Reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR)-based tests are widely used to diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As a result that these tests cannot be done in local clinics where RT-qPCR testing capability is lacking, rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19 based on lateral flow immunoassays are used for rapid diagnosis. However, their sensitivity compared with each other and with RT-qPCR and infectious virus isolation has not been examined. Here, we compared the sensitivity among four RATs by using severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) isolates and several types of COVID-19 patient specimens and compared their sensitivity with that of RT-qPCR and infectious virus isolation. Although the RATs read the samples containing large amounts of virus as positive, even the most sensitive RAT read the samples containing small amounts of virus as negative. Moreover, all RATs tested failed to detect viral antigens in several specimens from which the virus was isolated. The current RATs will likely miss some COVID-19 patients who are shedding infectious SARS-CoV-2.

Background: The prevalence of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has been increasing rapidly worldwide. However, guidelines or clinical studies do not provide sufficient data on ECPR practice. The aim of this study was to provide real-world data on ECPR for patients with OHCA, including details of complications.Methods: We did a retrospective database analysis of observational multicenter cohort study in Japan. Adult patients with OHCA of presumed cardiac etiology who received ECPR between 2013 and 2018 were included. The primary outcome was favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge, defined as a cerebral performance category of 1 or 2.Results: A total of 1644 patients with OHCA were included in this study. The patient age was 18–93 years (median: 60 years). Shockable rhythm in the initial cardiac rhythm at the scene was 69.4%. The median estimated low flow time was 55 min (interquartile range: 45–66 min). Favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge was observed in 14.1% of patients, and the rate of survival to hospital discharge was 27.2%. The proportions of favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge in terms of shockable rhythm, pulseless electrical activity, and asystole were 16.7%, 9.2%, and 3.9%, respectively. Complications were observed during ECPR in 32.7% of patients, and the most common complication was bleeding, with the rates of cannulation site bleeding and other types of hemorrhage at 16.4% and 8.5%, respectively.Conclusions: In this large cohort, data on the ECPR of 1644 patients with OHCA show that the proportion of favorable neurological outcomes at hospital discharge was 14.1%, survival rate at hospital discharge was 27.2%, and complications were observed during ECPR in 32.7%.

Background: Despite the increasing availability of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and rising expectation for CDSSs based on artificial intelligence (AI), little is known about the acceptance of AI-based CDSS by physicians and its barriers and facilitators in emergency care settings. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the acceptance, barriers, and facilitators to implementing AI-based CDSSs in the emergency care setting through the opinions of physicians on our newly developed, real-time AI-based CDSS, which alerts ED physicians by predicting aortic dissection based on numeric and text information from medical charts, by using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT; for quantitative evaluation) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR; for qualitative evaluation) frameworks. Methods: This mixed methods study was performed from March to April 2021. Transitional year residents (n=6), emergency medicine residents (n=5), and emergency physicians (n=3) from two community, tertiary care hospitals in Japan were included. We first developed a real-time CDSS for predicting aortic dissection based on numeric and text information from medical charts (eg, chief complaints, medical history, vital signs) with natural language processing. This system was deployed on the internet, and the participants used the system with clinical vignettes of model cases. Participants were then involved in a mixed methods evaluation consisting of a UTAUT-based questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale (quantitative) and a CFIR-based semistructured interview (qualitative). Cronbach α was calculated as a reliability estimate for UTAUT subconstructs. Interviews were sampled, transcribed, and analyzed using the MaxQDA software. The framework analysis approach was used during the study to determine the relevance of the CFIR constructs. Results: All 14 participants completed the questionnaires and interviews. Quantitative analysis revealed generally positive responses for user acceptance with all scores above the neutral score of 3.0. In addition, the mixed methods analysis identified two significant barriers (System Performance, Compatibility) and two major facilitators (Evidence Strength, Design Quality) for implementation of AI-based CDSSs in emergency care settings. Conclusions: Our mixed methods evaluation based on theoretically grounded frameworks revealed the acceptance, barriers, and facilitators of implementation of AI-based CDSS. Although the concern of system failure and overtrusting of the system could be barriers to implementation, the locality of the system and designing an intuitive user interface could likely facilitate the use of optimal AI-based CDSS. Alleviating and resolving these factors should be key to achieving good user acceptance of AI-based CDSS.

