Introduction: Ultrasonographic evaluation of patients in cardiac arrest is currently not protocolised in the advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) algorithm. Potentially reversible causes may be identified using bedside ultrasonography that is ubiquitous in most emergency departments (EDs). This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of sonographically detectable reversible causes of cardiac arrest by incorporating an ultrasonography protocol into the ACLS algorithm. Secondary objectives include rates of survival to hospital admission, hospital discharge, and 30-day mortality. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective study using bedside ultrasonography to evaluate for potentially reversible causes in patients with cardiac arrest at the ED of National University Hospital, Singapore, regardless of the initial electrocardiogram rhythm. A standardised ultrasonography protocol was performed during the 10-second pulse check window. Results: Between June 2015 and April 2016, 104 patients were recruited, corresponding to 65% of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients conveyed to the ED. Median age was 71 years (interquartile range, 55 to 80) and 71 (68.3%) patients were male. The most common rhythm on arrival was asystole (45.2%). Four (3.8%) patients had ultrasonographic findings suggestive of massive pulmonary embolism while 1 received intravenous thrombolysis and survived until discharge. Pericardial effusion without tamponade was detected in 4 (3.8%) patients and 6 (5.8%) patients had intra-abdominal free fluid. Twenty (19.2%) patients survived until admission, 2 of whom (1.9%) survived to discharge and beyond 30 days. Conclusion: Bedside ultrasonography can be safely incorporated into the ACLS protocol. Detection of any reversible causes may alter management and improve survival in selected patients. Key words: Advanced cardiac life support, Heart arrest, Hospital

Hyun Suk Yang, M.D., Ph.D., Mina Hur, M.D., Ph.D., Kyeong Ryong Lee, M.D., Ph.D., Hanah Kim, M.D., Ph.D., Hahn Young Kim, M.D., Ph.D., Jong Won Kim, M.D., Ph.D., Mui Teng Chua, M.D., Win Sen Kuan, M.D., Horng Ruey Chua, M.D., Chagriya Kitiyakara, M.D., Phatthranit Phattharapornjaroen, M.D., Anchalee Chittamma, Ph.D., Thiyapha Werayachankul, M.Sc., Urmila Anandh, M.D., Sanjeeva Herath, M.B., Ch.B., Zoltan Endre, M.D., Ph.D., Andrea Rita Horvath, M.D., Ph.D., Paola Antonini, M.D., and Salvatore Di Somma, M.D., Ph.D. on behalf of the GREAT Network. Ann Lab Med 2022;42:178-87. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2022.42.2.178

Objective: Terminally ill patients at their end-of-life (EOL) phase attending the emergency department (ED) may have complex and specialized care needs frequently overlooked by ED physicians. To tailor to the needs of this unique group, the ED in a tertiary hospital implemented an EOL pathway since 2014. The objective of our study is to describe the epidemiological characteristics, symptom burden and management of patients using a protocolized management care bundle. Methods: We conducted an observational study on the database of EOL patients over a 28-month period. Patients aged 21 years and above, who attended the ED and were managed according to these guidelines, were included. Clinical data were extracted from the hospital’s electronic medical records system. Results: Two hundred five patients were managed under the EOL pathway, with a slight male predominance (106/205, 51.7%) and a median age of 78 (interquartile range 69-87) years. The majority were chronically frail (42.0%) or diagnosed with cancer or other terminal illnesses (32.7%). The 3 most commonly experienced symptoms were drowsiness (66.3%), dyspnea (61.5%), and fever (29.7%). Through the protocolized management care bundle, 74.1% of patients with dyspnea and/or pain received opiates while 59.5% with copious secretions received hyoscine butylbromide for symptomatic relief. Conclusion: The institution of a protocolized care bundle is feasible and provides ED physicians with a guide in managing EOL patients. Though still suboptimal, considerable advances in EOL care at the ED have been achieved and may be further improved through continual education and enhancements in the care bundle.

Background and Objectives: This study aims to identify reasons for unscheduled return visits (URVs), and risk factors for diagnostic errors leading to URVs, with comparisons to data from a similar study conducted in the same institution 9 years ago. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included adult patients who attended the emergency department (ED) of a tertiary hospital in Singapore between January 2014 and June 2014, with re-attendance within 72 h for the same or similar complaint. The primary outcome was wrong or delayed diagnoses. Secondary outcomes include admission to the ED observation unit or ward on return visit. Findings were compared with the previous study performed in 2005 to identify trends. Results: Of 67,422 attendances, there were 1298 (1.93%) URVs from 1207 patients (median age 34, interquartile range 24 to 52 years; 59.7% male). The most common presenting complaint was abdominal pain (22.2%). One hundred ninety-one (15.8%) patients received an initial wrong or delayed diagnosis. Factors (adjusted odds ratio; 95% CI) associated with this were: presenting complaints of abdominal pain (2.99; 2.12–4.23), fever (1.60; 1.1–2.33), neurological deficit (4.26; 1.94–9.35), and discharge without follow-up (1.61; 1.1–2.26). Among re-attendances, 459 (38.0%) required admission. Factors (adjusted odds ratio; 95% CI) associated with admission were: male gender (1.88; 1.42 to 2.48); comorbidities of diabetes mellitus (2.07; 1.29–3.31), asthma (5.23; 1.59–17.26), and renal disease (7.48; 2.00–28.05); presenting complaints of abdominal pain (1.83; 1.32–2.55), fever (3.05; 2.10–4.44), and giddiness or vertigo (2.17; 1.26–3.73). There was a reduction in URV rate compared to the previous study in 2005 (1.93% versus 2.19%). Abdominal pain at the index visit remains a significant cause of URVs (22.2% versus 25.1%). Conclusions: Presenting complaints of neurological deficits, abdominal pain, fever, and discharge without follow-up were associated with wrong or delayed diagnoses among URVs.