RUSHing to the Diagnosis: Aortic Abdominal Aneurysm Detected Using the Rapid Ultrasound for Shock and Hypotension (RUSH) Protocol in the Wards

The rapid ultrasound for shock and hypotension (RUSH) protocol is a useful tool used in the emergency department (ED) when addressing the severity and etiology of shock. It was designed to be performed in under two minutes with evaluation of the pump (heart), tank (inferior vena cava, thoracic and abdominal compartments) and the pipes (large arteries and veins). However, its application or one similar should extend beyond the ED and into the hospital floor. Here we present an 80-year-old gentleman with a history of atrial fibrillation (A-Fib) on anticoagulation who arrived at the ED due to an episode of pre-syncope just prior to arrival. Initial EKG is concerning for A-Fib with rapid ventricular response (RVR) with a rate in the 130s. After fluid resuscitation patient improved and he was admitted to the telemetry floor for further cardiac workup and cardiology consultation. While waiting for a room in the ED, patient became hypotensive, diaphoretic and pale. After complaining of lower abdominal pain, the ED physician performed a RUSH which showed an abdominal aorta of 8 cm concerning for dissection. Diagnosis was confirmed with CT angiography of the abdomen and he was taken to the OR with successful repair of the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Patient made meaningful recovery and was discharged to in-patient rehab. The patient described in this vignette was delayed in the ED due to lack of beds on the floor. This allowed for quick ultrasound work-up by the ED physician which led to immediate recognition of the AAA and immediate response by the vascular surgery team. Should this patient have been on the hospital floor, it is unclear if such prompt steps would have occurred prior to patient’s further hemodynamic demis

Bitten to the Bone: A Case of Anxiety-Induced Osteomyelitis

Onychophagia is a habitual nail-biting disorder, usually associated with mental or emotional diseases. It affects 20-30% of the population in all age groups. Human bites have the potential to become serious injuries due to high virulence in the human oral flora and may often require hospital admission, antibiotics and even debridement in the operating room. Thus, repetitive nail biting has the potential to be limb-threatening if not treated early and appropriately. We present a 49-year-old Spanish-speaking gentleman, with a past medical history of repetitive nail biting secondary to severe anxiety, major depression disorder, bilateral hand neuropathy secondary to diabetes mellitus (DM) type 2 who was initially admitted to the hospital due to cellulitis of the fingers with suspected osteomyelitis in the right hand. Anxiety was being treated by psychiatrist with paroxetine however, given no improvement and prolonged follow-ups, the primary care physician (PCP) added hydroxyzine and scheduled alprazolam in an attempt to minimize symptoms. Despite these efforts, patient continued with nail biting. On initial physical exam, the patient had a lack of fingernails and multiple wounds at various stages of healing across all digits. The distal and middle phalanges of the third right digit showed increased erythema and swelling and band tightening. Patient was started on broad-spectrum antibiotics. Initial radiography of the right hand was concerning for osteomyelitis which was later confirmed with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Infectious disease specialist agreed on a course of cefepime, vancomycin and metronidazole. On admission, hand surgeon did not see a need for amputation and patient was treated conservatively. Due to minimal improvement after six days on IV antibiotics, patient underwent fasciotomy of the flexor compartment of the right middle finger after patient rejected hand surgeon\u27s recommendation for amputation. He was discharged to a skilled nursing facility where he was to continue intravenous antibiotics for an additional four weeks. The vulnerable patient population of South Texas is predominately Hispanic, Spanish-speaking and uninsured. It is imperative to treat psychiatric disorders early to prevent complications, however, given the low numbers of psychiatrists in the Rio Grande Valley and even fewer who speak Spanish it is not unusual to find an appointment in more than six months. In this case, we observe how a trivial everyday behavior can lead to limb-threatening complications if not treated early and appropriately

Acute Hypersensitivity Reaction After Casirivimab/Imdevimab Infusion in a COVID-19-Positive Young Male: Myopericarditis or Kounis Syndrome?

Myocarditis has been a rare, but well-documented side effect of the mRNA-based vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as well as a complication of viral infections including SARS-CoV-2. However, myopericarditis as a complication of monoclonal antibody infusion or as a complication of allergic reaction to antibody infusions might be underreported. We report the case of a 30-year-old man with a previous diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection one week prior to presentation, unvaccinated for SARS-CoV-2, who was referred from a monoclonal infusion center where he received casirivimab/imdevimab and 15 minutes after the infusion began to complain of chills, chest pain, shortness of breath, and was hypotensive. In the infusion center, the patient received epinephrine and diphenhydramine and was directed to the ER, where the patient was febrile, tachycardic, and hypotensive. Initial troponin was 1.91 which peaked at 11.73 and CK-MB which peaked at 21.2. EKG had no ischemic changes. A two-dimensional echocardiogram showed an ejection fraction (EF) of about 45%, with a left ventricular dysfunction and trivial posterior pericardial effusion, and it was diagnosed as myopericarditis. On admission, he was started on full-dose enoxaparin, aspirin, fluid resuscitation, steroids, remdesevir, and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPap) due to his respiratory compromise. Three days later, with clinical improvement, a repeat echocardiogram showed EF of 65%, with normal ventricular contractility and no pericardial effusion. The patient was discharged home with close cardiology follow-up. Though this could be a simple case of viral myopericarditis with troponinemia secondary to demand-ischemia, the differential should be broadened to complication of monoclonal antibody, given the sudden symptom onset after infusion completion and/or a possible Kounis syndrome. Though there have not been any reported cases of casirivimab/imdevimab causing myopericarditis, adverse cardiac events after monoclonal therapy have been reported mainly in cancer patients receiving monoclonal infusions