No abstract

The objective of this retrospective project was to assess the frequency with which patients presenting to an emergency department had used the descriptive terms "ripping" and "tearing" to describe their symptoms from later-confirmed acute thoracic aortic dissection. METHODS METHODS The authors conducted a retrospective chart review from 58 patients who had presented to two suburban and urban emergency departments with suspected acute thoracic dissection between 1997 and 2015. They reviewed charts for patients' pain descriptors in ambulance personnel records and initial notes and dictations from ED triage nurses, staff nurses, and physicians. These pieces of documentation would have been made before the diagnosis of acute thoracic aortic dissection could been confirmed. RESULTS RESULTS The authors identified a sample subset of 29 (50% of total charts pulled) patients later confirmed to have had an acute thoracic aorta dissection. They found that no sample patients used either the descriptors "ripping" or "tearing" when communicating their presenting symptoms. In this paper, the authors will provide several alternative terms patients have been shown to offer for this life-threatening condition. CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS Although the terms "ripping" and "tearing" have historically been associated with acute thoracic aortic dissections, these project results indicate that clinicians may consider other descriptive symptomatic terms from patients when evaluating patients' symptoms for this potential life-threatening condition.

No abstract

Introduction: Management of renal calculus in a patient of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is always challenging. Treatment options include extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). With PCNL being gold standard for renal calculus ≥1.5 cm in normal kidneys, we aimed to analyze the safety and efficacy of PCNL in CKD patients with calculus ≥1.5 cm. Materials and Methods: Sixty patients of CKD with renal calculus were included in the study: Group A with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) ≤30 ml/min/m2 and Group B with GFR >30 <60 ml/min/m2. The estimated GFR (eGFR) pre-PCNL, peak eGFR on follow-up, and eGFR at last follow-up, stone free rates, and complications were recorded. The CKD stage before and after PCNL were also compared at the last follow-up. Results: The mean age of patients was 52 years. A mean of 1.14sittings per renal unit was required for PCNL. Complete clearance was 94% after all auxiliary procedures. The mean prePCNL eGFR was 26.5 ± 4.01 and 43.6 ± 9l. 14 ml/min/1.73 m2 in Groups A and B, respectively. The mean post-PCNL eGFR was 32 ± 9.94 and 51 ± 8.85 ml/minute/1.73 m2, respectively, in Groups A and B. At a mean follow-up of 180 days, deterioration with the migration of CKD stage was seen in 13 patients (21.6%) out of which 10 patients were of Groups A and 3 in Group B. Six patients (10%) required maintenance hemodialysis. Postoperative bleeding complication requiring blood transfusions was seen in 12 (20%) and 3 (5%) required intensive care unit care postoperatively. No mortality was observed in our study. Conclusion: PCNL is an effective management strategy for renal calculus in patients with CKD with an acceptable stone clearance rates and manageable complications. Peak eGFR <30 ml/min/m2 and postprocedure complications predict deterioration and need for RRT.