Multiple trauma in pregnant women: injury assessment, fetal radiation exposure and mortality. A multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Fetal radiation exposure in pregnant women with trauma is a concern. The purpose of this study was to evaluate fetal radiation exposure with regard to the type of injury assessment performed. METHODS: It is a multicentre observational study. The cohort study included all pregnant women suspected of severe traumatic injury in the participating centres of a national trauma research network. The primary outcome was the cumulative radiation dose (mGy) received by the fetus with respect to the type of injury assessment initiated by the physician in charge of the pregnant patient. Secondary outcomes were maternal and fetal morbi-mortality, the incidence of haemorrhagic shock and the physicians' imaging assessment with consideration of their medical specialty. RESULTS: Fifty-four pregnant women were admitted for potential major trauma between September 2011 and December 2019 in the 21 participating centres. The median gestational age was 22 weeks [12-30]. 78% of women (n = 42) underwent WBCT. The remaining patients underwent radiographs, ultrasound or selective CT scans based on clinical examination. The median fetal radiation doses were 38 mGy [23-63] and 0 mGy [0-1]. Maternal mortality (6%) was lower than fetal mortality (17%). Two women (out of 3 maternal deaths) and 7 fetuses (out of 9 fetal deaths) died within the first 24 h following trauma. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate WBCT for initial injury assessment in pregnant women with trauma was associated with a fetal radiation dose below the 100 mGy threshold. Among the selected population with either a stable status with a moderate and nonthreatening injury pattern or isolated penetrating trauma, a selective strategy seemed safe in experienced centres.

Prioritisation of ICU treatments for critically ill patients in a COVID-19 pandemic with scarce resources.

BACKGROUND: Relying on capacity increases and patient transfers to deal with the huge and continuous inflow of COVID-19 critically ill patients is a strategy limited by finite human and logistical resources. RATIONALE: Prioritising both critical care initiation and continuation is paramount to save the greatest number of lives. It enables to allocate scarce resources in priority to those with the highest probability of benefiting from them. It is fully ethical provided it relies on objective and widely shared criteria, thus preventing arbitrary decisions and guaranteeing equity. Prioritisation seeks to fairly allocate treatments, maximise saved lives, gain indirect life benefits from prioritising exposed healthcare and similar workers, give priority to those most penalised as a last resort, and apply similar prioritisation schemes to all patients. PRIORITISATION STRATEGY: Prioritisation schemes and their criteria are adjusted to the level of resource scarcity: strain (level A) or saturation (level B). Prioritisation yields a four level priority for initiation or continuation of critical care: P1-high priority, P2-intermediate priority, P3-not needed, P4-not appropriate. Prioritisation schemes take into account the patient's wishes, clinical frailty, pre-existing chronic condition, along with severity and evolution of acute condition. Initial priority level must be reassessed, at least after 48h once missing decision elements are available, at the typical turning point in the disease's natural history (ICU days 7 to 10 for COVID-19), and each time resource scarcity levels change. For treatments to be withheld or withdrawn, a collegial decision-making process and information of patient and/or next of kin are paramount. PERSPECTIVE: Prioritisation strategy is bound to evolve with new knowledge and with changes within the epidemiological situation.

Anesthesia during deployment of a military forward surgical unit in low income countries: A register study of 1547 anesthesia cases.

BACKGROUND: Military anesthesia meets unique logistical, technical, tactical, and human constraints, but to date limited data have been published on anesthesia management during military operations. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe and analyze French anesthetic activity in a deployed military setting. METHODS: Between October 2015 and February 2018, all patients managed by Sainte-Anne Military Hospital anesthesiologists deployed in mission were included. Anesthesia management was described and compared with the same surgical procedures in France performed by the same anesthesia team (hernia repair, lower and upper limb surgeries). Demographics, type of surgical procedure, and surgical activity were also described. The primary endpoint was to describe anesthesia management during the deployment of forward surgical teams (FST). The secondary endpoint was to compare anesthesia modalities during FST deployment with those usually used in a military teaching hospital. RESULTS: During the study period, 1547 instances of anesthesia were performed by 11 anesthesiologists during 20 missions, totaling 1237 days of deployment in nine different theaters. The majority consisted of regional anesthesia, alone (43.5%) or associated with general anesthesia (21%). Compared with France, there was a statistically significant increase in the use of regional anesthesia in hernia repair, lower and upper limb surgeries during deployment. The majority of patients were civilians as part of medical support to populations. CONCLUSION: In the context of an austere environment, the use of regional anesthesia techniques predominated when possible. These results show that the training of military anesthetists must be complete, including anesthesia, intensive care, pediatrics, and regional anesthesia.