Perfusion index versus visual analogue scale: as an objective tool of renal colic pain in emergency department.

Background: Perfusion index (PI) has use to monitor sympathetic response changes to pain. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the utility of using perfusion index as an objective marker of pain relief and of the need for rescue analgesia in ED patients with documented renal colic. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study between January 2020 and December 2020. The demographic characteristics of the patients, their complaints, nephrolithiasis histories, vital signs, PI, and VAS scores (on admission and after treatment) were recorded. Results: A total of 144 patients were included. All patients were administered 20 mg of Tenoxicam on admission. There was a statistically significant difference between the PI (<0.001) and VAS scores (<0.001) on admission and after the administration of Tenoxicam. 43.1% (n = 62) of the patients needed rescue analgesia. Accordingly to ROC curve, the ability of both PI2 (AUC: 0.615, 95%CI 0.519-0.711, p = 0.018) and ΔPI (AUC: 0.601, 95%CI 0.508-0.694, p = 0.039) indices were determined as statistically significant. The cutoff value of the PI2 level for the prediction of the needed rescue analgesia was 4.65 and the cutoff value for ΔPI (PI2-PI1) was 2. All patients had a pain VAS score of <3 and a mean PI of 5.7 ± 2.9 at discharge from the emergency department. Conclusion: In patients presenting to the emergency department with renal colic, the PI value on admission and after analgesic therapy can be helpful in assessing the severity of pain and predict the need for rescue analgesia.

Have the Diagnoses of Patients Transported by Ambulances Changed in the Early Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic?

INTRODUCTION: Since December 2019, emergency services and Emergency Medical Service (EMS) systems have been at the forefront of the fight against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic world-wide. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the reasons and the necessity of transportation to the emergency department (ED) by ambulance and the outcomes of these cases with the admissions during the COVID-19 pandemic period and during the same period in 2019. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study was conducted in which patients transported to the ED by ambulance in April 2019 and April 2020 were compared. The primary outcomes were the changes in the number and diagnoses of patients who were transferred to the ED by ambulance during the COVID-19 period. The secondary outcome was the need for patients to be transferred to the hospital by ambulance. RESULTS: A total of 4,466 patients were included in the study. During the COVID-19 period, there was a 41.6% decrease in ED visits and a 31.5% decrease in ambulance calls. The number of critically ill patients transported by ambulance (with diagnoses such as decompensated heart failure [P <.001], chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] attack (P = .001), renal failure [acute-chronic; P = .008], angina pectoris [P <.001], and syncope [P <.001]) decreased statistically significantly in 2020. Despite this decrease in critical patient calls, non-emergency patient calls continued and 52.2% of the patients transported by ambulance in 2020 were discharged from the ED. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting EMS use is important for evaluating the current state of emergency health care and planning to manage possible future outbreaks.