An analysis of prehospital critical care events and management patterns from 97 539 emergency helicopter medical service missions : A retrospective registry-based study

BACKGROUND It is largely unknown how often physicians in emergency helicopter medical services (HEMS) encounter various critical care events and if HEMS exposure is associated with particular practice patterns or outcomes. OBJECTIVES This study aimed: to describe the frequency and distribution of critical care events; to investigate whether HEMS exposure is associated with differences in practice patterns and determine if HEMS exposure factors are associated with mortality. DESIGN A retrospective registry-based study. SETTING Physician-staffed HEMS in Finland between January 2012 and August 2019. PARTICIPANTS Ninety-four physicians who worked at least 6 months in the HEMS during the study period. Physicians with undeterminable HEMS exposure were excluded from practice pattern comparisons and mortality analysis, leaving 80 physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure was a physician's average annual frequencies for operational events and clinical interventions. Our secondary outcomes were the proportion of missions cancelled or denied, time onsite (OST) and proportion of unconscious patients intubated. Our tertiary outcome was adjusted 30-day mortality of patients. RESULTS The physicians encountered 62 [33 to 98], escorted 31 [17 to 41] and transported by helicopter 2.1 [1.3 to 3.5] patients annually, given as median [interquartile range; IQR]. Rapid sequence intubation was performed 11 [6.2 to 16] times per year. Physicians were involved in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) 10 [5.9 to 14] and postresuscitation care 5.5 [3.1 to 8.1] times per year. Physicians with longer patient intervals had shorter times onsite. Proportionally, they cancelled more missions and intubated fewer unconscious patients. A short patient interval [odds ratio (OR); 95% confidence interval (CI)] was associated with decreased mortality (0.87; 95% CI, 0.76 to1.00), whereas no association was observed between mortality and HEMS career length. CONCLUSION Prehospital exposure is distributed unevenly, and some physicians receive limited exposure to prehospital critical care. This seems to be associated with differences in practice patterns. Rare HEMS patient contacts may be associated with increased mortality.Peer reviewe

Reasons behind failed prehospital intubation attempts while combining C-MAC videolaryngoscope and Frova introducer

Background High first-pass success rate is achieved with the routine use of C-MAC videolaryngoscope and Frova introducer. We aim to identify potential reasons and subgroups associated with failed intubation attempts, analyse actions taken after them and study possible complications. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study of adult intubated patients at a single helicopter emergency medical service unit in southern Finland between 2016 and 2018. We collected data on patient characteristics, reasons for failed attempts, complications and follow-up measures from a national helicopter emergency medical service database and from prehospital patient records. Results 1011 tracheal intubations were attempted. First attempt was successful in 994 cases (FPS 994/1011, 98.3%), 15 needed a second or third attempt and two a surgical airway (non-FPS 17/1011, 1.7%, 95% CI 1.0-2.7). The failed first attempt group had heterogenous characteristics. The most common cause for a failed first attempt was obstruction of the airway by vomit, food, mucus or blood (10/13, 76%). After the failed first attempt, there were six cases (6/14, 43%) of deviation from the protocol and the most frequent complications were five cases (5/17, 29%) of hypoxia and four cases (4/17, 24%) of hypotension. Conclusions When a protocol combining the C-MAC videolaryngoscope and Frova introducer is used, the most common reason for a failed first attempt is an airway blocked by gastric content, blood or mucus. These findings highlight the importance of effective airway decontamination methods and questions the appropriateness of anatomically focused pre-intubation assessment tools when such protocol is used.Peer reviewe