache. This is an inherited disorder with central pain pathways gone awry. Dopamine plays a large role in that pain, nausea, hypersensitivity, amplification of symptoms and more that, frankly, I won’t get into this podcast because molecules hurt my head. The dopamine antagonists treat the headache, they reduce the nausea, and they just tamp down this process. Overall, the response rates approach 85%. Some studies have suggested that the response rate is about 77% at an hour and 90% at three hours. If you add the ketorolac and IV fluids, you get your response rate up to about 93 to 94%. These agents really do work well together. There have been randomized trials comparing IV prochlorperazine versus ketorolac. 85% of prochlorperazine patients achieved headache relief versus only 55% of ketorolac patients. So ketorolac helps, but really it’s the prochlorperazine. Metoclopramide, or Reglan, is used in a lot of centers as well. There are some smaller studies in children and adolescents that show that prochlorperazine is more effective, but if kids have an adverse reaction, more on that in a moment, or they prefer metoclopramide because they’ve responded to it in the past, it’s okay to go with it as well. Right. So what does it actually look like when you give the migraine cocktail to a patient? I think it’s important to explain to patients and families what to expect, and if this is a teenager, I’m talking to them directly. I mean, they’re getting the medication first and foremost. I tell them that the most effective way to treat their headache is with an IV. This often causes lots of angst, even in older teenagers. The medication just does not get to the brain as effectively and fast enough if you take it by mouth. Many patients who get the dopaminergic agents, so prochlorperazine, will invariably feel jittery or anxious or like they gotta move or like they got ants in their pants. I tell them to expect this so they’re not surprised and worried when it happens. I tell them that once they start feeling that way, it means the medicine is probably working. They need to hit the nurse button and we’re gonna get them up and have them take a walk. This fixes it for the majority of patients just getting up and moving. In adult centers, even with the initial administration of the prochlorperazine or as sort of a reflexive response to any of those symptoms, they just give a slug of IV Benadryl. There’s some studies in adolescents especially that this may decrease the effectiveness of the IV agents you’re giving in the first place, and it may also increase return rates to the ED. So I will use IV diphenhydramine if getting up and moving around isn’t working, or if the distress is significant, or if the patient clearly indicates they’ve needed it in the past. So if after the migraine cocktail, the patient has met their pain goals and the reassessment is favorable, they can go home to outpatient follow-up. How about if the headache got better, but not all the way? It’s usually when the initial migraine cocktail didn’t achieve the pain endpoints fully, like it helped partially. If the dopamine blockade didn’t do anything, valproate is unlikely to rescue the case. And so valproate works on GABA and it stabilizes some of these pain processes, but the dopaminergic agent needs to have done something first for valproate to work. Per the most common protocol, you give an initial dose of IV valproate, then you discharge the patient home on Depakote ER. So oral valproic acid under 10 years old or under 50 kilograms, 250 milligrams PO twice a day for two weeks, or older than 10 or greater than 50 kilos, 500 milligrams twice a day for two weeks. This is the extended release and it’s most helpful if you give the first oral dose in the emergency department. So that’s why it’s very important to build this protocol in advance. If you don’t have IV valproate, then don’t just give the patient oral valproate, and definitely don’t prescribe an oral course for discharge. All right, well, what about DHE? Dihydroergotamine for refractory or status migrainosus? Generally, this is only given at pediatric centers where you have neurology coverage. It’s contraindicated if you’ve had another dose of DHE within 14 days, or you’ve had any triptan of any sort within 24 hours, and you must obtain a pregnancy test in adolescent females before giving it. The dosing for less than 30 kilograms is 0.5 milligram. At least 30 kilograms is one milligram. You give 50% of the dose over three minutes, then the remaining 50% over 30 minutes. If this is gonna work, the patients are gonna start feeling wretched at first. They’re gonna get very nauseous and they’re gonna vomit. They’re gonna have flushing, and you’ll see transient hypertension. Most of that resolves within the hour in most centers. If you’re committing to DHE, you’re kind of bringing the patient into the hospital anyway, though some facilities will have DHE done in the emergency department with close outpatient follow-up. Either way, it’s really best practice to involve child neurology if you’re giving DHE. Alright, well what about steroids? They give those in grownups too, right? Steroids really only have a role for recurrence prevention in children. So for kids that have a history of returning within 72 hours for rebound headache, you can give dexamethasone 0.6 milligram per kilogram IV dose, the max of 10 milligrams. You do not discharge them home on a steroid prescription or a Medrol dose pack or something else, and this can cut the recurrence risk down a bit. There’s other therapies out there like magnesium and ketamine. There’s just not enough evidence there. And the purpose of this episode is to discuss the therapies that have good evidence behind them and should be part of protocols across the country. Some patients are unfortunately not responsive to emergency department therapy and need admission. The main inpatient therapy is the DHE protocol. If they’re not DHE eligible, they haven’t tolerated it well or it’s unavailable, admission’s unlikely to help them unless they just need some IV fluids to help them get back up on their feet. You should consult neurology if the headache goals are not met after maximizing ED therapy for advice. And we should definitely avoid opioids. They don’t treat patients with migraines. They increase recurrence risk. They increase revisit rates. Again, the dopamine antagonist prochlorperazine, it’s superior for sustained relief when families ask about them, and fortunately they’re asking about opioids far less. We use medications that treat the migraine pain pathways and signaling. We don’t just wanna mask the pain. All right, so that’s all I’ve got on the acute management of migraine headaches, especially in the emergency department. Remember that migraine care in the ED should be protocolized and evidence-based. IV fluids are supportive. Prochlorperazine is the first line, or you can use metoclopramide as well. Ketorolac is an adjunctive therapy. Valproate is next line. If you’ve gotta escalate, and DHE is specialized therapy, you can start in the ED, but most of these patients are getting admitted. Dexamethasone or steroids in children can reduce recurrence risk, but they’re not really part of the acute management. You should definitely define the endpoints and structurally and systematically reassess patients at an hour. The goal is to get them feeling better to a defined endpoint and to restore function. There is evidence-based pediatric emergency migraine care. You should understand that, plus how to explain why these agents are being given and some of the side effects to patients and families. I find that that approach increases your likelihood of buy-in and success. Alright, so that’s it for this episode on the Acute Management of Migraine Headaches in Children and Adolescents. I hope you found it helpful and I can pretty much guarantee that you’re gonna see a patient with a migraine on your next shift. If you’ve got any feedback or comments, send them my way. If you like this episode, leave a review on your favorite podcast site. It helps more people find the show. Or recommend it to a colleague. If there’s other topics that you’d like to hear, send them my way for the Pediatric Emergency Medicine podcast. This has been Brad Sobolewski. See you next time.    

Psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) are common, often misunderstood, and increasingly encountered in pediatric emergency care. These events closely resemble epileptic seizures but arise from abnormal brain network functioning rather than epileptiform activity. In this episode of PEM Currents, we review the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and clinical features of PNES in children and adolescents, with a practical focus on Emergency Department recognition, diagnostic strategy, and management. Particular emphasis is placed on seizure semiology, avoiding iatrogenic harm, communicating the diagnosis compassionately, and understanding how early identification and referral to cognitive behavioral therapy can dramatically improve long-term outcomes. Learning Objectives Identify key epidemiologic trends, risk factors, and semiological features that help differentiate psychogenic nonepileptic seizures from epileptic seizures in pediatric patients presenting to the Emergency Department. Apply an evidence-based Emergency Department approach to the evaluation and initial management of suspected PNES, including strategies to avoid unnecessary escalation of care and medication exposure. Demonstrate effective, patient- and family-centered communication techniques for explaining the diagnosis of PNES and facilitating timely referral to appropriate outpatient therapy. References Sawchuk T, Buchhalter J, Senft B. Psychogenic Nonepileptic Seizures in Children-Prospective Validation of a Clinical Care Pathway & Risk Factors for Treatment Outcome. Epilepsy & Behavior. 2020;105:106971. (PMID: 32126506) Fredwall M, Terry D, Enciso L, et al. Outcomes of Children and Adolescents 1 Year After Being Seen in a Multidisciplinary Psychogenic Nonepileptic Seizures Clinic. Epilepsia. 2021;62(10):2528-2538. (PMID: 34339046) Sawchuk T, Buchhalter J. Psychogenic Nonepileptic Seizures in Children - Psychological Presentation, Treatment, and Short-Term Outcomes. Epilepsy & Behavior. 2015;52(Pt A):49-56. (PMID: 26409129) Labudda K, Frauenheim M, Miller I, et al. Outcome of CBT-based Multimodal Psychotherapy in Patients With Psychogenic Nonepileptic Seizures: A Prospective Naturalistic Study. Epilepsy & Behavior. 2020;106:107029. (PMID: 32213454) Transcript This transcript was generated using Descript automated transcription software and has been reviewed and edited for accuracy by the episode’s author. Edits were limited to correcting names, titles, medical terminology, and transcription errors. The content reflects the original spoken audio and was not substantively altered. Welcome to PEM Currents: The Pediatric Emergency Medicine Podcast. As always, I’m your host, Brad Sobolewski, and today we are talking about psychogenic non-epileptic seizures, or PNES. Now, this is a diagnosis that often creates a lot of uncertainty in the Emergency Department. These episodes can be very scary for families and caregivers and schools. And if we mishandle the diagnosis, it can lead to unnecessary testing, medication exposure, ICU admissions, and long-term harm. This episode’s gonna focus on how to recognize PNES in pediatric patients, how we make the diagnosis, what the evidence says about management and outcomes, and how what we do and what we say in the Emergency Department directly affects patients, families, and prognosis. Psychogenic non-epileptic seizures are paroxysmal events that resemble epileptic seizures but occur without epileptiform EEG activity. They’re now best understood as a subtype of functional neurological symptom disorder, specifically functional or dissociative seizures. Historically, these events were commonly referred to as pseudo-seizures, and that term still comes up frequently in the ED, in documentation, and sometimes from families themselves. The problem is that pseudo implies false, fake, or voluntary, and that implication is incorrect and harmful. These episodes are real, involuntary, and distressing, even though they’re not epileptic. Preferred terminology includes psychogenic non-epileptic seizures, or PNES, functional seizures, or dissociative seizures. And PNES is not a diagnosis of exclusion, and it does not require identification of psychological trauma or psychiatric disease. The diagnosis is based on positive clinical features, ideally supported by video-EEG, and management begins with clear, compassionate communication. The overall incidence of PNES shows a clear increase over time, particularly from the late 1990s through the mid-2010s. This probably reflects improved recognition and access to diagnostic services, though a true increase in occurrence can’t be excluded. Comorbidity with epilepsy is really common and clinically important. Fourteen to forty-six percent of pediatric patients with PNES also have epilepsy, which frequently complicates diagnosis and contributes to diagnostic delay. Teenagers account for the highest proportion of patients with PNES, especially 15- to 19-year-olds. Surprisingly, kids under six are about one fourth of all cases, so it’s not just teenagers. We often make the diagnosis of PNES in epilepsy monitoring units. So among children undergoing video-EEG, about 15 to 19 percent may ultimately be diagnosed with PNES. And paroxysmal non-epileptic events in tertiary epilepsy monitoring units account for about 15 percent of all monitored patients. Okay, but what is PNES? Well, it’s best understood as a disorder of abnormal brain network functioning. It’s not structural disease. The core mechanisms at play include altered attention and expectation, impaired integration of motor control and awareness, and dissociation during events. So the patients are not necessarily aware that this is happening. Psychological and psychosocial features are common but not required for diagnosis and may be less prevalent in pediatric populations as compared with adults. So PNES is a brain-based disorder. It’s not conscious behavior, it’s not malingering, and it’s not under voluntary control. Children and adolescents with PNES have much higher rates of psychiatric comorbidities and psychosocial stressors compared to both healthy controls and children with epilepsy alone. Psychiatric disorders are present in about 40 percent of pediatric PNES patients, both before and after the diagnosis. Anxiety is seen in 58 percent, depression in 31 percent, and ADHD in 35 percent. Compared to kids with epilepsy, the risk of psychiatric disorders in PNES is nearly double. Compared to healthy controls, it is up to eight times higher. And there’s a distinct somatopsychiatric profile that strongly predicts diagnosis of PNES. This includes multiple medical complaints, psychiatric symptoms, high anxiety sensitivity, and solitary emotional coping. This profile, if you’ve got all four of them, carries an odds ratio of 15 for PNES. Comorbid epilepsy occurs in 14 to 23 percent of pediatric PNES cases, and it’s associated with intellectual disability and prolonged diagnostic delay. And finally, across all demographic strata, anxiety is the most consistent predictor of PNES. Making the diagnosis is really hard. It really depends on a careful history and detailed analysis of the events. There’s no single feature that helps us make the diagnosis. So some of the features of the spells or events that have high specificity for PNES include long duration, so typically greater than three minutes, fluctuating or asynchronous limb movements, pelvic thrusting or side-to-side head movements, ictal eye closure, often with resisted eyelid opening, ictal crying or vocalization, recall of ictal events, and rare association with injury. Younger children often present with unresponsiveness. Adolescents more commonly demonstrate prominent motor symptoms. In pediatric cohorts, we most frequently see rhythmic motor activity in