Comment on Savioli et al. Mild Head Trauma: Is Antiplatelet Therapy a Risk Factor for Hemorrhagic Complications? Medicina 2021, 57, 357.

We read the article of Savioli G. et al. [...].

Characteristics, Outcome and Prognostic Factors of Patients with Emergency Department Cardiac Arrest: A 14-Year Retrospective Study.

Introduction: Cardiac arrests are traditionally classified according to the setting in which they occur, including out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). However, cardiac arrests that occur in the emergency department (EDCA) could constitute a third category, due to the peculiar characteristics of the emergency department (ED). In recent years, the need to study EDCAs separately from other intra-hospital events has emerged. The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of a cohort of patients experiencing EDCA in an Italian hospital over a 14-year period. Methods: This was a single-centre retrospective observational study conducted in the ED of the Santa Croce e Carle Hospital in Cuneo, Italy. All adult patients who experienced EDCA between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2023 were included. OHCA patients, those arriving in the ED with on-going resuscitation measures, patients with EDCA not undergoing resuscitation, and patients with post-traumatic cardiac arrest were excluded from the study. The main outcome of the study was survival at hospital discharge with a favourable neurological outcome. Results: 350 cases of EDCA were included. The median age was 78 (63-85) years, and the median Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 5 (3-6). A total of 35 patients (10%) survived to hospital discharge with a cerebral performance category (CPC) Score of 1-2; survival in the ED was 28.3%. The causes of cardiac arrests were identified in 212 cases (60.6%) and included coronary thrombosis (35%), hypoxia (22%), hypovolemia (17%), pulmonary embolism (11%), metabolic (8%), cardiac tamponade (4%), toxins (2%) and hypothermia (1%). Variables associated with survival with a favourable neurological outcome were young age, a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, coronary thrombosis as the primary EDCA cause, and shockable presenting rhythm; however, only the latter was associated with the outcome in a multivariate age-weighted model. Conclusions: In a cohort of patients with EDCA over a period of more than a decade, the most frequent cause identified was coronary thrombosis; 10% of patients survived with a good neurological status, and the only factor associated with the best prognosis was presenting a shockable rhythm. EDCA should be considered an independent category in order to fully understand its characteristics and outcomes.

A retrospective validation study of the STUMBL score for emergency department patients with blunt thoracic trauma.

INTRODUCTION: Blunt thoracic trauma (BTT) is a leading cause of emergency department (ED) trauma-related attendance. Risk prediction tools are commonly to predict patients' outcomes and assign them to the most appropriate care setting. The STUMBL score is a prognostic model for BTT, derived and validated in the United Kingdom; items comprising the score are age, number of rib fractures, use of pre-injury anticoagulants, chronic lung disease and oxygen saturation levels. This study's aim was to validate the STUMBL score in an Italian ED. METHODS: This single-centre retrospective validation study was conducted in the ED of Santa Croce and Carle hub hospital in Cuneo, north-western Italy. All patients with an ED attendance for isolated BTT from 2018 to 2021 were included. Exclusion criteria were an age of under eighteen and the presence of any immediately life-threatening lesion. The primary outcome was the development of trauma-related complications, defined by the occurrence of one or more of the following: in-hospital mortality, pulmonary complications (infection, pleural effusion, haemothorax, pneumothorax, pleural empyema), need for intensive care unit admission, hospital length of stay equal to or greater than seven days. The performance of the STUMBL score was analysed in terms of discrimination with the evaluation of the receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration with the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and with the calibration belt. RESULTS: 745 patients were enroled (median age 64 [25th;75th percentile: 50;78], male/female ratio 1:4, median Charlson comorbidity index 2 [1;4], median STUMBL score 11 [6;17]). 65.2% of patients were discharged home after ED evaluation. 203 patients (27.2%) developed the primary outcome. The STUMBL score was significantly different in patients with complications compared to those without complications (9 [5;13] vs 21 [17;25], p < 0.001). The C index of the score for the primary outcome was 0.90 (95% CI 0.88-0.93), and the result of the Hosmer-Lemeshow test was 9.01 (p = 0.34). STUMBL score = 16 has a sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI 0.75-0.85), specificity of 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.90), a positive predictive value of 0.70 (95% CI 0.64-0.76), and a negative predictive value of 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.94). CONCLUSION: In this validation study, the STUMBL score demonstrated excellent discrimination and calibration in predicting the outcome of patients attending the ED with a BTT.

Factors influencing desired and received analgesia in emergency department.

Oligoanalgesia in Emergency Departments (ED) is known to be common. The aim of our study is to determine how often patients in pain desire and receive analgesics while in the ED. Four main outcomes have been considered: desire of analgesics, administration of analgesics in the ED, correlation between initial analgesic administration and triage priority scores, patients' satisfaction at discharge during the ED visit. Pain severity was evaluated by a 10-point numerical rating scale (0 = no pain, 10 = worst possible pain) A total of 393 patients were enrolled in the study. The majority were non-Hispanic whites with a median age of 62 years. Of the 393 patients, 202 expressed desire for analgesics, but only 146 received a treatment. Among patients refusing analgesics (48.6%), the most common reasons were to diagnose pain causes and pain tolerance. In multivariate analysis, pain score severity was significant factor that predicted wanting analgesics, whereas desiring analgesics was predictive factor to receive them. On the other hand, patients with pain localized in lower extremities and in nose or ear less probably received analgesia. In conclusion, the underuse of analgesics in the ED continues to represent a problem and our study demonstrates that half of all ED patients in pain desire analgesics and that only half of those wanting analgesics receive them. Patients that desired and received analgesic treatment represented the group with a higher degree of satisfaction.