Search

• Delirium in older adults at the ED predicts a notably high 3-month mortality rate. • Recognizing high-risk individuals and enhancing post-discharge monitoring could lower mortality. • Factors like low mean arterial pressure, low body temperature, elevated respiratory rate, prior delirium history, and malignancy presence may signal heightened 3-month mortality risk. Delirium is a common and serious neuropsychiatric syndrome characterized by acute changes in attention, cognition, and consciousness. It is frequently encountered in various clinical settings, including critical care units and postoperative care, and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Understanding the factors contributing to delirium-related mortality is crucial for improving patient outcomes and healthcare practices. However, the factors associated with mortality in delirium have not been well-defined in the literature. This study aimed to identify factors influencing 3-month mortality in older adults with delirium presenting to the emergency department (ED). The study was conducted prospectively and delirium was screened using the brief Confusion Assesment Method (bCAM). The primary outcome was 3-month mortality. Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square tests compared groups, Spearman correlation analyzed correlations, and multivariate logistic regression identified risk factors. Among 243 patients, 29.6% experienced in-hospital mortality, and 56.4% had 3-month mortality. Factors associated with increased mortality risk included prior delirium history (3.32-fold increase, 95%CI: 1.51-7.30), active malignancy (3.49-fold increase, 95%CI: 1.61-7.56) and increased respiratory rate (1.18-fold increase, 95%CI: 1.08-1.29). An increase in mean arterial pressure (MAP) was associated with a 0.98-fold decrease in mortality risk (95%CI: 0.96-0.99), increase in body temperature was associated with a 0.48-fold decrease in mortality risk (95%CI:0.31-0.76). In delirious older adults at the ED, higher respiratory rate, lower MAP, lower body temperature, active malignancy and prior delirium history signal elevated mortality risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study was aimed to compare the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) scoring systems for diagnosing sepsis and predicting mortality and morbidity.Patients and Methods: A prospective study was designed. qSOFA, SIRS, and NEWS scores were calculated at the admission. The diagnosis of sepsis was made with SOFA scoring initially. The morbidity and mortality of the patients were identified during follow-up. Also, the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of three scoring systems were calculated. The scoring systems were compared with ROC analysis.Results: A total of 463 patients were evaluated. There were 287 (62.0%) patients diagnosed with sepsis, and septic shock occurred in 64 (13.8%) of patients. Seven-day mortality rate was 8.4% (n = 39), 30-day mortality rate was 18.1% (n = 84). The sensitivity for qSOFA, SIRS, and NEWS for diagnosis of sepsis was 23%, 77%, 58%, and specificity was 99%, 35%, 81% respectively. The sensitivity of the qSOFA, SIRS and NEWS scoring systems for mortality was 39%, 82%, 77% and specificity 91%, 29%, and 64%, respectively. AUROC values for mortality detected as NEWS = 0.772, qSOFA = 0.758, SIRS = 0.542. According to the ROC analysis, the SIRS system was significantly less useful than the qSOFA and NEWS system in the diagnosis of sepsis and mortality (p < 0.0001).Conclusion: NEWS and qSOFA scoring systems have similar prognosis in both diagnosing sepsis and predicting mortality and both are superior to SIRS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Fever is one of the frequent reasons for admission to the emergency department. Studies comparing oral forms of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and paracetamol with intravenous (IV) forms for fever are common in the literature. Our study is the first emergency department study comparing IV forms of ibuprofen and paracetamol in the treatment of febrile patients.Methods: A randomized, double-blind study was conducted in a tertiary university emergency department for a six-month period. Patients aged 18-65 years who had a fever of ≥38.0 °C were included. Patients were administered 400 mg of IV ibuprofen and 1000 mg of IV paracetamol. The primary aim of the study was to determine whether there was a difference in the effect of the two drugs on fever. The secondary aim was to investigate whether there was a difference in terms of numeric rating scale (NRS) measurements and the need for additional antipyretic therapy.Results: A total of 200 people, 100 of whom were female, were included in the study. The mean age was 30.77 ± 10.61 years. The mean initial temperature for ibuprofen and paracetamol was 38.79 ± 0.470 °C and 38.70 ± 0.520 °C, respectively, with no difference noted between the groups (p = 0.380). It was found that both drugs significantly provided fever control in the first 30 min (p < 0.001), with no difference between them in terms of fever reduction (p = 0.980). Both drugs significantly improved in accompanying symptoms, although both drugs did not show superiority to each other (p = 0.0226). When evaluated in terms of a need for rescue medication, no significant difference was found between the two drugs (p = 0.404). No side effects were encountered during the study.Conclusion: In adult age group patients admitted to the emergency department with high fever, the IV forms of 1000 mg paracetamol and 400 mg ibuprofen effectively and equally reduce complaints, such as fever and accompanying pain. They can be effectively used as each other's rescue medicine and as an alternative to each other in patients with comorbid diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]