Introduction Due to the high mortality and spread rates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there are currently serious challenges in emergency department management. As such, we investigated whether the blood urea nitrogen (BUN)/albumin ratio (BAR) predicts mortality in the COVID-19 patients in the emergency department. Methods A total of 602 COVID-19 patients who were brought to the emergency department within the period from March to September 2020 were included in the study. The BUN level, albumin level, BAR, age, gender, and in-hospital mortality status of the patients were recorded. The patients were grouped by in-hospital mortality. Statistical comparison was conducted between the groups. Results Of the patients who were included in the study, 312(51.8%) were male, and their median age was 63 years (49–73). There was in-hospital mortality in 96(15.9%) patients. The median BUN and BAR values of the patients in the non-survivor group were significantly higher than those in the survivor group (BUN: 24.76 [17.38–38.31] and 14.43 [10.84–20.42], respectively [ p < 0.001]; BAR: 6.7 [4.7–10.1] and 3.4 [2.5–5.2], respectively [ p < 0.001]). The mean albumin value in the non-survivor group was significantly lower than that in the survivor group (3.60 ± 0.58 and 4.13 ± 0.51, respectively; p < 0.001). The area-under-the-curve (AUC) and odds ratio values obtained by BAR to predict in-hospital COVID-19 mortality were higher than the values obtained by BUN and albumin (AUC of BAR, BUN, and albumin: 0.809, 0.771, and 0.765, respectively; odds ratio of BAR>3.9, BUN>16.05, and albumin<4.01: 10.448, 7.048, and 6.482, respectively). Conclusion The BUN, albumin, and BAR levels were found to be reliable predictors of in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients, but BAR was found to be a more reliable predictor than the BUN and albumin levels.
Introduction: Due to the high mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there are difficulties in the managing emergency department. We investigated whether the D-dimer/albumin ratio (DAR) and fibrinogen/albumin ratio (FAR) predict mortality in the COVID-19 patients.Methods: A total of 717 COVID-19 patients who were brought to the emergency department from March to October 2020 were included in the study. Levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen and albumin, as well as DAR, FAR, age, gender and in-hospital mortality status of the patients, were recorded. The patients were grouped by in-hospital mortality. Statistical comparison was conducted between the groups.Results: Of the patients included in the study, 371 (51.7%) were male, and their median age was 64 years (50-74). There was in-hospital mortality in 126 (17.6%) patients.The area under the curve (AUC) and odds ratio values obtained by DAR to predict inhospital mortality were higher than the values obtained by the all other parameters
Introduction: Due to the high mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there are difficulties in the managing emergency department. We investigated whether the d-dimer/albumin ratio (DAR) and fibrinogen/albumin ratio (FAR) predicts mortality in the COVID-19 patients. Methods: A total of 717 COVID-19 patients who were brought to the emergency department from March to October 2020 were included in the study. Levels of d-dimer, fibrinogen, and albumin, as well as DAR, FAR, age, gender, and in-hospital mortality status of the patients were recorded. The patients were grouped by in-hospital mortality. Statistical comparison was conducted between the groups. Results: Of the patients included in the study, 371(51.7%) were male, and their median age was 64 years (50–74). There was in-hospital mortality in 126 (17.6%) patients. The area-under-the-curve (AUC) and odds ratio values obtained by DAR to predict in-hospital mortality were higher than the values obtained by the all other parameters (AUC of DAR, albumin, d-dimer, FAR, and fibrinogen: 0.773, 0.766, 0.757, 0.703, and 0.637, respectively; odds ratio of DAR>56.36, albumin<4.015, d-dimer>292.5, FAR>112.33, and fibrinogen>423: 7.898, 6.216, 6.058, 4.437, and 2.794, respectively). In addition; patients with concurrent DAR>56.36 and FAR>112.33 had an odds ratio of 21.879 with respect to patients with concurrent DAR<56.36 and FAR<112.33. Conclusion: DAR may be used as a new marker to predict mortality in COVID-19 patients. In addition the concurrent high DARs and FARs were found to be more valuable in predicting in-hospital mortality than either separately. Keywords: Covid-19, D-dimer, Fibrinogen, Serum Albumin, in-Hospital Mortality
Background/aim: Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) has been reported to have a positive correlation with the activation degree of the immune system. This study's aim is to investigate the efficiency of SuPAR serum levels in acute pancreatitis (AP) patients in determining the severity of disease. Materials and methods:This prospective research involves patients who arrived at the emergency service, were over 18 years old, had nontraumatic abdominal pain and diagnosis of AP, and agreed to join the study. Demographic characteristics, contact information, laboratory and imaging test parameters, Ranson's criteria, the Balthazar Severity Index, the Rapid Acute Physiologic Score (RAPS), and the modified Glasgow (Imrie) score of all patients were recorded. Two study groups were created as score of <3 (mild, Group I) and ≥3 (severe, Group II) for pancreatitis according to Ranson's criteria. Results:During the study period, 59 sequential patients with AP were included in the study. It was seen that 79.7% of the study group (n = 47) were in Group I. Etiologically 67.8% (n = 40) cases were biliary and 32.3% (n = 19) were nonbiliary diseases. According to the results, suPAR level was effective in distinguishing the severity of AP (AUC = 0.902, P < 0.001 (95% CI: 0.821-0.984)). With regard to determining severe disease, suPAR had an optimum cutoff value of 6.815 ng/mL, sensitivity of 91.66%, specificity of 82.97%, and negative predictive value of 97.5%. Conclusion:Our study was performed the determine the efficiency of suPAR level in predicting severe disease in AP patients. We found it significant in indicating the severity of disease according to the study results.
