Refraining from pre-hospital advanced airway management: a prospective observational study of critical decision making in an anaesthesiologist-staffed pre-hospital critical care service

INTRODUCTION: We report prospectively recorded observational data from consecutive cases in which the attending pre-hospital critical care anaesthesiologist considered performing pre-hospital advanced airway management but decided to withhold such interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Anaesthesiologists from eight pre-hospital critical care teams in the Central Denmark Region (a mixed rural and urban region with 1.27 million inhabitants) registered data from February 1(st) 2011 to October 31(st) 2012. Included were patients of all ages for whom pre-hospital advanced airway management were considered but not performed. The main objectives were to investigate (1) the pre-hospital critical care anaesthesiologists’ reasons for considering performing pre-hospital advanced airway management in this group of patients (2) the pre-hospital critical care anaesthesiologists’ reasons for not performing pre-hospital advanced airway management (3) the methods used to treat these patients (4) the incidence of complications related to pre-hospital advanced airway management not being performed. RESULTS: We registered data from 1081 cases in which the pre-hospital critical care anaesthesiologists’ considered performing pre-hospital advanced airway management. The anaesthesiologists decided to withhold pre-hospital advanced airway management in 32.1% of these cases (n = 347). In 75.1% of these cases (n = 257) pre-hospital advanced airway management were withheld because of the patient’s condition and in 30.8% (n = 107) because of patient co-morbidity. The most frequently used alternative treatment was bag-mask ventilation, used in 82.7% of the cases (n = 287). Immediate complications related to the decision of not performing pre-hospital advanced airway management occurred in 0.6% of the cases (n = 2). CONCLUSION: We have illustrated the complexity of the critical decision-making associated with pre-hospital advanced airway management. This study is the first to identify the most common reasons why pre-hospital critical care anaesthesiologists sometimes choose to abstain from pre-hospital advanced airway management as well as the alternative treatment methods used

Mortality and hospitalisation in the Danish Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) population from 2014 to 2018:a national population-based study of HEMS triage

Objective To describe characteristics and outcomes for patients where the Danish Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) either transported the patient to hospital, treated the patient on scene but did not transport the patient or was dispatched but cancelled en route to the patient (aborted mission), and to assess the field triage by comparing these outcomes. Design National population-based study. Setting and participants HEMS dispatches are undertaken from the five Danish emergency dispatch medical centres according to national guidelines. The study analysed all primary missions with helicopter take off where the patient was admitted to hospital between 1st October 2014 and 30th April 2018. Main outcome measures Mortality rates, admittance to an intensive care unit (ICU), need of mechanical ventilation and length of hospital stay (LOS). Results 6931 patients were admitted to hospital; 3311 patients were air lifted, 164 patients were ground escorted by a HEMS physician, 1421 were assisted on scene by HEMS, but escorted by the ground units and 2035 missions were aborted. The mortality was highest among the airlifted and ground escorted patients, and lowest among the patients in the aborted mission group. Mortality for the airlifted patients increased from 8.2% (95% CI; 7.3 to 9.2) at day 1 to 19.5% (95% CI; 18.2 to 20.9) after 1 year. The airlifted and ground escorted patients were frequently admitted to ICU and subsequently mechanically ventilated and they also had an increased LOS compared with the patients only assisted on scene by HEMS and the patients in the aborted mission group. Conclusion Patients to whom HEMS are dispatched are often critically ill or injured and have a relatively high mortality. The patients airlifted or ground escorted to hospital by HEMS appear more critically ill or injured compared with the assisted patients and the patients in the aborted mission group. The on-scene triage seems appropriate.publishedVersio

Femoral nerve blocks for the treatment of acute pre-hospital pain: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Background Pain management is one of the most important interventions in the emergency medical services. The femoral nerve block (FNB) is, among other things, indicated for pre- and post-operative pain management for patients with femoral fractures but its role in the pre-hospital setting has not been determined. The aim of this review was to assess the effect and safety of the FNB in comparison to other forms of analgesia (or no treatment) for managing acute lower extremity pain in adult patients in the pre-hospital setting. Methods A systematic review (PROSPERO registration (CRD42018114399)) was conducted. The Cochrane and GRADE methods were used to assess outcomes. Two authors independently reviewed each study for eligibility, extracted the data and performed risk of bias assessments. Results Four studies with a total of 252 patients were included. Two RCTs (114 patients) showed that FNB may reduce pain more effectively than metamizole (mean difference 32 mm on a 100 mm VAS (95% CI 24 to 40)). One RCT (48 patients) compared the FNB with lidocaine and magnesium sulphate to FNB with lidocaine alone and was only included here for information regarding adverse effects. One case series included 90 patients. Few adverse events were reported in the included studies. The certainty of evidence was very low. We found no studies comparing FNB to inhaled analgesics, opioids or ketamine. Conclusions Evidence regarding the effectiveness and adverse effects of pre-hospital FNB is limited. Studies comparing pre-hospital FNB to inhaled analgesics, opioids or ketamine are lacking.acceptedVersio