about 27 percent, and complex motor movements and dialeptic events in approximately 18 percent each. Features that argue against PNES include sustained cyanosis with hypoxia, true lateral tongue biting, stereotyped events that are identical each time, clear postictal confusion or lethargy, and obviously epileptic EEG changes during the events themselves. Now there are some additional historical and contextual clues that can help us make the diagnosis as well. If the events occur in the presence of others, if they occur during stressful situations, if there are psychosocial stressors or trauma history, a lack of response to antiepileptic drugs, or the absence of postictal confusion, this may suggest PNES. Lower socioeconomic status, Medicaid insurance, homelessness, and substance use are also associated with PNES risk. While some of these features increase suspicion, again, video-EEG remains the diagnostic gold standard. We do not have video-EEG in the ED. But during monitoring, typical events are ideally captured and epileptiform activity is not seen on the EEG recording. Video-EEG is not feasible for every single diagnosis. You can make a probable PNES diagnosis with a very accurate clinical history, a vivid description of the signs and appearance of the events, and reassuring interictal EEG findings. Normal labs and normal imaging do not make the diagnosis. Psychiatric comorbidities are not required. The diagnosis, again, rests on positive clinical features. If the patient can’t be placed on video-EEG in a monitoring unit, and if they have an EEG in between events and it’s normal, that can be supportive as well. So what if you have a patient with PNES in the Emergency Department? Step one, stabilize airway, breathing, circulation. Take care of the patient in front of you and keep them safe. Use seizure pads and precautions and keep them from falling off the bed or accidentally injuring themselves. A family member or another team member can help with this. Avoid reflexively escalating. If you are witnessing a PNES event in front of you, and if they’re protecting their airway, oxygenating, and hemodynamically stable, avoid repeated benzodiazepines. Avoid intubating them unless clearly indicated, and avoid reflexively loading them with antiseizure medications such as levetiracetam or valproic acid. Take a focused history. You’ve gotta find out if they have a prior epilepsy diagnosis. Have they had EEGs before? What triggered today’s event? Do they have a psychiatric history? Does the patient have school stressors or family conflict? And then is there any recent illness or injury? Only order labs and imaging when clinically indicated. EEG is not widely available in the Emergency Department. We definitely shouldn’t say things like, “this isn’t a real seizure,” or use outdated terms like pseudo-seizure. Don’t say it’s all psychological, and please do not imply that the patient is faking. If you see a patient and you think it’s PNES, you’re smart, you’re probably right, but don’t promise diagnostic certainty at first presentation. Remember, a sizable proportion of these patients actually do have epilepsy, and referring them to neurology and getting definitive testing can really help clarify the diagnosis. Communication errors, especially early on, worsen outcomes. One of the most difficult things is actually explaining what’s going on to families and caregivers. So here’s a suggestion. You could say something like: “What your child is experiencing looks like a seizure, but it’s not caused by abnormal electrical activity in the brain. Instead, it’s what we call a functional seizure, where the brain temporarily loses control of movement and awareness. These episodes are real and involuntary. The good news is that this condition is treatable, especially when we address it early.” The core treatment of PNES is CBT-based psychotherapy, or cognitive behavioral therapy. That’s the standard of care. Typical treatment involves 12 to 14 sessions focused on identifying triggers, modifying maladaptive cognitions, and building coping strategies. Almost two thirds of patients achieve full remission with treatment. About a quarter achieve partial remission. Combined improvement rates reach up to 90 percent at 12 months. Additional issues that neurologists, psychologists, and psychiatrists often face include safe tapering of antiseizure medications when epilepsy has been excluded, treatment of comorbid anxiety or depression, coordinating care between neurology and mental health professionals, and providing education for schools on event management. Schools often witness these events and call prehospital professionals who want to keep patients safe. Benzodiazepines are sometimes given, exposing patients to additional risk. This requires health system-level and outpatient collaboration. Overall, early diagnosis and treatment of PNES is critical. Connection to counseling within one month of diagnosis is the strongest predictor of remission. PNES duration longer than 12 months before treatment significantly reduces the likelihood of remission. Video-EEG confirmation alone does not predict positive outcomes. Not every patient needs admission to a video-EEG unit. Quality of communication and speed of treatment, especially CBT-based therapy, matter the most. Overall, the prognosis for most patients with PNES is actually quite favorable. There are sustained reductions in events along with improvements in mental health comorbidities. Quality of life and psychosocial functioning improve, and patients use healthcare services less frequently. So here are some take-home points about psychogenic non-epileptic seizures, or PNES. Pseudo-seizure and similar terms are outdated and misleading. Do not use them. PNES are real, involuntary, brain-based events. Diagnosis relies on positive clinical features, what the events look like and when they happen, not normal lab tests or CT scans. Early recognition and diagnosis, and rapid referral to cognitive behavioral therapy, change patients’ lives. If you suspect PNES, get neurology and mental health professionals involved as soon as possible. Alright, that’s all I’ve got for this episode. I hope you found it educational. Having seen these events many times over the years, I recognize how scary they can be for families, schools, and our prehospital colleagues. It’s up to us to think in advance about how we’re going to talk to patients and families and develop strategies to help children who are suffering from PNES events. If you’ve got feedback about this episode, send it my way. Likewise, like, rate, and review, as my teenagers would say, and share this episode with a colleague if you think it would be beneficial. For PEM Currents: The Pediatric Emergency Medicine Podcast, this has been Brad Sobolewski. See you next time.

Osteomyelitis in children is common enough to miss and serious enough to matter. In this episode of PEM Currents, we review a practical, evidence-based approach to pediatric acute hematogenous osteomyelitis, focusing on diagnostic strategy, imaging decisions including FAST MRI, and modern antibiotic management. Topics include age-based microbiology, empiric and pathogen-directed antibiotic selection with dosing, criteria for early transition to oral therapy, and indications for orthopedic and infectious diseases consultation. Special considerations such as MRSA, Kingella kingae, daycare clustering, and shortened treatment durations are discussed with an emphasis on safe, high-value care. Learning Objectives After listening to this episode, learners will be able to: Identify the key clinical, laboratory, and imaging findings that support the diagnosis of acute hematogenous osteomyelitis in children, including indications for FAST MRI and contrast-enhanced MRI. Select and dose appropriate empiric and pathogen-directed antibiotic regimens for pediatric osteomyelitis based on patient age, illness severity, and local MRSA prevalence, and determine when early transition to oral therapy is appropriate. Determine when consultation with orthopedics and infectious diseases is indicated, and recognize clinical features that warrant prolonged therapy or more conservative management. References Woods CR, Bradley JS, Chatterjee A, et al. Clinical practice guideline by the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America: 2021 guideline on diagnosis and management of acute hematogenous osteomyelitis in pediatrics. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2021;10(8):801-844. doi:10.1093/jpids/piab027 Woods CR, Bradley JS, Chatterjee A, et al. Clinical practice guideline by the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America: 2023 guideline on diagnosis and management of acute bacterial arthritis in pediatrics. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2024;13(1):1-59. doi:10.1093/jpids/piad089 Stephan AM, Platt S, Levine DA, et al. A novel risk score to guide the evaluation of acute hematogenous osteomyelitis in children. Pediatrics. 2024;153(1):e2023063153. doi:10.1542/peds.2023-063153 Alhinai Z, Elahi M, Park S, et al. Prediction of adverse outcomes in pediatric acute hematogenous osteomyelitis. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(9):e454-e464. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa211 Burns JD, Upasani VV, Bastrom TP, et al. Age and C-reactive protein associated with improved tissue pathogen identification in children with blood culture-negative osteomyelitis: results from the CORTICES multicenter database. J Pediatr Orthop. 2023;43(8):e603-e607. doi:10.1097/BPO.0000000000002448 Peltola H, Pääkkönen M. Acute osteomyelitis in children. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(4):352-360. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1213956 Transcript This transcript was provided via use of the Descript AI application Welcome to PEM Currents, the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Podcast. As always, I’m your host, Brad Sobolewski, and today we’re covering osteomyelitis in children. We’re going to talk about diagnosis and imaging, and then spend most of our time where practice variation still exists: antibiotic selection, dosing, duration, and the evidence supporting early transition to oral therapy. We’ll also talk about when to involve orthopedics, infectious diseases, and whether daycare outbreaks of osteomyelitis are actually a thing. So what do I mean by pediatric osteomyelitis? In children, osteomyelitis is most commonly acute hematogenous osteomyelitis. That means bacteria seed the bone via the bloodstream. The metaphysis of long bones is particularly vulnerable due to vascular anatomy that favors bacterial deposition. Age matters. In neonates, transphyseal vessels allow infection to cross into joints, increasing the risk of concomitant septic arthritis. In older children, those vessels involute, and infection tends to remain metaphyseal and confined to bone rather than spreading into the joint. For children three months of age and older, empiric therapy must primarily cover Staphylococcus aureus, which remains the dominant pathogen. Other common organisms include group A streptococcus and Streptococcus pneumoniae. In children six to 36 months of age, especially those in daycare, Kingella kingae is an important and often underrecognized pathogen. Kingella infections are typically milder, may present with lower inflammatory markers, and frequently yield negative routine cultures. Kingella is usually susceptible to beta-lactams like cefazolin, but is consistently resistant to vancomycin and often resistant to clindamycin and antistaphylococcal penicillins. This has direct implications for empiric antibiotic selection. Common clinical features of osteomyelitis include fever, localized bone pain, refusal to bear weight, and pain with movement of an adjacent joint. Fever may be absent early, particularly with less virulent organisms like Kingella. A normal white blood cell count does not exclude osteomyelitis. Only about one-third of children present with leukocytosis. CRP and ESR are generally more useful, particularly CRP for monitoring response to therapy. No single CRP cutoff reliably diagnoses or excludes osteomyelitis in children. While CRP is elevated in most cases of acute hematogenous osteomyelitis, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America note that high-quality data defining diagnostic thresholds are limited. A CRP above 20 milligrams per liter is commonly used to support clinical suspicion, with pooled sensitivity estimates around 80 to 85 percent, but no definitive value mandates the diagnosis. Lower values do not exclude disease, particularly in young children, as CRP is normal in up to 40 percent of Kingella kingae infections. CRP values tend to be higher in Staphylococcus aureus infections, especially MRSA, and higher levels are associated with complications such as abscess, bacteremia, and thrombosis, though specific cutoffs are not absolute. In summary, CRP is most useful for monitoring treatment response. It typically peaks two to four days after therapy initiation and declines rapidly with effective treatment, with a 50 percent reduction within four days seen in the majority of uncomplicated cases. Blood cultures should be obtained in all children with suspected osteomyelitis, ideally before starting antibiotics when feasible. In children, blood cultures alone can sometimes identify the pathogen. Plain radiographs are still recommended early, not because they’re sensitive for acute osteomyelitis, but because they help exclude fracture, malignancy, or foreign body and establish a baseline. MRI with and without contrast is the preferred advanced imaging modality. MRI confirms the diagnosis, defines the extent of disease, and identifies complications such as subperiosteal abscess, physeal involvement, and concomitant septic arthritis. MRI findings can also guide the need for surgical consultation. Many pediatric centers now use FAST MRI protocols for suspected osteomyelitis, particularly from the emergency department. FAST MRI uses a limited sequence set, typically fluid-sensitive sequences like STIR or T2 with fat suppression, without contrast. These studies significantly reduce scan time, often avoid the need for sedation, and retain high sensitivity for bone marrow edema and soft tissue inflammation. FAST MRI is particularly useful when the clinical question is binary: is there osteomyelitis or not? It’s most appropriate in stable children without high concern for abscess, multifocal disease, or surgical complications. If FAST MRI is positive, a full contrast-enhanced MRI may still be needed to delineate abscesses, growth plate involvement, or adjacent septic arthritis. If FAST MRI is negative but clinical suspicion remains high, further imaging may still be necessary. The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommend empiric antibiotic selection based on regional MRSA prevalence, patient age, and illness severity, with definitive therapy guided by culture results and susceptibilities. Empiric therapy should never be delayed in an ill-appearing or septic child. In well-appearing, stable children, antibiotics may be briefly delayed to obtain imaging or tissue sampling, but this requires close inpatient observation. For children three months and older with non–life-threatening disease, empiric therapy hinges on local MRSA rates. In regions with low community-acquired MRSA prevalence, generally under 10 percent, reasonable empiric options include cefazolin, oxacillin, or nafcillin. When MRSA prevalence exceeds 10 to 20 percent, empiric therapy should include an MRSA-active agent. Clindamycin is appropriate when local resistance rates are low, while vancomycin is preferred when clindamycin resistance is common or the child has had significant healthcare exposure. For children with severe disease or sepsis, vancomycin is generally preferred regardless of local MRSA prevalence. Some experts recommend combining vancomycin with oxacillin or nafcillin to ensure optimal coverage for MSSA, group A streptococcus, and MRSA. In toxin-mediated or high-inoculum infections, the