The diagnosis and treatment of sepsis have always been a challenge for the physician, especially in critical care setting such as emergency department (ED), and currently sepsis remains one of the major causes of mortality. Although the traditional definition of sepsis based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria changed in 2016, replaced by the new criteria of SEPSIS-3 based on organ failure evaluation, early identification and consequent early appropriated therapy remain the primary goal of sepsis treatment. Unfortunately, currently there is a lack of a foolproof system for making early sepsis diagnosis because conventional diagnostic tools like cultures take a long time and are often burdened with false negatives, while molecular techniques require specific equipment and have high costs. In this context, biomarkers, such as C-Reactive Protein (CRP) and Procalcitonin (PCT), are very useful tools to distinguish between normal and pathological conditions, graduate the disease severity, guide treatment, monitor therapeutic responses and predict prognosis. Among the new emerging biomarkers of sepsis, Presepsin (P-SEP) appears to be the most promising. Several studies have shown that P-SEP plasma levels increase during bacterial sepsis and decline in response to appropriate therapy, with sensitivity and specificity values comparable to those of PCT. In neonatal sepsis, P-SEP compared to PCT has been shown to be more effective in diagnosing and guiding therapy. Since in sepsis the P-SEP plasma levels increase before those of PCT and since the current methods available allow measurement of P-SEP plasma levels within 17 min, P-SEP appears a sepsis biomarker particularly suited to the emergency department and critical care.

Sepsis and septic shock represent a leading cause of mortality in the Emergency Department (ED) and in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). For these life-threating conditions, different diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers have been studied. Proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM) is a biomarker that can predict organ damage and the risk of imminent death in patients with septic shock, as shown by a large amount of data in the literature. The aim of our narrative review is to evaluate the role of MR-proADM in the context of Emergency Medicine and to summarize the current knowledge of MR-proADM as a serum indicator that is useful in the Emergency Department (ED) to determine an early diagnosis and to predict the long-term mortality of patients with sepsis and septic shock. We performed an electronic literature review to investigate the role of MR-proADM in sepsis and septic shock in the context of ED. We searched papers on PubMed^®, Cochrane^®, UptoDate^®, and Web of Science^® that had been published in the last 10 years. Data extracted from this literature review are not conclusive, but they show that MR-proADM may be helpful as a prognostic biomarker to stratify the mortality risk in cases of sepsis and septic shock with different degrees of organ damage, guiding emergency physicians in the diagnosis and the succeeding therapeutic workup. Sepsis and septic shock are conditions of high complexity and have a high risk of mortality. In the ED, early diagnosis is crucial in order to provide an early treatment and to improve patient survival. Diagnosis and prognosis are often the result of a combination of several tests. In our opinion, testing for MR-proADM directly in the ED could contribute to improving the prognostic assessment of patients, facilitating the subsequent clinical management and intensive treatment by the emergency physicians, but more studies are needed to confirm these results.

Drug abuse (cannabis, cocaine, opiates, and synthetic drugs) is an increasing phenomenon, especially in the younger population, thus leading to more cases of intoxication requiring evaluation in the emergency department and subsequent hospitalization. In 2017, 34.2% of students reported having used an illegal psychoactive substance in their lifetime, while 26% reported having done so over the past year. We made a review about the effectiveness of the role of the temporary observation unit in the emergency department to improve management of acute drugs intoxication. We checked medical literature from the last 10 years (2009–2019). The following electronic databases were systematically searched: MEDLINE-PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Then, a systematic review was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review standards. Intoxicated patients usually display a favorable medical course, few diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, a short stay in the hospital, and, when hospitalization is needed, semi-intensive therapy is a feasible solution; therefore, intoxicated patients are ideal candidates for a temporary observation unit. The emergency department is very important to manage intoxicated patients; however, the hospitalization of these patients is often not necessary.

Background: This study aims to evaluate the prognostic role of serum PCT in older patients with suspect sepsis or infective diagnosis in the Emergency Department (ED) with a particular focus on the clinical consequences and characteristics due to frailty status. Methods: This is a observational retrospective study conducted in the ED of a teaching hospital. We identified all consecutive patients aged ≥ 80 years admitted to the ED and subsequently hospitalized for clinical suspicion of infection. Inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 80 years and clinical suspicion of infection; availability of a PCT determination obtained < 24 h since ED access; and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) determination. Study endpoints were the diagnostic accuracy of PCT for all-cause in-hospital death, infective diagnosis at discharge, and bloodstream infection. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated via ROC analysis and compared in the patients with severe frailty, measured by CFS > 6, and patients with low or moderate frailty (CFS 1–6). A multivariate analysis was performed to calculate the adjusted odds of raised PCT values for the study endpoints. Results: In total, 1459 adults ≥ 80 years with a clinical suspicion of infection were included in the study cohort. The median age of the sample was 85 years (82–89), with 718 (49.2%) males. The multivariate models revealed that, after adjusting for significant covariates, the PCT values at ED admission were significantly associated with higher odds of infective diagnosis only in the fit/moderately frail group (Odds Ratio [95% CI] 1.04 [1.01–1.08], p 0.009) and not in very frail patients (Odds Ratio [95% CI] 1.02 [0.99–1.06], p 0.130). Similarly, PCT values were significantly associated with higher odds of in-hospital death in the fit/moderately frail group (Odds Ratio [95% CI] 1.01 [1.00–1.02], p 0.047), but not in the very frail ones (Odds Ratio [95% CI] 1.00 [0.98–1.02], p 0.948). Conversely, the PCT values were confirmed to be a good independent predictor of bloodstream infection in both the fit/moderately frail group (Odds Ratio [95% CI] 1.06 [1.04–1.08], p < 0.001) and the very frail group (Odds Ratio [95% CI] 1.05 [1.03–1.07], p < 0.001). Conclusions: The PCT values at ED admission do not predict infective diagnosis, nor are associated with higher odds of in-hospital death. Still, in frail older adults, the PCT values in ED could be a useful predictor of bloodstream infection.