Search

Aims: Transthoracic echocardiography is recommended in all patients with acute coronary syndrome but is time-consuming and lacks an evidence base. We aimed to assess the feasibility, diagnostic accuracy, and time efficiency of hand-held echocardiography in patients with acute coronary syndrome and describe the impact of echocardiography on clinical management in this setting., Methods and Results: Patients with acute coronary syndrome underwent both hand-held and transthoracic echocardiographies with agreement between key imaging parameters assessed using kappa statistics. The immediate clinical impact of hand-held echocardiography in this population was systematically evaluated. Overall, 262 patients (65 ± 12 years, 71% male) participated. Agreement between hand-held and transthoracic echocardiographies was good-to-excellent (kappa 0.60-1.00) with hand-held echocardiography having an overall negative predictive value of 95%. Hand-held echocardiography was performed rapidly (7.7 ± 1.6 min) and completed a median of 5 (interquartile range 3-20) h earlier than transthoracic echocardiography. Systematic hand-held echocardiography in all patients with acute coronary syndrome identified an important cardiac abnormality in 50%, and the clinical management plan was changed by echocardiography in 42%. In 85% of cases, hand-held echocardiography was sufficient for patient decision-making, and transthoracic echocardiography was no longer deemed necessary., Conclusion: In patients with acute coronary syndrome, hand-held echocardiography provides comparable results to transthoracic echocardiography, can be more rapidly applied, and gives sufficient imaging information for decision-making in the vast majority of patients. Systematic echocardiography has clinical impact in half of patients, supporting the clinical utility of echocardiography in this population and providing an evidence base for current guidelines., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None declared., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Death during international travel and the repatriation of human remains to one's home country is a distressing and expensive process. Much organization is required involving close liaison between various agencies., Methods: A review of the literature was conducted using the PubMed database. Search terms included: 'repatriation of remains', 'death', 'abroad', 'tourism', 'travel', 'travellers', 'travelling' and 'repatriation'. Additional articles were obtained from grey literature sources and reference lists., Results: The local national embassy, travel insurance broker and tour operator are important sources of information to facilitate the repatriation of the deceased traveller. Formal identification of the deceased's remains is required and a funeral director must be appointed. Following this, the coroner in the country or jurisdiction receiving the repatriated remains will require a number of documents prior to providing clearance for burial. Costs involved in repatriating remains must be borne by the family of the deceased although travel insurance may help defray some of the costs. If the death is secondary to an infectious disease, cremation at the site of death is preferred. No standardized procedure is in place to deal with the remains of a migrant's body at present and these remains are often not repatriated to their country of origin., Conclusions: Repatriation of human remains is a difficult task which is emotionally challenging for the bereaving family and friends. As a travel medicine practitioner, it is prudent to discuss all eventualities, including the risk of death, during the pre-travel consultation. Awareness of the procedures involved in this process may ease the burden on the grieving family at a difficult time., (© International Society of Travel Medicine, 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com)