addition of clindamycin may be beneficial due to protein synthesis inhibition. Typical IV dosing includes cefazolin 100 to 150 milligrams per kilogram per day divided every eight hours; oxacillin or nafcillin 150 to 200 milligrams per kilogram per day divided every six hours; clindamycin 30 to 40 milligrams per kilogram per day divided every six to eight hours; and vancomycin 15 milligrams per kilogram every six hours for serious infections, with appropriate monitoring. Ceftaroline or daptomycin may be considered in select MRSA cases when first-line agents are unsuitable. For methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, first-generation cephalosporins or antistaphylococcal penicillins remain the preferred parenteral agents. For oral therapy, high-dose cephalexin, 75 to 100 milligrams per kilogram per day divided every six hours, is preferred. Clindamycin is an alternative when beta-lactams cannot be used. For clindamycin-susceptible MRSA, clindamycin is the preferred IV and oral agent due to excellent bioavailability and bone penetration, and it avoids the renal toxicity associated with vancomycin. For clindamycin-resistant MRSA, vancomycin or ceftaroline are preferred IV agents. Oral options are limited, and linezolid is generally the preferred oral agent when transition is possible. Daptomycin may be used parenterally in children older than one year without pulmonary involvement, typically with infectious diseases and pharmacy input. Beta-lactams remain the drugs of choice for Kingella kingae, Streptococcus pyogenes, and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Vancomycin has no activity against Kingella, and clindamycin is often ineffective. For Salmonella osteomyelitis, typically seen in children with sickle cell disease, third-generation cephalosporins or fluoroquinolones are used. In underimmunized children under four years, consider Haemophilus influenzae type b, with therapy guided by beta-lactamase production. Doxycycline has not been prospectively studied in pediatric acute hematogenous osteomyelitis. There are theoretical concerns about reduced activity in infected bone and risks related to prolonged therapy. While short courses are safe for certain infections, the longer durations required for osteomyelitis increase the risk of adverse effects. Doxycycline should be considered only when no other active oral option is available, typically in older children, and with infectious diseases consultation. It is not appropriate for routine treatment. Many hospitals automatically consult orthopedics when children are admitted with osteomyelitis, and this is appropriate. Early orthopedic consultation should be viewed as team-based care, not failure of medical management. Consult orthopedics when MRI shows abscess or extensive disease, there is concern for septic arthritis, the child fails to improve within 48 to 72 hours, imaging suggests devitalized bone or growth plate involvement, there is a pathologic fracture, the patient is a neonate, or diagnostic bone sampling or operative drainage is being considered. Routine surgical debridement is not required for uncomplicated cases. Infectious diseases consultation is also often automatic and supported by guidelines. ID is particularly valuable for antibiotic selection, dosing, IV-to-oral transition, duration decisions, bacteremia management, adverse reactions, and salvage regimens. Even in straightforward cases, ID involvement often facilitates shorter IV courses and earlier oral transition. Osteomyelitis is generally not contagious, and clustering is uncommon for Staphylococcus aureus. Kingella kingae is the key exception. It colonizes the oropharynx of young children and spreads via close contact. Clusters of invasive Kingelladisease have been documented in daycare settings. Suspicion should be higher in children six to 36 months from the same daycare, with recent viral illness, mild systemic symptoms, refusal to bear weight, modest CRP elevation, and negative routine cultures unless PCR testing is used. Public health intervention is not typically required, but awareness is critical. There is no minimum required duration of IV therapy for uncomplicated acute hematogenous osteomyelitis. Transition to oral therapy should be based on clinical improvement plus CRP decline. Many children meet criteria within two to six days. Oral antibiotics must be dosed higher than standard outpatient regimens to ensure adequate bone penetration. Common regimens include high-dose cephalexin, clindamycin, or linezolid in select cases. The oral agent should mirror the IV agent that produced clinical improvement. Total duration is typically three to four weeks, and in many cases 15 to 20 days is sufficient. MRSA infections or complicated cases usually require four to six weeks. Early oral transition yields outcomes comparable to prolonged IV therapy with fewer complications. Most treatment-related complications occur during parenteral therapy, largely due to catheter-related issues. Take-home points: osteomyelitis in children is a clinical diagnosis supported by labs and MRI. Empiric antibiotics should be guided by age, illness severity, and local MRSA prevalence. Early transition to high-dose oral therapy is safe and effective when clinical response and CRP support it. Orthopedics and infectious diseases consultation improve care and reduce variation. FAST MRI is changing how we diagnose osteomyelitis. Daycare clustering is uncommon except with Kingella kingae. That’s all for this episode. If there are other topics you’d like us to cover, let me know. If you have the time, leave a review on your favorite podcast platform. It helps more people find the show and learn from it. For PEM Currents, this has been Brad Sobolewski. See you next time.    

Night terrors are dramatic but benign episodes that can leave caregivers frightened and confused. In this episode of PEM Currents: The Pediatric Emergency Medicine Podcast, we explore the clinical features of night terrors, how to differentiate them from other nocturnal events, and when to consider further evaluation such as polysomnography. We also discuss management strategies that center on sleep hygiene, reassurance, and safety, with a special look at the role of scheduled awakenings and when medication is appropriate. Learning Objectives By the end of this episode, listeners will be able to: Describe the typical clinical presentation and age range of children with night terrors. Differentiate night terrors from other parasomnias and nocturnal seizures based on clinical features and timing. Discuss non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic management strategies for night terrors, including when to consider polysomnography. References Petit D, Touchette E, Tremblay RE, et al. Dyssomnias and parasomnias in early childhood. Pediatrics. 2007;119(5):e1016-e1025. Morse AM, Kotagal S. Parasomnias of childhood, including sleepwalking. In: Chervin RD, ed. UpToDate. Hoppin AG, deputy ed. Waltham, MA. Accessed November 2025. Van Horn NL, Street M. Night Terrors. Updated May 29, 2023. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan–. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493222/ Transcript This transcript was provided via use of the Descript AI application Welcome to PEM Currents, The Pediatric Emergency Medicine Podcast. As always, I'm your host Brad Sobolewski. In this episode, we're talking about night terrors, also known as sleep terrors. A dramatic, confusing, and often terrifying experience for caregivers to witness. But they're usually benign and self-limited for the child. Kind of like a lot of the things in childhood actually, what are we gonna talk about? Well, what are night terrors? How do we diagnose them? How to differentiate them from seizures or other parasomnias key counseling for parents in the emergency department, when to refer for sleep studies or neurology evaluation, and what role, if any, medications play. So let's start with talking about what night terrors actually look like. They're part of a group of disorders called non REM parasomnias, which also includes sleepwalking and confusion arousals. They are not nightmares and they are not signs of psychological trauma. Children experiencing night terrors typically sit up suddenly during sleep, scream, cry or appear terrified. Show signs of autonomic arousal. So rapid breathing, tachycardia, sweating. They're confused or inconsolable for several minutes and they have absolutely no recollection of the event the next morning. These events usually occur in the first third of the night when children are in deep, slow wave sleep, so stage N three, and they can last five to 15 minutes, but trust me, they seem to last much longer to observers. Night terrors occur most commonly between ages three and seven with a peak around five years of age. They're rare before 18 months and unusual after age 12. Preschool aged children are most affected because they spend more time in deep, slow wave sleep. They have more fragmented sleep architecture, and they may not have fully developed arousal regulation mechanisms. Episodes can start as early as toddlerhood, especially if the child has a family history of parasomnias. So like sleep, walking night terrors or other things, sleep deprivation or stressful life events like starting daycare or a new sibling or a move, although less common, older children and even adolescents can experience night terrors, especially in the context of stress, sleep deprivation or comorbid sleep disorders like sleep apnea. Why do they happen? Well, they're usually due to incomplete arousal from deep sleep, so the brain is essentially stuck between sleep and wakefulness. Factors that increase the risk of frequency of night terrors include again, sleep deprivation, recent illness, stress, or anxiety. Sleep disordered breathing, or a family history of parasomnias, there's a real strong genetic component. Up to 80% of children with night terrors have a first degree relative with similar episodes. The diagnosis is entirely clinical and based on history. You should ask parents, what time of night did these episodes occur? Is the child confused, frightened, or hard to wake? Is there amnesia the next day so they don't remember the event? And are the movements variable or stereotyped? Sometimes parents will video record these, and that can really help us clarify the episodes when we're in the emergency department. You definitely do not need labs or imaging in a typical presentation. I think parents are often seeking an explanation for why their child looks so freaky. In my experience, just telling them that it's a night terror and that it's benign and providing reassurance on how healthy their kid is, is more than enough. Now, not all nighttime events are sleep terrors. You should consider neurology referral and video polysomnography or sleep studies with extended EEG when onset is very early, so younger than 18 months or late in childhood. So older than 12 or 13 episodes occur outside of the first third of the night. Again, find out when the kid went to bed. And do math. The first third of the night is the first 33% of their typical sleep time. The events are brief clustered or stereotyped. The movements are repetitive, focal or violent. If kid just moving just their right arm. That's not a night terror. Often the movements will look fearful and they'll be sort of disorganized. Rhythmic movements don't typically happen in night terrors, and there's a recent injury. The child has excessive daytime sleepiness, or there's some developmental regression or abnormality. All those are red flags. Differentiating from nocturnal frontal lobe epilepsy can be tricky. Nocturnal frontal lobe epilepsy events are usually short. Highly stereotyped. They have abrupt onset and offset, and they may include dystonic or tonic posturing. So if the family has a video of this, that can be really helpful using a good clinical history. Video recordings in EEG generally distinguish night terrors from these forms of epilepsy. But let's be honest, most of the kids you see in the ED with a typical presentation of night terrors are just night terrors. These events are really scary and we are gonna see them in the emergency departments, and so your first goal is to just reassure the family. The events are not harmful. The kid isn't aware that they had them, and the child suffers no ongoing psychological harm. That doesn't mean that the parent isn't freaked out or that nervousness doesn't linger. You wanna avoid sleep deprivation If possible, counsel families on age appropriate bedtimes and naps. Stick to a routine consistent bedtime routines. Reduce sleep fragmentation, which is a known risk factor for children with frequent or predictable night terrors. Try waking them 15 to 30 minutes before the usual episode happens. So I've seen lots of kids with frequent night terrors, and they usually happen around the same time at night. And you wanna do this, this 15 to 30 minute awakening before the usual episodes each night for about two to four weeks. That's labor intensive as a parent, but it can help these awakenings interrupt the sleep cycle and break the pattern. Keep kids safe. Use baby gates, door alarms. Make sure windows are locked, don't put younger kids in bunk beds and remove sharp obstacles or objects near the bed. So if they've got a pointy ended nightstand, oh, that's just something for the kid to fall into or smack against. Do we ever use medications for night terrors? Well, almost never. You know, pharmacologic therapy such as low dose benzodiazepines or tricyclic antidepressants is really only reserved for severe episodes. Kids with substantial risk for injury or disruption of the family life or school in a substantial way. I'm not gonna make that call in the emergency department. And these are sleep specialist referral guided therapies. You also wanna consider evaluating children for comorbid sleep disorders, especially in recurrent night terrors, like obstructive sleep apnea, restless leg syndrome. This may worsen the parasomnias. For kids in which you're unsure, polysomnography can be used. This is an overnight sleep study that monitors brainwaves via EEG, eye movements, muscle activity, heart rhythm, breathing effort, and airflow and oxygen saturation. But it's also done in a hospital and not during the kid's usual sleep routine. So most children that have night terrors, if you get the right history, you can make the diagnosis clinically and the kids don't need any expensive or expanded testing to get to the bottom of things. Alright, take home points for this brief episode. Night terrors are common, especially in preschool aged children. They occur in non REM sleep in the first third of the night. The episodes are very dramatic, but they're benign and children don't remember them. But trust me, parents do. The diagnosis is clinical. No labs or imaging are needed unless there's atypical features. You should reassure families, promote sleep hygiene and use scheduled awakenings for frequent and recurrent cases, and refer for sleep studies and or neurology of episodes or violent stereotyped, or suggest nocturnal seizures. Thanks for listening to this episode. I hope you found it educational about a topic that you will encounter in the emergency department. As with many things in children that are scary, there's a benign explanation and parents are just looking to know that their kid's gonna be okay. Often doing a thorough history in physical and really listening to the parents' concerns and then providing useful information is all you gotta do. That's why pediatrics is great. If you've got feedback on this episode or there's other common topics you'd like to hear about, send them my way. If you enjoyed this episode and think that other people should listen to it, share it with them. More listeners means more learners. And if you have a chance, leave a review or like the podcast on your favorite podcast site for PEM Currents, the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Podcast. This has been Brad Sobolewski. See you next time.  