Background: CPR model of a resuscitation to be ventilated with a bag valve mask constitutes a discussion when evaluated with the current guidance. Objective: This study aims to compare the synchronous (30–2) ventilation–compression method with asynchronous 110/min compression–10/min ventilation in cardiac arrests where an advanced airway management is not applied and where ventilation is provided by a bag valve mask on a mannequin. Methods: This simulation trial was performed using two clinical cardiopulmonary resuscitation scenarios: an asynchronous scenario with 10 ventilations per minute asynchronously when compression is applied as 110 compression per minute and a synchronous scenario in which 30 compressions:2 ventilations were performed synchronously. A total of 100 people in 50 groups applied these two scenarios on mannequin. Ventilation and compression data of both scenarios were recorded. Results: Evaluating the compression criteria in both the scenarios performed by 50 groups in total, in terms of all criteria except compression fraction, there was no statistically difference between the two scenarios (p > 0.05). Compression fraction values in the asynchronous scenario were found to be statistically significantly higher than the synchronous scenario (96.02 ± 2.35, 81.34 ± 4.42, p < 0.001). Evaluating the ventilation criteria in both the scenarios performed by 50 groups in total; there was a statistically significant difference in all criteria. Mean ventilation rate of the asynchronous scenario was statistically higher than the synchronous scenario (7.22 ± 2.42, 5.08 ± 0.75, p < 0.001). Mean ventilation volume of the synchronous scenario was statistically higher than the asynchronous scenario (353.24 ± 45.46, 527.40 ± 96.60, p < 0.001). Ventilation ratio in sufficient volume of the synchronous scenario was statistically higher than the asynchronous scenario (36.84 ± 14.47, 75.00 ± 21.24, p < 0.001). Ventilation ratio below the minimum volume limit of the asynchronous scenario was statistically higher than the synchronous scenario (62.48 ± 14.72, 17.86 ± 19.50, p < 0.001). Conclusion: In our study, we concluded that the cardiopulmonary resuscitation applied by the synchronous method reached better ventilation volumes. Evaluating together with any interruption in compression, comprehensive studies are needed to reveal which patients would benefit from this result.
Objective: The incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) increases with COVID-19. With the pandemic, changes occur in the utilization of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA), which we use in the diagnosis of PE. In our study, we investigated the impact of the pandemic on the utilized and result of CTPA.Methods: Patients over the age of 18 who applied to the emergency department between 01.03.2019 and 28.02.2021 and underwent CTPA was included in this retrospective study. Patients were separated to two groups based on the date of the first case. CTPA result and Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity status were recorded. Data were compared between groups.Results: While 757(1.022%) out of 74,063 patients underwent CTPA in the pre-pandemic period, 649(1.430%) out of 45,397 patients underwent CTPA in the during-pandemic period. The PE rate in patients who underwent CTPA in the during-pandemic period was statistically significantly higher compared to the pre-pandemic period (pre-pandemic: 89(11.9%), during-pandemic: 122(19%), p<0.001). In the during-pandemic period, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of PCR positivity in any time in patients with PE detected as a result of CTPA compared to patients without PE (PE: 14(11.5%), non-PE: 54(10.4%), p=0.725). Conclusion:Higher rate of CTPA shoot was obtained in the during-pandemic period compared to the pre-pandemic period. Additionally, the rate of PE detection among patients who underwent CTPA was statistically significantly higher in the during-pandemic period compared to the pre-pandemic period.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.