BACKGROUND: The emergency physician(EP)'s interpretation of the electrocardiogram(ECG) is important in determining the disposition of patients evaluated in an emergency department(ED) for chest pain o other cardiac complaints. This particularly important in life-threatening ECG findings. When the cardiologist's final interpretation was defined as the correct one, the concordance compared with the EP was reported to be 50-60%, while the missed diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction(AMI) was reported as 0.6-8.0%, which could be deleterious to the patient. METHOD AND MATERIAL : One hundred and twenty eight ECGs were interpreted by two residents from each year residency. ED records of the study patients were reviewed, and the EP's and cardiologist's ECG interpretations were compared. The ECGs were classified by severity according to the following system: class I, normal or minor abnormalities only; class II, abnormalities with potential to alter case management; and class III, potentially life-threatening abnormalities. RESULTS: The overall concordance between EP's and cardiologist's ECG interpretations was 59.3% and the concordance comparing each year residency showed no statistical significant difference (p value less than 0.05). The underdiagnosed rate was 48.4%, 32.0%, 23.4%, 22.7% for first, second, third and fourth year residency respectively, and 2.3%, 5.5%, 10.9%, 5.5% respectively for the overdiagnosed rate. CONCLUSION: Although the overall concordance showed a relatively high result in our study, the concordance of class III ECG resulted a much lower rate. Therefore, additional studies are needed to identify variables that contribute to ED ECG misinterpretation and to develop methods to resolve these difficulties. Assessment of department ECG misinterpretation would be useful in focusing on resident and staff education.
Case Management ; Chest Pain ; Diagnosis ; Education ; Electrocardiography* ; Emergencies* ; Emergency Service, Hospital* ; Humans ; Internship and Residency

PURPOSE: This study examined the factors affecting the precaution and request of medical direction for prehospital emergency treatment of major trauma patients by 119 rescue services. METHODS: Medical records and prehospital run reports of major trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) above 15 were reviewed. In total, 123 patients who were transferred by 119 rescue services to the Emergency Department of one hospital from December 1, 2010 to February 28, 2013 were enrolled. A total of 123 patients with major trauma satisfied the ISS criterion. Excluding 26 patients with missing data, 97 patients were included in this study. Out of these 97 patients, 72 patients were male and the mean age was 46+/-16.1 years. The statistical methods used in the analysis were the Receiver-Operating Characteristic curve and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Between the hospital precaution group and non-precaution group, the only significant difference was in the RTS score (p=0.007). In total, 52 patients (39 male patients; mean age 49.52+/-16.14 years) with major trauma were transferred during the medical direction period. Between groups that requested medical direction and groups that did not, the only significant difference was the time interval from the call to hospital arrival (p=0.032). CONCLUSION: Within the variables we examined, transport of major trauma patients, in addition to low incidence of precaution and request for medical direction by 119 rescue services, only a few were considered.
Emergencies* ; Emergency Medical Services ; Emergency Treatment* ; Humans ; Incidence ; Injury Severity Score ; Male ; Medical Records ; Methods

PURPOSE: This study examined the factors affecting the precaution and request of medical direction for prehospital emergency treatment of major trauma patients by 119 rescue services. METHODS: Medical records and prehospital run reports of major trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) above 15 were reviewed. In total, 123 patients who were transferred by 119 rescue services to the Emergency Department of one hospital from December 1, 2010 to February 28, 2013 were enrolled. A total of 123 patients with major trauma satisfied the ISS criterion. Excluding 26 patients with missing data, 97 patients were included in this study. Out of these 97 patients, 72 patients were male and the mean age was 46+/-16.1 years. The statistical methods used in the analysis were the Receiver-Operating Characteristic curve and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Between the hospital precaution group and non-precaution group, the only significant difference was in the RTS score (p=0.007). In total, 52 patients (39 male patients; mean age 49.52+/-16.14 years) with major trauma were transferred during the medical direction period. Between groups that requested medical direction and groups that did not, the only significant difference was the time interval from the call to hospital arrival (p=0.032). CONCLUSION: Within the variables we examined, transport of major trauma patients, in addition to low incidence of precaution and request for medical direction by 119 rescue services, only a few were considered.
Emergencies* ; Emergency Medical Services ; Emergency Treatment* ; Humans ; Incidence ; Injury Severity Score ; Male ; Medical Records ; Methods

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The relationships between the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) and the status of cirrhosis, complications of portal hypertension and the severity of cirrhosis are not clear. The aim of this study was to determine the relationships between HVPG and the complications or status of cirrhosis. METHODS: The HVPG, gastroesophageal varices, Child-Pugh score, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, presence of ascites, recent bleeding history and the status of cirrhosis were assessed in a cohort of 172 patients (156 males, 16 females) with liver cirrhosis. RESULTS: The HVPG was 15.6+/-5.1 (mean+/-SD) mmHg (4-33 mmHg) and was significantly higher in patients in the decompensated stage than in those in the compensated stage (16.6+/-4.3 vs. 10.8+/-6.1 mmHg, respectively; P<0.01). HVPG was higher in bleeders than in nonbleeders (16.9+/-4.5 vs. 12.8+/-5.3 mmHg, respectively; P<0.01), and in patients with ascites than in those without ascites (16.4+/-4.1 vs. 14.5+/-6.2 mmHg, respectively; P<0.05). HVPG was significantly lower in the presence of gastric varices than in their absence (14.0+/-3.4 vs. 16.0+/-5.3 mmHg, respectively; P<0.05); however, no significant correlation was detected between HVPG and the grade of esophageal varices (P>0.05). HVPG was significantly higher in Child's B cirrhosis (n=87, 15.6+/-4.7 mmHg) and Child's C cirrhosis (n=36, 18.4+/-4.7 mmHg) than in Child's A cirrhosis (n=49, 13.7+/-5.1 mmHg; P<0.01). HVPG also was strongly correlated with the MELD score (P<0.01). The time required to measure the HVPG was 11.2+/-6.4 min, and only three cases of minor complication occurred during the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: HVPG was correlated with the severity of liver cirrhosis, presence of ascites, and risk of variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis.
Adult ; Ascites/*complications ; Cohort Studies ; Data Interpretation, Statistical ; Esophageal and Gastric Varices/*complications/diagnosis ; Female ; Hepatic Veins/*physiopathology ; Humans ; Hypertension, Portal/complications/*physiopathology ; Korea ; Liver Cirrhosis/complications/*diagnosis/physiopathology ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Predictive Value of Tests ; ROC Curve ; Severity of Illness Index ; Venous Pressure