BRUE, Brief Resolved Unexplained Events, are a common and anxiety-provoking condition that presents to the Emergency Department. In this episode we explore the definition of BRUE, contrast it with ALTE, and walk through evidence-based approaches to risk stratification. We’ll explore the original AAP framework and two subsequent prediction models to see where the recommendations stand today. This is a classic example of scary event / well child that you will see in the Emergency Department. Learning Objectives By the end of this episode, you will be able to: Define BRUE and contrast it with the older concept of ALTE. Recognize evolving risk stratification criteria Apply evidence-based strategies for evaluation and counseling of infants with BRUE, including safe discharge decisions and the role of home monitoring. References Tieder JS, Bonkowsky JL, Etzel RA, et al. Brief resolved unexplained events (formerly apparent life-threatening events) and evaluation of lower-risk infants: Executive summary. Pediatrics. 2016;137(5):e20160591. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-0591 Carroll AE, Bonkowsky JL. Acute events in infancy including brief resolved unexplained event (BRUE). In: McMillan JA, ed. UpToDate. Waltham, MA: UpToDate Inc. https://www.uptodate.com (Accessed October 2025). Carroll AE, Bonkowsky JL. Use of home cardiorespiratory monitors in infants. In: McMillan JA, ed. UpToDate. Waltham, MA: UpToDate Inc. https://www.uptodate.com (Accessed October 2025). Carroll AE, Bonkowsky JL. Sudden infant death syndrome: Risk factors and risk reduction strategies. In: McMillan JA, ed. UpToDate. Waltham, MA: UpToDate Inc. https://www.uptodate.com (Accessed October 2025). Carroll AE. Patient education: Brief resolved unexplained event (BRUE) in babies (The Basics). In: UpToDate. Waltham, MA: UpToDate Inc. https://www.uptodate.com (Accessed October 2025). Nama N, Neuman MI, Finkel MA, et al. Risk prediction after a brief resolved unexplained event. JAMA Pediatr. 2023;177(12):1263–1272. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.4197 Nama N, Neuman MI, Finkel MA, et al. External validation of brief resolved unexplained events prediction rules for serious underlying diagnosis. JAMA Pediatr. 2024;178(4):398–407. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.0114    

Is that penicillin or amoxicillin allergy real? Probably not. In this episode, we explore how to assess risk, talk to parents, and refer for delabeling. You’ll also learn what happens in the allergy clinic, why the label matters, and how to be a better antimicrobial steward. Learning Objectives Describe the mechanisms and clinical manifestations of immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions to penicillin, including diagnostic criteria and risk stratification tools such as the PEN-FAST score. Differentiate between low-, moderate-, and high-risk penicillin allergy histories in pediatric patients and identify appropriate candidates for direct oral challenge or allergy referral based on current evidence and guidelines. Formulate an evidence-based approach for evaluating and counseling families in the Emergency Department about reported penicillin allergies, including when to recommend outpatient referral for formal delabeling. Connect with Brad Sobolewski PEMBlog: PEMBlog.com Blue Sky: @bradsobo X (Twitter): @PEMTweets Instagram: Brad Sobolewski References Khan DA, Banerji A, Blumenthal KG, et al. Drug Allergy: A 2022 Practice Parameter Update. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022;150(6):1333-1393. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2022.08.028 Moral L, Toral T, Muñoz C, et al. Direct Oral Challenge for Immediate and Non-Immediate Beta-Lactam Allergy in Children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2024;35(3):e14096. doi:10.1111/pai.14096 Castells M, Khan DA, Phillips EJ. Penicillin Allergy. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(24):2338-2351. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1807761 Shenoy ES, Macy E, Rowe T, Blumenthal KG. Evaluation and Management of Penicillin Allergy: A Review.JAMA. 2019;321(2):188–199. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.19283 Transcript Note: This transcript was partially completed with the use of the Descript AI and the Chat GPT 5 AI  Welcome to PEM Currents, the Pediatric Emergency Medicine podcast. As always, I'm your host, Brad Sobolewski, and today we are taking on a label that's misleading, persistent. Far too common penicillin allergy, it's often based on incomplete or inaccurate information, and it may end up limiting safe and effective treatment, especially for the kids that we see in the emergency department. I think you've all seen a patient where you're like. I don't think this kid's really allergic to amoxicillin, but what do you do about it? In this episode, we're gonna break down the evidence, walk through what actually happens during de labeling and dedicated allergy clinics. Highlight some validated tools like the pen FAST score, which I'd never heard of before. Preparing for this episode and discuss the current and future role of ED based penicillin allergy testing. Okay, so about 10% of patients carry a penicillin allergy label, but more than 90% are not truly allergic. And this label can be really problematic in kids. It limits first line treatment choices like amoxicillin, otitis media, or penicillin for strep throat, and instead. Kids get prescribed second line agents that are less effective, broader spectrum, maybe more toxic or poorly tolerated and associated with a higher risk of antimicrobial resistance. So it's not just an EMR checkbox, it's a label with some real clinical consequences. And it's one, we have a role in removing. And so let's understand what allergy really means. And most patients with a reported penicillin allergy, especially kids, aren't true allergies in the immunologic sense. Common misinterpretations include a delayed rash, a maculopapular, or viral exum, or benign, delayed hypersensitivity, side effects, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. And unverified childhood reactions that are undocumented and nonspecific. Most of these are not true allergies. Only a very small subset of patients actually have IgE mediated hypersensitivity, such as urticaria, angioedema, wheezing, and anaphylaxis. These are super rare, and even then they may resolve over time without treatment. If a parent or sibling has a history of a penicillin allergy, remember that patient might actually not be allergic, and that is certainly not a reason to label a child as allergic just because one of their first degree relatives has an allergy. So right now, in 2025, as I'm recording this episode, there are clinics like the Pats Clinic or the Penicillin Allergy Testing Services at Cincinnati Children's and in a lot of our peer institutions that are at the forefront of modern de labeling. Their approach reflects the standard of care as outlined by the. Quad ai or the American Academy of Allergy, asthma and Immunology and supported by large trials like Palace. And you know, you have a great trial if you have a great acronym. So here's what happens step by step. So first you stratify the risk. How likely is this to be a true allergy? And that's where a tool like the pen fast comes. And so pen fast scores, a decision rule developed to help assess the likelihood of a true penicillin allergy based on the patient's history. The pen in pen fast is whether or not the patient has a self-reported history of penicillin allergy. They get two points if the reaction occurred in the past five years. Two points if the reaction is anaphylaxis or angioedema. One point if the reaction required treatment, and one point if the reaction was not due to testing. And so you can get a total score of. Up to six points. If you have a score of less than three. This is a low risk patient and they can be eligible for direct oral challenge. A score greater than three means they're higher risk and they may require skin testing. First validation studies show that the PEN FFA score of less than three had a negative predictive value of 96.3%. Meaning a very, very low chance of a true allergy. And this tool has been studied more extensively in adults, but pediatric specific adaptations are emerging, and they do inform current allergy clinic protocols. But I would not use this score in the emergency department just to give a kid a dose of amoxicillin. So. For low risk patients, a pen fast score of less than three or equivalent clinical judgment clinics proceed with direct oral challenge with no skin testing required. The protocol is they administer one dose of oral amoxicillin and they observe for 62 120 minutes monitoring for signs of reaction Urticaria. Respiratory symptoms or GI upset. This approach is safe and effective. There was a trial called Palace back in 2022, which validated this in over 300 children. In adolescents. There were no serious events that occurred. De labeling was successful in greater than 95% of patients. And skin tested added no benefit in low risk patients. So if the child tolerates this dose, then you can remove that allergy immediately from the chart. Parents and primary care doctors will receive a summary letter noting that the challenge was successful and that there's new guidance. Children and families are told they can safely receive all penicillins going forward. And providers are encouraged to document this clearly in the allergy section of the EMR. So you're wondering, can we actually do this in the emergency department? Technically, yes, you can do what you want, but practically we're not quite there yet. So we'd need clearer risk stratification tools like the Pen fast, a safe place for monitoring, post challenge, clinical pathways and documentation support. You know, a clear way to update EMR allergy labels across the board and involvement or allergy or infectious disease oversight. But it's pretty enticing, right? See a kid you diagnose otitis media. You think that their penicillin allergy is wrong, you just give 'em a dose of amox and watch 'em for an hour. That seems like a pretty cool thing that we might be able to do. So some centers, especially in Canada and Australia, do have some protocols for ED or inpatient based de labeling, but they rely on that structured implementation. So until then, our role in the pediatric emergency department is to identify low risk patients, avoid over document. Unconfirmed reactions and refer to allergy ideally to a clinic like the pets. So who should be referred and good candidates Include a child with a rash only, especially one that's remote over a year ago. Isolated GI symptoms. Parents unsure of the details at all. No history of anaphylaxis wheezing her hives, and no recent serious cutaneous reactions. I would avoid referring and presume that this allergy is true. If they've had recent anaphylaxis, they've had something like Stevens Johnson syndrome dress, or toxic epidermolysis necrosis. Fortunately, those are very, very rare with penicillins and there's a need for penicillin during the ED visit without allergy backup. So even though we don't have an ED based protocol yet. De labeling amoxicillin or penicillin allergy can start with good questions in the emergency department. So here's one way to talk to patients and families. You can say, thanks for letting me know about the amoxicillin allergy. Can I ask you a few questions to better understand what happened? This is gonna help us decide the safest and most effective treatment for your child today, and then possibly go through a process to remove a label for this allergy that might not be accurate. You wanna ask good, open-ended questions. What exactly happened when your child took penicillin or amoxicillin? You know, look for rash, hives, swelling, trouble breathing, or anaphylaxis. Many families just say, allergic, when the reaction was just GI upset, diarrhea or vomiting, which is not an allergy. How old was your child when this happened? Reactions that occurred before age of three are more likely to be falsely attributed. How soon after taking the medicine did the reaction start? Less than one hour is an immediate reaction, but one hour to days later is delayed. Usually mild and probably not a true allergy. Did they have a fever, cold or virus at that time? Viral rashes are often misattributed to antibiotics, and we shouldn't be treating viruses with antibiotics anyway, so get good at looking at ears and know what you're seeing. And have they taken similar antibiotics since then? Like. Different penicillins, Augmentin, or cephalexin. So if they said that they were allergic to amoxicillin, but then somehow tolerated Augmentin. They're not allergic. If a patient had rash only, but no hive swelling or difficulty breathing, no reaction within the first hour. It occurred more than five years ago or before the kid was three. And especially if they tolerated beta-lactam antibiotics. Since then, they're a great candidate for de labeling and I would refer that kid to the allergy clinic. Generally, they can get them in pretty darn quick. Alright, we're gonna wrap up this episode. Most kids labeled penicillin allergic or amoxicillin allergic, or not actually allergic to the medication. There are some scores like pen fasts that are validated tools to assess risk and support de labeling. Direct oral challenge for most patients is safe, efficient, and increasingly the standard of care. There are allergy clinics like the Pats at Cincinnati Children's that can dela children in a single visit with oral challenges alone, needing no skin testing, and emergency departments can play a key role in identifying and referring these patients and possibly de labeling ourselves in the future. Well, that's all for this episode on Penicillin Allergy. I hope you learn something new, especially how to assess whether an allergy label is real, how to ask the right questions and when to refer to an allergy testing clinic. If you have feedback, send it my way. Email, comment on the blog, a message on social media. I always appreciate hearing from you all, and if you like this episode, please leave a review on your favorite podcast app. Really helps more people find the show and that's great 'cause I like to teach people stuff. Thanks for listening for PEM Currents, the Pediatric Emergency Medicine podcast. This has been Brad Sobolewski. See you next time.

