Chung HS, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Mar;35(19):e189. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e189

Kim C, et al. Infect Chemother. 2020 Dec;52(4):562-572. https://doi.org/10.3947/ic.2020.52.4.562

Background: Futile resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients in the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 era can lead to risk of disease transmission and unnecessary transport. Various existing basic or advanced life support (BLS or ALS, respectively) rules for the termination of resuscitation (TOR) have been derived and validated in North America and Asian countries. This study aimed to evaluate the external validation of these rules in predicting the survival outcomes of OHCA patients in the COVID-19 era. Methods: This was a multicenter observational study using the WinCOVID-19 Daegu registry data collected during February 18–March 31, 2020. The subjects were patients who showed cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac etiology. The outcomes of each rule were compared to the actual patient survival outcomes. The sensitivity, specificity, false positive value (FPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) of each TOR rule were evaluated. Results: In total, 170 of the 184 OHCA patients were eligible and evaluated. TOR was recommended for 122 patients based on the international basic life support termination of resuscitation (BLS-TOR) rule, which showed 85% specificity, 74% sensitivity, 0.8% FPV, and 99% PPV for predicting unfavorable survival outcomes. When the traditional BLS-TOR rules and KoCARC TOR rule II were applied to our registry, one patient met the TOR criteria but survived at hospital discharge. With regard to the FPV (upper limit of 95% confidence interval < 5%), specificity (100%), and PPV (> 99%) criteria, only the KoCARC TOR rule I, which included a combination of three factors including not being witnessed by emergency medical technicians, presenting with an asystole at the scene, and not experiencing prehospital shock delivery or return of spontaneous circulation, was found to be superior to all other TOR rules. Conclusion: Among the previous nine BLS and ALS TOR rules, KoCARC TOR rule I was most suitable for predicting poor survival outcomes and showed improved diagnostic performance. Further research on variations in resources and treatment protocols among facilities, regions, and cultures will be useful in determining the feasibility of TOR rules for COVID-19 patients worldwide.

Background: There have been several reports of patients with cancer visiting the Emergency Department (ED) rather than the outpatient department of their oncologist. In this study, we aimed to analyze the chief complaints, visit time, and time spent in the ED between study groups of patients with cancer visiting the ED. This finding will help medical staff provide better care for patients with cancer and reduce time spent in the ED. Methods: A total of 787 patients with cancer visited the Regional Emergency Medical Center between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. After the exclusion criterion such as patients who were transferred to the ED with a referral issued slip, patients who were pregnant women or minors under the age of 18 were applied, data from 607 patients with cancer were collected retrospectively from electronic medical records at the hospital. The participating patients with cancer were divided into two groups: 1) ED group—those who were cared for by the ED physician and 2) Referral group—those who were referred to their oncologist for hospitalization. Results: We found that 40% of the total patients with cancer included in the study visited the ED with a chief complaint of pain. It was observed that the highest frequency of visits to the ED was around noon during clinic hours. The length of ED stay was 169 and 566 min for the ED and referral groups, respectively. Conclusion: It would be more beneficial for patients with cancer visiting the ED to be quickly discharged from the ED physician’s active care for their symptoms. This usage of ED services will reduce unnecessary waiting time.

Penile Mondor disease (MD) is a palpable, painful, subcutaneous induration caused by superficial dorsal penile vein thrombosis. We report a case of penile MD that was suspected to be related to prolonged oral sildenafil use. A 46-year-old man visited our emergency department with sustained penile pain and swelling that began 7 hours after sexual intercourse. He had used oral sildenafil intermittently for 11 years and engaged in sexual intercourse the previous night after taking sildenafil. Examination revealed no evidence of intercourse-related trauma to the genital area or an increase in penile skin temperature. However, penile swelling and tenderness over the protruding dorsal penile vein were noted. A color Doppler ultrasound examination was performed immediately, which showed hyperechoic thrombosis in the right superficial dorsal penile vein that was dilated, with soft tissue swelling and no detectable flow signal in the thrombotic lesion. The patient was diagnosed as having penile MD. The patient was treated conservatively. Some reports have indicated the involvement of sildenafil in thrombogenesis. Physicians should be aware that prolonged oral sildenafil use may be associated with penile MD.

Background: In a pandemic situation such as the one of the COVID-19 pandemic, nosocomial transmissions attempted to be prevented by initially classifying them in triage. Therefore, emergency departments (EDs) installed isolation rooms at their entrance. Additionally, a system for pre-emptive quarantine at the triage stage was established nationwide for patients with COVID-19-related symptoms. Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from 28,609 patients who visited the regional emergency medical center of Yeungnam University Hospital in Daegu Metropolitan City in 2021. The study population was divided into experimental and control groups comprising patients with and without COVID-19-related symptoms, respectively. The difference in the percentage of patients visiting from outside the city was investigated between the two groups. The critically ill patient (CP) ratio was analyzed in the experimental group to verify the appropriateness of visiting a higher-level ED and was further divided into sub-regions to determine their reason for visiting an ED beyond their residential region. Results: Most lower-level EDs did not have isolation rooms. About 20.1% and 17.3% of patients in the experimental and control groups visited a higher-level ED with an isolation room beyond their residential region, respectively. The absence of an isolation room in the ED in their residential region was one reason for traveling beyond their residential region, with an odds ratio of 4.44 (95% confidence interval: 0.53–8.35). Conclusion: In the process of implementing the “pre-emptive quarantine” system, it was revealed that the cooperation of the lower-level EDs was not effective during the implementation of the “pre-emptive quarantine” system. Consequently, a higher number of patients with COVID-19-related symptoms had to locate an ED with an isolation room and travel a longer distance than general patients. The participation of more EDs is required.