Perfusion index: could it be a new tool for early identification of pulmonary embolism severity?

Perfusion index (PI) is a promising indicator for monitoring peripheral perfusion. The present study aimed to compare the efficiency of PI and PESI score in estimating the 30-day mortality and treatment needs of patients diagnosed with pulmonary embolism in the emergency department. This study was prospective and observational. The demographic features of the patients, comorbidities, vital signs, PESI score, PI, treatment applied to the patient and airway management, right ventricular diameter/left ventricular diameter ratio, length of hospital stay, outcome, and 30-day mortality were recorded. A total of 94 patients were included. All patients' vital signs and PI values were recorded on admission. The mean pulse rate (p = 0.001) and shock index (p = 0.017) values of deceased patients were statistically significantly higher, while the mean PI (p = 0.034) was statistically significantly lower. PESI score and PI were statistically significant to predict the need for mechanical ventilation (PI, p = 0.004; PESI score, p < 0.001), inotropic treatment (PI, p = 0.047; PESI score p = 0.005), and thrombolytic therapy (PI, p = 0.035; PESI score p = 0.003). According to the ROC curve, the mortality prediction power of both PESI (AUC: 0.787, 95% CI 0.688-0.886, cutoff: 109.5, p < 0.001) and PI index (AUC: 0.668, 95% CI 0.543-0.793, cutoff: 1, p = 0.011) were determined as statistically significant. PI might be helpful in clinical practice as a tool that can be applied to predict mortality and treatment needs in PE.

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.