Electrolyte imbalances are a frequently overlooked yet critical component of obesity-related metabolic dysfunction, contributing to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, kidney impairment, and metabolic emergencies such as diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS), and acute kidney injury (AKI). These disturbances arise from insulin resistance, chronic inflammation, hormonal dysregulation, and renal dysfunction, leading to sodium retention, potassium depletion, and deficiencies in calcium and magnesium homeostasis. Managing electrolyte imbalances is essential in obesity management, as imbalances exacerbate hypertension, metabolic acidosis, neuromuscular complications, and insulin resistance. This review explores the pathophysiology of electrolyte disturbances in obesity and their impact on fluid balance, acid–base status, and metabolic health. Effective management strategies include individualized electrolyte monitoring, dietary sodium restriction, potassium supplementation, vitamin D and magnesium correction, and pharmacologic interventions targeting renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) activity and insulin resistance. Additionally, lifestyle interventions, including dietary modification, weight loss strategies, and hydration optimization, play a key role in preventing metabolic complications. Future research should investigate the long-term impact of electrolyte imbalances in obesity, the role of emerging therapies, and how lifestyle interventions can optimize electrolyte homeostasis and metabolic outcomes. A personalized, multidisciplinary approach integrating endocrinology, nephrology, and clinical nutrition is essential to improving the prevention and management of electrolyte imbalances in obese individuals.

Background and objectives: Although the intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) has been shown to be effective in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS), only a small proportion of stroke patients receive this drug. The low administration rate is mainly due to the delayed presentation of patients to the emergency department (ED) or the lack of a stroke team/unit in most of the hospitals. Thus, the aim of this study is to analyze ED time targets and the rate of rt-PA intravenous administration after the initial admission of patients with AIS in an ED from a traditional healthcare center (without a neurologist or stroke team/unit). Methods: To analyze which factors influence the administration of rt-PA, we split the general sample (n = 202) into two groups: group No rt-PA (n = 137) and group rt-PA (n = 65). This is based on the performing or no intravenous thrombolysis. Results: Analyzing ED time targets for all samples, we found that the median onset-to-ED door time was 180 min (IQR, 120–217.5 min), door-to-physician time was 4 min (IQR, 3–7 min), door-to-CT time was 52 min (IQR, 48–55 min), and door-in-door-out time was 61 min (IQR, 59–65 min). ED time targets such as door-to-physician time (p = 0.245), door-to-CT time (p = 0.219), door-in-door-out time (p = 0.24), NIHSS at admission to the Neurology department (p = 0.405), or NIHSS after 24 h (p = 0.9) did not have a statistically significant effect on the administration or no rt-PA treatment in patients included in our study. Only the highest door-to-CT time was statistically significantly correlated with the death outcome. Conclusion: In our study, the iv rt-PA administration rate was 32.18%. A statistically significant correlation between the highest door-to-CT time and death outcome was found.

Background and objectives: To minimize stroke-related deaths and maximize the likelihood of cerebral reperfusion, medical professionals developed the “code stroke” emergency protocol, which allows for the prompt evaluation of patients with acute ischemic stroke symptoms in pre-hospital care and the emergency department (ED). This research will outline our experience in implementing the stroke code protocol for acute ischemic stroke patients and its impact on door-to-needle time (DTN) in the ED. Methods: Our study included patients with a “code stroke alert” upon arrival at the emergency department. The final sample of this study consisted of 258 patients eligible for intravenous (IV) thrombolysis with an onset-to-door time < 4.5 h. ED admissions were categorized into two distinct groups: “day shift” (from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.) (n = 178) and “night shift” (from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m.) (n = 80) groups. Results: An analysis of ED time targets showed an increased median during the day shift for onset-to-ED door time of 310 min (IQR, 190–340 min), for door-to-physician (emergency medicine doctor) time of 5 min (IQR, 3–9 min), for door-to-physician (emergency medicine doctor) time of 5 min (IQR, 3–9 min), and for door-to-physician (neurologist) time of 7 min (IQR, 5–10 min), also during the day shift. During the night shift, an increased median was found for door-to-CT time of 21 min (IQR, 16.75–23 min), for door-to-CT results of 40 min (IQR, 38–43 min), and for door-to-needle time of 57.5 min (IQR, 46.25–60 min). Astonishingly, only 17.83% (n = 46) of these patients received intravenous thrombolysis, and the proportion of patients with thrombolysis was significantly higher during the night shift (p = 0.044). A logistic regression analysis considering the door-to-needle time (minutes) as the dependent variable demonstrated that onset-to-ED time (p < 0.001) and door-to-physician (emergency medicine physicians) time (p = 0.021) are predictors for performing thrombolysis in our study. Conclusions: This study identified higher door-to-CT and door-to-emergency medicine physician times associated with an increased DTN, highlighting further opportunities to improve acute stroke care in the emergency department. Further, door-to-CT and door-to-CT results showed statistically significant increases during the night shift.

