Deciding between palliative and overly aggressive therapies for advanced cancer patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with acute issues requires a prediction of their short-term survival. Various scoring systems have previously been studied in hospices or intensive care units, though they are unsuitable for use in the ED. We aim to examine the use of a shock index (SI) in predicting the 60-day survival of advanced cancer patients presenting to the ED. Identified high-risk patients and their families can then be counseled accordingly. Three hundred and five advanced cancer patients who presented to the EDs of three tertiary hospitals were recruited, and their data retrospectively analyzed. Relevant data regarding medical history and clinical presentation were extracted, and respective shock indices calculated. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to evaluate the predictive performance of the SI. Nonsurvivors within 60 days had significantly lower body temperatures and blood pressure, as well as higher pulse rates, respiratory rates, and SI. Each 0.1 SI increment had an odds ratio of 1.39 with respect to 60-day mortality. The area under the ROC curve was 0.7511. At the optimal cut-off point of 0.94, the SI had 81.38% sensitivity and 73.11% accuracy. This makes the SI an ideal evaluation tool for rapidly predicting the 60-day mortality risk of advanced cancer patients presenting to the ED. Identified patients can be counseled accordingly, and they can be assisted in making informed decisions on the appropriate treatment goals reflective of their prognoses.

Background: Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is currently recognized as the potential first-line imaging test for patients with suspected acute type A aortic syndrome (AAAS). Direct TTE sign for detecting AAAS is positive if there is an intimal flap separating two aortic lumens or aortic wall thickening seen in the ascending aorta. Indirect TTE sign indicates high-risk features of AAAS, such as aortic root dilatation, pericardial effusion, and aortic regurgitation. Our aim is to summarize the existing clinical evidence regarding the diagnostic accuracy of TTE and to evaluate its potential role in the management of patients with suspected AAAS. Methods: We included prospective or retrospective diagnostic cohort studies, written in any language, that specifically focused on using TTE to diagnose AAAS from databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio [1] , and hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic (HSROC) curve were calculated for TTE in diagnosing AAAS. We applied Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS-2) tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) quality assessment criteria. Results: Ten studies (2886 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of direct TTE signs were 58% (95% CI, 38–76%) and 94% (95% CI, 89–97%). For any TTE signs, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 91% (95% CI, 85–94%) and 74% (95% CI, 61–84%). The diagnostic accuracy of direct TTE signs was significantly higher than that of any TTE signs, as measured by the area under the HSROC curve [0.95 (95% CI, 0.92–0.96) vs. 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84–0.90)] in four studies. Conclusions: Our study suggests that TTE could serve as the initial imaging test for patients with suspected AAAS. Given its high specificity, the presence of direct TTE signs may indicate AAAS, whereas the absence of any TTE signs, combined with low clinical suspicion, could suggest a lower likelihood of AAAS.

Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) has become the most popular modality of testing for physicians in recent years and is used for improving the quality of care and increasing patient safety. However, POCUS is not always acceptable to all physicians. To address the benefits and importance of POCUS, numerous studies have examined the use of POCUS in clinical practice and even medical education. This article aims to highlight the effects of POCUS as an extension of the physical examination, and we present a case to address the reasons it should be performed. For a man experiencing abdominal pain immediately after his feeding jejunostomy tube was changed, there was high suspicion of small-bowel volvulus after a “whirlpool sign” was observed during the POCUS, whereby mesenteric vessels presented in a whirling or spiral shape. This impression was subsequently confirmed by computed tomography. Small-bowel volvulus is a rare complication of changing a feeding jejunostomy tube. The images submitted here add to the sparse evidence from the literature on the use of POCUS as an extension of the physical examination for evaluating abdominal pain. POCUS can be used after taking the patient’s history and conducting a physical examination. The observation of a whirlpool sign may indicate the presence of a volvulus that is life-threatening.

Advanced cancer patients who are not expected to survive past the short term can benefit from early initiation of palliative care in the emergency department (ED). This discussion, however, requires accurate prognostication of their short-term survival. We previously found in our retrospective study that shock index (SI) is an ideal risk stratification tool in predicting the 60-day mortality risk of advanced cancer patients presenting to the ED. This study is a follow-up prospective validation study conducted from January 2019 to April 2021. A total of 410 advanced cancer patients who presented to the ED of a medical centre and could be followed-up feasibly were recruited. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed with receiver operator calibrating (ROC) curve analysis. Non-survivors had significantly lower body temperatures, higher pulse rates, higher respiratory rates, lower blood pressures, and higher SI. Each 0.1 increment of SI increased the odds of 60-day mortality by 1.591. Area under ROC curve was 0.7819. At optimal cut-off of 0.94, SI had 66.10% accuracy. These results were similar to our previous study, thus validating the use of SI in predicting the 60-day mortality of advanced cancer patients presenting to the ED. Identified patients may be offered palliative care.

Background and Objectives: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a major cause of emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions among older adults. Although most seniors present hemodynamically stable, a sizeable fraction deteriorate during hospitalization, and no ED-specific tool exists to identify those at greatest risk. We sought to determine risk factors for in-hospital mortality in this population and to develop a predictive model. Materials and Methods: We analyzed the MIMIC-IV-ED database (2011–2019) and enrolled culture-confirmed UTI patients aged ≥ 65 years who were hemodynamically stable—defined as a systolic blood pressure ≥ 100 mm Hg without vasopressor support. Demographics, comorbidities, triage vital signs, and initial laboratory tests were extracted. Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression with 10-fold cross-validation was performed for variable selection. Discrimination was quantified with the C-statistic, calibration with the Hosmer–Lemeshow test, and clinical utility with decision curve analysis. Internal validation was assessed via 1000-sample bootstrap resampling. Results: Among 1571 eligible encounters (median age 79 years, 33% male), in-hospital mortality was 4.5%. LASSO selected eight variables; six remained significant in multivariable analysis: age, systolic blood pressure, oxygen saturation, white blood cell count, red cell distribution width, and blood urea nitrogen. The predictive nomogram demonstrated a C-statistic of 0.73 (95% CI 0.66–0.79) and outperformed traditional early warning scores. Conclusions: A six-variable nomogram may stratify mortality risk in hemodynamically stable older adults with UTI. Because the model was developed in a single U.S. tertiary-care ED, it remains hypothesis-generating until validated in external, multicenter cohorts to confirm generalizability.