RESUMO
Burnout and depression are global problems affecting healthcare providers, especially those working in stressful departments such as emergency departments (EDs) and critical care units (CCUs). However, pooled data analysis comparing healthcare providers operating in the ED and CCU is yet to be conducted. Therefore, this meta-analysis was systematically conducted to investigate and compare the prevalence of burnout and depression among emergency medicine (EM) and critical care medicine (CCM) professionals. We systematically searched for articles related to our research topic using the database search method and manual search method, which involved reviewing the reference lists of articles from electronic databases for additional studies. After screening the literature from the databases using the eligibility criteria, a quality appraisal using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was performed on the eligible studies. In addition, a meta-analysis using the Review Manager software was performed to investigate the prevalence rates of burnout and depression. A total of 10 studies with 1,353 EM and 1,250 CCM professionals were included for analysis in the present study. The pooled analysis did not establish any considerable differences between EM and CCM healthcare workers on the prevalence of high emotional exhaustion (EE) (odds ratio (OR) = 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.46-2.19; p = 0.98), high depersonalization (OR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.61-2.21; p = 0.64), low personal accomplishment (PA) (OR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.67 - 1.12; p = 0.28), and depression (OR = 1.20; 95% CI = 0.74-1.95; p = 0.45). Moreover, pooled data showed no considerable differences in EE scores (mean difference (MD) = -1.07; 95% CI = -4.24-2.09; p = 0.51) and depersonalization scores (MD = -0.31; 95% CI = -1.35-0.73; p = 0.56). However, EM healthcare workers seemed to have considerably lower PA scores than their CCM counterparts (MD = 0.12; 95% CI = 0.08-0.16; p < 0.00001). No considerable difference was recorded in the prevalence of burnout and depression between EM and CCM healthcare workers. However, our findings suggest that EM professionals have lower PA scores than CCM professionals; therefore, more attention should be paid to the mental health of EM professionals to improve their PA.
RESUMO
Aortic dissection is a critical medical condition that poses a significant threat to life, and if left untreated, it can lead to high mortality and morbidity rates. The risk of various cardiovascular complications, including aortic dissection, is increased in individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the significance of aortic dissection as a complication in COVID-19 patients is often underestimated. Traditionally, aortic dissection without pain was considered uncommon. However, recent information indicates that symptoms in patients with aortic dissection can be more diverse than previously believed. The classic symptoms of tearing chest, back, or abdominal pain may be absent, making diagnosis challenging. We present the incidental detection of an asymptomatic Stanford type-B aortic dissection during a computed tomography (CT) scan conducted to evaluate COVID-19. The patient was managed through conservative treatment.
RESUMO
Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is an extensively used analgesic for acute and chronic pain management. Currently, paracetamol is manufactured for oral, rectal, and intravenous (IV) use. Research has shown varied results on the analgesic properties of IV paracetamol compared to oral and rectal paracetamol; however, research on the same doses of paracetamol is limited. Therefore, this review was constructed to explore the analgesic properties of IV paracetamol compared with oral and rectal paracetamol administered in equivalent doses. A broad and thorough literature search was performed on five electronic databases, including PubMed, ScienceDirect, Medline, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Statistical analysis of all outcomes in our review was then performed using the Review Manager software. Outcomes were categorized as primary (pain relief and time to request rescue analgesia) and secondary (adverse events after analgesia). An extensive quality appraisal was also done using the Review Manager software's Cochrane risk of bias tool. The literature survey yielded 2,945 articles, of which 12 were used for review and analysis. The pooled analysis for patients undergoing surgical procedures showed that IV paracetamol had statistically similar postoperative pain scores at two (mean difference (MD) = -0.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.58-0.29; p = 0.51), 24 (MD = 0.09; 95% CI = -0.02-0.21; p = 0.12), and 48 (MD = 0.04; 95% CI = -0.08-0.16; p = 0.52) hours as oral paracetamol. Similarly, the data on time to rescue analgesia showed no considerable difference between the IV and oral paracetamol groups (MD = -1.58; 95% CI = -5.51-2.35; p = 0.43). On the other hand, the pooled analysis for patients presenting non-surgical acute pain showed no significant difference in the mean pain scores between patients treated with IV and oral paracetamol (MD = -0.35; 95% CI = -2.19-1.48; p = 0.71). Furthermore, a subgroup analysis of analgesia-related adverse events showed that the incidences of vomiting/nausea and pruritus did not differ between patients receiving IV and oral paracetamol (odds ratio (OR) = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.45-1.11; p = 0.13 and OR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.18-1.29; p = 0.05, respectively). A review of information from two trials comparing equal doses of IV and rectal paracetamol suggested that the postoperative pain scores were statistically similar between the groups. IV paracetamol is not superior to oral or rectal paracetamol administered in equal doses. Therefore, we cannot recommend or refute IV paracetamol as the first-line analgesia for acute and postoperative pain.