Background: Over the last 10 years, research has highlighted emerging potential risk factors for poor outcomes following blunt chest wall trauma. The aim was to update a previous systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk factors for mortality in blunt chest wall trauma patients. Methods: A systematic review of English and non-English articles using MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library from January 2010 to March 2022 was completed. Broad search terms and inclusion criteria were used. All observational studies were included if they investigated estimates of association between a risk factor and mortality for blunt chest wall trauma patients. Where sufficient data were available, ORs with 95% CIs were calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel method. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I ² statistic. Results: 73 studies were identified which were of variable quality (including 29 from original review). Identified risk factors for mortality following blunt chest wall trauma were: age 65 years or more (OR: 2.11; 95% CI 1.85 to 2.41), three or more rib fractures (OR: 1.96; 95% CI 1.69 to 2.26) and presence of pre-existing disease (OR: 2.86; 95% CI 1.34 to 6.09). Other new risk factors identified were: increasing Injury Severity Score, need for mechanical ventilation, extremes of body mass index and smoking status. Meta-analysis was not possible for these variables due to insufficient studies and high levels of heterogeneity. Conclusions: The results of this updated review suggest that despite a change in demographics of trauma patients and subsequent emerging evidence over the last 10 years, the main risk factors for mortality in patients sustaining blunt chest wall trauma remained largely unchanged. A number of new risk factors however have been reported that need consideration when updating current risk prediction models used in the ED. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021242063. Date registered: 29 March 2021. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/%23recordDetails .

In the Emergency Department (ED), pain is one of the symptoms that are most frequently reported, making it one of the most significant issues for the emergency physician, but it is frequently under-treated. Intravenous (IV), oral (PO), and intramuscular (IM) delivery are the standard methods for administering acute pain relief. Firstly, we compared the safety and efficacy of IN analgesia to other conventional routes of analgesia to assess if IN analgesia may be an alternative for the management of acute pain in ED. Secondly, we analyzed the incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) and rescue analgesia required. We performed a narrative review-based keywords in Pubmed/Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Controlled Trials Register, finding only twenty randomized Clinical trials eligible in the timeline 1992–2022. A total of 2098 patients were analyzed and compared to intravenous analgesia, showing no statistical difference in adverse effects. In addition, intranasal analgesia also has a rapid onset and quick absorption. Fentanyl and ketamine are two intranasal drugs that appear promising and may be taken simply and safely while providing effective pain relief. Intravenous is simple to administer, non-invasive, rapid onset, and quick absorption; it might be a viable choice in a variety of situations to reduce patient suffering or delays in pain management.

Introduction: Cardiac arrests are traditionally classified according to the setting in which they occur, including out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). However, cardiac arrests that occur in the emergency department (EDCA) could constitute a third category, due to the peculiar characteristics of the emergency department (ED). In recent years, the need to study EDCAs separately from other intra-hospital events has emerged. The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of a cohort of patients experiencing EDCA in an Italian hospital over a 14-year period. Methods: This was a single-centre retrospective observational study conducted in the ED of the Santa Croce e Carle Hospital in Cuneo, Italy. All adult patients who experienced EDCA between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2023 were included. OHCA patients, those arriving in the ED with on-going resuscitation measures, patients with EDCA not undergoing resuscitation, and patients with post-traumatic cardiac arrest were excluded from the study. The main outcome of the study was survival at hospital discharge with a favourable neurological outcome. Results: 350 cases of EDCA were included. The median age was 78 (63–85) years, and the median Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 5 (3–6). A total of 35 patients (10%) survived to hospital discharge with a cerebral performance category (CPC) Score of 1–2; survival in the ED was 28.3%. The causes of cardiac arrests were identified in 212 cases (60.6%) and included coronary thrombosis (35%), hypoxia (22%), hypovolemia (17%), pulmonary embolism (11%), metabolic (8%), cardiac tamponade (4%), toxins (2%) and hypothermia (1%). Variables associated with survival with a favourable neurological outcome were young age, a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, coronary thrombosis as the primary EDCA cause, and shockable presenting rhythm; however, only the latter was associated with the outcome in a multivariate age-weighted model. Conclusions: In a cohort of patients with EDCA over a period of more than a decade, the most frequent cause identified was coronary thrombosis; 10% of patients survived with a good neurological status, and the only factor associated with the best prognosis was presenting a shockable rhythm. EDCA should be considered an independent category in order to fully understand its characteristics and outcomes.

In the Emergency Department (ED), the decision to hospitalize or discharge COVID-19 patients is challenging. We assessed the utility of lung ultrasound (LUS), alone or in association with a clinical rule/score. This was a multicenter observational prospective study involving six EDs (NCT046291831). From October 2020 to January 2021, COVID-19 outpatients discharged from the ED based on clinical judgment were subjected to LUS and followed-up at 30 days. The primary clinical outcome was a composite of hospitalization or death. Within 393 COVID-19 patients, 35 (8.9%) reached the primary outcome. For outcome prognostication, LUS had a C-index of 0.76 (95%CI 0.68–0.84) and showed good performance and calibration. LUS-based classification provided significant differences in Kaplan–Meier curves, with a positive LUS leading to a hazard ratio of 4.33 (95%CI 1.95–9.61) for the primary outcome. The sensitivity and specificity of LUS for primary outcome occurrence were 74.3% (95%CI 59.8–88.8) and 74% (95%CI 69.5–78.6), respectively. The integration of LUS with a clinical score further increased sensitivity. In patients with a negative LUS, the primary outcome occurred in nine (3.3%) patients (p < 0.001 vs. unselected). The efficiency for rule-out was 69.7%. In unvaccinated ED patients with COVID-19, LUS improves prognostic stratification over clinical judgment alone and may support standardized disposition decisions.