Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine最新文献

Introduction: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma exacerbation are two common emergency situations. This study aimed to investigate the impact of pre-hospital dexamethasone initiation on treatment outcomes of these patients.

Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional and comparative study, data from the emergency medical service (EMS) care report of patients with a final diagnosis of asthma or COPD, coded with Thailand's emergency medical triage protocol, collected between January 1, 2021, and October 31, 2022, were used. Data on baseline characteristics, emergency department length of stay (ED-LOS), and hospital admission rates were collected from electronic medical records and compared between cases with and without pre-hospital dexamethasone administration by EMS.

Results: 200 patients with COPD (n = 93) and asthma (n = 107) exacerbation were enrolled. The dexamethasone-treated group had a lower but statistically non-significant hospital admission rate (71.0% versus 81.0%, absolute difference: -10%, 95% confidence interval (CI): -21.76, 1.76; p = 0.100). In patients with asthma, the dexamethasone-treated had lower median ED-LOS time (235 (IQR: 165.5-349.5) versus 322 (IQR: 238-404) minutes; p = 0.003). Dexamethasone-treated asthma patients had lower but statistically non-significant hospital admission rates (60.4% versus 78.0%, absolute difference: -17.55%, 95% CI: -34.96, -0.14; p = 0.510). In COPD patients the dexamethasone-treated and untreated groups had non-significantly lower hospital admission rates (80.8% versus 85.40%, absolute difference: -4.60%, 95% CI: -19.82, 10.63; p = 0.561) and non-significantly lower ED-LOS (232 (IQR: 150 - 346) versus 296 (IQR: 212 - 330) minutes, absolute difference: -59 (-130.81, 12.81); p = 0.106).

Conclusion: The dexamethasone administration by EMS in pre-hospital setting for management of asthma and COPD patients is beneficial in reducing the ED-LOS and need for hospital admission but its effects are not statistically significant, except regarding the ED-LOS of asthma exacerbation cases.

Introduction: Several clinical manifestations have been discovered for COVID-19 since the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, which can be classified into early, medium, and long-term complications. However, late complications can be present after recovery from acute COVID-19 illness. The present study aims to comprehensively review the available evidence of late complications related to COVID-19.

Method: A search was conducted, using keywords, through electronic databases, which included Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase up to August 29, 2022. Study selection was performed according to a strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was followed, and studies were appraised using the National Institute of Health (NIH) quality assessment and risk of bias tool.

Results: In total, 50 studies were included, and nine distinct COVID-19 late complication categories were identified. A review of these studies revealed that neurologic and psychiatric (n=41), respiratory (n=27), musculoskeletal and rheumatologic (n=22), cardiovascular (n=9), and hepatic and gastrointestinal (n=6) complications were the most prevalent complications of long COVID-19.

Conclusion: Almost all human body systems are affected by late complications of COVID-19 with different severity and prevalence. Fatigue and some other neuropsychiatric symptoms are the most common late complications among long COVID-19 patients. Respiratory symptoms including dyspnea (during exercise), cough, and chest tightness were the next most prevalent long-term complications of COVID-19. Since these complications are persistent and late, being aware of the signs and symptoms is essential for the healthcare providers and patients.

Introduction: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most common nosocomial infections affecting one-third of patients with mechanical ventilation. This study aimed to synthesize available evidence regarding the effect of treatment with povidone-iodine (PI) among adult patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) for the prevention of VAP.

Methods: An extensive search was conducted in online databases, including PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, from the earliest records until January 1, 2023. STATA software v14 was used for statistical analysis. Publication bias was assessed via funnel plot, Begg's and Egger's tests. A P-value less than 0.1 was considered statistically significant for publication bias value.

Results: Four studies were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies showed rhat PI decreased VAP compared to the placebo group, but it was not statistically significant (RR: 0.61, 95%CI: 0.25 to 1.47, Z=1.10, P=0.27, I2:71.5%). One study compared the effect of PI with chlorhexidine on the rate of VAP, the difference between which was not statistically significant (RR: 1.50, 95%CI: 0.46 to 4.87, Z=0.67, P=0.50, I2:0). Two studies demonstrated that the use of PI intervention compared to placebo decreased the average length of stay in ICU; however, it was not statistically significant (WMD: -0.35, 95%CI:-3.90 to 3.20, Z=0.19, P=0.85, I2:0). Also, three studies showed that using PI had almost no effect on mortality rate compared to placebo (RR: 1.05, 95%CI: 0.66 to 1.53, Z=0.8, P=0.27, I2:29.0%).

Conclusion: More rigorously designed randomized clinical trials and further evidence are required to make a better decision/comparison about using PI as a suitable choice for preventing VAP among adult patients admitted to the ICU.

Introduction: The Corticosteroid Randomization After Significant Head injury (CRASH) and the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) are two prognostic models frequently used in predicting the outcome of patients with traumatic brain injury. There are ongoing debates about which of the two models has a better prognostic value. This study aims to compare the CRASH and IMPACT in predicting mortality and unfavorable outcome of patients with traumatic brain injury.