Limping is a common complaint in pediatric emergency care, but the differential is broad and the stakes are high. In this episode, we walk through a detailed, age-based approach to the evaluation of the limping child. You’ll learn how to integrate the Kocher criteria, when imaging and labs are truly necessary, and how to avoid being misled by small joint effusions on ultrasound. We also highlight critical mimics like appendicitis, testicular torsion, and malignancy—and remind you why watching a child walk is one of the most valuable parts of the exam. Whether it’s transient synovitis, septic arthritis, or something much more concerning, this episode gives you the tools to manage pediatric limps with confidence. Learning Objectives Apply an age-based approach to the differential diagnosis of limping in children. Demonstrate diagnostic reasoning by integrating history, physical exam, imaging, and lab findings to prioritize urgent conditions like septic arthritis and SCFE. Appropriately select and interpret imaging and lab studies, including understanding the utility and limitations of ultrasound, MRI, and the Kocher criteria. Connect with Brad Sobolewski Mastodon: @[email protected] PEMBlog: PEMBlog.com Blue Sky: @bradsobo X (Twitter): @PEMTweets Instagram: Brad Sobolewski References Kocher MS, Zurakowski D, Kasser JR. Differentiating between septic arthritis and transient synovitis of the hip in children: an evidence-based clinical prediction algorithm. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(12):1662-70. doi:10.2106/00004623-199912000-00002 UpToDate. Evaluation of limp in children. Accessed September 2025. UpToDate. Differential diagnosis of limp in children. Accessed September 2025. StatPearls. Antalgic Gait in Children. NCBI Bookshelf. Accessed September 2025. Pediatric Emergency Care. “Approach to Pediatric Limp.” Pediatrics in Review. 2024. Transcript Note: This transcript was partially completed with the use of the Descript AI and the Chat GPT 5 AI Welcome to PEM Currents, the Pediatric Emergency Medicine podcast. As always, I’m your host, Brad Sobolewski, and in this episode we’re gonna tackle the evaluation of a child presenting with limp. We’ll cover, age-based differential diagnosis. How to take a high yield history and do a detailed physical exam, imaging strategies, lab tests, and when to worry about systemic causes. We’ll also talk about the Kocher criteria for septic arthritis and how to use and not misuse ultrasound when you’re worried about a hip effusion. After listening to this episode, I hope you will all be able to apply an age based. Approach to the differential diagnosis of limp in children. Demonstrate diagnostic reasoning by integrating history, physical exam, imaging, and lab findings to prioritize urgent conditions like septic, arthritis, and scfe, and appropriately select and interpret imaging and lab studies, including understanding the utility and limitations of ultrasound MRI and the Kocher criteria. So let me start out by saying that a limp isn’t a diagnosis, it’s a symptom. It can result from pain, weakness, neurologic issues, or mechanical disruption. So think of limping as the pediatric equivalent of chest pain. In adults. It’s common, it’s broad, and it’s sometimes could be serious. And the key to a good workup is a thought. Age-based approached and kids under three think trauma and congenital conditions between three and 10 transient synovitis range Supreme and over 10 think SCFE and systemic disease. And your differential diagnosis always starts with history. So you gotta ask the family, when did the lymph start? Was it sudden or gradual? Is there a preceding viral illness or an injury? Is the limp worse in the morning? Does it get better with activity? Do the kid complain of pain or are they just favoring one leg? And then are there any systemic symptoms such as fever, rash, weight loss, fatigue, or joint swelling elsewhere? And you wanna find out whether or not the kid is actually bearing any weight at all. Have they had recent travel or known tick exposure? Are they potty trained and are they having accidents now? Have they had any prior episodes of joint swelling or limping like this in the past? And don’t forget a developmental history, especially in kids under preschool age. Most children begin to stand at nine to 12 months. Cruise at 10 to 12 months and walk independently by 12 to 15 months. A child who has never walked normally may have a neuromuscular or congenital problem. When you are evaluating limp, obviously you wanna watch the kid walk, get them outta the exam room if needed. First of all, your exam room is small. Kid may feel confined and they might be more willing to take some steps. If you have ’em out in the hallway, obviously have the caregiver nearby and a toy, a phone, some object of enticement. You wanna watch their stance phase, or they just avoiding bearing weight on one limb. When they’re standing the swing phase, do they hold that leg stiff? Does it bend normally? And are they in balance? Are they symmetric? And again, don’t just settle for a few steps. Try to get ’em walking at least 10 to 15 feet if possible, and if they’re refusing to walk in, the ED asks parents for a video. You wanna examine every joint head to toe, and even if the child only complains about one area, palpate every limb. I usually start distally so at the fingertips or toes and really systematically work my way up watching for any signs of pain, you check range of motion and observe resistance to movement log. Roll the hips externally and internally rotate them as well. See if you can feel an A fusion, you know, squeeze the calf to localize pain. And in a kid with limp, you always gotta check the feet too, right? Look for puncture wounds on the plantar surface. Splinters, ingrown, toenails, cellulitis, or even, you know, gravity dependent swelling or petechiae. And certainly your systemic exam should include the abdomen. You know, look for signs of appendicitis or sous irritation, testes for testicular torsion. And you wanna look at the skin diffusely to make sure there’s no petechiae, target shape, rashes, or bruising. Now for most kids with limp, I find that the history and physical exams sort of guide where you’re going, right? If they had a fall or an injury, well, you’re just looking at a kid who may have sprained or broken something, and you can really target towards imaging as your workup. You know, there’s some kids though that may benefit from labs and in general, they depend on the scenario. So if you see A C, B, C, well you’re gonna get leukocytosis, but C, B, C. In the context of limp is most useful when you’re considering a differential. So if you see blasts, well, you know you’ve got a new malignancy. If you have a general elevation of the white count and use it in context with the Kocher criteria, it could be more valuable. So A CBC alone is not gonna get you the cause it supports your differential. ESR and CRP are often ordered and they’re just general inflammatory labs. CRP rises and falls faster than ESR, and they co vary and either can be used in prediction rules. I’ll talk about that in a little bit if you think the kid’s bacteremic, yeah. Get a blood culture. If you’re in an endemic area and you’re considering Lyme on the differential, you can send off serology. And let’s be honest, a NA and rheumatoid factor are really only useful if there’s a chronic history and you can have about 15% of kids with a false positive a NA anyway, and they’re not really helpful in acute limp. So get them if rheumatology recommends them, but otherwise, they’re not really a useful part in the initial differential diagnosis. And again, I alluded to Lyme a moment ago, but if Lyme arthritis is your top diagnosis, especially with a known rash. You can start treatment while serologies are pending. That’s totally okay. So in conjunction with Labs, imaging is generally recommended in most kids with Limp, and I would say in most cases you start with plain films. Sometimes it’s easy, right? They hurt in one particular occasion. You take a picture, you see a fracture, but two views, the affected and unaffected side can be really helpful, especially in cases of SCFE or in subtle or perhaps occult toddler’s fracture. If you’re not sure where the problem is, you can’t isolate it on your exam or history. Consider imaging the entire leg. I mean, that’s when you’re looking at like the hip femur, knee tib fib, even the ankle and foot. It’s not that much radiation. Ultrasound is useful for seeing joint effusions, especially of the hip. It’s fast, generally painless and radiation free, but not all effusions are infected. Ultrasound is not part of the Kocher criteria. I’ll get back to that in a minute. And a normal ultrasound or an ultrasound without effusion doesn’t rule out septic arthritis. And then we’ve got MRI, which is definitely best for detecting osteomyelitis, discitis, and soft tissue abscesses. Among other diagnoses in kids under five, you’re probably gonna need to sedate them, which can delay diagnosis. So in general, you’re admitting those kids and then they can get a sedated MRI later the next day. But if radiology has it available and you’ve got the right protocol and the kids’ the right age, you can get it in the emergency department. But these are often more subtle situations. So if you’re really suspicious for septic arthritis, don’t wait around for an MRI contact ortho and tap that hip. And speaking of septic arthritis, let’s talk about the Kocher criteria. K-O-C-H-E-R. These are four classic criteria, and they are only validated for differentiating septic arthritis and transient synovitis of the hip. So you can’t use the labs and values of Kocher criteria in the knee or elbow, or another joint. It is only the hip. And the four classic criteria are fever greater than 38.5 Celsius, non-weight bearing on the affected side, ESR, greater than 40. Or CRP greater than two and white blood cell count greater than 12,000, and you use them in combination to predict the likelihood of septic arthritis of the hip. So if you have none of them, you have less than a 0.2% chance of septic arthritis. If you have one, you have 3%, two 40%. Three of them, 93% and all four, a 99 plus percent chance of having septic arthritis. So the more criteria that are positive, the higher the post-test probability of septic arthritis. And remember I mentioned this before, ultrasound isn’t part of that rule, so don’t let a small effusion sway you one way or the other. Septic arthritis is a clinical diagnosis supported by aspiration of the hip. Ultrasound can help, but a normal scan doesn’t clear the joint, so some orthopedists will recommend not getting an ultrasound on intermediate risk cases and just going straight to joint aspiration if the concern’s high. So if the kid’s worried they stay, don’t discharge a maybe septic joint. I think now’s a good time to come back to some of the common diagnoses that you’ll have on your differential, and I think an age-based schema makes sense here. In Kids Under three, you’re thinking toddlers fracture, septic, hip, developmental dysplasia of the hip, non-accidental trauma, leukemia and transient synovitis in kids three to 10 transient synovitis rules the day. Injuries and trauma. Hopefully you have a good history. Septic arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and leg calf, Perth’s disease, and then kids older than 10, you’ll start to see scfe. So slipped capital, femoral epiphysis, stress fractures, osteomyelitis, overuse injuries, and yes, still unfortunately, malignancy leg, Ewing sarcoma. Thinking beyond the limb should remind you that systemic causes can lead to limp as well. Appendicitis can present as right hip pain or limp. Testicular torsion may cause abdominal pain and referred thigh pain. Leukemia obviously can present with limp, nighttime pain, and subtle systemic signs. Discitis may masquerade as refusal to walk or sit upright. And any malignancy can present subtly. You can see bruising, fatigue, pal anemia, or bony tenderness. So red flags for a child with limp, so you’re calling orthopedics, admitting or escalating. Your plan is when the kid is ill appearing toxic or febrile. Your labs obviously suggest inflammation or infection. You have septic, arthritis, osteomyelitis, or non-accidental trauma. At the top of your list, and you have diagnostic uncertainty on a child who isn’t improving. So you did a workup. It’s reassuring, and despite analgesia, reassurance and time, the kid still won’t walk well. Maybe that kid needs workup for osteomyelitis, so sometimes the best course of action is to admit them and get the MRI the next day. All right. Here’s some take home points on the child with limp. Limping is due to pain, weakness, mechanical or neurologic causes. Think broadly in terms of your differential history, physical exam and observation, or more valuable than a dozen labs. Age-based differential diagnoses guide you and help you tailor your exam and questions accordingly. So I think that’s a good schema to teach. Always start with plain films, especially if you suspect injury. The Kocher criteria are only valid for differentiating septic hip versus transient synovitis. Don’t use them in another joint. And septic arthritis is a clinical diagnosis, so if you’re worried and they have multiple factors, tap that joint. If you’re concerned about the kid and they’re still not walking, it’s okay to admit, and again, don’t forget to check the feet. I’ve seen many kids that have been limping because there’s a splinter in the bottom of the foot. You can save yourself a lot of time and money by just yanking that little splinter. Well, that’s all for this episode. I hope that this helps you evaluate limping kids with a bit more confidence, precision, efficiency, and ultimately lets you communicate rationale for testing and treatments better with families. If you’ve got ideas for other episodes, send them my way. If you wanna collaborate on making a podcast in the future, I’d love to do that as well. If you like this episode of this show in general, share it with your colleagues and. If you have the time, leave a comment on the blog or like rate review the podcast. It helps more people find it and more people learn. If you notice that input adds on this, I’m not making a dime. I just wanna teach people stuff. That’s all for this one, for PEM Currents, the Pediatric Emergency Medicine podcast. This has been Brad Sobolewski. See you next time.

