Management of patients suffering from mild traumatic brain injury 2023.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a multidisciplinary French reference that addresses initial pre- and in-hospital management of a mild traumatic brain injury patient. DESIGN: A panel of 22 experts was formed on request from the French Society of Emergency Medicine (SFMU) and the French Society of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine (SFAR). A policy of declaration and monitoring of links of interest was applied and respected throughout the process of producing the guidelines. Similarly, no funding was received from any company marketing a health product (drug or medical device). The expert panel had to respect and follow the Grade® (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology to evaluate the quality of the evidence on which the recommendations were based. Given the impossibility of obtaining a high level of evidence for most of the recommendations, it was decided to adopt a "Recommendations for Professional Practice" (RPP) format, rather than a Formalized Expert Recommendation (FER) format, and to formulate the recommendations using the terminology of the SFMU and SFAR Guidelines. METHODS: Three fields were defined: 1) pre-hospital assessment, 2) emergency room management, and 3) emergency room discharge modalities. The group assessed 11 questions related to mild traumatic brain injury. Each question was formulated using a PICO (Patients Intervention Comparison Outcome) format. RESULTS: The experts' synthesis work and the application of the GRADE® method resulted in the formulation of 14 recommendations. After two rounds of rating, strong agreement was obtained for all recommendations. For one question, no recommendation could be made. CONCLUSION: There was strong agreement among the experts on important, transdisciplinary recommendations, the purpose of which is to improve management practices for patients with mild head injury.

Risk factors for failed first intubation attempt in an out-of-hospital setting: a multicenter prospective study.

This study was performed to identify variables potentially associated with failure of the first intubation attempt in an out-of-hospital emergency setting, considering all aspects of tracheal intubation. This observational prospective multicenter study was performed over 17 months and involved 10 prehospital emergency medical units. After each tracheal intubation, the operator was required to provide information concerning operator and patient characteristics, as well as the environmental conditions during intubation, by completing a data collection form. The primary endpoint was failure of the first intubation attempt. During the study period, 1546 patients were analyzed, of whom 59% were in cardiac arrest; 486 intubations failed on the first attempt (31.4% [95% confidence interval = 30.2-32.6]). Multivariate analysis revealed that the following 7 of 28 factors were associated with an increased risk of a failed first intubation attempt: operator with fewer than 50 prior intubations (odds ratio [OR] = 1.8 [1.4-2.4]), small inter-incisor space (OR = 2.3 [1.7-3.2]), limited extension of the head (OR = 1.6 [1.1-2.1]), macroglossia (OR = 2.3 [1.6-3.2]), ear/nose/throat (ENT) tumor (OR = 4.4 [1.4-13.4]), cardiac arrest (OR = 1.8 [1.3-2.6]), and vomiting (OR = 1.7 [1.3-2.3]). The frequency of adverse events among non-cardiac arrest patients was 17.6%; it increased with each additional intubation attempt. The first intubation attempt failed in more than 30% of cases, and seven variables were associated with increased risk of failure. Most of these factors could not be predicted.

Guidelines for the management of urgent obstetric situations in emergency medicine, 2022

To provide recommendations on the management of urgent obstetrical emergencies outside the maternity ward. A group of 24 experts from the French Society of Emergency Medicine (SFMU), the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (SFAR) and the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF) was convened. Potential conflicts of interest were formally declared at the outset of the guideline development process, which was conducted independently of industry funding. The authors followed the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method to assess the level of evidence in the literature. The potential drawbacks of strong recommendations in the presence of low-level evidence were highlighted. Some recommendations with an insufficient level of evidence were not graded. Eight areas were defined: imminent delivery, postpartum haemorrhage (prevention and management), threat of premature delivery, hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, trauma, imaging, cardiopulmonary arrest, and emergency obstetric training. For each field, the expert panel formulated questions according to the PICO model (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes) and an extensive literature search was conducted. Analysis of the literature and formulation of recommendations were conducted according to the GRADE method. Fifteen recommendations on the management of obstetrical emergencies were issued by the SFMU/SFAR/CNGOF panel of experts, and 4 recommendations from formalised expert recommendations (RFE) established by the same societies were taken up to answer 4 PICO questions dealing with the pre-hospital context. After two rounds of voting and several amendments, strong agreement was reached for all the recommendations. For two questions (cardiopulmonary arrest and inter-hospital transfer), no recommendation could be made. There was significant agreement among the experts on strong recommendations to improve practice in the management of urgent obstetric complications in emergency medicine.

Guidelines for the management of urgent obstetric situations in emergency medicine, 2022.

OBJECTIVE: To provide recommendations on the management of urgent obstetrical emergencies outside the maternity ward. DESIGN: A group of 24 experts from the French Society of Emergency Medicine (SFMU), the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (SFAR) and the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF) was convened. Potential conflicts of interest were formally declared at the outset of the guideline development process, which was conducted independently of industry funding. The authors followed the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method to assess the level of evidence in the literature. The potential drawbacks of strong recommendations in the presence of low-level evidence were highlighted. Some recommendations with an insufficient level of evidence were not graded. METHODS: Eight areas were defined: imminent delivery, postpartum haemorrhage (prevention and management), threat of premature delivery, hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, trauma, imaging, cardiopulmonary arrest, and emergency obstetric training. For each field, the expert panel formulated questions according to the PICO model (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes) and an extensive literature search was conducted. Analysis of the literature and formulation of recommendations were conducted according to the GRADE method. RESULTS: Fifteen recommendations on the management of obstetrical emergencies were issued by the SFMU/SFAR/CNGOF panel of experts, and 4 recommendations from formalised expert recommendations (RFE) established by the same societies were taken up to answer 4 PICO questions dealing with the pre-hospital context. After two rounds of voting and several amendments, strong agreement was reached for all the recommendations. For two questions (cardiopulmonary arrest and inter-hospital transfer), no recommendation could be made. CONCLUSIONS: There was significant agreement among the experts on strong recommendations to improve practice in the management of urgent obstetric complications in emergency medicine.

