Awake intubation

I had some fun today getting intubated.

We used the Ambu aScope 2 and the Greater Sydney Area HEMS equipment and approach to airway management. I didn’t receive an antisialogogue or any analgesia or sedation.

The big learning point for me was how hard it was to anaesthetise the posterior part of my nasal cavity and nasopharynx. I thought the worst part would be any stimulation of my vocal cords or trachea with lidocaine or instrumentation, but this really was fine. Nebulised 2% lidocaine (the strongest concentration we have), atomised lidocaine (using a mucosal atomiser), and co-phenylcaine spray weren’t sufficient. I can see why people use pastes or gel to maintain mucosal contact while the lidocaine takes effect, but we don’t have those (yet). The best solution came from hooking up oxygen tubing to an iv cannula via a three way tap. Oxygen was run through at 2 l/min and lidocaine injected via the the three way tap. This enabled an atomised spray to be directed right onto the area concerned, and made the insertion of the nasotracheal tube more tolerable – although still unpleasant.

The fact I could be intubated awake with reasonable topicalisation suggests most patients should tolerate it perhaps after even an analgesic dose of ketamine, eg. 30-40 mg in an adult. I suspect full dissocation would not be required, which is good for cooperation (“stick your tongue out sir”). I appreciate there are better agents, such as remifentanil or dexmedetomidine, but my area of interest is the retrieval setting – where I have neither the luxury of using these agents nor that of calling for anaesthetic back up.

Thanks to HEMS physicians Emily Stimson, Nirosha De Zoysa, Felicity Day, Chloe Tetlow, and Fergal McCourt for making it fun and safe.

Here’s the video:

Twitter has been helpful in gathering some advice, particularly from @DocJohnHinds:

Point of care analysis of intraosseous samples

Some good news for remote, rural, prehospital, and retrieval medicine clinicians who rely on point of care testing with the i-STAT® device. An animal study confirmed the reliability of testing aspirates from intraosseous samples taken from the tibia(1).

This is also good news for hospital practitioners when it comes to the acquisition of blood gas results, since there are concerns over the potential damage to blood gas analysers by bone marrow contents in the samples.

The researchers tested blood gases, acid–base status, lactate, haemoglobin, and electrolytes, and compared these with results from an arterial sample.

There was no malfunction of the equipment. Most of the acid–base parameters showed discrepancies between arterial and osseous samples: the average pH and base excess were consistently lower whilst pCO2 and lactate were higher in the intraosseous samples compared to the arterial. However the overall small degree and predictable direction of discrepancy in these values should preserve the clinical usefulness of intraosseous gases if these findings can be replicated in human subjects. pO2 was obviously very different between osseous and arterial samples.

They noted that aspiration of intraosseous samples was generally straightforward, especially immediately after placement of the cannulae, but on a few occasions more forceful aspiration was needed. They point out that this could possibly cause cellular lysis and affect the potassium analysis.

The authors consider the issue of how much aspirate should be discarded before taking a sample after intraosseous cannula insertion, and refer to a prior study which suggested that 2mL is adequate.

Summary

• Intraosseous aspirate can be tested on an i-STAT® point-of-care analyser
• Haemoglobin and electrolytes show good correlation with arterial samples
• Acid-base, pCO2, and lactate differ slightly from arterial results but in a predictable direction and results are still likely to be clinically useful in an emergency
• It may be worth discarding the first 2 ml of aspirate
• These results require validation in human subjects

Analysis of intraosseous samples using point of care technology–an experimental study in the anaesthetised pig
Resuscitation. 2012 Nov;83(11):1381-5
Click to read abstract

Aeromedical retrieval: invasive vs noninvasive blood pressure

The chaps from the Emergency Medical Retrieval Service in the UK compared invasive (IABP) and non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) measurements on the ground and in the air. They concluded that NIBP was unreliable, although it was no worse in the aeromedical environment than in the hospital. Not surprisingly there was a better correlation between the mean IABP and NIBP than systolic or diastolic pressures (oscillometric NIBP devices measure the mean BP and derive systolic and diastolic using an algorithm specific to the device).

In their summary, they recommend:

• IABP monitoring should be used in any unwell patient in whom accurate blood pressure measurement is desirable.
• The aeromedical transport environment does not lead to less precise NIBP results than the non-transport environment.
• Where NIBP measurement is the only option, the mean blood pressure should be used in preference to systolic measurements

Blood pressure measurement is an essential physiological measurement for all critically ill patients. Previous work has shown that non-invasive blood pressure is not an accurate reflection of invasive blood pressure measurement. In a transport environment, the effects of motion and vibration may make non-invasive blood pressure less accurate.

