Fracture of an Intravenous Cannula in the Hand: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous cannula insertion is important, given that it is the most common invasive procedure in the emergency department for blood sampling, fluid resuscitation, and intravenous drug administration. Complications of intravenous catheterization include pain, phlebitis, extravasation, inflammation, and embolization. Fracture of an intravenous cannula is rare, but delayed removal may result in secondary damage, such as vasculitis or embolization, with critical consequences. Here, we report a case of intravenous cannula fracture that occurred in our emergency department. CASE PRESENTATION: A 63-year-old woman with a history of left ovarian cancer visited our emergency department owing to poor oral intake and general weakness. Intravenous catheterization using an 18 gauge cannula was attempted for intravenous fluid administration by a skilled operator, but it failed owing to collapsed veins and poor skin condition. After several attempts, a vein in the patient's hand was ruptured, and the patient complained of severe pain. The cannula was removed, but one-third of the cannula tip could not be seen. X-ray imaging was performed to locate the fragment of the cannula, and venotomy was performed for removal of the foreign body in the emergency department. CONCLUSION: Emergency physicians and nurses should be vigilant about potential risk factors that can cause fracture of an intravenous cannula, and after the fracture is discovered, rapid removal of the cannula tip should be performed in the emergency department.

Predictors for Distinguishing Renal Infarction From Urolithiasis in the Emergency Department: A Randomly Matched Retrospective Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) clinicians may misdiagnose renal infarction (RI) as urolithiasis because RI is a rare disease with presenting symptoms similar to the symptoms of urolithiasis. However, earlier diagnosis of RI can improve patient prognosis. OBJECTIVES: We investigated potential predictors for distinguishing RI from urolithiasis based on clinical findings and laboratory results. METHODS: This randomly matched retrospective case-control study included patients who had been diagnosed with acute RI or acute urolithiasis between January 2016 and March 2020. Patients were excluded if they were aged under 18 years, had a history of trauma, or had incomplete medical records. Using a matching ratio of 1:4, RI patients were randomly matched to urolithiasis patients. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors that could distinguish RI from urolithiasis. RESULTS: In total, 48 patients were included in the RI group and 192 patients were included in the urolithiasis group. Multivariable logistic regression showed that age ≥ 65 years (odds ratio [OR] 6.155; p = 0.022), atrial fibrillation (OR 18.472; p = 0.045), current smoking (OR 17.070; p = 0.001), costovertebral angle tenderness (OR 0.179; p = 0.037), aspartate aminotransferase level ≥ 27.5 U/L (OR 6.932; p = 0.009), sodium level ≥ 138.5 mEq/L (OR 0.079; p = 0.004), and hematuria (OR 0.042; p = 0.001) were significant predictors that could distinguish RI from urolithiasis. Based on these results, a nomogram was constructed. CONCLUSION: Age ≥ 65 years, atrial fibrillation, current smoking, absence of costovertebral angle tenderness, aspartate aminotransferase level ≥ 27.5 U/L, sodium level < 138.5 mEq/L, and absence of hematuria were predictors that can distinguish between RI and urolithiasis.