Accuracy of emergency physicians' interpretation of computed tomography for urgent-emergent diagnoses in nontraumatic cases.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy levels of the emergency physicians (EPs) managing the patient in the interpretation of the urgent-emergent pathological findings in thoracic and abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans. METHODS: The EPs interpreted the CT scans of patients who visited the emergency department because of nontraumatic causes. Then, a radiology instructor made final assessments of these CT scans. Based on the interpretation of the radiology instructor, the false-positive rate, false-negative rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and kappa coefficient (κ) of the EPs' interpretations of the CT scans were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 268 thoracics and 185 abdominal CT scans were assessed in our study. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the EPs' interpretation of the thoracic CT scans were 90% and 89%, respectively, whereas the abdominal CT interpretation was 88% and 86%, respectively. There was excellent concordance between the EPs and the radiology instructor with regard to the diagnoses of pneumothorax, pulmonary embolism, pleural effusion, parenchymal pathology, and masses (κ: 0.90, κ: 0.87, κ: 0.71, κ: 0.79, and κ: 0.91, respectively) and to the diagnoses of intraabdominal free fluid, intraabdominal free gas, aortic pathology, splenic pathology, gallbladder pathology, mesenteric artery embolism, appendicitis, gynecological pathology, and renal pathology (κ: 1, κ: 0.92, κ: 0.96, κ: 0.88, κ: 0.80, κ: 0.79, κ: 0.89, κ: 0.88, and κ: 0.82, respectively). CONCLUSION: The EPs are successful in the interpretation of the urgent-emergent pathological findings in thoracic and abdominal CT scans.

Comparison of ETCO2 Value and Blood Gas PCO2 Value of Patients Receiving Non-invasive Mechanical Ventilation Treatment in Emergency Department.

Capnography is the non-invasive measurement and graphic representation of the partial pressure of CO2 in expiration. Although there are many studies in the literature comparing the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2) and end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2) values in patients who underwent IMV (invasive mechanical ventilation), there are no studies showing their interchangeable applicability in patients who received NIMV (non-IMV). We aimed to evaluate whether the use of ETCO2 in the treatment process can replace pCO2 use in patients scheduled for NIMV treatment in the emergency department. Patients who applied to the emergency department with respiratory distress between March 2019 and January 2020, who were diagnosed with acute cardiogenic edema or acute chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation, and who needed NIMV were included in the study. General characteristics of the patients and the pCO2 and ETCO2 values were measured in the blood gas 1 h after the NIMV application was started. 64.2% (99 patients) of the patients included in the study were male, and 35.8% (55 patients) were female. The mean age of the patients included in the study was 69.1 ± 12.2 years. The mean pCO2 values ​​were measured as 52.6 ± 13.2. The mean of ETCO2 values ​​measured simultaneously was 33.6 ± 10.1. There was a significant difference between the controlled pCO2 values ​​and ETCO2 values ​​at the first hour of NIMV treatment (Z: - 10.640, p < 0.001). The ETCO2 level was found to be different in our patients who received NIMV treatment, which could not be used instead of the pCO2 level.