Consecutive critically ill patients transported by a dedicated aeromedical retrieval and critical care transfer service with simultaneous invasive and non-invasive blood pressure measurements were analysed. Two sets of measurements were recorded, first in a hospital environment before departure (pre-flight) and a second during aeromedical transport (in-flight).

A total of 56 complete sets of data were analysed. Bland-Altman plots showed limits of agreement (precision) for pre-flight systolic blood pressure were -37.3 mmHg to 30.0 mmHg, and for pre-flight mean arterial pressure -20.5 mmHg to 25.0 mmHg. The limits of agreement for in-flight systolic blood pressure were -40.6 mmHg to 33.1 mmHg, while those for in-flight mean blood pressure in-flight were -23.6 mmHg to 24.6 mmHg. The bias for the four conditions ranged from 0.5 to -3.8 mmHg. There were no significant differences in values between pre-flight and in-flight blood pressure measurements for all categories of blood pressure measurement.

Thus, our data show that non-invasive blood pressure is not a precise reflection of invasive intra-arterial blood pressure. Mean blood pressure measured non-invasively may be a better marker of invasive blood pressure than systolic blood pressure. Our data show no evidence of non-invasive blood pressures being less accurate in an aeromedical transport environment.

Comparison of non-invasive and invasive blood pressure in aeromedical care
Anaesthesia. 2012 Dec;67(12):1343-7

Enoxaparin beats heparin for PCI

This is of interest to those of us in retrieval medicine, for logistic reasons: an infusion of heparin can be an unnecessary hassle during transport, especially if a subcutaneous injection prior to retrieval is a satisfactory alternative. This systematic review and meta-analysis shows enoxaparin appears to be superior to unfractionated heparin in reducing mortality and bleeding outcomes during percutaneous coronary intervention. This applies particularly to patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention.

DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES: Medline and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 1996 to May 2011.

STUDY SELECTION: Randomised and non-randomised studies comparing enoxaparin with unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention and reporting on both mortality (efficacy end point) and major bleeding (safety end point) outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION: Sample size, characteristics, and outcomes, extracted independently and analysed.

DATA SYNTHESIS: 23 trials representing 30 966 patients were identified, including 10 243 patients (33.1%) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction, 8750 (28.2%) undergoing secondary percutaneous coronary intervention after fibrinolysis, and 11 973 (38.7%) with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome or stable patients scheduled for percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 13 943 patients (45.0%) received enoxaparin and 17 023 (55.0%) unfractionated heparin. Enoxaparin was associated with significant reductions in death (relative risk 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.76; P<0.001), the composite of death or myocardial infarction (0.68, 0.57 to 0.81; P<0.001), and complications of myocardial infarction (0.75, 0.6 to 0.85; P<0.001), and a reduction in incidence of major bleeding (0.80, 0.68 to 0.95; P=0.009). In patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention, the reduction in death (0.52, 0.42 to 0.64; P<0.001) was particularly significant and associated with a reduction in major bleeding (0.72, 0.56 to 0.93; P=0.01).

CONCLUSION: Enoxaparin seems to be superior to unfractionated heparin in reducing mortality and bleeding outcomes during percutaneous coronary intervention and particularly in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction.

Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ. 2012 Feb 3;344:e553

Training in prehospital and retrieval medicine

I’ve been too busy to blog literature updates for a couple of weeks since I and my colleagues have been flat out running a two week training course in prehospital and retrieval medicine.
Our Helicopter Emergency Medical Service physicians and paramedics care for a wide range of adult and paediatric trauma and critical care patients in some challenging environments. We therefore need to provide a fairly comprehensive induction course for new recruits.

The new guys did us proud. They just need to stay this awesome.

Essential Retrieval Medicine Toolkit

Australian retrieval medicine guru and Flying Doctor Dr Minh Le Cong sent me a copy of the ‘Prehospital Anaesthesia and Airway management Syllabus 2012′ that he’d authored, a thorough and evidence-based approach to airway management for practioners involved in pre-hospital care and critical care transport.

In the surgical airway section, Minh describes the use of ultrasound as an adjunct to the identification of the cricothyroid membrane. It includes this image of Minh ultrasounding his own neck in his office.

I couldn’t help but be distracted by an object on his desk, which on closer inspection, appears to be a rubber chicken.