Method: We performed a literature search using Medline (via PubMed), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases until August 17, 2022. After two independent researchers screened the articles, we included all the original articles comparing the prognostic value of IMPACT and CRASH models in patients with traumatic brain injury. The outcomes evaluated were mortality and unfavorable outcome. The data of the included articles were analyzed using STATA 17.0 statistical program, and we reported an odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for comparison.

Results: We included the data from 16 studies. The analysis showed that the areas under the curve of the IMPACT core model and CRASH basic model do not differ in predicting the mortality of patients (OR=0.99; p=0.905) and their six-month unfavorable outcome (OR=1.01; p=0.719). Additionally, the CRASH CT model showed no difference from the IMPACT extended (OR=0.98; p=0.507) and IMPACT Lab (OR=1.00; p=0.298) models in predicting the mortality of patients with traumatic brain injury. We also observed similar findings in the six-month unfavorable outcome, showing that the CRASH CT model does not differ from the IMPACT extended (OR=1.00; p=0.990) and IMPACT Lab (OR=1.00; p=0.570) in predicting the unfavorable outcome in head trauma patients.

Conclusion: Low to very low level of evidence shows that IMPACT and CRASH models have similar values in predicting mortality and unfavorable outcome in patients with traumatic brain injury. Since the discriminative power of the IMPACT Core and CRASH basic models is not different from the IMPACT extended, IMPACT Lab, and CRASH CT models, it may be possible to only use the core and basic models in examining the prognosis of patients with traumatic injuries to the brain.

Introduction: Sepsis is a life-threatening and common cause of Emergency department (ED) referrals. Out-of-hour staffing is limited in ED, which may potentially affect fluid administration. This study aimed to investigate fluid volume variation in out-of-hour vs. routine-hour admissions.

Methods: The present study is a post-hoc analysis of a multicentre, prospective, observational study investigating fluid administration in ED patients with suspected infection, from Jan 20^th - March 2^nd, 2020. Patient groups were "routine-hours" (RH): weekdays 07:00-18:59 or "out-of-hours" (OOH): weekdays 19:00-06:59 or Friday 19:00-Monday 06:59. Primary outcome was 24-hour total fluid volumes (oral + intravenous (IV)). Secondary outcomes were total fluids 0-6 hours, oral fluids 0-6 and 0-24 hours, and IV fluids 0-6 and 0-24 hours. Linear regression adjusted for site and illness severity was used.

Results: 734 patients had suspected infection; 449 were admitted during RH and 287 during OOH. Mean (95% CI) total 24-hour fluid volumes were equal in simple infection and sepsis regardless of admission time: Simple infection RH: 3640 (3410 - 3871) ml and OOH: 3681 (3451 - 3913) ml. Sepsis RH: 3671 (3443;3898) ml and OOH: 3896 (3542;4250) ml. Oral fluids 0-6h were reduced in simple infection and sepsis among OOH vs. RH. Sepsis patients received more 0-6-hour IV fluid when admitted OOH vs. RH. There were no associations between admission time and 0-24-hour oral or IV volumes in simple infection or sepsis.

Conclusion: Admission time did not have an association with 24-hour total fluid volumes. Sepsis patients admitted during OOH received more 0-6-hour IV fluids than RH patients, and simple infection and sepsis patients received less oral fluid in 0-6 hours if admitted during OOH vs. RH.

Introduction: Differentiating the soft tissue abscess from other types of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) poses a particular challenge because they have similar physical evaluation findings, but each disease has a different course, outcome, and treatment. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasonography for diagnosis of soft tissue abscess in the emergency departments.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar, from inception to January 2023, was conducted to identify relevant studies investigating the diagnostic performance of point-of-care ultrasonography for identification of abscess. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2).

Results: The pooled estimates of diagnostic parameters of ultrasonography for diagnosis of abscess were as follows: sensitivity, 0.93 (95% CI: 0.92-0.94); specificity, 0.87 (95% CI: 0.85-0.89), and the area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC), 0.95. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the SROC of studies in adult patients were 0.98 (95% CI: 0.92-1), 0.92 (95% CI: 0.86-0.95), and 0.99, respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the SROC of studies in pediatric patients were 0.9 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92), 0.78 (95% CI: 0.73-0.82), and 0.91, respectively.

Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the point-of-care ultrasonography has excellent diagnostic value for the abscess in the emergency department. Furthermore, we found that the diagnostic performance of point-of-care ultrasonography for diagnosis of abscess was higher for adult cases than for pediatric patients.

Introduction: Several scoring systems have been proposed to predict the outcomes of patients with ischemic heart disease. Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) and History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) scores are two of the more widely used risk prediction tools in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the value of GRACE and HEART scores in the outcome prediction of ACS patient.

