Cricothyroidotomy competence and injuries using nonmedical equipment: A crossover noninferiority randomised controlled trial in a porcine cadaver model.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend cricothyroidotomy as a life-saving procedure for 'cannot intubate, cannot ventilate' situations. Although commercially available sets facilitate surgical cricothyroidotomy, regular training seems to be the key to success. OBJECTIVES: The goal was to investigate if trained anaesthetists are able to transfer their skill in one surgical cricothyroidotomy technique to another. The primary hypothesis postulated that trained anaesthetists could perform an emergency cricothyroidotomy equally fast and successfully with a pocketknife compared with a surgical cricothyroidotomy set. DESIGN: Crossover noninferiority randomised controlled trial. SETTING: After written informed consent and ethics committee approval, this single-centre study was performed at the University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: Altogether, 61 study participants already familiar with surgical cricothyroidotomy were included. INTERVENTION: The use of a commercially available cricothyroidotomy set was compared with a short-bladed pocketknife and ballpoint pen barrel. A pig-larynx cadaver model including trachea, with pig skin overlaid, was used. Participants underwent additional training sessions in both procedures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the time necessary to position the tracheal tube or pen barrel in the trachea. Other outcome parameters were success rate, tracheal and laryngeal injuries and preferred device. RESULTS: Cricothyroidotomy with the pocketknife was performed significantly faster and equally successfully as compared with the cricothyroidotomy sets. Tracheal and laryngeal injuries were similar in both groups. Paratracheal or submucosal placement of the pen barrel occurred in 32%, compared with 29% for the tracheal tube. Sixty-six per cent of participants preferred the cricothyroidotomy set. CONCLUSION: Regularly trained anaesthetists are able to accomplish cricothyroidotomy irrespective of the equipment used. A pocketknife with a ballpoint pen barrel was just as effective as a commercially available surgical set.

Organ donation after circulatory death as compared with organ donation after brain death in Switzerland - an observational study.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: Organ donation after circulatory death (DCD) was reintroduced in Switzerland in 2011 and accounts for a third of deceased organ donors today. Controversy persists if DCD transplants are of similar quality to transplants following donation after brain death (DBD), mainly due to warm ischaemia time DCD organs are exposed to. We compared DCD with DBD in Switzerland. METHODS: Data on deceased adults who were referred to and approved for organ donation from 1 September 2011 to 31 December 2019 were retrospectively analysed (217 DCD, 840 DBD donors). We compared DCD and DBD donor/organ characteristics, transplant rates of lungs, liver, kidneys, and pancreas, and early liver and kidney graft function in the recipient. The effect of DCD/DBD on transplant rates (organ transplanted or not) and 72-hour recipient graft function (moderate/good vs delayed graft function / organ loss) was analysed using multivariable logistic regression. Among utilised DCD donors, we analysed the effect of functional warm ischaemia time (FWIT) and donor age on 72-hour post-transplant liver and kidney graft function, also using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: DCD donors were more often male (64.5% vs 56.8% p = 0.039), presented with heart disease (36.4% vs 25.5%, p <0.001), were resuscitated before hospital admission (41.9% vs 30.7%, p = 0.006), and died from anoxia (41.9% vs 23.9%). Kidney function before transplantation was comparable, lung, liver and pancreas function were poorer in DCD than DBD. Eighty-one and 91% of approved DCD and DBD donors were utilised (p <0.001). Median FWIT in DCD was 29 minutes (interquartile range 25-35). DCD transplant rates ranged from 4% (pancreas) to 73% (left kidney) and were all lower compared with DBD. Seventy-two-hour liver graft function was comparable between DCD and DBD (94.2% vs 96.6% moderate/good, p = 0.199). DCD kidney transplants showed increased risk of delayed graft function or early organ loss (odds ratios 8.32 and 5.05; 95% confidence intervals CI 5.28-13.28 and 3.22-7.95; both p <0.001, for left and right kidney transplants, respectively). No negative effect of prolonged FWIT or higher donor age was detected. CONCLUSION: Despite less favourable donor/organ characteristics compared with donation after brain death, donation after circulatory death donors are increasingly referred and today provide an important source for scarce transplants in Switzerland. We identified a higher risk for delayed graft function or early organ loss for DCD kidney transplants, but not for DCD liver transplants. When carefully selected and allowed for other risk factors in organ allocation, prolonged functional warm ischaemia time or higher age in donation after circulatory death does not seem to be associated with impaired graft function early after transplantation.