Suicidal ideation and sobriety: Should acute alcohol intoxication be taken into account for psychiatric evaluation?

BACKGROUND: When evaluating an emergency department (ED) patient who presents with suicidal ideation, it is a common practice to wait until the patient's ethanol level is known or calculated to be less than 80 mg/dl to evaluate patient safety. We know of no study that establishes an association between the degree of alcohol intoxication based on a blood alcohol level (BAL) and reported suicidal ideation (SI) upon recovery. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients evaluated in a Midwestern ED for the calendar year 2017. Cases were selected if they had a psychiatric social work consult and a blood alcohol level drawn while in the ED. Patients were selected on the same 2 days each week throughout the year to meet the sample size requirements of the study, resulting in 1084 cases for review. Chi-square analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between suicidal ideation and alcohol intoxication as defined by a BAL ≥80 mg/dl. RESULTS: Among patients presenting with suicidal ideation and a concurrent BAL ≥80 mg/dl, 69% no longer reported suicidal ideation when their BAL was <80 mg/dl, compared to 38% for patients without a positive BAL on presentation (chi-square, p = 0.000012). CONCLUSION: Our data show that patients presenting to the ED with complaints related to suicidal behavior who have a BAL ≥80 mg/dl are more likely to no longer endorse having suicidal ideation once their BAL is < 80 mg/dl than patients with similar presenting complaints and no alcohol intoxication. This finding supports the common ED practice of re-assessing suicidal ideation among individuals who are initially intoxicated once their BAL has decreased below 80 mg/dl.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among patients in two urban emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: Widespread vaccination is an essential component of the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic, yet vaccine hesitancy remains pervasive. This prospective survey investigation aimed to measure the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy in a patient cohort at two urban emergency departments (EDs) and characterize underlying factors contributing to hesitancy. METHODS: Adult ED patients with stable clinical status (Emergency Severity Index 3-5) and without active COVID-19 disease or altered mental status were considered for participation. Demographic elements were collected as well as reported barriers/concerns related to vaccination and trusted sources of health information. Data were collected in person via a survey instrument proctored by trained research assistants. RESULTS: A total of 1,555 patients were approached, and 1,068 patients completed surveys (completion rate = 68.7%). Mean (±SD) age was 44.1 (±15.5) years (range = 18-93 years), 61% were female, and 70% were Black. A total of 31.6% of ED patients reported vaccine hesitancy. Of note, 19.7% of the hesitant cohort were health care workers. In multivariable regression analysis, Black race (odds ratio [OR] = 4.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.62 to 6.85) and younger age (age 18-24 years-OR = 4.57, 95% CI = 2.66 to 7.86; age 25-35 years-OR = 5.71, 95% CI = 3.71 to 8.81) were independently associated with hesitancy, to a greater degree than level of education (high school education or less-OR = 2.27, 95% CI = 1.23 to 4.19). Hesitant patients were significantly less likely to trust governmental sources of vaccine information than nonhesitant patients (39.6% vs. 78.9%, p < 0.001); less difference was noted in the domain of trust toward friends/family (51.1% vs. 61.0%, p = 0.004). Hesitant patients also reported perceived vaccine safety concerns and perceived insufficient research. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine hesitancy is common among ED patients and more common among Black and younger patients, independent of education level. Hesitant patients report perceived safety concerns and low trust in government information sources but less so friends or family. This suggests that strategies to combat hesitancy may need tailoring to specific populations.

Update on Neurological Manifestations of SARS-CoV-2.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the source of COVID-19, causes numerous clinical findings including respiratory and gastrointestinal findings. Evidence is now growing for increasing neurological symptoms. This is thought to be from direct in-situ effects in the olfactory bulb caused by the virus. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors likely serve as a key receptor for cell entry for most coronaviridae as they are present in multiple organ tissues in the body, notably neurons, and in type 2 alveolar cells in the lung. Hematogenous spread to the nervous system has been described, with viral transmission along neuronal synapses in a retrograde fashion. The penetration of the virus to the central nervous system (CNS) allows for the resulting intracranial cytokine storm, which can result in a myriad of CNS complications. There have been reported cases of associated cerebrovascular accidents with large vessel occlusions, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, meningoencephalitis, acute necrotizing encephalopathy, epilepsy, and myasthenia gravis. Peripheral nervous system effects such as hyposmia, hypogeusia, ophthalmoparesis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and motor peripheral neuropathy have also been reported. In this review, we update the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 concentrating on the neurological associations that have been described, including broad ranges in both central and peripheral nervous systems.

Acute transverse myelitis associated with SARS-CoV-2: A Case-Report.

•The third case of acute transverse myelitis due to SARS-CoV-2 reported in the world.•Possible inflammatory complications affecting the myelin in spinal cord.•We must be vigilant of the critical neurological illnesses associated with COVID-19.