Vaso-occlusive pain episodes are the most common reason children and adolescents with sickle cell disease present to the Emergency Department. Prompt, protocol-driven management is essential starting with early administration of IV opioids, reassessment at 15–30 minute intervals, and judicious hydration. Understanding the patient’s typical pain pattern, opioid history, and psychosocial context can guide more effective care. This episode walks through the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, pharmacologic strategy, discharge criteria, and complications to watch for helping you provide evidence-based, compassionate care that improves outcomes. Learning Objectives Describe the pathophysiology of vaso-occlusive crises in children and adolescents with sickle cell disease and how it relates to clinical symptoms. Differentiate uncomplicated vaso-occlusive crises from other acute complications of sickle cell disease such as acute chest syndrome, splenic sequestration, and stroke. Implement evidence-based strategies for early and effective pain management in vaso-occlusive crises, including appropriate use of opioid analgesia, reassessment intervals, and disposition criteria. Connect with Brad Sobolewski PEMBlog: PEMBlog.com Blue Sky: @bradsobo X (Twitter): @PEMTweets Instagram: Brad Sobolewski Mastodon: @[email protected] References Kavanagh PL, Fasipe TA, Wun T. Sickle cell disease: a review. JAMA. 2022;328(1):57-68. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.10233 Yates AM, Aygun B, Nuss R, Rogers ZR. Health supervision for children and adolescents with sickle cell disease: clinical report. Pediatrics. 2024;154(2):e2024066842. doi:10.1542/peds.2024-066842 Bender MA, Carlberg K. Sickle Cell Disease. In: Adam MP, Everman DB, Mirzaa GM, et al, eds. GeneReviews®. University of Washington, Seattle; 1993–2024. Updated February 13, 2025. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1377/ Brandow AM, Carroll CP, Creary S, et al. American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for sickle cell disease: management of acute and chronic pain. Blood Adv. 2020;4(12):2656-2701. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001851 Brandow AM, Carroll CP, Creary SE. Acute vaso-occlusive pain management in sickle cell disease. In: Hoffman R, Benz EJ, Silberstein LE, Heslop HE, Weitz JI, Anastasi J, eds. UpToDate. UpToDate; 2024. Accessed July 2025. https://www.uptodate.com Glassberg JA, Strouse JJ. Evaluation of acute pain in sickle cell disease. In: Hoffman R, Benz EJ, Silberstein LE, Heslop HE, Weitz JI, Anastasi J, eds. UpToDate. UpToDate; 2024. Accessed July 2025. https://www.uptodate.com DeBaun MR, Quinn CT. Overview of the clinical manifestations of sickle cell disease. In: Hoffman R, Benz EJ, Silberstein LE, Heslop HE, Weitz JI, Anastasi J, eds. UpToDate. UpToDate; 2024. Accessed July 2025. https://www.uptodate.com McCavit TL. Overview of preventive outpatient care in sickle cell disease. In: Hoffman R, Benz EJ, Silberstein LE, Heslop HE, Weitz JI, Anastasi J, eds. UpToDate. UpToDate; 2024. Accessed July 2025. https://www.uptodate.com Transcript Note: This transcript was partially completed with the use of the Descript AI and the Chat GPT 4o AI Welcome to PEM Currents: The Pediatric Emergency Medicine Podcast. I’m your host, Brad Sobolewski. In this episode, we’re digging into a common but complex emergency department challenge: pain management for vaso-occlusive crises in children and adolescents with sickle cell disease. These episodes are painful—literally and figuratively. But with thoughtful, evidence-based care, we can make a big difference for our patients. Overview and Epidemiology Vaso-occlusive crises, or VOCs, are the most frequent cause of emergency visits and hospitalizations for individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD). They are responsible for more than 70 percent of ED visits among children with SCD and account for substantial healthcare utilization and missed school days. Most children with homozygous HbSS will experience their first painful episode before the age of 6. Recurrent VOCs are associated with higher risks of chronic pain, opioid use, and diminished quality of life. Why Do VOCs Happen? Sickle cell disease is caused by a point mutation in the beta-globin gene, leading to hemoglobin S. Under stress—such as infection, dehydration, or even cold exposure—red blood cells polymerize, sickle, and become rigid. These sickled cells obstruct capillaries and small vessels, leading to local tissue ischemia, inflammation, and pain. It’s not just about the blockage—the inflammatory cascade, endothelial damage, and cytokine release all contribute to the pain experience. What Does the Pain Feel Like? Ask kids and teens with sickle cell disease, and they’ll describe their pain as deep, throbbing, stabbing, or aching. It often feels bone-deep and can be relentless and exhausting. Many say it’s unlike any other pain—they may compare it to being “hit with a bat,” “bone being crushed,” or “something stuck inside my limbs trying to get out.” Common sites include: Long bones (femur, humerus) Lower back Chest (look out for acute chest syndrome) Abdomen Hands and feet (especially in younger children—think dactylitis) Clinical Presentation History Ask about typical pain patterns and how this episode compares to prior ones. Look for triggers: dehydration, weather changes, infection, stress. Document home medications, including opioid tolerance and response to prior ED treatments. Physical Exam Often nonspecific. Localized tenderness, guarding. May have fever if infection is present (but fever is not diagnostic of VOC). Look for signs of acute chest syndrome: tachypnea, hypoxia, chest pain. Vitals May show tachycardia from pain or dehydration. Febrile patients should be evaluated for sepsis or osteomyelitis. Pain scales Use age-appropriate tools: FLACC, Wong-Baker FACES, or numerical rating scales. Management: Treat Early, Treat Effectively Pain Medications Start early. Do not delay for labs. Aim for analgesia within 30–60 minutes of arrival. Mild pain (rare in ED): Acetaminophen or NSAIDs (e.g., ibuprofen, ketorolac). Moderate to severe pain: Opioids are first-line. Morphine IV: 0.1 mg/kg (max 10 mg) every 15–30 minutes as needed; consider PCA in admitted patients. Hydromorphone IV: 0.015 mg/kg if morphine does not work or if the patient has used it effectively in the past. Intranasal fentanyl: 1.5–2 mcg/kg as a bridge while waiting for IV access. Avoid codeine and meperidine due to poor efficacy and neurotoxicity risks. Reassess every 15–30 minutes until pain is controlled, then space doses out. Adjunctive Therapies Hydration: Lactated Ringer’s is associated with shorter hospital stays and lower readmission rates than normal saline. Avoid fluid overload; maintain euvolemia. Heat packs for local comfort. Distraction techniques, Child Life, music, games, screens. Anxiolytics may be considered for severe distress but use cautiously. Labs and Imaging Labs are not always needed if the child looks well and has an uncomplicated VOC. Follow local protocols. Consider: CBC and reticulocyte count: A low retic suggests aplastic crisis (often parvovirus B19). A high retic is appropriate in VOC, showing marrow response. Compare hemoglobin to baseline. BMP for renal function. LFTs or lipase if right upper quadrant pain. Chest x-ray if chest symptoms present. Blood cultures if febrile. Oxygen Only indicated if the patient is hypoxic. Transfusion Routine transfusion is not indicated for uncomplicated VOC. May be used in complications such as acute chest syndrome, stroke, or symptomatic anemia. Disposition: Discharge vs. Admission Discharge if: Pain is improved and manageable on oral medications. Tolerating oral intake. No concern for complications. Reliable follow-up and support available. Admit if: Persistent severe pain despite multiple IV doses. Need for frequent parenteral opioids. Acute chest syndrome, sepsis, or other complications. Poor outpatient support or unreliable follow-up. Complications to Watch For Acute chest syndrome: Chest pain, hypoxia, new infiltrate on chest x-ray. Splenic sequestration: Rapid hemoglobin drop, splenomegaly, signs of shock. Stroke: New neurologic deficits. Sepsis: Fever, tachycardia, especially in asplenic patients. Avascular necrosis: Recurrent or chronic hip or shoulder pain. Chronic pain: Increasing in frequency in adolescents and young adults. Prevention Hydroxyurea is the cornerstone of prevention. It increases fetal hemoglobin and reduces the frequency and severity of pain crises. It can be started as early as 9 months of age in children with HbSS or Sβ⁰-thalassemia. Other preventive strategies include: Staying hydrated. Avoiding extreme cold exposure. Keeping up with vaccines and penicillin prophylaxis. Addressing mental health and social stressors. Take-Home Points Treat pain promptly and aggressively. Do not wait on labs. Use IV opioids for moderate to severe pain and reassess often. Lactated Ringer’s may be preferred for IV hydration, but avoid overload. Labs and imaging should follow clinical appearance and local protocols. Reticulocyte count and hemoglobin trends are key. Disposition should be based on pain control, potential complications, and social support. Prevention matters—hydroxyurea and primary care follow-up reduce crises and admissions.

