High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Bag Valve Mask for Preoxygenation during Rapid Sequence Intubation in the Emergency Department: A Single-Center, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Hypoxia is a frequently reported complication during the intubation procedure in the emergency department (ED) and may cause bad outcomes. Therefore, oxygenation plays an important role in emergency airway management. The efficacy of oxygenation with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in the ED has been studied, though the evidence is limited. The study aim was to compare two methods of preoxygenation in patients undergoing rapid sequence intubation (RSI) in the ED: (1) HFNC and (2) bag-valve mask (BVM) oxygenation. METHODS: This is a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial (RCT) in adult ED patients requiring RSI. Patients were randomized to receive preoxygenation with either HFNC or BVM. While HFNC therapy was continued during the intubation procedure, BVM oxygenation was interrupted for laryngoscopy. The primary outcome was the lowest peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) level during intubation. Secondary outcomes were incidence of desaturation (SpO2<90%) and severe hypoxemia (SpO2<80%) throughout the procedure, intubation time, rate of failed intubation, and 30-day survival rates. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients were randomized into two groups (HFNC n = 68; BVM n = 67). The median lowest SpO2 value measured during intubation was 96% (88.8%-99.0%) in the HFNC group and 92% (86.0%-97.5%) in the BVM group (P = .161). During the intubation procedure, severe hypoxemia occurred in 13.2% (n = 9) of patients in the HFNC group and 8.9% (n = 6) in the BVM group, while mild hypoxemia was observed in 35.8% (n = 24) of the BVM group and 26.5% (n = 18) of the HFNC group. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of hypoxemia development (P = .429 and P = .241, respectively). No significant difference was reported in the rate of failed intubation between the groups. Thirty-day mortality was observed in 73.1% of the BVM group and 57.4% of the HFNC group, with a borderline statistically significant difference (difference 15.7; 95% CI of the difference: -0.4 to 30.7; P = .054). CONCLUSION: The use of HFNC for preoxygenation, when compared to standard care with BVM oxygenation, did not improve the lowest SpO2 levels during intubation. Also, the use of HFNC during intubation did not provide benefits in reducing the incidence of severe hypoxemia. However, the 30-day survival rates were slightly better in the HFNC group compared to the BVM group.

Developing and Validating a New Model to Predict In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction.

OBJECTIVE: To derive and validate a regression model that can successfully and robustly predict in-hospital mortality of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after admission to the Department of Emergency Medicine (ED) with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study. Place and Duration of the Study: ED of University of Health Sciences, Sancaktepe Training and Research Hospital, that worked as a PCI centre between January and March 2022. METHODOLOGY: Patients older than 18 years of age, diagnosed with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI (NSTEMI) in the ED, and consequently underwent PCI were included. Patients with missing information of the outcome were excluded. For the regression model, backward stepwise logistic regression was utilised. The non-random split-sample development and validation method was used for the internal and external validation of the model. Ejection fraction, diastolic blood pressure, haemoglobin A1c, and haemoglobin were selected as the predictors. RESULTS: A total of 279 patients were included in the analysis. The area under the curve (AUC) of the final model in the derivation cohort was 0.982 (95% CI = 0.956-1.0). The sensitivity was 92.3% (95% CI = 64-99.8) and the specificity was 96.2% (95% CI = 92.3-98.4). The AUC of the final model in the validation cohort was 0.956 (95% CI = 0.904-1.0). The sensitivity was 80% (95% CI = 28.3-99.5) and the specificity was 92.3% (95% CI = 84-97.1). CONCLUSION: The suggested model generated results that can be utilised as a screening tool for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients diagnosed with STEMI or NSTEMI who are admitted to PCI in emergency medicine settings. Nonetheless, it is essential to validate the model in different populations. KEY WORDS: Percutaneous coronary intervention, Mortality, In-hospital mortality, Prediction model, Logistic regression.