An Institutional Protocol for the Treatment of Severe Frostbite Injury-A 6-Year Retrospective Analysis.

The treatment of severe frostbite injury has undergone rapid development in the past 30 years with many different diagnostic and treatment options now available. However, there is currently no consensus on the best method for management of this disease process. At our institution, we have designed a protocol for severe frostbite injury that includes diagnosis, medical treatment, wound cares, therapy, and surgery. This study assess the efficacy of our treatment since its implementation six years ago. During this time, all patients with severe frostbite injury were included in prospective observational trial of the protocol. We found that this protocol results in significant tissue salvage with over 80.7% of previously ischemic tissue becoming viable and not requiring amputation. We also were able to improve our center's efficiency over the course of six years and now our current average time from rapid rewarming to delivery of thrombolytics is under six hours.

Randomized clinical trial of propofol versus alfentanil for moderate procedural sedation in the emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequency of airway and respiratory adverse events leading to an intervention between moderate sedation using alfentanil or propofol. METHODS: We performed a randomized clinical trial in which adults undergoing moderate sedation in the ED received either alfentanil or propofol. Our primary outcome was the frequency of airway and respiratory adverse events leading to an intervention. Other outcomes included sedation depth, efficacy, sedation time, patient satisfaction, pain, and satisfaction. RESULTS: 108 subjects completed the trial: 52 receiving alfentanil and 56 receiving propofol. Airway or respiratory adverse events leading to an intervention were similar between the two groups: 23% for alfentanil and 20% for propofol (p=0.657). There were no serious adverse events in any group. Secondary outcomes were notably different in the rate of reported pain (48% for alfentanil, 13% for propofol) and recall (75% for alfentanil, 23% for propofol) and similar in the rate of satisfaction with the procedure (87% for alfentanil, 84% for propofol). CONCLUSION: We found a similar frequency of airway and respiratory adverse events leading to intervention between alfentanil and propofol used for moderate procedural sedation. Both agents appear safe for moderate procedural sedation.

Direct Versus Video Laryngoscopy Using the C-MAC for Tracheal Intubation in the Emergency Department, a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Direct laryngoscopy (DL) has long been the most common approach for emergency endotracheal intubation, although the use of video laryngoscopy (VL) is becoming more widespread. Current observational data suggest that VL has higher first-pass success, although randomized trials are lacking. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to compare first-pass success in patients undergoing emergency intubation with DL or VL using a C-MAC device. METHODS: This was an open-label, prospective, randomized, controlled trial in an academic emergency department of patients undergoing emergency intubation with a plan of DL for the first attempt. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either DL or VL using a C-MAC device for the first intubation attempt. The primary outcome was first-pass success. Secondary outcomes included time to intubation, development of aspiration pneumonia, and hospital length of stay (LOS). The study was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT01710891. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients were enrolled and intubated with either DL (n = 95) or VL (n = 103). First-attempt success was 86 and 92% for the DL and VL groups, respectively (difference = -5.9%, 95% confidence interval = -14.5% to 2.7%, p = 0.18). Time to intubation, rates of aspiration pneumonia, and hospital LOS were not different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing emergency intubation in whom DL was planned for the first attempt, we did not detect a difference between VL or DL using the C-MAC device in first-pass success, duration of intubation attempt, aspiration pneumonia, or hospital LOS.