In pre-hospital settings, efficient cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is challenging; therefore, the application of mechanical CPR devices continues to increase. However, the evidence of the benefits of using mechanical CPR devices in pre-hospital settings for adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is controversial. This meta-analysis compared the effects of mechanical and manual CPR applied in the pre-hospital stage on clinical outcomes after OHCA. Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception until October 2021. Studies comparing mechanical and manual CPR applied in the pre-hospital stage for survival outcomes of adult OHCA were eligible. Data abstraction, quality assessment, meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis (TSA), and grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation were conducted. Seven randomized controlled and 15 observational studies were included. Compared to manual CPR, pre-hospital use of mechanical CPR showed a positive effect in achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to admission. No difference was found in survival to discharge and discharge with favorable neurological status, with inconclusive results in TSA. In conclusion, pre-hospital use of mechanical CPR devices may benefit adult OHCA in achieving ROSC and survival to admission. With low certainty of evidence, more well-designed large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.

Purpose: Distinguishing ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is crucial in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) research due to their distinct characteristics. However, the accuracy of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes for STEMI and NSTEMI in Taiwan’s National Health Insurance (NHI) database remains unvalidated. Therefore, we developed and validated case definition algorithms for STEMI and NSTEMI using ICD-10-CM and NHI billing codes. Patients and Methods: We obtained claims data and medical records of inpatient visits from 2016 to 2021 from the hospital’s research-based database. Potential STEMI and NSTEMI cases were identified using diagnostic codes, keywords, and procedure codes associated with AMI. Chart reviews were then conducted to confirm the cases. The performance of the developed algorithms for STEMI and NSTEMI was assessed and subsequently externally validated. Results: The algorithm that defined STEMI as any STEMI ICD code in the first three diagnosis fields had the highest performance, with a sensitivity of 93.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.7– 95.2%), a positive predictive value (PPV) of 89.4% (95% CI, 87.1– 91.4%), and a kappa of 0.914 (95% CI, 0.900– 0.928). The algorithm that used the NSTEMI ICD code listed in any diagnosis field performed best in identifying NSTEMI, with a sensitivity of 82.6% (95% CI, 80.7– 84.4%), a PPV of 96.5% (95% CI, 95.4– 97.4), and a kappa of 0.889 (95% CI, 0.878– 0.901). The algorithm that included either STEMI or NSTEMI ICD codes listed in any diagnosis field showed excellent performance in defining AMI, with a sensitivity of 89.4% (95% CI, 88.2– 90.6%), a PPV of 95.6% (95% CI, 94.7– 96.4%), and a kappa of 0.923 (95% CI, 0.915– 0.931). External validation confirmed these algorithms’ efficacy. Conclusion: Our results provide valuable reference algorithms for identifying STEMI and NSTEMI cases in Taiwan’s NHI database.

Background and Objectives: Systemic analgesics, including opioids, are commonly used for acute pain control in traumatic hip fracture patients in the emergency department (ED). However, their use is associated with high rates of adverse reactions in the geriatric population. As such, the aim of this study was to investigate the impact of lidocaine-based single-shot ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block (USFNB) on the standard care for acute pain management in geriatric patients with traumatic hip fracture in the ED. Methods: This retrospective, single-center, observational study included adult patients aged ≥60 years presenting with acute traumatic hip fracture in the ED between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2020. The primary outcome measure was the difference in the amount of opioid use, in terms of morphine milligram equivalents (MME), between lidocaine-based single-shot USFNB and standard care groups. The obtained data were evaluated through a time-to-event analysis (time to meaningful pain relief), a time course analysis, and a multivariable analysis. Results: Overall, 607 adult patients (USFNB group, 66; standard care group, 541) were included in the study. The patients in the USFNB group required 80% less MME than those in the standard care group (0.52 ± 1.47 vs. 2.57 ± 2.53, p < 0.001). The multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models showed that patients who received USFNB achieved meaningful pain relief 2.37-fold faster (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.37, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 1.73–3.24, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In geriatric patients with hip fractures, a lidocaine-based single-shot USFNB can significantly reduce opioid consumption and provide more rapid and effective pain reduction.

Introduction: Regional anesthesia (RA) has become a prominent component of multimodal pain management in emergency medicine (EM), and its use has increased rapidly in recent decades. Nevertheless, there is a paucity of data on how RA practice has evolved in the specialty. In this study we sought to investigate how RA has been implemented in EM by analyzing trends of published articles and to describe the characteristics of the published research. Methods: We retrieved RA-related publications from the SciVerse Scopus database from inception to January 13, 2022, focusing on studies associated with the use of RA in EM. The primary outcome was an analysis of trend based on the number of annual publications. Other outcomes included reports of technique diversity by year, trends in the use of individual techniques, and characteristics of published articles. We used linear regression analysis to analyze trends. Results: In total, 133 eligible publications were included. We found that overall 23 techniques have been described and results published in the EM literature. Articles related to RA increased from one article in 1982 to 18 in 2021, and the rate of publication has increased more rapidly since 2016. Reports of lower extremity blocks (60.90%) were published most frequently in ranked-first aggregated citations. The use of thoracic nerve blocks, such as the erector spinae plane block, has increased exponentially in the past three years. The United States (41.35%) has published the most RA-related articles. Regional anesthesia administered by emergency physicians (52.63%) comprised the leading field in published articles related to RA. Most publications discussed single-shot (88.72%) and ultrasound-guided methods (55.64%). Conclusion: This study highlights that the number of published articles related to regional anesthesia in EM has increased. Although RA research has primarily focused on lower extremity blocks, clinical researchers continue to broaden the field of study to encompass a wide spectrum of techniques and indications.

Background and objectives: Trials to evaluate the effect and safety of rapid and gradual urinary decompression have been published for decades. Due to inconclusive results, this study aimed to assess whether rapid bladder decompression increased complications in adults with acute urinary retention. Materials and Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and PubMed databases for articles published from the database inception to 31 August 2021. Studies that compared the effects and complication rates of rapid and gradual urinary decompression in adults with acute urinary retention were included. The primary outcome was post-decompression hematuria, while the secondary outcome was circulatory collapse. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models. Sensitivity analyses, tests for publication bias, and trial sequential analyses were conducted. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42021233457. Results: Overall, four articles were included in the comprehensive analysis, and 435 participants met all the eligibility criteria. In the primary meta-analysis of all four study groups, rapid urinary decompression did not increase the risk of post-decompression hematuria (RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.35; p = 0.642). The I² statistic was 0.0% (p = 0.732), indicating no substantial heterogeneity. In the meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies, the result did not change (RR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.31 to 2.52; p = 0.824). The Egger’s test and Begg test (p = 0.339 and 0.497, respectively) indicated the absence of statistical evidence of publication bias. Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was conducted and showed the pooled results were robust. In secondary outcome, there were no reported events of circulatory collapse in the current studies. Conclusions: The currently available data suggest that rapid urinary decompression is an effective and safe method with a complication rate similar to that of gradual decompression in an acute urinary retention population. Further large-scale randomized studies are required.