Assessment of rewarming methods in unplanned out-of-hospital births from a prospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Mobile intensive care units frequently manage unplanned out-of-hospital births (UOHB). Rewarming methods during pre-hospital management of UOHB have not yet been compared. The aim was to compare rewarming methods used during pre-hospital management in a large prospective cohort of UOHB in France. METHODS: We analysed UOHB from the prospective AIE cohort from 25 prehospital emergency medical services in France. The primary outcome was the change in body temperature from arrival at scene to arrival at hospital. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2018, 1854 UOHB were recorded, of whom 520 were analysed. We found that using incubator care was the most effective rewarming method (+ 0.8 °C during transport), followed by the combination of plastic bag, skin-to-skin and cap (+ 0.2 °C). The associations plastic bag + cap and skin-to-skin + cap did not allow the newborn to be warmed up but rather to maintain initial temperature (+ 0.0 °C). The results of the multivariate model were consistent with these observations, with better rewarming with the use of an incubator. We also identified circumstances of increased risk of hypothermia according to classification and regression tree, like premature birth (< 37 weeks of gestation) and/or low outside temperature (< 8.4 °C). CONCLUSIONS: Using an incubator was the most effective rewarming method during pre-hospital management of UOHB in our French prospective cohort. Based on our model, in cases of term less than 37 weeks of gestation or between 37 and 40 weeks with a low outside temperature or initial hypothermia, using such a method would be preferred.

Unplanned out-of-hospital birth and risk factors of adverse perinatal outcome: findings from a prospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: In France, while most babies are delivered at hospital, emergency medical services (EMS) weekly manage calls for unplanned out-of-hospital births. The objective of our study was to describe neonatal morbidity and mortality, defined as death or neonatal intensive care unit hospitalization at Day 7, in a prospective multicentric cohort of unplanned out-of-hospital births. METHODS: We prospectively analyzed out-of-hospital births from 25 prehospital EMS units in France. The primary outcome was neonatal morbidity and mortality, and the secondary outcome was risk factors associated with neonatal morbidity and mortality. A univariate logistic regression was first made, followed by a multivariate logistic regression with backward selection. RESULTS: From October 2011 to August 2018, a total of 1670 unplanned out-of-hospital births were included. Of these, 1652 (99.2%) were singleton and 1537 (93.5%) had prenatal care. Maternal mean age of the study population was 30 ± 5.5 (range 15 to 48). The majority of women were multiparous, but 13% were nulliparous. Overall, 45.3% of these unplanned out-of-hospital births were medically-driven, either by phone during medical regulation (12.5%) or on scene by the prehospital emergency medical service units (32.9%). The prevalence of neonatal morbidity and mortality was 6.3% (n = 106) after an unplanned out-of-hospital birth (death before Day 7: n = 20; 1.2%). The multivariate logistic regression found that multiparity (adjusted Odds Ratio = 70.7 [4.7-1062]), prematurity (adjusted Odds Ratio = 6.7 [2.1-21.4]), maternal pathology (adjusted Odds Ratio = 2.8 [1.0-7.5]) and hypothermia (adjusted Odds Ratio = 2.8 [1.1-7.6]) were independent predictive factors of neonatal morbidity and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our study assessed for the first time risk factors for adverse perinatal outcome in a large and multicenter cohort of unplanned out-of-hospital births. We have to improve temperature management in the out-of-hospital field and future trials are required to investigate strategies to optimize newborns management in the prehospital area.

Details of the initial management of cardiac arrest occurring in the workplace in a French urban area.

INTRODUCTION: Our goal was to evaluate the details and management of cardiac arrest (CA) occurring in the working environment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a 10-year retrospective study based on the medical records of the Garches mobile intensive care unit. CA occurring in the workplace ("Inside W." group) was matched with two CA outside the workplace ("Outside W." group), with regard to sex, age and year of occurrence. The Chain of Survival and prognosis factors were analysed in a bi-multivariate analysis. RESULTS: From 1993 to 2002, 72 CA were included in the "Inside W." group, with 79% arising from suspected cardiac aetiology (there was a similar proportion in the "Outside W." group). Some variables in the cardiac aetiology patients were higher in the "Inside W." group compared to the "Outside W." group (P < 0.05): early external chest compression [(ECC), 37%, n = 20 versus 16%, n = 16)] and ventricular fibrillation as initial recorded rhythm (40%, n = 33 versus 16%, n = 16). The proportion of use of automated external defibrillator (AED) was similar in the two groups. The workplace was not associated with a better outcome, with 9% patients discharged alive compared to 4% n = 6, P > 0.05. Early ECC and defibrillation attempted with an AED were associated with patients discharged alive from the intensive care unit in a multivariate analysis (P < 0.05), but not the workplace and cardiac aetiology. CONCLUSION: Although our study did not support that concept that the workplace was a safer place, there was a better chain of survival for CA applied within workplace settings. Basic Life Support teaching and installation of AEDs could be helpful, though further cost-effectiveness studies are needed.