I emailed Minh to find out about that chicken. He replied:

..even I did not pick that my rubber chicken was visible in the shot!

A great tip from an ex SAS soldier…always carry a rubber chicken into high stress, high risk situations. You would be surprised how well it works in defusing high tension, arguments and standoffs as well as personally allowing you to take a moment and ground yourself when the shit is flying.

The chicken comes with me, along with my king vision, portable USS and Leatherman Multitool and head torch.I used all of those items recently on the same patient!

Minh Le Cong
Medical Education Officer
RFDS Queensland Section

What are the essential items you have with you on every shift? Is your list anything like Minh’s Retrieval Toolkit?

Performance measures for HEMS services

A recent study highlights the need for uniform standards of outcome data collection in Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) in Great Britain and aero-medical retrieval services in Australia. Suggested patient outcome measurements by Britsh and Australian air medical respondents to the survey included:

1. Mortality versus TRISS predicted mortality
2. APACHE/ TRISS predicted mortality versus actual mortality.
3. Use of national audit tools (eg, TARN)
4. Nationally agreed Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
5. Clinical outcomes benchmarked against other services
6. In-mission clinical indicators (eg, unanticipated procedures, adverse events)
7. Physiological scoring linked to outcome measures
8. ISS versus survival/disability
9. KPIs from a national body. Mortality in isolation is not a useful marker of quality
10. Clinical KPIs provided there is a reliable method of data collection
11. Long-term outcome
12. Interventions performed by doctors that contribute to patient mortality/morbidity.

Background Performance outcome measures are an essential component of health service improvement. Whereas hospital critical care services have established performance measures, prehospital care services have less well-established outcome measures and this has been identified as a key issue for development. Individual studies examining long-term survival and functional outcome measures have previously been used to evaluate prehospital care delivery. There is no set of standardised patient outcome measures for Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) in the UK or Air Medical Services (AMS) in Australia. The aim of this study is to document the patient outcome measures currently in use within British HEMS and Australian AMS.

Methods This is an observational study analysing point prevalence of practice as of November 2009. A structured questionnaire was designed to assess the method of routine patient follow-up, and the timing and nature of applied patient outcome measures.

Results Full responses were received from 17/21 (81%) British services and 6/7 (86%) Australian services. The overall response rate was 82%.

Conclusions HEMS in Britain and Australian aeromedical retrieval services do not have uniform patient outcome measures. Services tend not to follow-up patients beyond 24 h post transfer. Patient outcome data are rarely presented to an external organisation and there is no formal data comparison between surveyed services. Services are not satisfied that the data currently being collected reflects the quality of their service.

Performance measurement in British Helicopter Emergency Medical Services and Australian Air Medical Services
Emerg Med J. 2011 Feb 3. [Epub ahead of print]

Delayed door-to-balloon even with helicopters

For a whole bunch of reasons, patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction who undergo interhospital transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention may not meet the required 90 minute door-to-balloon time. In a new study of patients transferred by helicopter, only 3% of STEMI patients transferred for reperfusion met the 90-minute goal. Should this result in an increase in the use of fibrinolysis at non–percutaneous coronary intervention hospitals?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Early reperfusion portends better outcomes for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. This investigation estimates the proportions of STEMI patients transported by a hospital-based helicopter emergency medical services (EMS) system who meet the goals of 90-minute door-to-balloon time for percutaneous coronary intervention or 30-minute door-to-needle time for fibrinolysis.

METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective chart review of STEMI patients flown by a hospital-based helicopter service in 2007. Included patients were transferred from an emergency department (ED) to a cardiac catheterization laboratory for primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention. Out-of-hospital, ED, and inpatient records were reviewed to determine door-to-balloon time and door-to-needle time. Data were abstracted with a priori definitions and criteria.

RESULTS: There were 179 subjects from 16 referring and 6 receiving hospitals. Mean age was 58 years, 68% were men, and 86% were white. One hundred forty subjects were transferred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention, of whom 29 had no intervention during catheterization. For subjects with intervention, door-to-balloon time exceeded 90 minutes in 107 of 111 cases (97%). Median door-to-balloon time was 131 minutes (interquartile range 114 to 158 minutes). Thirty-nine subjects (21%) received fibrinolytics before transfer, and 19 of 39 (49%) received fibrinolytics within 30 minutes. Median door-to-needle time was 31 minutes (interquartile range 23 to 45 minutes).

