Evidence Hub

Emergency department presentation and misdiagnosis of imported falciparum malaria

Kyriacou DN, Spira AM, Talan DA, Mabey DC

Annals of emergency medicine, 1996

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To review the travel history, clinical presentation, laboratory findings, diagnostic accuracy, management, and outcome of the largest reported series of emergency department patients with imported falciparum malaria in the United States.

METHODS: This is a retrospective case series at large, inner-city medical center in Los Angeles. Twenty cases of falciparum malaria with initial medical evaluation in the ED were identified from the period 1979 through 1993.

RESULTS: Fifteen male and 5 female patients were identified, with an age range of 5 to 55 years. All had a recent history (within 2 months) of international travel in regions endemic for malaria. Most (85%) were recent immigrants or expatriates returning from a recent visit to their native country. The most common documented symptoms were fever (100%), chills (65%), vomiting (60%), anorexia (45%), and headache (45%). Tachycardia (85%) and hyperpyrexia (> 39 degrees C) (65%) were the most common presenting signs. Malaria was considered in the ED diagnoses in only 12 cases (60%). The specification of falciparum (malignant) malaria was established in only 2 cases (10%). Hepatitis and gastroenteritis were the most common misdiagnoses. Only four patients received antimalarial medication in the ED. There were no deaths, and complications were limited to thrombocytopenia and anemia. Two patients required transfusion.

CONCLUSION: Imported falciparum malaria presenting to EDs in the United States is frequently…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free