190/100 and no thanks.
180/100 in the canal.
>180/110 as long as no signs of end-organ damage. There are several papers that use this cutoff (Fleischer et al JAMA, etc.). Anything above that would be difficult to defend. But as lobelsteve mentioned.. no reason you can't be even safer and go lower.
^ this is what I use too. last thing I want is to worsen that pressure with a needle poke and land in stroke-town(not the place in the red light district). on a side note, I also cancel if glucose over 180 for cases that involve an incision and 250 for RFA. but i usually give them a little insulin and monitor postop again too if too high.
The Fleischer article does a nice job of summarizing the literature. At the same time, it's 20 years old and an expert opinion of 1. Anybody have a more recent paper on the subject that they like?
As an EM physician, if you want to make that call that is great. But I am not going to accept the risk if anything were to happen with the patient that I didn't more fully evaluate the patient for end organ damage than just ask about symptoms. I agree it is CYA medicine, but I have seen people get sued for a lot less.
I hear you. There is unfortunately risk with any medical decision and we can all be sued for anything. "Dr, Gnarvin, can you tell the court why you sent your asymptomatic patient with long-standing htn to the ER where the solo NP on duty gave 40mg of hydralazine which then stroked the pt out?"
I worked at a place where an ortho sent an asymptomatic htn pt into the ED and pt was seen by an old school IM-trained doc working there. Said doc succumbed to the pt/families demands to be admitted "because my specialist said my BP was an emergency!", and then said patient stroked out on the floor when the hospitalist went wild with bp meds because of BS nursing/hospital "BP requirements" for pts in med/surg beds. Family filed a suit and all 3 of these docs got named. Ortho and IM doc in the ED were eventually dropped after a year...but still. These things absolutely happen.
I've seen several cases of watershed infarcts 2/2 overzealous treatment of asymptomatic BPs and other M&M worthy misadventures including a patient who, at the end of the "asymptomatic 190/80 is an emergency right now" rainbow wound up getting a cath during which there was a coronary aa perf-- massive MI and subsequent ICM. And then there's the excess risk posed to these patients by just being admitted to the hospital ie chance of serious adverse event/care error / hospital-acquired infection / injury just by being admitted. I usually quote patients a risk of ~0.5-2% risk/admission (per To Err is Human report, but other studies quote much higher incidence) to explain to pts why I don't want to admit them and then most get on board with being discharged.
So can you send an asymptomatic pt to the ED? Sure. But recognize that if the patient is asymptomatic, sending them into a hospital may well cause them more harm than good and you will have helped push that boat off to sea. Or at best, your patient will only get a 1k bill for their 5 hour stay in the WR + 10 minute stay in an ER hallway bed where the ER doc (doc, if they're lucky) will confirm they're asymptomatic and then immediately discharge them home with instructions to f/u w/their pcp.
I do agree that the med-mal situation is out of control in many states. Rather than sending asymptomatic htn patients into the ED, another option to protect yourself and these patients is to have your staff call their pcp's office (if you can't speak directly to the pcp on the phone) and ask them to be seen in the next few days and give the patient very strict instructions for pcp f/u as well as on when they should call 911/go to the ER immediately (ie cp, sob, any other new symptoms / concerns). Documenting this (quick macro) will offer you protection as well.