Methanol is a widely used industrial and household alcohol that poses significant health risks upon exposure. Despite its extensive use, methanol poisoning remains a critical public health concern globally, often resulting from accidental or intentional ingestion and outbreaks linked to contaminated beverages. Methanol toxicity stems from its metabolic conversion to formaldehyde and formic acid, leading to severe metabolic acidosis and multiorgan damage, including profound CNS effects and visual impairments. Epidemiological data underscore the widespread impact of methanol poisoning, with alarming case fatality rates reported in various countries. Comprehensive prevention and effective management strategies are urgently needed to address the significant morbidity and mortality associated with methanol poisoning. The clinical manifestations of methanol toxicity vary between adult and pediatric populations and between acute and chronic exposure. Adults typically present with gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms, whereas pediatric patients often exhibit more severe outcomes due to differences in metabolism and body weight. The diagnosis of methanol poisoning involves a combination of clinical evaluation, laboratory testing, and advanced diagnostic techniques. The identification of metabolic acidosis, elevated anion and osmolal gaps, and confirmation through methanol and formate levels are critical for accurate diagnosis. Timely intervention is crucial, and the management of methanol poisoning includes securing the airway, breathing, and circulation; addressing metabolic acidosis with sodium bicarbonate; administering antidotes such as fomepizole or ethanol; and administering hemodialysis, which plays a pivotal role in eliminating methanol and its toxic metabolites, especially in severe cases. The complexity of methanol poisoning necessitates a comprehensive approach encompassing early recognition, prompt intervention, and coordinated care among healthcare providers. Increased awareness, effective prevention strategies, and timely treatment protocols are essential to mitigate severe health consequences and improve patient survival and recovery.

Introduction Within the UK, chest pain is one of the most common reasons for emergency (999) ambulance calls and the most common reason for emergency hospital admission. Diagnosing acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in a patient with chest pain in the prehospital setting by a paramedic is challenging. The Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (T-MACS) decision rule is a validated tool used in the emergency department (ED) to stratify patients with suspected ACS following a single blood test. We are seeking to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the T-MACS decision aid algorithm to ‘rule out’ ACS when used in the prehospital environment with point-of-care troponin assays. If successful, this could allow paramedics to immediately rule out ACS for patients in the ‘very low risk’ group and avoid the need for transport to the ED, while also risk stratifying other patients using a single blood sample taken in the prehospital setting. Methods and analysis We will recruit patients who call emergency (999) ambulance services where the responding paramedic suspects cardiac chest pain. The data required to apply T-MACS will be prospectively recorded by paramedics who are responding to each patient. Paramedics will be required to draw a venous blood sample at the time of arrival to the patient. Blood samples will later be tested in batches for cardiac troponin, using commercially available troponin assays. The primary outcome will be a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, established at the time of initial hospital admission. The secondary outcomes will include any major adverse cardiac events within 30 days of enrolment. Ethics and dissemination The study obtained approval from the National Research Ethics Service (reference: 18/ES/0101) and the Health Research Authority. We will publish our findings in a high impact general medical journal. Trial registration number Registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov, study ID: NCT03561051

Objectives: Several decision aids can ‘rule in’ and ‘rule out’ acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in the Emergency Department (ED) but all require measurement of blood biomarkers. A decision aid that does not require biomarker measurement could enhance risk stratification at triage and could be used in the prehospital environment. We aimed to derive and validate the History and ECG-only Manchester ACS (HE-MACS) decision aid using only the history, physical examination and ECG. Methods: We undertook secondary analyses in three prospective diagnostic accuracy studies that included patients presenting to the ED with suspected cardiac chest pain. Clinicians recorded clinical features at the time of arrival using a bespoke form. Patients underwent serial troponin sampling and 30-day follow-up for the primary outcome of ACS. The model was derived by logistic regression in one cohort and validated in two similar prospective studies. Results: The HE-MACS model was derived in 796 patients and validated in cohorts of 474 and 659 patients. HE-MACS incorporated age, sex, systolic blood pressure plus five historical variables to stratify patients into four risk groups. On validation, 5.5 and 12.1% (pooled total 9.4%) patients were identified as ‘very low risk’ (potential immediate rule out) with a pooled sensitivity of 99.5% (95% confidence interval: 97.1–100.0%). Conclusion: Using only the patient’s history and ECG, HE-MACS could ‘rule out’ ACS in 9.4% of patients while effectively risk stratifying remaining patients. This is a very promising tool for triage in both the prehospital environment and ED. Its impact should be prospectively evaluated in those settings.

