Search

An earthquake measuring 7.7 magnitude on the Richter scale occurred at 04:17am on February 6, 2023 in the Pazarcık district of Kahramanmaraş province Turkey. In the hours following the 7.7 magnitude event in Kahramanmaraş, a second 7.6 magnitude earthquake struck the region and a third 6.4 magnitude earthquake struck Gaziantep, causing extensive damage and death. A total of ten provinces directly experienced the earthquake, including Kahramanmaraş, Hatay, Gaziantep, Osmaniye, Malatya, Adana, Diyarbakır, Şanlıurfa, Adıyaman, and Kilis. The official figures indicate 31,643 people were killed, 80,278 were injured, and 6,444 buildings were destroyed within seven days of the earthquakes (as of 12:00pm/noon on Monday, February 13th). The area affected by the earthquake has been officially declared to be 500km in diameter. This report primarily relies on observations made by pioneer Emergency Physicians (EPs) who went to the disaster areas shortly after the first earthquake (in the early stages of the disaster). According to their observations: (1) Due to winter conditions, there were transportation problems and a shortage of personnel reaching disaster areas on the first day after the disaster; (2) On the second day of the disaster, health equipment was in short supply; (3) As of the third day, health workers were unprepared in terms of knowledge and experience for the disaster; and (4) The subsequent deployment of health personnel to the disaster area was uncoordinated and unplanned on the following days, which resulted in the health personnel working there not being able to meet even their basic needs (such as food, heating, and shelter). During the first week, coordination was most frequently reported as the most significant problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Successful placement of a peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) on the first attempt is an important outcome for difficult vascular access (DVA) patients. This study compared standard technique, ultrasonography (USG), and near-infrared light (NIR) in terms of success in the first attempt in patients with DVA. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized controlled study. The study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital. Emergency department patients who describe DVA history, have no visible or palpable veins, and were assessed by the nurse to have a difficult PIVC were included to study. The PIVC procedure was performed on patients by standard, USG, or NIR device techniques. For all approaches, the success of the first attempt was the primary aim. Total procedure time, the total number of attempts, and the need for rescue intervention were secondary aims. Results: This study evaluated 270 patients. The first attempt success rates for USG, standard, and NIR methods were 78.9%, 62.2%, and 58.9%, respectively. The rate of first attempt success was higher in patients who underwent USG (USG versus standard, P =.014; USG versus NIR, P =.004; standard versus NIR, P =.648). The total median (IQR) procedure time for USG, standard, and NIR methods was 107 (69-228), 72 (47-134), and 82 (61-163) seconds, respectively. The total procedure time was longer in patients undergoing USG (standard versus USG, P <.001; NIR versus USG, P =.035; standard versus NIR, P =.055). The total median (IQR) number of attempts of USG, standard, and NIR methods were 1 (1-1), 1 (1-2), and 1 (1-2), respectively. A difference was found among the groups regarding the total number of attempts (USG versus NIR, P =.015; USG versus standard P =.108; standard versus NIR, P =.307). No difference was found among groups in terms of the need for rescue methods. Conclusion: It was found that USG increases the success of the first attempt compared with the standard method and NIR in patients with DVA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]