CONCLUSION: In this study, STEMI patients presenting to non-percutaneous coronary intervention facilities who are transferred to a percutaneous coronary intervention-capable hospital by helicopter EMS do not commonly receive fibrinolysis and rarely achieve percutaneous coronary intervention within 90 minutes. In similar settings, primary fibrinolysis should be considered while strategies to reduce the time required for subsequent interventional care are explored.

Reperfusion Is Delayed Beyond Guideline Recommendations in Patients Requiring Interhospital Helicopter Transfer for Treatment of ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.
Ann Emerg Med. 2011 Mar;57(3):213-220

Out of hospital monitoring in kids

I don’t have full text access to the Journal Pediatrics, so I’m not sure what I make of this small randomised trial comparing two types of blood pressure monitoring during paediatric transport:

BACKGROUND The “golden-hour” concept has led to emphasis on speed of patient delivery during pediatric interfacility transport. Timely intervention, in addition to enhanced monitoring during transport, is the key to improved outcomes in critically ill patients. Taking the ICU to the patient may be more beneficial than rapid delivery to a tertiary care center.

METHODS The Improved Monitoring During Pediatric Interfacility Transport trial was the first randomized controlled trial in the out-of-hospital pediatric transport environment. It was designed to determine the impact of improved blood pressure monitoring during pediatric interfacility transport and the effect on clinical outcomes in patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome and moderate-to-severe head trauma. Patients in the control group had their blood pressure monitored intermittently with an oscillometric device; those in the intervention group had their blood pressure monitored every 12 to 15 cardiac contractions with a near-continuous, noninvasive device.

RESULTS Between May 2006 and June 2007, 1995, consecutive transport patients were screened, and 94 were enrolled (48 control, 46 intervention). Patients in the intervention group received more intravenous fluid (19.8 ± 22.2 vs 9.9 ± 9.9 mL/kg; P = .01), had a shorter hospital stay (6.8 ± 7.8 vs 10.9 ± 13.4 days; P = .04), and had less organ dysfunction (18 of 206 vs 32 of 202 PICU days; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS Improved monitoring during pediatric transport has the potential to improve outcomes of critically ill children. Clinical trials, including randomized controlled trials, can be accomplished during pediatric transport. Future studies should evaluate optimal equipment, protocols, procedures, and interventions during pediatric transport, aimed at improving the clinical and functional outcomes of critically ill patients.

Enhanced Monitoring Improves Pediatric Transport Outcomes: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Pediatrics. 2011 Jan;127(1):42-8

Helicopters between hospitals

More National Trauma Databank analysis coming out in favour of helicopter transport: this time looking at interhospital transfer:

Background: Helicopter transport (HT) is frequently used for interfacility transfer of injured patients to a trauma center. The benefits of HT over ground transport (GT) in this setting are unclear. By using a national sample, the objective of this study was to assess whether HT impacted outcomes following interfacility transfer of trauma patients.

Methods: Patients transferred by HT or GT in 2007 were identified using the National Trauma Databank (version 8). Injury severity, resource utilization, and survival to discharge were compared. Stepwise logistic regression was used to determine whether transport modality was a predictor of survival after adjusting for covariates. Regression analysis was repeated in subgroups with Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≤15 and ISS >15.

Results: There were 74,779 patients transported by helicopter (20%) or ground (80%). Mean ISS was higher in patients transported by helicopter (17 ± 11 vs. 12 ± 9; p < 0.01) as was the proportion with ISS >15 (49% vs. 28%; odds ratio [OR], 2.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.43-2.63). Patients transported by helicopter had higher rates of intensive care unit admission (54% vs. 29%; OR, 2.86; 95% CI, 2.75-2.96), had shorter transport time (61 ± 55 minutes vs. 98 ± 71 minutes; p < 0.01), and had shorter overall prehospital time (135 ± 86 minutes vs. 202 ± 132 minutes; p < 0.01). HT was not a predictor of survival overall or in patients with ISS ≤15. In patients with ISS >15, HT was a predictor of survival (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.17; p = 0.01).

Conclusions: Patients transported by helicopter were more severely injured and required more hospital resources than patients transported by ground. HT offered shorter transport and overall prehospital times. For patients with ISS >15, HT was a predictor of survival. These findings should be considered when developing interfacility transfer policies for patients with severe injuries.

Helicopters Improve Survival in Seriously Injured Patients Requiring Interfacility Transfer for Definitive Care
J Trauma. 2011 Feb;70(2):310-4.

Next Page »