Introduction: Chest pain is one of the most common reasons for 999 calls and transfers to the emergency department (ED). In these patients, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is often the diagnosis that clinicians are seeking to exclude. However, only a minority of those patients have AMI, causing a substantial financial burden to health services. Cardiac troponin (cTn) is the reference standard biomarker for the diagnosis of AMI. Several commercially available point-of-care (POC) cTn assays are portable and could feasibly be used in an ambulance. The aim of this paper is to systematically review existing evidence for the use of POC cTn assays in the prehospital setting to rule out AMI.Methods: A systematic search was conducted on EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL Plus databases, reference lists, and relevant grey literature, including combinations of the relevant terms. Papers published in English language since the year 2000 were eligible for inclusion. A narrative synthesis of the evidence was then undertaken.Results: The initial search and cross-referencing revealed a total of 350 papers, of which 243 were excluded. Seven papers were included in the systematic literature review.Conclusion: Current evidence does not support the use of POC troponin assays to exclude AMI due to issues with diagnostic accuracy and insufficient high-quality evidence.

Objective Point-of-care (POC) cardiac troponin (cTn) assays have a rapid turnaround time but are generally less sensitive than laboratory-based assays. Previous research found that the Abbott i-Stat cardiac troponin I (cTnI) assay has good diagnostic accuracy when used with the Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (T-MACS) decision aid and serial sampling over 3 hours. Accuracy of other assays may differ. We therefore evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a different POC cTnI assay with serial sampling over 3 hours, both with T-MACS and when used alone. Methods In a prospective diagnostic accuracy study at eight EDs in England (July 2015–October 2017), we collected clinical data from consenting adults with suspected ACS at the time of assessment in the ED. Blood samples were drawn on arrival and 3 hours later for POC cTnI (Cardio 3 Triage, Alere). The target condition was an adjudicated diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), based on reference standard serial laboratory-based cTn testing. We calculated test characteristics for POC cTnI using the limit of detection (LoD, 0.01 µg/L) and the T-MACS decision aid. Results Of 347 participants, 59 (14.9%) had AMI. With serial POC cTnI testing over 3 hours, POC cTnI at the LoD cut-off ruled out AMI in 193 (55.6%) patients with 98.1% sensitivity (95% CI 89.9% to 100.0%) and 99.5% negative predictive value (NPV, 95% CI 96.5% to 99.9%). T-MACS ruled out AMI in 117 (33.7%) patients with 98.1% sensitivity (95% CI 89.9% to 100%) and 99.2% NPV (95% CI 94.3% to 99.9%). T-MACS ruled in AMI with 97.9% specificity (95% CI 95.8% to 99.5%) and 83.7% positive predictive value (95% CI 70.6% to 91.7%). Conclusions With serial sampling over 3 hours, the Alere Cardio 3 Triage cTnI assay has relatively high NPV for AMI using either the LoD cut-off alone or the T-MACS decision aid. However, wide CIs around the measures of diagnostic accuracy mean that further prospective testing of this strategy is required before clinical implementation. Trial registration number UKCRN 18000.

Physically active individuals are susceptible to sports injuries, one of which is anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. ACL injury can be managed conservatively or by surgical reconstruction. Returning to sport (RTS) after ACL injury is one of the main goals of ACL reconstruction (ACLR). However, rates of return vary and can be affected by several factors. The objectives of this study were to estimate the rate of return and to identify the factors that might affect RTS after ACLR. This was a cross-sectional study, including individuals who had an ACLR. Participants were sent an online survey included questions about their injury, sport participation, International Knee Documentation Committee form (IKDC), and the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-11). Participants who had their surgery in the period between January 2011 to December 2018 and participated in sports regularly were included. Descriptive statistics were performed. Chi-square and student t-tests were performed to explore the differences between participants who returned and the ones that did not. A total of 93 participants were included. The majority (69.9%) were playing soccer before the injury. Though more than half (61.3%) returned to sports, only 29% participated at the same level before the injury. Fear of reinjury was the most frequent reason for delaying or not returning (30%), followed by pain (29). Significantly better IKDC (p=0.002) and TSK-11 (p<0.001) scores were noted in participants who had returned to sports. On the other hand, participants’ age, body mass index (BMI), time from injury to surgery, time since surgery, and times of sports participation per week were not found to be significantly different between those who returned versus those who did not. The participants in this study had a low rate of return with fear of reinjury being the most common reason not to return. However, a participant’s IKDC and TSK-11 scores were associated factors for RTS, thus optimizing those factors after surgery is crucial.