INTRODUCTIONCardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guidelines were revised in 2005 based on new evidence and expert consensus. However, the benefits of the new guidelines remain undetermined and their influence has not been published in Asia. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of implementing the new resuscitation guidelines and identify factors that influence the discharge survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients in an Asian metropolitan city.

MATERIALS AND METHODSThis was an observational cohort study of all OHCA patients seen by the emergency medical service during the period before (Nov 2003 to Oct 2005) and after (May 2006 to Oct 2008) implementing the new resuscitation guidelines. Detailed clinical information was recorded using the Ustein style template. Statistical analysis was done using X2 test or t-test for univariate analysis and the logistic regression model for multivariate analysis.

RESULTSThere were 463 patients before and 430 patients after the new guidelines who received resuscitation. The rate of recovery of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival-to-intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and survival-to-hospital discharge all showed no benefits regarding the new resuscitation guidelines (ROSC: 42% vs 39%, P = 0.32; Survival-to-ICU admission: 33% vs 30%, P = 0.27; survival-to-hospital discharge: 10% vs 7%, P = 0.09). The rate of ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VF/pulseless VT), rate of witnessed arrest, and rate of bystander CPR were much lower than in Western studies. After multivariate logistic regression, factors related to discharge survival were witnessed arrest and initial rhythm with VF/pulseless VT. The new resuscitation guidelines did not significantly influence the discharge survival.

CONCLUSIONSWe did not observe any improvement in survival after implementing the new guidelines. Independent factors of survival-to-hospital discharge are witnessed arrest and initial rhythm with VF/pulseless VT. Because the rates of VF/pulseless VT and bystander CPR in Asia are low, popularising CPR training programmes and increasing the rate of bystander CPR may be more important for improving OHCA survival rates than frequent guideline changes.

Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ; methods ; standards ; Emergency Service, Hospital ; statistics & numerical data ; Female ; Hospitals, University ; statistics & numerical data ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest ; mortality ; therapy ; Patient Discharge ; statistics & numerical data ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Survival Analysis ; Taiwan ; epidemiology

Post-traumatic cerebral infarction (PTCI) is a secondary insult which causes global cerebral hypoxia or hypoperfusion after traumatic brain injury, and carries a remarkable high mortality rate. PTCI is usually caused by blunt brain injury with gross hematoma and/or brain herniation. Herein, we present the case of a 91-year-old male who had sustained PTCI following a low-energy penetrating craniocerebral injury due to a nail without evidence of hematoma. The patient survived after a decompressive craniectomy, but permanent neurological damage occurred. This is the first case of profound PTCI following a low-energy penetrating craniocerebral nail injury and reminds clinicians of possibility this rare dreadful complication for care of head-injured patients.
Brain ; Brain Edema ; Brain Injuries ; Cerebral Infarction* ; Craniocerebral Trauma* ; Decompressive Craniectomy ; Hematoma ; Humans ; Hypoxia, Brain ; Male ; Mortality

Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) are severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCAR) which are majorly caused by drugs. Though the incidence rate is low, SCAR sometimes can be life-threatening and leads to lifelong sequelae. Many pharmacogenomic associations in immune and nonimmune related genes with the development of SCAR have been discovered recently and the pharmacogenetic tests have been applied to prevent specific drug-induced SCAR. In this review, we discuss the recent advances of pharmacogenomics in SCAR.
Cicatrix ; Drug Hypersensitivity Syndrome ; Incidence ; Pharmacogenetics ; Stevens-Johnson Syndrome

We studied a family with Gorlin-Goltz syndrome. The novel mutations of our cases were located on the 21st exon of the PTCH1 gene (c.3450C>G). The father, who received a strategic 56-day vismodegib treatment for disease control, was the first patient with Gorlin syndrome treated with the hedgehog inhibitor in Taiwan. The lesions regressed gradually, with scar formation, and were subsequently removed via a wide excision. Further details are provided below.
Basal Cell Nevus Syndrome* ; Cicatrix ; Exons ; Fathers ; Hedgehogs ; Humans ; Taiwan

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Objective: The characteristics of patients with metachronous breast and ovarian malignancies and the pathogenic role of BRCA1/2 mutations remain poorly understood. We investigated these issues through a review of hospital records and nationwide Taiwanese registry data, followed by BRCA1/2 mutation analysis in hospital-based cases. Methods: We retrospectively retrieved consecutive clinical records of Taiwanese patients who presented with these malignancies to our hospital between 2001 and 2017. We also collected information from the Data Science Center of the Taiwan Cancer Registry (TCR) between 2007 and 2015. Next-generation sequencing and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification were used to identify BRCA1/2 mutations and large genomic rearrangements, respectively. When BRCA1/2 mutations were identified in index cases, pedigrees were reconstructed and genetic testing was offered to family members. Results: A total of 12,769 patients with breast cancer and 1,537 with ovarian cancer were retrieved from our hospital records. Of them, 28 had metachronous breast and ovarian malignancies. We also identified 113 cases from the TCR dataset. Eighteen hospital-based cases underwent BRCA1/2 sequencing and germline pathogenic mutations were detected in 7 patients (38.9%, 5 in BRCA1 and 2 in BRCA2). All BRCA1/2 mutation carriers had ovarian high-grade serous carcinomas. Of the 12 patients who were alive at the time of analysis, 5 were BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. All of them had family members with BRCA1/2-associated malignancies. Conclusions Our results provide pilot evidence that BRCA1/2 mutations are common in Taiwanese patients with metachronous breast and ovarian malignancies, supporting the clinical utility of genetic counseling.