BACKGROUND Many hemodynamically stable patients with blunt abdominal solid organ injuries are successfully managed nonoperatively, while unstable patients often require urgent laparotomy. Recently, therapeutic angioembolization has been used in the treatment of intra-abdominal hemorrhage in hemodynamically unstable patients. We undertook this study to review a series of hemodynamically unstable patients with abdominal solid organ injuries managed nonoperatively with angioembolization and resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. METHODS The institutional review board approved this study. All patients were appropriately resuscitated with transfusions, and angiography was performed after computed tomography. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta was performed before computed tomography in all patients. RESULTS Seven patients underwent resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta following severe blunt abdominal trauma. The 28-day survival rate was 86% (6 of 7). There were no complications related to the procedure. CONCLUSION We describe the first clinical series of hemodynamically unstable patients with abdominal solid organ injury treated nonoperatively with angioembolization and resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Survival rate was 86%, supporting the need for further study of this modality as an adjunct to the nonoperative management of patients with severe traumatic injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic study, level V.

BACKGROUND The ability to easily predict the need for massive transfusion may improve the process of care, allowing early mobilization of resources. There are currently no clear criteria to activate massive transfusion in severely injured trauma patients. The aims of this study were to create a scoring system to predict the need for massive transfusion and then to validate this scoring system. METHODS We reviewed the records of 119 severely injured trauma patients and identified massive transfusion predictors using statistical methods. Each predictor was converted into a simple score based on the odds ratio in a multivariate logistic regression analysis. The Traumatic Bleeding Severity Score (TBSS) was defined as the sum of the component scores. The predictive value of the TBSS for massive transfusion was then validated, using data from 113 severely injured trauma patients. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to compare the results of TBSS with the Trauma-Associated Severe Hemorrhage score and the Assessment of Blood Consumption score. RESULTS In the development phase, five predictors of massive transfusion were identified, including age, systolic blood pressure, the Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma scan, severity of pelvic fracture, and lactate level. The maximum TBSS is 57 points. In the validation study, the average TBSS in patients who received massive transfusion was significantly greater (24.2 [6.7]) than the score of patients who did not (6.2 [4.7]) (p < 0.01). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, and specificity for a TBSS greater than 15 points was 0.985 (significantly higher than the other scoring systems evaluated at 0.892 and 0.813, respectively), 97.4%, and 96.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION The TBSS is simple to calculate using an available iOS application and is accurate in predicting the need for massive transfusion. Additional multicenter studies are needed to further validate this scoring system and further assess its utility. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic study, level III.

Health and logistical needs in emergencies have been well recognised. The last 7 years has witnessed improved professionalisation and standardisation of care for disaster affected communities - led in part by the World Health Organisation Emergency Medical Team (EMT) initiative. Mass casualty incidents (MCIs) resulting in burn injuries present unique challenges. Burn management benefits from specialist skills, expert knowledge, and timely availability of specialist resources. With burn MCIs occurring globally, and wide variance in existing burn care capacity, the need to strengthen burn care capability is evident. Although some high-income countries have well-established disaster management plans, including burn specific plans, many do not - the majority of countries where burn mass casualty events occur are without such established plans. Developing globally relevant recommendations is a first step in addressing this deficit and increasing preparedness to deal with such disasters. Global burn experts were invited to a succession of Technical Working Group on burns (TWGB) meetings to: 1) review literature on burn care in MCIs; and 2) define and agree on recommendations for burn care in MCIs. The resulting 22 recommendations provide a framework to guide national and international specialist burn teams and health facilities to support delivery of safe care and improved outcomes to burn patients in MCIs.