Penetrating neck injuries in children are rare—but when they happen, the stakes are high. In this episode of PEM Currents: The Pediatric Emergency Medicine Podcast, we explore the clinical pearls behind “no-zone” management, how to distinguish hard and soft signs, when to image versus operate, and why airway always comes first. Get ready for a focused, evidence-based deep dive into pediatric neck trauma. Learning Objectives Understand the shift from zone-based to “no-zone” management in pediatric penetrating neck injuries and describe the rationale behind this transition. Apply ATLS principles to the initial assessment and stabilization of children with penetrating neck injuries, including decisions regarding imaging and airway management. Evaluate clinical findings to determine the need for operative intervention versus observation in stable pediatric patients with soft versus hard signs of vascular or aerodigestive injury. Connect with Brad Sobolewski PEMBlog: PEMBlog.com Blue Sky: @bradsobo X (Twitter): @PEMTweets Instagram: Brad Sobolewski Mastodon: @[email protected] References Stone ME Jr, Christensen P, Craig S, Rosengart M. Management of penetrating neck injury in children: A review of the National Trauma Data Bank. Red Cross Annals. 2017;32(4):171–177. doi:10.1016/j.rcsann.2017.04.003 Callcut RA, Inaba K. Penetrating neck injuries: Initial evaluation and management. UpToDate. Waltham, MA: UpToDate Inc. [Accessed June 24, 2025]. Available from: https://www.uptodate.com Transcript Note: This transcript was partially completed with the use of the Descript AI and the Chat GPT 4o AI Welcome to PEM Currents: The Pediatric Emergency Medicine Podcast. As always, I’m your host, Brad Sobolewski, and in this episode we are diving into a high-stakes but fortunately rare topic in pediatric trauma — penetrating neck injuries. Now these injuries make up less than 1% of all pediatric trauma, but when they occur, they demand precision and vigilance in terms of diagnosis and management. As you know, the neck packs some vital organs, vessels, the airway, esophagus, and nerves into a tiny little area, so even a seemingly minor wound can injure multiple structures. Now you remember — way back when — where you learned about the zones of the neck, and this is the traditional teaching, which chopped the neck up into three zones. You’ve got Zone I, which is the area between the clavicle and cricoid. You’ve got the subclavian arteries and vein, the carotid, and the apices of the lungs. Zone II, the cricoid to the angle of the mandible — this includes the carotids, jugulars, the vagus nerve, the trachea, and the esophagus. And then you have Zone III, which is the angle of the mandible to the base of the skull — you’ve got the distal carotid, the vertebral artery, and cranial nerves IX through XII. Now, you may recall some teaching that you got in medical school or residency where the management was dictated by which zone was injured. And admittedly, a lot of this evidence is in adults, and more penetrating trauma is seen in adults as well. But now practice is leaning towards the “no zone” approach, where imaginary lines on the skin surface are not dictating management as much as presentation, symptoms, and deciding when to go to the OR versus using CT angiography. So let’s talk about mechanisms of injury for a minute. Toddlers can injure their neck when they fall with something in their mouth, like pencils or chopsticks. School-age kids may take a bike handlebar to the neck, or they’re trying to run or jump over a fence and they get impaled on that — that sounds painful. Adolescents, unfortunately, are subject to assaults, stabbings, and gunshot wounds, as well as clothesline-type injuries or other high-velocity injury where the neck is injured as they’re riding a bike. So low-velocity mechanisms dominate pediatric penetrating neck injuries. Force matters, because depth and tissue cavitation decide the overall injury pattern. In terms of assessing the patient with a penetrating neck injury, it all starts with the ABCs. Is the patient’s airway patent? Are they protecting and maintaining it? Look for signs such as hoarseness, stridor, aphonia (they can’t talk at all), a bubbling wound, or an expanding hematoma. For breathing, patients should be breathing comfortably with no distress. Look for any signs of asymmetry on chest rise, feeling of crepitus or subcutaneous air, or diminished breath sounds — obviously the latter two indicating a pneumothorax or even hemothorax. For circulation, if the wound is bleeding, apply direct pressure. Some surgeons will use a Foley balloon tamponade method if they need to stop bleeding before going to the operating room. Patients will need large bore IVs and fluids — and especially blood product resuscitation. Only immobilize the C-spine if a patient has neurologic deficits or a high injury mechanism. Think — somebody that was riding their bike and clotheslined the fence. Neck collars hide neck wounds and hamper airway management unless they’re strictly needed. You may have also heard of hard signs and soft signs in terms of the parlance of managing penetrating neck injury. In general, hard signs mean go to the operating room. Soft signs need a CT angiogram and observation. So here are some hard signs: • Active arterial bleeding — blood spurting out of the patient • Expanding or pulsatile hematoma • Airway compromise, stridor, or other signs • Air bubbling from the neck wound • Shock that is unresponsive to fluids • Any focal neurologic deficit Soft signs include: • Minor oozing • A small and stable hematoma • Mild dysphonia or dysphagia • Subcutaneous air without any respiratory distress • Mild voice changes • Just a little bit of hemoptysis A large pediatric series showed that 50 to 70% of children with hard signs did need operative repair. Most with only soft signs were managed safely with imaging and serial exams. So I alluded to this paradigm at the beginning of the episode — the “no zone” strategy. For stable children with no hard signs, CT angiography is the gold standard. It has a sensitivity of 95 to 99% for major vascular injury. You’re able to visualize the trachea, esophagus, spine, and any foreign bodies. Make sure you always get a chest X-ray as well, since penetrating neck injuries can injure the apices of the lungs or thoracic structures. Also, if the CTA is negative but you still have suspicion for injury to the aerodigestive tract, you can do a water-soluble contrast esophagram or flexible endoscopy. Plain films — yes, you can assess the C-spine and look for radiopaque foreign bodies, but again, if you truly have a child that is stable and has no hard signs, CTA is the gold standard. If you follow this, you can cut non-therapeutic neck explorations in half without missing any injuries. So this should be part of your protocol. If you do have a neck wound that you have to manage before the surgeons can get to it: direct pressure first. The Foley balloon tamponade method is where you take an 18 to 20 French catheter, place it into the wound, inflate the balloon with 10 to 15 milliliters of water, and then clamp it. I wouldn’t necessarily do this in a Level 1 trauma center — I have surgeons available — but it might be useful if you have to transport a kid quickly to a trauma center. Never, ever, ever pull an impaled object out of the neck in the emergency department. These should be removed in the operating room. Now, superficial injuries with the platysma intact get routine closure. Anything deeper deserves imaging. So here’s some pediatric-specific pearls, again, because these are really rare. Kids have a small airway, and soft tissues swell quickly, so there’s a low threshold for securing the airway. If you’re concerned about the airway, make a plan to do it right now. Kids have low blood volume and don’t tolerate hemorrhage as well. They’ll underreport pain, especially younger ones — so rely on the exam and parental observations. Definitely use Child Life to help keep them calm. And unfortunately, some neck wounds are self-inflicted, so make sure you address mental health concerns after the child is stabilized. Alright. So let’s bring it all home. What are some key take-home points? 1. Penetrating neck trauma is fortunately rare in kids — far less than 1% of all pediatric trauma — but still high-risk. 2. Males predominate. The younger the child, the higher the risk of aerodigestive injury. 3. Hard signs → go straight to the OR. 4. Soft signs → CT angiography and observation. 5. Hard vs soft signs reliably stratify risk. 6. CTA + chest X-ray is first-line in stable, hard-sign-negative children, which limits unnecessary surgical exploration. 7. Esophageal injuries are sneaky — you may need endoscopy or contrast studies if CTA is equivocal. 8. In terms of immediate management: airway beats everything. • People talk about the triple setup: RSI, extraglottic rescue, surgical airway kit. 9. Children with concerning but non-operative injuries need serial examinations — these are very powerful. • Observation is a test. Check neurovascular status every 2 to 4 hours for at least a day. 10. If there’s an impaled object — leave it, transport intact, and remove it in the OR. 11. If you’re working in the community or not at a Level 1 pediatric trauma center — focus on careful airway management and immediate transport. That’s all for this episode. I hope you found it useful — especially since these injuries are less common, but can be incredibly impactful. If you enjoyed the content, or want to hear something different about pediatric trauma, reach out and let me know — I’ll take an email, a comment on the blog, a social media message. And please — as my 13-year-old would encourage me to say — like, rate, and review. It helps other people find the podcast. I just want people to learn, basically. Share this episode and the podcast with the folks you work with — and not just physicians in the emergency department. I think we all deserve to learn about how we manage injuries in children. For PEM Currents: The Pediatric Emergency Medicine Podcast, this has been Brad Sobolewski. See you next time.

In this episode of PEM Currents: The Pediatric Emergency Medicine Podcast, Brad Sobolewski discusses advanced imaging in pediatric emergency care with Dr. Jennifer Marin ([email protected]) from UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh. They explore the evidence behind ultrasound, CT, and MRI, strategies to reduce low-value imaging, and the role of shared decision-making in selecting the appropriate diagnostic test. Learning Objectives Demonstrate the ability to use shared decision-making strategies when discussing imaging options with families of pediatric patients presenting to the Emergency Department. (Bloom’s: Apply; Kirkpatrick Level 2 – Learning) Evaluate the risks and benefits of ultrasound, CT, and MRI for common pediatric emergencies and identify appropriate imaging modalities based on clinical guidelines discussed in the podcast. (Bloom’s: Analyze; Kirkpatrick Level 3 – Behavior): Assess the impact of implementing strategies for reducing low-value imaging in the pediatric emergency department on patient care outcomes, including diagnostic accuracy, radiation exposure, and healthcare costs. (Bloom’s: Evaluate; Kirkpatrick Level 4 – Results) Connect with Brad Sobolewski PEMBlog: PEMBlog.com Blue Sky: @bradsobo X (Twitter): @PEMTweets Instagram: Brad Sobolewski Mastodon: @[email protected] References Marin JR, Lyons TW, Claudius I, et al; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Section on Radiology; American College of Emergency Physicians Pediatric Emergency Medicine Committee; American College of Radiology. Optimizing Advanced Imaging of the Pediatric Patient in the Emergency Department: Policy Statement. Pediatrics. 2024;154(1):e2024066854. doi:10.1542/peds.2024-066854. PubMed Marin JR, Lyons TW, Claudius I, et al; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Section on Radiology; American College of Emergency Physicians Pediatric Emergency Medicine Committee; American College of Radiology. Optimizing Advanced Imaging of the Pediatric Patient in the Emergency Department: Technical Report. Pediatrics. 2024;154(1):e2024066855. doi:10.1542/peds.2024-066855. PubMed Transcript Note: This transcript was partially completed with the use of the Descript AI and the Chat GPT 4o AI Welcome to PEM Currents: The Pediatric Emergency Medicine Podcast. As always, I’m your host, Brad Sobolewski, and in today’s episode, we are diving into a critical topic that every clinician in the emergency department encounters: we are talking about advanced imaging. Wait, so is this like an upper-level college course? No. Advanced imaging, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Emergency Physicians, and the American College of Radiology, refers to diagnostic modalities like ultrasound, computed tomography or CT, and magnetic resonance imaging or MRI that provide detailed visualization of the internal structures of our patients to aid in the evaluation and management of the kids that we see in the ED. So it’s the name for all of the cool imaging studies that we order on all of our patients, and they are essential for doing our daily jobs and identifying serious conditions like traumatic brain injuries, appendicitis, and stroke. There’s also risks. We’re talking about radiation exposure, having to sedate patients, false positive results, incidental findings that we have to deal with, and the obvious increase in healthcare costs, and there certainly is a rise in CT and MRI use. And how do we actually strike the right balance between obtaining essential diagnostic information and avoiding unnecessary imaging? So here to help us navigate these complex decisions is Dr. Jennifer Marin. She’s an emergency department director of imaging at UPMC, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, my hometown, a Yinzer, and a leading voice in pediatric emergency imaging. She’s been at the forefront of research into imaging optimization. Focusing a lot on when to image, when not to image, and how to communicate imaging decisions effectively with families. In this episode, which we recorded as a discussion on May 12th, 2025, we will explore the latest evidence and guidelines, discuss practical strategies for reducing low-value imaging, and highlight how shared decision-making can help ensure that every scan is the right scan. Jen, let’s start broadly. What are the most common injuries or conditions in children that require advanced imaging in the ED? And what are some of the trends that you’re seeing regarding how often we’re performing these studies? You know, reordering more imaging just because it’s more readily available because our patients and families expect it. Or is there something else going on here? Thanks, Brad, and thanks so much for having me. It’s an honor to be on your podcast. To answer your first question, I think really the most common things that we see patients being imaged for would be suspected appendicitis. The kid who comes in with belly pain, you don’t wanna miss an appendicitis. So we’re doing a lot of abdominal ultrasounds in those cases. Head trauma, um, of course people don’t wanna miss a bleed. So we do imaging for closed head injury. Those patients with minor head trauma, cervical spine trauma, abdominal trauma. And then I would say also children who come in with headaches. Uh, and those who also have seizures, those would be probably the most common reasons why we image kids. So these studies are all readily available. We can get them sort of whenever we want. Really. What are some of the trends that we’re seeing in terms of ordering practices? Yeah, there’s definitely been studies that have shown that over time we are using more advanced imaging modalities. And I, I like to say to the residents and trainees, if you build it, they will come. And so as we now have more availability of these tests, when I started training, we did not have 24 hour ultrasound. We certainly didn’t have MRI available in the ED. But now that we have 24 hour ultrasound, it’s much easier to just get the ultrasound, or at least that’s the perception, right? So it’s relatively cheap when you talk about ultrasound compared to other advanced imaging modalities, it isn’t usually painful. It’s no radiation and it’s fairly quick. So I think that when we, our threshold to order tests like this have gone way down simply because of the availability. Do you feel like sometimes we just assume that a patient or family wants an imaging test in order to figure out what’s going on? Sometimes we do think that. I think we think that probably more than they actually do. And I’ve actually started, instead of assuming that a family is expecting imaging, I’ve started asking, what are you worried about? And what do you think should be done? And a lot of times I’m very surprised when I explain to the families why imaging isn’t necessary, if in fact they are expecting it. Most of the time it’s very well received. Right. And I feel like we used to see a kid who would come in with a day and a half, two days of pain, right? So it was a little bit easier. Um, but now they’ll come in with a few hours of pain. And the reality is that if you get an ultrasound in early appendicitis, you’re probably not even gonna see