Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte count ratio is associated with perforated appendicitis in elderly patients of emergency department.

PURPOSE: The diagnostic value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte count ratio (NLR) and the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score for identifying acute appendicitis (AA) perforation in elderly patients in the emergency department (ED) were evaluated. METHODS: A total of 103 patients who were admitted for appendectomy for AA via the ED between January 2012 and December 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients aged 65 and over were included. Patient age, sex, comorbidities, body temperature, clinical findings and initial laboratory results including white blood cell (WBC) count, NLR, serum levels of CRP and total bilirubin (TB) in the ED were assessed, and the AIR score was calculated. RESULTS: Perforation due to AA was identified in 58 (56.3 %) elderly patients. Median WBC count, neutrophil count, CRP and TB were significantly higher in the perforated group compared to the non-perforated group (p = 0.005, p = 0.001, p = 0.004 and p = 0.012) in the ED. The NLR was significantly different in the two groups (perforated vs non-perforated group, 9.5 vs 5.1, p < 0.001). The area under the curve value of NLR was 0.755 (95 % CI 0.660-0.834), and the cutoff value was 5.6 (sensitivity 78.0 % and specificity 65.9 %). In multivariate logistic analysis, NLR > 5.6 [odds ratio (OR) 6.794, p = 0.001] was significant independent factor for AA perforation in elderly patients. The AIR score risk probability did not differ between the two groups of elderly patients (p = 0.094). Twenty-five (42.4 %) patients in the perforated group and five (11.4 %) patients in the non-perforated group were classified as high probability by the modified AIR score including the NLR value (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: We suggest that the initial NLR in the elderly patient is the most powerful predictive factor for the diagnosis of AA perforation in the ED.

A survey study of institutional review board thought processes in the United States and South Korea.

INTRODUCTION: In the last several decades, South Korea has rapidly adopted Western customs and practices. Yet, cultural differences between South Korea and the United States exist. The purpose of this study was to identify and characterize potential cultural differences in the Korean and US institutional review board (IRB) approach to certain topics. METHODS: A qualitative analysis of a 9-item survey, describing 4 research study case scenarios, sent to IRB members from the United States and South Korea. The case scenarios involved the following issues: (1) the need for consent for retrospective chart review when research subjects receive their care after the study is conceived; (2) child assent; (3) individual versus population benefit; and (4) exception from informed consent in emergency resuscitation research. The free-text responses were analyzed and abstracted for recurrent themes. RESULTS: Twenty-three of the 45 survey recipients completed the survey, for an overall response rate of 51%. The themes that emerged were as follows: (1) the importance of parental authority among Korean participants versus the importance of child autonomy and child assent among US participants; (2) the recognition of the rights of a proxy or surrogate who can represent an individual's values by all participants; and (3) the importance of the community, expressed by the Korean respondents, versus individualism, expressed by US respondents. CONCLUSION: Whereas US participants appear to emphasize the importance of the individual and the autonomy of a child, the Korean respondents stressed the importance of parental authority and benefiting the community, above and beyond that of the individual person. However, there was substantial overlap in the themes expressed by respondents from both countries.