Early warning scores (EWSs) help prevent and recognize and thereby act as the first signs of clinical and physiological deterioration. The objective of this study is to evaluate different EWSs (National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), quick sequential organ failure assessment score (qSOFA), Modified Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (MREMS) and Rapid Acute Physiology Score (RAPS)) to predict mortality within the first 48 h in patients suspected to have Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We conducted a retrospective observational study in patients over 18 years of age who were treated by the advanced life support units and transferred to the emergency departments between March and July of 2020. Each patient was followed for two days registering their final diagnosis and mortality data. A total of 663 patients were included in our study. Early mortality within the first 48 h affected 53 patients (8.3%). The scale with the best capacity to predict early mortality was the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), with an area under the curve of 0.825 (95% CI: 0.75–0.89). The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive patients presented an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.804 (95% CI: 0.71–0.89), and the negative ones with an AUC of 0.863 (95% CI: 0.76–0.95). Among the EWSs, NEWS2 presented the best predictive power, even when it was separately applied to patients who tested positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of glucagon vs placebo in resolving esophageal foreign body impaction (EFBI), as well as the length of the procedure and adverse events. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial involving consecutive patients diagnosed with alimentary EFBI. Participants were randomized to receive either 1 mg of intravenous glucagon or placebo. All patients underwent upper endoscopy, and adverse events were assessed through a protocolized telephonic interview 7 days later. RESULTS: The study included 72 subjects in the glucagon group and 68 in the placebo group. The foreign body was not identified in 23.6% of subjects in the glucagon group and 20.6% of subjects in the placebo group (difference 3%, 95% confidence interval −10.7% to 16.8%, P = 0.67). The median time required to remove the foreign body was similar in both groups 4 minutes (range 2–10) in the glucagon group and 3.5 minutes (range 2–7) in the placebo group (difference 0.5 minutes, 95% confidence interval −1.3 to 2.3; P = 0.59). The most common adverse event reported in both groups was mild pharyngeal pain. DISCUSSION: Glucagon is no more effective than placebo in resolving EFBI or shortening the time required to remove the foreign body (EUDRA-CT number 2019-004920-40).

E21521 Background: In our institution, median age of patients with lung cancer is 71. We decide to study how are treated patients over 80 years. Methods: We performed a retrospective observational study, including all elderly patients with lung cancer referred to Medical Oncology in our institution (tertiary center in Spain) in a 5-year period (2010 to 2014), and followed until June 2015. The inclusion criteria is an age of 80 years or older at the time of diagnosis of the lung cancer. The study cohort is 48 patients Results: Most of patients, 77.1 % were male, and average age is 81 years (80-87). They represent a 6% of our global lung-cancer population (910 in this 5-year period). Just a 10% of patients had a SCLC (lower incidence than in all patients, with a SCLC rate of 21%), and a 88.6% had NSCLC. In the NSCLC group, squamous cell carcinomas represent a 49% of total, and adenocarcinoma a 27%. A 19% of patients harbour an EGFR mutation (slightly higher incidence than global population, our EGFR mutation rate is 16%) 51% of patients were diagnosed in stages II-III, and 49% in stage IV; but only 7.3% patients had a curative-intent therapy (2 surgery, 1 radiation therapy). About a third of patients (29%) did not receive any active cancer therapy. We study also the pattern of treatment in patients under active cancer therapy. We use up to 10 chemotherapy schedules, and in the 34 patients that we treated with first-line chemotherapy, 14 patients (41%) received a doublet with carboplatin plus another drug (15% pemetrexed, 10% vinorelbine, and 8% paclitaxel). A 35% of these patients received second-line therapy, and three patients received ≥ 3 lines. To date, 41 patients died (85.4 %), most of them at home (96%). Median survival time is 12.6 months; survival in active cancer treatment group is 14.56 months, and in palliative care-only group is 5.28 months (p-value: 0.001) Conclusions: Although our cohort is small, we can suggest that usual clinical assessment is enough to discern the evolution of elderly patients with lung cancer and decide about successful active cancer treatment. The median survival time suggests that there has been a proper management of patients.