Objective: Falls are a leading cause of traumatic brain injury in older adults, with ground-level falls being the most common mechanism. Despite the increasing use of head computed tomography (CT) in older adults with ground-level falls, there is an ongoing debate regarding the necessity of routine neuroimaging in all cases. The falls decision rule was developed to safely exclude clinically important intracranial bleeding without head CT in older adults. This study aims to validate the falls decision rule externally and assess its accuracy in identifying low-risk patients while reducing unnecessary imaging. Methods: This prospective cohort study at a Level-1 trauma center enrolled consecutive patients aged ≥ 65 years presenting within 48 h of a ground-level fall. Patient management, including the decision to perform head CT, was determined independently by the treating emergency physician. Patients were followed up for 42 days to identify clinically important intracranial bleeding cases. The rule’s diagnostic performance was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values using 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: A total of 800 patients were included, with a median age of 78 years (IQR 72–85), and 59.9% were female. Clinically important intracranial bleeding was identified in 6.1% (n = 49) of patients. Head CT was performed in 67.6% of cases, identifying 43 initial hemorrhages, with six additional cases detected during follow-ups. The falls decision rule demonstrated 97.9% sensitivity (95% CI 89.1–99.9), 31.9% specificity (95% CI 28.6–35.4), and 99.5% negative predictive value (95% CI 97.1–99.9), potentially reducing CTs by one-third. Conclusion: This validation confirms the falls decision rule’s high sensitivity and negative predictive value for identifying low-risk older adults after ground-level falls, potentially reducing unnecessary CT scans by approximately one-third. This approach could alleviate ED overcrowding and resource strain while ensuring diagnostic safety.

Objective: The aim of this study was head-to-head comparison of the efficacy and rate of adverse events of metoclopramide, ibuprofen and dexketoprofen for the acute treatment of migraine attack in the real-life conditions of a busy emergency department (ED).Methods: This was a prospective, observational, cross-sectional study. All patients who presented to the ED with a headache fulfilling the inclusion criteria were enrolled. All patients were treated by the attending emergency physicians in their daily routine. If an IV treatment in the ED was found indicated by the EP, they selected one of the options in the written departmental migraine treatment protocol.Results: During the study period, 54 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median change in the pain score was significantly different among treatment options (p<0.0001). The median pain score change at the end of the 30 minutes for treatment groups were 7.5 mm (IQR: 7.0-8.0), 5.0 mm (IQR: 4.75-7.0), and 7.0 mm (IQR: 6.0-7.25), respectively (p=0.0002). All three groups were found to be significantly different from each other in the post-hoc analysis.Conclusion: All drugs compared in this study are effective in the relief of migraine headache. However, IV dexketoprofen seems to be faster and more effective than metoclopramide and ibuprofen.doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.342.13815How to cite this:Karacabey S, Sanri E, Yalcinli S, Akoglu H. Which is more effective for the treatment of Acute Migraine Attack: Dexketoprofen, Ibuprofen or Metoclopramide?. Pak J Med Sci. 2018;34(2):418-423.

Objective/Aim: We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utility of the widely used left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) electrocardiography (ECG) criteria (Cornell Voltage Criteria [CVC], Sokolow-Lyon Index [SLI], Romhilt-Estes [REC], and Peguero-Lo Presti [PLP] Criteria) compared with the left ventricular mass measured by echocardiography. Methods: In this prospective diagnostic accuracy study, we screened all consecutive adults (18 to 65 years) who presented to our academic emergency department (ED) with increased blood pressure (≥130/85 mmHg) between January 2016 and January 2017, and we enrolled a convenience sample of 165 patients in our study. The attending emergency physician managed all patients as per their primary complaint. The consulting cardiologist performed a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) of the patient and calculated the left ventricular mass (LVM) according to the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) formula. After completing the patient recruitment phase, researchers evaluated all ECGs and calculated scores for SLI, CVC, REC, and PLP. We used contingency tables to calculate the diagnostic utility metrics of all ECG criteria. Results: The prevalence of LVH by TTE was 31.5%. CVC, SLI, REC, and PLP criteria correctly identified (true positive rate) abnormal LVM in only 3.9%, 1.9%, 9.6%, and 19.2% of the patients, respectively. CVC, SLI, REC score and PLP criteria performed poorly with extremely low sensitivities (3.9%, 1.9%, 10%, 19.2%) and poor accuracies (67.3%, 64.9%, 57.7%, 69.7%). Conclusion: ECG voltage criteria's clinical utility in estimating LVM and LVH is low, and it should not be used for this purpose.

Objective: To evaluate the correlation between central venous

The primary aim of this study was to report the vital signs, hemodynamic parameters and pain scores of the patients who have received procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) with either ketofol (combination of ketamine and propofol) or etofen (combination of etomidate and fentanyl) and compare the proportion of patients with airway or respiratory adverse events (AEs) requiring an intervention and calculate the relative risk of AEs with each combination. This study is a prospective observational study with survey analysis. All patients received procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) with either ketofol (combination of ketamine and propofol) or etofen (combination of etomidate and fentanyl) were prospectively observed. Vital and hemodynamic parameters and pain scores of the patients were recorded by automated equipment and visual analog scale (VAS) charts. 112 patients were enrolled, 55 received ketofol and 57 received etofen. All patients with a respiratory AE (n = 27) observed to receive a respiratory intervention. Respiratory AE rate and proportion of patient who required a respiratory intervention were significantly higher with ketofol (p = 0.0029). Overall AE rate, and rates of desaturation, emergence reaction were also significantly higher in ketofol group. Etofen is a promising combination for the PSA of adult patients with lower respiratory AE and intervention rates and with better hemodynamic profile.