Is Atropine Necessary for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation?

PURPOSE: According to the 2010 guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) of the American Heart association, administration of atropine for non-shockable rhythm is no longer recommended, however, there are insufficient data in humans. This study was conducted to evaluate the results of CPR, whether the combined administration of atropine and epinephrine (Atropine combined group, AG) compared with epinephrine only injection (epinephrine only group, EG) for patients with non-shockable rhythm. METHODS: A total of 449 patients who underwent CPR in the emergency department from 2009 to 2012 were included. Retrospective analysis was performed according to atropine administration during CPR. We investigated Return of Spontaneous Circulation (ROSC), sustained ROSC, 30-day survival, and 30-day neurological outcome using Utstein templates. RESULTS: There were 178 (48.9%) patients in the AG. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics. The two groups had similar rates of ROSC, sustained ROSC, and 30-day survival. However, AG had a significantly poor neurological outcome compared to EG, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.074 (95% CI 0.012-0.452, p=0.005). CONCLUSION: The combination therapy of atropine and epinephrine during CPR showed poor neurological outcome compared with epinephrine alone. Atropine is not useful for adults with non-shockable rhythm in terms of 30-day neurological outcome.

Characteristics of Geriatric Trauma Patients Transferred from Long-term Care Hospitals: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

PURPOSE: Transfer from long-term care (LTC) hospitals to the emergency department (ED) of larger hospitals has increased due to limited capability for management of patients needing special diagnostic tools or emergency treatment in the LTC hospital. We investigated the characteristics of geriatric trauma patients transferred from LTC hospitals to the ED. METHODS: A retrospective analysis included data on geriatric trauma patients (age> or =65) who visited two EDs in Korea. All data of patients transferred from the LTC hospital were compared with those of patients who visited the ED from home. Patients visiting from home were selected according to age, sex, and main diagnosis, using the statistical matching method. RESULTS: A total of 44 patients were transferred, and 132 patients were selected after matching. No differences in mechanism of injury, injury severity score (ISS), outcomes, transfusion, length of hospital stay, or mortality were observed between the two groups. The odds ratios (OR) of transferred patients for stroke and dementia were 5.027 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.292-16.915) and 13.941 (95% CI: 5.112-38.015), respectively. In addition, the OR of transferred patients for dependent activities of daily living was 8.165 (95% CI: 2.886-23.104). Thirty five transferred patients (79.5%) had been injured in the LTC hospital (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The transferred patients had more stroke, dementia, and dependent activities, but showed no significant difference in severity or prognosis. Most transferred patients had been injured in the hospital. Greater attention to hospitalized patients and system development are required in order to prevent injuries in the LTC hospital.

Usefulness of the Pediatric Risk of Mortality Score III as a Predictor of Severity or Mortality for Injured Children

PURPOSE: The primary prevention and proper initial treatment of childhood injuries is important, as it encompasses a bigger social and economic burden than cancer and ischemic heart disease. The Pediatric Risk of Mortality III (PRISM III) scoring system, used to evaluate the severity or mortality of pediatric patients in critical condition, was investigated for children with injuries in an emergency department (ED). METHODS: A retrospective analysis included data on 293 injured children (age<16) who visited the ED in two hospitals from March 2010 to February 2012. Physiologic and laboratory data were collected to calculate the PRISM III score and the Injury Severity Score (ISS). The correlation was analyzed between PRISM III scores, the Revised Trauma Scale (RTS), and ISS. The PRISM III score and ISS were assessed for their ability to predict mortality by comparing their receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: The median PRISM III score was 5.0 (Interquartile Range, 5.0-9.0) and correlated with RTS and ISS (the Spearman's rho were -0.19 (p=0.001) and 0.20 (p=0.001), respectively. Five children did not survive after ED admission. The area under the ROC (AUC) was 1.00 for PRISM III (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.00), and the cutoff value was placed over 20 to predict mortality. The AUC of ISS and RTS was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00), respectively. CONCLUSION: The PRISM III score excellently predicts the mortality of injured children in the ED, and can be used to sort minor pediatric trauma patients in the ED. However, the PRISM III score had no great difference or advantage compared with RTS. The development of other tools for effective prognosis is needed to efficiently predict mortality and severity in the ED.