Opioids for Treatment of Pre-hospital Acute Pain: A Systematic Review

Introduction Acute pain is a frequent symptom among patients in the pre-hospital setting, and opioids are the most widely used class of drugs for the relief of pain in these patients. However, the evidence base for opioid use in this setting appears to be weak. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the efficacy and safety of opioid analgesics in the pre-hospital setting and to assess potential alternative therapies. Methods The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Scopus, and Epistemonikos databases were searched for studies investigating adult patients with acute pain prior to their arrival at hospital. Outcomes on efficacy and safety were assessed. Risk of bias for each included study was assessed according to the Cochrane approach, and confidence in the evidence was assessed using the GRADE method. Results A total of 3453 papers were screened, of which the full text of 125 was assessed. Twelve studies were ultimately included in this systematic review. Meta-analysis was not undertaken due to substantial clinical heterogeneity among the included studies. Several studies had high risk of bias resulting in low or very low quality of evidence for most of the outcomes. No pre-hospital studies compared opioids with placebo, and no studies assessed the risk of opioid administration for subgroups of frail patients. The competency level of the attending healthcare provider did not seem to affect the efficacy or safety of opioids in two observational studies of very low quality. Intranasal opioids had a similar effect and safety profile as intravenous opioids. Moderate quality evidence supported a similar efficacy and safety of synthetic opioid compared to morphine. Conclusions Available evidence for pre-hospital opioid administration to relieve acute pain is scarce and the overall quality of evidence is low. Intravenous administration of synthetic, fast-acting opioids may be as effective and safe as intravenous administration of morphine. More controlled studies are needed on alternative routes for opioid administration and pre-hospital pain management for potentially more frail patient subgroups.publishedVersio

ПОЛИОЛАТЫ КРЕМНИЯ И ТИТАНА – НОВЫЕ БИОСОВМЕСТИМЫЕ ПРЕКУРСОРЫ В БИОМИМЕТИЧЕСКОЙ ЗОЛЬ-ГЕЛЬ МИНЕРАЛИЗАЦИИ ПОЛИСАХАРИДОВ

Работа выполнена в соответствии с темой Государственного задания, проект № АААА-А19-119011790134-1

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) practices in the helicopter emergency medical services in Europe: results of an online survey

Contains fulltext : 238060.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The extent to which Point-of-care of ultrasound (POCUS) is used in different European helicopter EMS (HEMS) is unknown. We aimed to study the availability, perception, and future aspects of POCUS in the European HEMS using an online survey. METHOD: A survey about the use of POCUS in HEMS was conducted by a multinational steering expert committee and was carried out from November 30, 2020 to December 30, 2020 via an online web portal. Invitations for participation were sent via email to the medical directors of the European HEMS organizations including two reminding notes. RESULTS: During the study period, 69 participants from 25 countries and 41 different HEMS providers took part in the survey. 96% (n = 66) completed the survey. POCUS was available in 75% (56% always when needed and 19% occasionally) of the responding HEMS organizations. 17% were planning to establish POCUS in the near future. Responders who provided POCUS used it in approximately 15% of the patients. Participants thought that POCUS is important in both trauma and non-trauma-patients (73%, n = 46). The extended focused assessment sonography for trauma (eFAST) protocol (77%) was the most common protocol used. A POCUS credentialing process including documented examinations was requested in less than one third of the HEMS organizations. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the HEMS organizations in Europe are able to provide different POCUS protocols in their services. The most used POCUS protocols were eFAST, FATE and RUSH. Despite the enthusiasm for POCUS, comprehensive training and clear credentialing processes are not available in about two thirds of the European HEMS organizations. Due to several limitations of this survey further studies are needed to evaluate POCUS in HEMS

Reporting Helicopter Emergency Medical Services in Major Incidents: A Delphi Study

Peer reviewe