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

A perforated sigmoid colon cancer within an inguinal hernia is extremely rare. This unexpected finding is usually discovered during surgery and causes an unavoidable septic evolution. Here, we describe the case of an 84-year-old man who presented with fever, abdominal distension, and a painful, enlarged, left scrotum. A CT showed a left, incarcerated, inguinal hernia containing a perforated sigmoid adenocarcinoma (which was confirmed by histopathology). The possibility of an irreducible inguinal hernia in association with perforated sigmoid colon cancer should be considered in the array of diagnoses. A pre-operative CT scan would be helpful in facilitating an accurate diagnosis.
Adenocarcinoma/complications/*radiography/surgery ; Aged, 80 and over ; Colon, Sigmoid/radiography/surgery ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Fatal Outcome ; Fever/etiology ; Hernia, Inguinal/complications/*radiography/surgery ; Humans ; Intestinal Perforation/complications/*radiography/surgery ; Male ; Pain/etiology ; Shock, Septic/complications ; Sigmoid Neoplasms/complications/*radiography/surgery ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed

OBJECTIVEAccuracy of diagnostic methods for detecting Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection among patients with bleeding peptic ulcers has not been thoroughly investigated. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic tests and their combined usage in detection of H. pylori infection in patients with bleeding gastric ulcers and without the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

METHODSA total of 57 patients who presented with bleeding gastric ulcers by endoscopy were enrolled. The status of H. pylori was identified by performing the rapid urease test (RUT), histology and (13)C-labeled urea breath test (UBT). The criteria for having H. pylori infection was a minimum of two positive tests.

RESULTSThe prevalence of H. pylori infection in our patient group was 80.7%. Among the three tests used: RUT, histology, and UBT, sensitivities were 56.5%, 97.8% and 100%, while specificities were 100%, 45.5% and 81.8%, respectively. The overall accuracies of the tests were 78.3%, 71.6% and 90.9%, respectively. Although UBT obtained significantly higher accuracy than histology (P = 0.02) as opposed to RUT (P = 0.11), UBT had significantly higher sensitivity than RUT (P < 0.001). In terms of combining any two of the three tests, more accuracy (98.9%) was achieved when both UBT and histology were used to confirm the diagnosis of the other. Conversely, failure to use combined tests generated the potential of missing a proper H. pylori diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONSUBT is superior to the other two tests in bleeding gastric ulcers. RUT lacks sensitivity for detection of H. pylori infection. However, the concomitant use of UBT and histology seems to be more accurate when gastric ulcers present with bleeding.

Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Breath Tests ; Female ; Helicobacter Infections ; diagnosis ; pathology ; Helicobacter pylori ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage ; complications ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Stomach Ulcer ; complications ; Urea

Background/Aims: The core needle biopsy (CNB), fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) and touch imprint cytology (TIC) are commonly used tools for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies. However, little is known about the benefits and criteria for selecting appropriate technique among them in clinical practice. We aimed to compare the sensitivity of ultrasound-guided CNB, FNAC, TIC as well as combinations for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies, and to determine the factors associated with better sensitivity in each technique. Methods: From January 2018 to December 2019, a total of 634 consecutive patients who received ultrasound-guided liver biopsies at the National Taiwan University Hospital was collected, of whom 235 with confirmed malignant hepatic lesions receiving CNB, FNAC and TIC simultaneously were enrolled for analysis. The clinical and procedural data were compared. Results: The sensitivity of CNB, FNAC and TIC for the diagnosis of malignant hepatic lesions were 93.6%, 71.9%, and 85.1%, respectively. Add-on use of FNAC or TIC to CNB provided additional sensitivity of 2.1% and 0.4%, respectively. FNAC exhibited a significantly higher diagnostic rate in the metastatic cancers (P=0.011), hyperechoic lesions on ultrasound (P=0.028), and those with depth less than 4.5 cm from the site of needle insertion (P=0.036). Conclusions The sensitivity of CNB is superior to that of FNAC and TIC for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies. Nevertheless, for shallow (depth <4.5 cm) and hyperechoic lesions not typical for primary liver cancers, FNAC alone provides excellent sensitivity.

Background/Aims: The core needle biopsy (CNB), fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) and touch imprint cytology (TIC) are commonly used tools for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies. However, little is known about the benefits and criteria for selecting appropriate technique among them in clinical practice. We aimed to compare the sensitivity of ultrasound-guided CNB, FNAC, TIC as well as combinations for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies, and to determine the factors associated with better sensitivity in each technique. Methods: From January 2018 to December 2019, a total of 634 consecutive patients who received ultrasound-guided liver biopsies at the National Taiwan University Hospital was collected, of whom 235 with confirmed malignant hepatic lesions receiving CNB, FNAC and TIC simultaneously were enrolled for analysis. The clinical and procedural data were compared. Results: The sensitivity of CNB, FNAC and TIC for the diagnosis of malignant hepatic lesions were 93.6%, 71.9%, and 85.1%, respectively. Add-on use of FNAC or TIC to CNB provided additional sensitivity of 2.1% and 0.4%, respectively. FNAC exhibited a significantly higher diagnostic rate in the metastatic cancers (P=0.011), hyperechoic lesions on ultrasound (P=0.028), and those with depth less than 4.5 cm from the site of needle insertion (P=0.036). Conclusions The sensitivity of CNB is superior to that of FNAC and TIC for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies. Nevertheless, for shallow (depth <4.5 cm) and hyperechoic lesions not typical for primary liver cancers, FNAC alone provides excellent sensitivity.

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.