Diagnostic accuracy of adropin as a preliminary test to exclude acute pulmonary embolism: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of adropin as a biomarker to exclude the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: Patients admitted to the emergency department of a tertiary health centre between August 2019 and August 2020 and diagnosed with PE were included in this prospective cohort study. The amount of serum adropin was determined in patients with (PE) and compared with that of healthy volunteers. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed with the obtained data, and the area under the curve (AUC) with a 95% confidence interval was determined. The parameters of diagnostic accuracy for PE were determined. RESULTS: A total of 57 participants were included in the study (28 controls and 29 PE patients). The mean adropin level in the PE group was 187.33 ± 62.40 pg/ml, which was significantly lower than that in the control group (524.06 ± 421.68 pg/ml) (p < 0.001). When the optimal adropin cut-off value was 213.78 pg/ml, the likelihood ratio of the adropin test was 3.4, and the sensitivity of the adropin test at this value was 82% with specificity of 75% (95% CI; AUC: 0.821). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that adropin may be considered for further study as a candidate marker for the exclusion of the diagnosis of PE. However, more research is required to verify and support the generalizability of our study results.

Contribution of neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio to the diagnostic efficiency of computed tomography and polymerase chain reaction in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: 6.5% of the country's population was diagnosed with COVID-19 disease. Computed tomography scanning and polymerase chain reaction tests are considered reliable methods for the detection of COVID-19. However, the specificity and reliability of polymerase chain reaction tests and ground-glass opacity (GGO) on thorax computed tomography images in diagnosing COVID-19 are still being disputed. Our aim was to compare the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, whose efficiency in differentiating between viral and bacterial infections has previously been studied, with computed tomography and polymerase chain reaction for COVID-19 diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study that included patients treated in a tertiary care hospital emergency service pandemic polyclinic between 14 March and 1 June 2020. The neutrophil/lymphocyte ratios of patients with polymerase chain reaction tests and ground-glass opacities on computed tomography were calculated. The neutrophil/lymphocyte ratios of polymerase chain reaction-negative patients with computed tomography images were compared with the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratios of polymerase chain reaction-positive patients with computed tomography images. RESULTS: A total of 631 patients were included in this study. Thorax computed tomography scans were obtained from all patients. The mean neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio of patients with ground-glass opacities was 3.50 ± 2.12, whereas that of patients without ground-glass opacities was 2.90 ± 2.01. This difference was also statistically significant. Polymerase chain reaction swab samples were obtained from 282 patients (44.7%). The mean neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio of polymerase chain reaction-positive patients was 2.38 ± 1.02, whereas that of polymerase chain reaction-negative patients was 3.97 ± 2.25. The difference was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Many studies are undoubtedly required to determine the efficiency of the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio in COVID-19 diagnosis. However, we postulate that evaluating the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio along with computed tomography and polymerase chain reaction can assist in the diagnosis of patients.

Comparison of topical capsaicin and topical piroxicam in the treatment of acute trauma-induced pain: A randomized double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of topical capsaicin and topical piroxicam in acute musculoskeletal injuries. METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blinded study. The data for the 67 patients in the piroxicam group and the 69 in the capsaicin group were examined. The initial visual analog scale (VAS) scores were compared with the 60th and 120th minute as well as the 24th and 72nd hour values. Differences between the VAS scores, clinical effectiveness of the treatment and side effects were evaluated. RESULTS: In the capsaicin group, the mean difference in the delta VAS scores was significantly higher at each measurement time. The mean of the percentage of reduction in the VAS scores of the topical capsaicin group was significantly higher than that in the topical piroxicam group. The highest difference in terms of both outcomes was determined at the 72nd hour VAS change. Mean differences were 1.53 (95% CI: 0.85-2.221) and 19.7 (95% CI: 12.4-27.2) respectively (p < 0.001). In the capsaicin group, the clinical effect of the treatment was found significantly higher (p < 0.01). The difference between the clinical effectiveness of the groups regarding the treatment outcomes was also statistically significant (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the patient groups regarding the presence of side effects. CONCLUSION: Topical capsaicin can be used as an alternative to topical piroxicam initially and at follow-up in patients presenting to the emergency department with acute pain as there were no observable differences in side-effects between the two groups.

The predictive value of the inflammatory markers P-selectin and MCP1 in determining the length of stay and 30-day survival in the differentiation of sepsis patients.

OBJECTIVE: Sepsis is the leading disease that is diagnosed late and still has a mortal course in emergency departments. The primary factors that will reduce both morbidity and mortality are early diagnosis and an early treatment approach. Therefore, in this study, P-selectin and MCP1 levels, which are known to be markers of inflammation, were examined in patients being followed up in intensive care. METHODS: Patients evaluated with a preliminary diagnosis of sepsis in the emergency intensive care unit between September 2015 and August 2016 were classified as having sepsis or infection according to the Q- SOFA criteria, and the P- selectin values were compared. RESULTS: In the sepsis group, GCS was determined as 13 (12-13), SBP 90 (80-110), tachypnea 24 (22-26), lactate 3.8 (0.6-16.0), MAP 70 (60-77), and LOS 16 days (9.5-20.3). In the ROC analysis, the sensitivity of P-selectin and MCP1 in the differentiation of patients with and without sepsis was 95.7%, and 73.8%, and the specificity was 97.8% and 73.8%, respectively. According to the cutoff values, the sensitivity and specificity in the prediction of patient mortality were 71.4% and 65.6% in P- selectin and 78.6% and 65.6% in MCP1. CONCLUSIONS: The P-selectin and MCP1 values in the emergency department can differentiate sepsis patients according to the Q-SOFA criteria and showed 30-day mortality at a significant level. Therefore, in patients with suspected sepsis in an emergency department, MCP1 can be of benefit to physicians in their decisions regarding LOS and transfer to intensive care.

Prognostic value of neglected biomarker in sepsis patients with the old and new criteria: predictive role of lactate dehydrogenase.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the pH, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and heart rate values on the first day of hospitalization in patients with a prediagnosis of sepsis and biomarkers that may predict mortality. METHODS: Patients hospitalized in an emergency intensive care unit with a diagnosis of systemic inflammatory response syndrome were classified as having sepsis (n = 28), septic shock (n = 8), or severe sepsis (n = 8) according to International Sepsis Guidelines (old criteria). Forty-four patients were classified as having sepsis (n = 4), septic shock (n = 30), or infection (n = 10) according to The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (new criteria). The effects of these patients' laboratory values on survival between groups were compared. Significant values were evaluated by χ2 automatic interaction detection analysis. RESULTS: When the patients were categorized according to the new classification criteria, there was an increase in the number of septic shock patients and a decrease in the number of sepsis patients. In addition, 10 patients were removed from the sepsis category. There was a significant difference between ex and discharged patients in terms of heart rate, pH, sodium bicarbonate, lactate, and LDH (P= .007, P= .002, P= .034, P= .009, and P= .002, respectively). Based on a χ2 automatic interaction detection analysis of the significant values, pH, LDH, and heart rate were prominent predictors of prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic pH, LDH, and heart rate values may be used to determine the best time to discharge patients from intensive care to other, more affordable hospital units.