SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: While abdominal pain is one of the most prevalent reasons for seeking medical attention, diagnosing elderly adults with acute appendicitis (AA) may be difficult. In this study, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) and Alvarado ratings were evaluated for diagnostic accuracy in patients who reported to the emergency department complaining of abdominal pain and received surgery for AA. METHODS: The data of patients over the age of 65 years who reported to the ER and had appendectomy after being diagnosed with AA were evaluated in this retrospective cohort study. For each patient, the diagnostic accuracy of the Alvarado and RIPASA scores was determined individually. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients were included in the research. The average patient was 71.2 years old, with a male preponderance of 46.5%. Alvarado’s score was found to have an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.799, the Youden’s index of 0.549, and a p-value of 0.001 after a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study of the Alvarado score in identifying the diagnosis of AA. The AUC was 0.886 (95%CI 0.799–0.944), the Youden’s index was 0.642, and a p-value of 0.001 was found in the ROC analysis of the RIPASA score in identifying the diagnosis of AA. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing the two scores used to diagnose AA, we found no statistically significant difference between the RIPASA and Alvarado scores (p=0.09), although the Youden’s index for the RIPASA score was higher.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Quick and accurate identification of critically ill patients ensures appropriate and correct use of medical resources. In situations that threaten public health, like pandemics, rapid and effective methods are needed for early disease detection among critically ill patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) patients upon admission to the emergency department (ED) and these patients’ prognosis. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort study among COVID-19 patients in the ED of a tertiary-level hospital. METHODS: Data on patients’ age, gender, vital signs, chronic diseases, laboratory tests and clinical outcomes were collected from electronic medical records. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed. The area under the curve (AUC) was used to assess the accuracy of NLR for predicting in-hospital mortality risk and intensive care unit (ICU) requirement. The Youden J index (YJI) was used to determine optimal threshold values. RESULTS: 1,175 patients were included. Their median age was 63 years (IQR, 48-75). With an NLR cutoff value of 5.14, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, AUC and YJI for ICU requirement were calculated as 77.87%, 74.08%, 92.4%, 0.811 and 0.5194, respectively. With the same cutoff value, the sensitivity, specificity, AUC and YJI for in-hospital mortality were 77.27%, 75.82%, 0.815 and 0.5309, respectively. In addition, advanced age, leukocytosis, anemia and lymphopenia were found to be associated with poor prognosis. CONCLUSION: The NLR, which is a widely available simple parameter, can provide rapid insights regarding early recognition of critical illness and prognosis among COVID-19 patients.

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare C-reactive protein and C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio performances in predicting mortality of geriatric patients who visited the emergency department. METHODS: The data of patients with COVID-19 and aged 65 years and above, who visited emergency department during the study period, were retrospectively analyzed. The data were obtained from an electronic-based hospital information system. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the area under the curve were used to assess each cutoff value discriminatory for predicting mortality. RESULTS: The mean age of the population included in this study was 76 (71-82) years, while 52.7% were males. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve values for C-reactive protein in terms of mortality were calculated as 71.01, 52.34, and 0.635%, respectively, while the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve values for C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio were calculated as 75.74, 47.66, and 0.645%, respectively (p<0.001). In the pairwise comparison for the receiver operating characteristic curves of C-reactive protein and C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio, no statistically significant difference was found. CONCLUSIONS: Geriatric patients are the “most vulnerable” patient group against the COVID-19. In this study, both C-reactive protein and C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio were found to be successful in predicting mortality for geriatric COVID-19 patients.

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: Several mortality prediction scores are available for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding who visited the emergency department; however, most of the available scores include endoscopic data. Endoscopy is difficult or impossible to access for many emergencies departments worldwide. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the performance of the albumin, INR, alteration in mental status, systolic blood pressure and age 65 score and the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting mortality in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding who visited the emergency department and for which endoscopic data were not required. METHODS: The data of patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding who visited the emergency department during the study period were retrospectively analyzed. The data were obtained from the hospital automation system using the international classification of disease codes via computer registration. The prediction accuracy of AIMS65 and Glasgow-Blatchford score was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve method. RESULTS: There were 422 patients in total; the mean age of these patients was 68.5 while 62.6% were males. The mortality rate was 30 (7.1%). The AIMS65 score performed better with an AUC 0.706 [95%CI 0.660-0.749; p<0.001] compared with the Glasgow-Blatchford score (AUC 0.542; 95%CI 0.4693-0.576; p=0.11). CONCLUSION: In this study, it was revealed that AIMS65, which is a score that can be easily calculated only with the data in the emergency department, outperformed Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting mortality in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding who visited the emergency department.