No abstract

Background and Objectives: The coronavirus infection 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected emergency department (ED) management. Its viral transmission necessitates the use of isolation rooms and personal protective equipment for treating suspected patients, such as those with fever. This delays the time until the first encounter with the patients, thereby increasing the length of stay (LOS) in the ED. We aimed to compare delays in the ED LOS and clinical processes between the COVID-19 period and pre-COVID-19 period. Moreover, we intended to evaluate if the aforementioned delay affected patient outcomes. Materials and Methods: We conducted a single-center, retrospective study in Korea. Patients with fever were compared between the “COVID-19 period” from March 2020 to August 2020 and the “pre-COVID-19 period” from March 2019 to September 2019. We compared the overall ED LOS and individual time variable, including initial diagnostic tests (laboratory tests, radiography), specific diagnostic test (computed tomography), and treatment processes (antibiotics). A logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify the association between hospital admission and patient data. Results: We enrolled 931 and 749 patients during pre- and COVID-19 periods, respectively. Patients with fever remained in the ED for a longer duration during the COVID-19 period (pre-COVID-19:207.7 ± 102.7 min vs. during COVID-19: 223.5 ± 119.4 min, p = 0.004). The total time for performing laboratory tests and radiography displayed significant differences between the two periods, particularly from the time of patient arrival in the ED to the time of issuing the order. The time until antibiotic administration was delayed in the COVID-19 period (pre-COVID-19:195.8 ± 103.3 min vs. during COVID-19: 216.9 ± 108.4 min, p = 0.003). The logistic regression analysis for hospital admission identified ED LOS as an independent factor in both periods. Conclusions: The delay until encountering patients with fever resulted in longer ED LOS during the COVID-19 period; however, it possibly did not increase the hospital admission rates.

Compression depth was decreased significantly from 30 s onwards after starting the OHCC technique using a simulated paediatric arrest model. The results of the present study suggest that future strategies should be established to prevent a decrease in compression depth within 1 min during OHCC.

PurposeTo study the clinical application of low-dose unenhanced computed tomography with iterative reconstruction technique (LDCT-IR) on renal colic in the emergency department.Materials and MethodsWe conducted a prospective, single-blinded, randomized, and non-inferiority study. From March 2014 to August 2015, 112 patients with renal colic were included, and were randomized to either LDCT-IR (n=46) or standard-dose unenhanced CT (SDCT) (n=66) groups. The accuracy of urolithiasis diagnosis was the primary endpoint of this study. Radiation dose, size and location of the stone, hydronephrosis, other diseases except urolithiasis, and results of treatment were analyzed between the two groups.ResultsThe average effective dose radiation of SDCT was approximately four times higher than that of LDCT-IR (6.52 mSv vs. 1.63 mSv, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the accuracy of ureteral stone diagnosis between the two groups (LDCT-IR group: 96.97% vs. SDCT group: 98.96%, p=0.392). No significant difference was observed regarding the size and location of a stone, hydronephrosis, and diagnosis of other diseases, except urolithiasis. False negative results were found in two LDCT-IR patients and in one SDCT patient. In these patients, stones were misread as vascular calcification, and were difficult to diagnose because evidence of hydronephrosis and ureteral dilatation was not found.ConclusionLDCT-IR, as a first-line imaging test, was non-inferior to SDCT with respect to diagnosis of ureter stones, and was clinically available for the evaluation of renal colic.

This study compared the effectiveness two-finger chest compression technique (TFCC) performed using the right vs. left hand and the index-middle vs. middle-ring fingers.Four different finger/hand combinations were tested randomly in 30 healthcare providers performing TFCC (Test 1: the right index-middle fingers; Test 2: the left index-middle fingers; Test 3: the right middle-ring fingers; Test 4: the left middle-ring fingers) using two cross-over trials. The “patient” was a 3-month-old-infant-sized manikin. Each experiment consisted of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) consisting of 2 minutes of 30:2 compression: ventilation performed by one rescuer on a manikin lying on the floor as if in cardiac arrest. Ventilations were performed using the mouth-to-mouth method. Compression and ventilation data were collected during the tests. The mean compression depth (MCD) was significantly greater in TFCC performed with the index-middle fingers than with the middle-ring fingers regardless of the hand (95% confidence intervals; right hand: 37.8–40.2 vs. 35.2–38.6 mm, P = 0.002; left hand: 36.9–39.2 vs. 35.5–38.1 mm, P = 0.003). A deeper MCD was achieved with the index-middle fingers of the right versus the left hand (P = 0.004). The ratio of sufficiently deep compressions showed the same patterns. There were no significant differences in the other data. The best performance of TFCC in simulated 30:2 compression: ventilation CPR performed by one rescuer on an infant in cardiac arrest lying on the floor was obtained using the index-middle fingers of the right hand. Clinical Trial Registry at the Clinical Research Information Service (KCT0001515).