the appendix. And so the test really isn’t gonna be that useful. And I go into that a little bit with families and I think it really resonates with them and has them understanding why we’re not doing the ultrasound. That’s a wonderful point. And I don’t think there’s any such thing as a perfect test. There’s almost nothing that’s a binary yes-no. There’s false positives and false negatives for everything. And if you are born with your appendix behind your cecum, no ultrasonographer in the universe is going to be able to get it to come out to take a picture. Do you think that medical-legal concerns also play a role? Is it different in taking care of children versus adults? I think medical-legal implications do play a role, and there’s been studies on that, but it’s mostly in the general EM literature, not as much in pediatrics. But I think that it’s something that is probably there that we think about. Nobody wants to miss an appendicitis. Nobody wants to miss a head bleed, right? We don’t wanna miss anything. And I think that when we’re faced with a child who has one of these diagnoses, that’s where we need to weigh the risks and benefits. And in some cases have a conversation with the family because sometimes it’s clear-cut that they need imaging. Other times it’s clear that they don’t need imaging, but there’s a lot of gray. And you mentioned in your intro, shared decision-making, and I think that shared decision-making plays a really important role with imaging in a lot of these scenarios. So I’m gonna shift gears just a tiny bit. You talked a few moments ago about some of the more common conditions in which we get imaging. I’m gonna ask specifically about CT scans and radiation. And it’s a topic that comes up again and again and we’re learning more and more over time about the risks of radiation, particularly in growing children where we really don’t understand the long-term risks. Can you talk about safer alternatives? How we should approach the risk of CT scan with families and some of the decisions around that? Absolutely. So there is a risk of radiation. We know this. What we don’t know is what exactly is that risk. And a lot of the studies that have been done were done on patients who received imaging on much older equipment. And the equipment that we use now is much more sophisticated, much more high-tech, and does have the ability to deliver much lower radiation doses. So the explanation that I give to families, especially when I’m in a shared decision-making situation or in a scenario where I’m recommending a CT and the family is a bit hesitant, you know, I’ll say the benefits of this scan very likely outweigh any of the risks. We don’t know what that risk is. We know that any radiation can be potentially harmful, but when you’re getting imaged at a children’s hospital, for example, and this is a kid who’s not getting imaged every month or every year like some of our adult patients are, then the risks really are generally outweighed by the benefits when you have a high pretest probability of disease. CT does get the lion’s share of concerns about risk and advanced imaging. But there’s two other modalities that we’re talking about today. Really, on one end we’ve got ultrasound, which there’s no ionizing radiation whatsoever. It’s readily available and it’s first line for things like appendicitis, kidney stones, and soft tissue infections. And then at the other end we have MRI, and it’s not just set it and forget it. Now we have rapid protocols and other things. Can you talk specifically about some of these Rapid MRI protocols and how they may supplant CT scans? Yes, so Rapid MRI protocols have really exploded, I would say in the last decade. We actually have four different rapid protocols depending on the scenario, depending on the imaging question, and it’s a wonderful test. I think that there are limitations to it, right? So one is going to be the speed with which you can get it, and our MRI scanners, you know, we don’t have an infinite number, and so we are competing with other patients around the hospital who need MRIs and sometimes kids have to wait two, three plus hours to get it. The other thing though that’s important is a lot of times, you know, the CT gives us good information and it’s fast, but it may not be the best test. And so MRI is going to give us more information depending on the scenario. So I’m thinking about maybe a seizure patient, where an MRI might be a better test than a CT. And so getting the CT is to some extent, only delaying the inevitable because the patient’s ultimately going to need the MRI. So what I initially learned about MRI, it was like this two hour long test. You had to lay in this big machine. It made a ton of noise. You had to put headphones on. When you talk about rapid MRI, like how fast can these patients be in and out of the scanner? So these tests are very fast. They’re not as fast as CT scans. You can get a head CT probably in under two minutes, but you can get a rapid MRI in five to seven minutes. In some cases, if you’re doing a shunt protocol, for example, some of them take a little bit longer, 10 minutes, 12 minutes. But still, to your point, Brad, it’s not this hour long scan that we’re used to seeing and most patients tolerate it well. But – and I’ll go back to your earlier question – one of the limitations of MRI is you can get a scan down to three minutes, but if you’re a 19-month-old who doesn’t want to lay still, it’s not going to happen. So that risk of sedation really becomes something to consider when we’re getting a rapid MRI in a particular age group. Locally, we will not do MRIs on ED patients below six years of age. When I started residency way back in the day, I said to one of my mentors, ‘What am I gonna do about two-year-olds?’ And I was told, ‘Nothing.’ And that has held true all throughout my career. Yes, and so thinking about these imaging modalities, I keep coming back to the fact that most of the time when we’re ordering one, it’s because we’re thinking about what’s next from a management standpoint for the patient. That often involves our subspecialty colleagues, whether that’s our surgeons, our subspecialist surgeons, or other pediatric subspecialties. How are we collaborating with these pediatric specialists to ensure that we’re triaging and effectively making decisions and integrating these decisions into the overall treatment plan for the children we’re caring for in the emergency department? Subspecialists are key, right? And I think that getting multidisciplinary collaboration when we are figuring out what is the best imaging strategy for X is critical. We have clinical effectiveness guidelines, as I’m sure many know, and many pediatric emergency departments have these. These are multidisciplinary guidelines that have been put together that really take into account all the relevant stakeholders and what’s the best imaging test to get the answer that we’re interested in. We’ve collaborated with general surgery, radiology, and all different specialties depending on the scenario, so that we’re imaging in the right way and not having to redo the study. We have different protocols like for kidney stones, where we do a very low dose CT, and we have parameters around which we decide whether to do that CT in lieu of ultrasound for certain patients. None of that would be possible without earlier collaboration with all the relevant stakeholders first. You think about all the different points in your system where the decision could go wrong. You just mentioned a CT protocol for stones. You could order another version of a, you know, abdominal CT and get a study that also looked at the kidneys but wasn’t specific for it. And they’re all on that giant menu. So you have to think from top to bottom in your system and get everybody involved and on board. And I would agree with you completely that I found that’s the only way to drive decisions toward the preferred imaging modality. Everybody that’s a stakeholder has to agree. And you can’t just snap your fingers and make that happen. And we are working in children’s hospitals with tons of resources, world experts, and the availability of tests. But the majority of our patients do not initially seek care in our facilities. We know that nine out of ten children that go to the ER do not go to children’s hospital ERs. And I think some of the concern about low-value imaging or imaging with high risks has to be directed at our children who may receive imaging outside of children’s hospitals. So what can pediatric emergency medicine physicians specifically do to reduce the use of low-value imaging being performed at non-children’s hospitals? You’re absolutely right, Brad. And I always say that I do not envy my emergency medicine colleagues, particularly those practicing in community settings. We really do have so many resources at our disposal, and it is very hard for them to know everything about kids and adults while practicing in locations where they don’t have these consultants available 24/7. I think it’s very important, almost an obligation, for us to provide outreach and education to our community ED colleagues so that they are given the tools needed to provide the right imaging to the right patient at the right time. So I’ll give you a couple of examples. At UPMC, we have many hospitals as part of our system, but only one pediatric children’s hospital. And so we routinely do outreach with our community providers. There’s an education series, a lecture series, and I had the opportunity to give a talk on this very topic to those providers. It was all these medical directors at other hospitals who then had the opportunity to cascade down the message about low-value imaging, when to image, when not to image. We provided resources, which I’ll talk about in a little bit, and, you know, hopefully that will lead to less low-value imaging in the community setting. Another recommendation that I have is regarding transport calls. We all take transport calls when we’re practicing at the ‘mothership.’ Patients are getting transferred, and I think having a conversation with the doc at the point of care, even if imaging has already been done — and maybe it was low-value or could have been avoided — I think it’s important to talk to the provider and say, ‘Hey, you know what? Just so you know, next time you have a kid like this, don’t feel like you have to image them. We are happy to take this kid without imaging.’ It’s going to save time, it’s going to save us having to upload the disc that may or may not be corrupted. It’s going to save the patient, potentially, another scan because they were moving all over the table because the techs at the referring hospital aren’t used to trying to manage a wriggling infant. I almost empower them to not necessarily do imaging because I think that there is this common misconception in the community setting that you can’t transfer a patient unless you know what the diagnosis is or unless you have imaging available. And that’s really not the case at all. Talking about some of the resources in the guidelines that we published, the policy statement and technical report that we published in Pediatrics and in some other journals, statements on advanced imaging in children who present to the emergency department. It was authored by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Emergency Physicians, and the American College of Radiology. Those statements were published, and one of the documents that I think is very useful is the supplement to the technical report, which includes several publicly available clinical effectiveness guidelines from various children’s hospitals all over the country. These can be used at the point of care to help with decision-making so that we’re providing high-value care and performing high-value imaging. Before we bring this episode to a close, there’s one other subject I wanted to talk a little bit more about, and it’s incidental findings. You know, it’s when we get a study right, and we discover something that we weren’t expecting to see. I think, colloquially, it’s gotten the name ‘Incidentaloma.’ How do you suggest we approach when we discover something that we weren’t expecting to see? What does that mean for patients and families? And is there a cascade of decisions that happen because of that that could have been avoided? Absolutely. Yeah. I don’t think we talk about these enough because we don’t have to deal with them in the ED. So an incidental finding is something that a radiologist sees on the imaging study that means nothing. It doesn’t cause the patient any harm, and it’s certainly not the reason for their symptoms. But when you tell someone that they have a nodule, let’s say, on their lung from a CT PE study, that then sparks what we call ‘care cascades.’ And they have to follow up on that. It’s an extra visit, time off work, time out of school, an extra cost, anxiety-provoking. And maybe they need to follow it up every three months. It’s a real burden on families and on the healthcare system more broadly and probably something that doesn’t get enough attention in emergency medicine. So, I would encourage folks when they’re ordering tests, particularly if the pretest probability is very low, to think about the risks, including incidental findings and how they’re really not insignificant. Before we end our conversation, what final words of advice do you have for someone who’s going to have a shift soon after they listen to this episode? What’s one thing that they can take to the bedside in an upcoming discussion with a patient and their family? Understanding that imaging isn’t always necessary to make a diagnosis, and that’s something that I think today’s trainees need to hear, and also some of the families need to hear. There’s so much information available online, as you know, and Facebook groups and resources and ‘My friend, my grandmother,’ etc., and it can be overwhelming. Taking the time to explain to families, especially those who are expecting imaging or have questions about imaging, why we aren’t doing imaging and the risks associated with it, which are very real — I think that that carries a lot of weight. What about other healthcare teams that interface with our patients when they may be requesting tests that we’re concerned pose additional risks or costs to patients? How do we have a collaborative discussion with them when there’s a difference of opinion about what best to do for a patient? Yes. I think you answered it, actually, Brad — having a collaborative discussion. A lot of times when we consult a service, it’s a resident who might be at another hospital. They have to come to our hospital. They’re just reflexively asking for imaging. I say to the resident, ‘I’m going to call that resident back.’ And I’ll say, ‘You know what? I would really love for you to just see the patient before we talk about getting a CT because I don’t think the kid needs a CT.’ Most of the time, that works really well. Sometimes they’ll say, ‘Well, here’s why I want the CT,’ and I’ll say, ‘Oh, that’s really helpful. We’ll go ahead and get it.’ So I think having a conversation and questioning in a very respectful way can be eye-opening on both sides. And that is a conversation that is best had by voice or face-to-face. It can be uncomfortable to feel like you’re going to have a disagreement with somebody. But ultimately, everybody’s goal is the same — just to do what’s right for the kid and their family. And the other people that are really smart and amazing and wonderful are radiologists. We should always be willing to call them on the phone. They’re not just the test referral center. You don’t just put in the test and get it. Sometimes we should be calling them and saying, ‘Here’s the problem I have at hand. What’s the best way that we can safely image this child?’ Jen, thank you so much. Tons of fascinating information. As I mentioned before, I will put links to all of these excellent resources in the show notes. I hope that in listening today, you will come up with some new ways to approach these issues with patients and families, as well as the folks we collaborate with. And don’t be afraid to have those discussions with folks calling in from other institutions. We all have the same goal. And ultimately, it’s on us working in pediatric emergency departments to disseminate that best information. Jen, thank you very much. Brad, thank you so much. It was such an honor. I had a really nice time. Thank you. Alright, that’s all for this episode. I hope you now understand what the term ‘advanced imaging’ encompasses — ultrasound, CT, MRI — the radiologic studies that we use to make diagnoses every day in the emergency department on children. Sometimes these tests are necessary; sometimes they’re not. We have to collaborate with patients, families, our radiology colleagues, the other specialists we collaborate with, and providers working at community EDs to decide whether to image and, if we do, to get the right test that will get us the most accurate results with the least risk. So if you liked this episode, share it with a colleague, leave a review on your favorite podcast site, or send me a comment via email, on the blog, or via social media. For PEM Currents: The Pediatric Emergency Medicine Podcast, I’m Brad Sobolewski. See you next time.