The American journal of emergency medicine
-
Review Meta Analysis
Prevalence of intra-abdominal injury among patients with seatbelt signs, a systematic review and meta-analysis.
The advancement of seat belts have been essential to reducing morbidity and mortality related to motor vehicle collisions (MVCs). The "seat belt sign" (SBS) is an important physical exam finding that has guided management for decades. This study, comprising a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis, asses the current literature for the likelihood of the SBS relating to intra-abdominal injury and surgical intervention. ⋯ This meta-analysis suggests that the presence of a SBS was associated with a statistically significant higher likelihood of intra-abdominal injury and need for surgical intervention. The study had high heterogeneity, likely due to the technological advancements over the course of this study, including seat belt design and diagnostic imaging sensitivity. Further studies with more recent data are needed to confirm these results.
-
To compare the effectiveness and safety of ketamine and morphine in adult patients with acute pain in emergency department (ED) by using a meta-analysis method. ⋯ Ketamine had better analgesic effects in the early stages after treatment, while morphine maintained more durable effects. Compared with morphine, ketamine had a lower incidence of adverse events requiring intervention. The results of subgroup analysis showed that intravenous administration of ketamine was more effective than intranasal administration.
-
This review aims to evaluate current practices regarding spine immobilization in pediatric trauma patients to evaluate their efficacy, reliability, and impact on clinical outcomes to guide future research and improved evidence-based practice guidelines. ⋯ Immobilized pediatric patients underwent more cervical radiographs, and had higher hospital and ICU admission rates, and higher mean pain scores than those without immobilization. Immobilization was inconsistent across age groups and often resulted in lapses and improper alignment. Further research is needed to identify the most appropriate immobilization techniques for pediatric patients and when to use them.
-
Multicenter Study Observational Study
Real-world comparison between mechanical and manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant challenges to healthcare systems worldwide, including an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA). Healthcare providers are now required to use personal protective equipment (PPE) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Additionally, mechanical CPR devices have been introduced to reduce the number of personnel required for resuscitation. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of CPR performed with a mechanical device and the outcomes of manual CPR performed by personnel wearing PPE. ⋯ This study found no significant differences in survival rates and neurological outcomes between mechanical CPR and PPE-equipped manual CPR in the ED setting. However, a longer total CPR duration was observed in the mechanical CPR group. Further research is required to explore the impact of PPE on healthcare providers' performance and fatigue during CPR in the context of the pandemic and beyond.