Method: The online databases of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were search until September 2022 for articles directly comparing GRACE and HEART scores value in prediction of outcome in patients with ACS. GRACE score cut-offs were categorized into two groups of less than and equal to 100 and more than 100, and HEART score cut-offs were categorized into three groups of less than 4, equal to 4, and more than 4. Investigated outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), acute myocardial infraction (AMI) and all-cause mortality.

Results: 25 articles were included. The sensitivity and specificity of the GRACE score for prediction of MACE were 0.96 and 0.26 for cut-offs of ≤ 100, and 0.58 and 0.69 for cut-offs of >100, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the HEART score for prediction of MACE were 0.99 and 0.16 for cut-offs less than 4, 0.93 and 0.47 for equal to 4, and 0.77 and 0.78 for cut-offs greater than 4. GRACE score was shown to be predictive of AMI with sensitivity and specificity of 0.95 and 0.29, respectively. The analysis for the value of HEART score in the prediction of AMI a sensitivity and specificity of 0.94 and 0.48, respectively. The risk scores were not found to be suitable predictors of all-cause mortality.

Conclusion: The results demonstrated the low specificity of GRACE and HEART scores in predicting the MACE, AMI and all-cause mortality, irrespective of the utilized cut-off. Considering the acceptable sensitivity of two scores in predicting the MACE and AMI, these scores were more suitable to be used as a rule-out tool for identification of ACS patients with low risk of developing adverse outcomes.

Introduction: To identify the strengths and weaknesses of emergency medicine residency curriculum in Iran, and to benefit from the experiences of successful universities, comparative studies are crucial. This study compared the components of the national curriculum of emergency medicine in the United States, Canada, the European Union, Australia, and Saudi Arabia with Iran.

Method: Data for this research was collected by searching the websites of different universities and also contacting them for requesting curriculums. The leading countries in emergency medicine and one of the countries in the Middle East region (Saudi Arabia) along with the World Federation of Emergency Medicine were selected as the sample. The model used in this field is a range model that identifies four stages of description, interpretation, proximity, and comparison in comparative studies.

Results: In the curriculum of the United States, Canada, the European Union, Australia, and Saudi Arabia, there were lots of similarities in expressing the general characteristics of the curriculum, mission elements, vision, values, and ​beliefs of the discipline, educational strategy, techniques, expected competencies, rotation programs, and evaluation method, which were also similar to the Iranian curriculum. However, the duration of residency for emergency medicine in Iran is three years, which is shorter than other countries. As expected, the number and duration of rotations are less than other countries. Also, the process of entering into this field is different in Iran and is based on an exam for entrance, while most other countries use self-requested residency program.

Conclusion: Considering the results of comparing the Iranian curriculum with the curriculums of the United States, Canada, the European Union, Australia, and Saudi Arabia, it seems that Iran's program is comprehensive and complete; but, a reappraisal of the course duration and entering options are necessary to eliminate or improve the inadequacies.

Introduction: Distal forearm fractures' realignment and fixation is a painful procedure. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of periosteal nerve block and intravenous morphine in distal radius and ulna fractures' pain management.

Methods: In the present randomized, parallel, double-blind, controlled clinical trial, patients with distal radius or ulna fractures were divided into two groups. In the first group, for periosteal nerve block, 1% lidocaine was injected at a distance of 6 to 8 cm near the wrist from the lateral radius and medial ulna. In the second group, morphine sulfate at a dose of 0.1 mg/kg was slowly injected through the peripheral vein within 5 minutes. The visual analog scale (VAS) score was evaluated before the intervention and every 15 minutes until 90 minutes after the intervention and was compared between the two groups.

Results: 75 subjects were studied (39 in the periosteal nerve block and 36 in the intravenous morphine group). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of mean age (p = 0.384), gender distribution (p = 0.464), past medical history (p = 0.106), trauma type (p = 0.836), fracture type (p = 0.613), and baseline pain severity on VAS (p = 0.987). Both methods reduced the VAS scores during the 90 minutes of the study. The mean pain scores of the patients in the periosteal nerve block group with 2.56±1.44, 2.15±1.11, 2.66±1.26, and 3±1.27 at 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes after the analgesic injection, respectively, were significantly lower than those of the intravenous morphine group with 4.75±1.27, 4.22±1.22, 3.97±1.27, and 4.13±1.35, respectively (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). In the present study, no local or systemic complications were observed in the periosteal nerve block group, while the complications of dyspnea, vomiting, and pruritus were reported by 5.5%, 2.8%, and 2.8%, respectively, in the intravenous morphine group. Moreover, the percentage of need for additional analgesia in the intravenous morphine group was higher than that of the periosteal nerve block group.

Conclusion: In the first hour after the intervention, pain reduction in periosteal block was significantly higher than intravenous morphine administration. Also, the incidence of complications and the need for additional analgesia were lower in the periosteal block group compared to intravenous morphine administration.