Do Objective Measures of Blood Alcohol Concentrations Make More Sense than Self-reports in Emergency Department Studies?

Purpose: Concerns about self-reports have led to calls for objective measures of blood alcohol concentration (BAC). The present study compared objective measures with self-reports. Methods: BAC from breath or blood samples were obtained from 272 randomly sampled injured patients who were admitted to a Swiss emergency department (ED). Self-reports were compared a) between those providing and refusing a BAC test, and b) to estimated peak BAC (EPBAC) values based on BACs using the Widmark formula. Results: Those providing BACs were significantly (P < 0.05) younger, more often male, and less often reported alcohol consumption before injury, but consumed higher quantities when drinking. Eighty-eight percent of those with BAC measures gave consistent reports (positive or negative). Significantly more patients reported consumption with negative BAC measures (N = 29) than vice versa (N = 3). Duration of consumption and times between injury and BAC measurement predicted EPBAC better than did the objective BAC measure. Conclusions: There is little evidence that patients who provide objective BAC measures deliberately conceal consumption. ED studies must rely on self-reports, eg, take the time period between injury and ED admission into account. Clearly, objective measures are of clinical relevance, eg, to provide optimal treatment in the ED. However, they may be less relevant to establishing effects in an epidemiologic sense, such as estimating risk relationships. In this respect, efforts to increase the validity and reliability of self-reports should be preferred over the collection of additional objective measures.

Making SENSE - Sustained Effort Network for treatment of Status Epilepticus as a multicenter prospective registry.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the different treatment options of status epilepticus (SE) in adults is scarce. Large randomized trials cover only one treatment at early stage and suggest the superiority of benzodiazepines over placebo, of intravenous lorazepam over intravenous diazepam or over intravenous phenytoin alone, and of intramuscular midazolam over intravenous lorazepam. However, many patients will not be treated successfully with the first treatment step. A large randomized trial covering the treatment of established status (ESETT) has just been funded recently by the NIH and will not start before 2015, with expected results in 2018; a trial on the treatment of refractory status with general anesthetics was terminated early due to insufficient recruitment. Therefore, a prospective multicenter observational registry was set up; this may help in clinical decision-making until results from randomized trials are available. METHODS/DESIGN: SENSE is a prospective, multicenter registry for patients treated for SE. The primary objective is to document patient characteristics, treatment modalities and in-house outcome of consecutive adults admitted for SE treatment in each of the participating centres and to identify predictors of outcome. Pre-treatment, treatment-related and outcome variables are documented systematically. To allow for meaningful multivariate analysis in the patient subgroups with refractory SE, a cohort size of 1000 patients is targeted. DISCUSSION: The results of the study will provide information about risks and benefits of specific treatment steps in different patient groups with SE at different points of time. Thus, it will support clinical decision-making and, furthermore, it will be helpful in the planning of treatment trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00000725.