Wartime toxicology: the spectre of chemical and radiological warfare in Ukraine

AbstractThe unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation has resulted in the largest humanitarian crisis in Europe since World War II. As fighting intensifies throughout Ukraine, there is an increasing concern that the Russian Federation may consider the direct use of chemical or radiological weapons against military personnel and civilians in Ukraine. Despite prohibition of chemical weapons from the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997, recent evidence has demonstrated that state actors will continue to use these agents as weapons of war and terror, despite publicly denying their use. We review chemical weapons produced and used by the Russian Federation (or its allies) to identify plausible risks in the Russian war in Ukraine. We also provide rapid assessment and treatment guidelines to recognize and manage these acute exposures

A retrospective review of out of hospital cardiac arrest at Gillette Stadium: 10 years of experience at a large sports venue

Introduction: Rates of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) at major sporting events are as high as 0.7 per 100,000 attendees. However, factors contributing to OHCA at mass gatherings have not been well-described. We describe our experience with ten years of medical oversight and OHCA care at a professional football stadium. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of OHCA events between August 2010 and January 2020 at a 65,878-seat football stadium, with a single transporting EMS agency and a single receiving hospital. We analyzed EMS incident reports and matched patients to hospital records for outcome data. Results: A total of 7,767,345 people attended 115 football games during the study period. There were 21 OHCAs (0.27 per 100,000 attendees). Ninety-five percent of OHCAs were witnessed and 71.4% had an initial shockable rhythm, with bystander AED use in 47.6%. Median EMS response time was 2 minutes (IQR 1–6). For 7 patients defibrillated by EMS, time to defibrillation was 4 minutes (IQR 4–11). Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) occurred in 71%, with 47% having good 30-day neurologic survival. All patients with an initial rhythm of asystole died. Conclusion: The ROSC rate at our stadium exceeded 70% with almost half surviving with good neurologic outcomes, substantially higher than that reported for the general public. We hope that our experience will provide valuable lessons to other similarly sized stadiums

Performance of Crisis Standards of Care Guidelines in a Cohort of Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients in the United States

Many US states published crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines for allocating scarce critical care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the performance of these guidelines in maximizing population benefit has not been well tested. In 2,272 adults with COVID-19 requiring ICU admission drawn from the STOP-COVID multicenter cohort, we tested three approaches to CSC algorithms: SOFA scores grouped into ranges, SOFA score ranges plus comorbidities, and a hypothetical approach using raw SOFA scores not grouped into ranges. We found that area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves for all three algorithms demonstrate only modest discrimination for 28-day mortality. Adding comorbidity scoring modestly improves algorithm performance over SOFA scores alone. The algorithm incorporating comorbidities has modestly worse predictive performance for Black compared to White patients. CSC algorithms should be empirically examined to refine approaches to the allocation of scarce resources during pandemics and to avoid potential exacerbation of racial inequities. Jezmir et al. show that crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines, used to allocate scarce medical resources, poorly discriminate 28-day mortality and result in frequently tied priority scores. The authors present a framework for testing CSC guidelines to ensure they meet their stated ethical goals

Performance of crisis standards of care guidelines in a cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the United States.

Many US states published crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines for allocating scarce critical care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the performance of these guidelines in maximizing their population benefit has not been well tested. In 2,272 adults with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation drawn from the Study of the Treatment and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 (STOP-COVID) multicenter cohort, we test the following three approaches to CSC algorithms: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores grouped into ranges, SOFA score ranges plus comorbidities, and a hypothetical approach using raw SOFA scores not grouped into ranges. We find that area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves for all three algorithms demonstrate only modest discrimination for 28-day mortality. Adding comorbidity scoring modestly improves algorithm performance over SOFA scores alone. The algorithm incorporating comorbidities has modestly worse predictive performance for Black compared to white patients. CSC algorithms should be empirically examined to refine approaches to the allocation of scarce resources during pandemics and to avoid potential exacerbation of racial inequities