Background and Objectives: Medical workshops serve as interactive learning sessions that allow medical students to apply their extensive theoretical knowledge in a structured, low-stress environment. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a self-developed multidisciplinary workshop on participants’ self-reported confidence, teamwork, leadership skills, and theoretical knowledge acquisition. Methods: The present study gathered data from 100 participants. Two surveys, each comprising three sections, were administered: a multiple-choice questionnaire (MCQ), with distinct versions for pre- and post-workshop assessment; a self-confidence questionnaire; and a non-technical skills questionnaire structured using a Likert-scale format. Results: Regarding self-assessed confidence, significant increases were observed across all workshop stations (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test), with all effect sizes classified as large (Cohen’s d > 0.8). In terms of theoretical knowledge, students demonstrated substantial improvement, with the median score increasing from 5.92 to 8.2, and no significant differences identified between study years (p = 0.895). Non-technical skills, including teamwork and leadership, were assessed using two questions each, revealing a statistically significant improvement in pre- and post-intervention (p < 0.001) with large effect sizes. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the one-day multidisciplinary workshop increases medical students’ confidence by refining their communication skills, broadening their understanding of different roles in healthcare, and improving their ability to collaborate effectively.

Spontaneous pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum (SP–SPM) are relatively rare medical conditions that can occur with or independently of COVID-19. We conducted a retrospective analysis of SP–SPM cases presented to the emergency departments (EDs) of two University-affiliated tertiary hospitals from 1 March 2020 to 31 October 2022. A total of 190 patients were identified: 52 were COVID-19 cases, and 138 were non-COVID-19 cases. The primary outcome we were looking for was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes concerned the disease severity assessed by (a) days of hospitalization; (b) required mechanical ventilation (MV); and (c) required intensive care (IC). All were investigated in the context of the five pandemic waves and the patients’ age and comorbidities. The pandemic waves had no significant effect on the outcomes of these patients. Logistic regression found age (OR = 1.043; 95%CI 1.002–1.085), COVID-19 (OR = 6.032; 95%CI 1.757–20.712), number of comorbidities (OR = 1.772; 95%CI 1.046–3.001), and ground-glass opacities over 50% (OR = 5.694; 95%CI 1.169–27.746) as significant risk predictors of in-hospital death while controlling for gender, smoking, the pandemic wave, and the extension of SP–SPM. The model proved good prediction performance (Nagelkerke R-square = 0.524) and would hold the same significant predictors for MV and IC.

Background: This investigation assesses the prognostic value of lactate levels and their clearance in septic shock patients, particularly emphasizing the comparative analysis between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients in the emergency department. This study aims to elucidate the unique prognostic implications of lactate dynamics in these distinct patient groups, thereby enhancing the management of septic shock. Methods: An observational prospective study was conducted, enrolling 114 septic shock patients from the Emergency County Hospital Resita, Romania, categorizing them into COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 groups to examine their initial lactate levels, clearance rates, and their correlation with patient outcomes. Results: This study identified significant differences in the initial lactate levels and clearance rates between the two groups, indicating higher initial lactate levels and slower clearance rates in COVID-19 patients. Survivors demonstrated significantly lower initial lactate levels (1.5 ± 0.4 mmol/L) and higher lactate clearance rates (33 ± 15%) compared to non-survivors (2.5 ± 0.5 mmol/L and 24 ± 9%, respectively; lactate levels p = 0.001, clearance rates p = 0.002). Conclusions: Lactate monitoring, particularly clearance rates, is crucial in the prognostic assessment of septic shock patients. These findings highlight the need for targeted interventions in COVID-19 patients to improve outcomes, underscoring lactate dynamics as a vital component of septic shock management in differing patient populations.