Bispectral Index Measurements Are Not Degraded During Aeromedical Evacuations.

For a decade, depth of anesthesia monitoring has become a reality in the operating room. It provides valuable help for managing anesthesia, especially for unstable patients. This might be particularly relevant during aeromedical evacuation. In this study, we aimed to assess the validity of the bispectral index (BIS) during long-range patient transportation aboard fixed-wing aircraft. BIS was recorded in 30 patients, 25 under anesthesia and 5 awake, during aeromedical evacuations performed by the French Air Force. BIS index was available and analyzable (signal quality index above 50%) more than 90% of time. Despite potential pitfalls related to mechanical or electrical interference, BIS monitor can be reliably used to monitor depth of anesthesia during individual strategic aeromedical evacuations.

Brief report: pulmonary auscultation in the operating room: a prospective randomized blinded trial comparing electronic and conventional stethoscopes.

BACKGROUND: We compared the subjective quality of pulmonary auscultation between 2 acoustic stethoscopes (Holtex Ideal® and Littmann Cardiology III®) and an electronic stethoscope (Littmann 3200®) in the operating room. METHODS: A prospective double-blind randomized study with an evaluation during mechanical ventilation was performed in 100 patients. After each examination, the listeners using a numeric scale (0-10) rated the quality of auscultation. Auscultation quality was compared in patients among stethoscopes with a multilevel mixed-effects linear regression with random intercept (operator effect), adjusted on significant factors in univariate analysis. A significant difference was defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: One hundred comparative evaluations of pulmonary auscultation were performed. The quality of auscultation was rated 8.2 ± 1.6 for the electronic stethoscope, 7.4 ± 1.8 for the Littmann Cardiology III, and 4.6 ± 1.8 for the Holtex Ideal. Compared with Holtex Ideal, auscultation quality was significantly higher with other stethoscopes (P < 0.0001). Compared with Littmann Cardiology III, auscultation quality was significantly higher with Littmann 3200 electronic stethoscope (ß = 0.9 [95% confidence interval, 0.5-1.3]). CONCLUSIONS: An electronic stethoscope can provide a better quality of pulmonary auscultation than acoustic stethoscopes in the operating room, yet with a magnitude of improvement marginally higher than that provided with a high performance acoustic stethoscope. Whether this can translate into a clinically relevant benefit requires further studies.

Validation of a pre-established triage protocol for critically ill patients in a COVID-19 outbreak under resource scarcity: A retrospective multicenter cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: In case of COVID-19 related scarcity of critical care resources, an early French triage algorithm categorized critically ill patients by probability of survival based on medical history and severity, with four priority levels for initiation or continuation of critical care: P1 -high priority, P2 -intermediate priority, P3 -not needed, P4 -not appropriate. This retrospective multi-center study aimed to assess its classification performance and its ability to help saving lives under capacity saturation. METHODS: ICU patients admitted for severe COVID-19 without triage in spring 2020 were retrospectively included from three hospitals. Demographic data, medical history and severity items were collected. Priority levels were retrospectively allocated at ICU admission and on ICU day 7-10. Mortality rate, cumulative incidence of death and of alive ICU discharge, length of ICU stay and of mechanical ventilation were compared between priority levels. Calculated mortality and survival were compared between full simulated triage and no triage. RESULTS: 225 patients were included, aged 63.1±11.9 years. Median SAPS2 was 40 (IQR 29-49). At the end of follow-up, 61 (27%) had died, 26 were still in ICU, and 138 had been discharged. Following retrospective initial priority allocation, mortality rate was 53% among P4 patients (95CI 34-72%) versus 23% among all P1 to P3 patients (95CI 17-30%, chi-squared p = 5.2e-4). The cumulative incidence of death consistently increased in the order P3, P1, P2 and P4 both at admission (Gray's test p = 3.1e-5) and at reassessment (p = 8e-5), and conversely for that of alive ICU discharge. Reassessment strengthened consistency. Simulation under saturation showed that this two-step triage protocol could have saved 28 to 40 more lives than no triage. CONCLUSION: Although it cannot eliminate potentially avoidable deaths, this triage protocol proved able to adequately prioritize critical care for patients with highest probability of survival, hence to save more lives if applied.

Ultrasound-guided perineural circumferential median nerve block with and without prior dextrose 5% hydrodissection: a prospective randomized double-blinded noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided perineural peripheral nerve block using a hydrodissection technique may reduce the risk of accidental intravascular local anesthetic (LA) injection. In this prospective randomized double-blind study, we tested the hypothesis that median nerve block effectiveness is not reduced when circumferential perineural hydrodissection with dextrose 5% in water (D5W) precedes LA injection. METHODS: Patients scheduled for hand surgery were randomized to receive an ultrasound-guided median nerve block at the elbow to achieve circumferential perineural spread with either 6 mL of D5W followed by 6 mL of LA (lidocaine 1.5% with epinephrine 1:200,000) (D5W-LA group) or with 6 mL of LA alone (LA group). The primary outcome was onset time of successful anesthesia defined by a complete abolition of light touch sensation for the index finger. RESULTS: Data from 95 patients were analyzed: 43 in the D5W-LA group and 52 in the LA group. Noninferiority tests were significant (all P < 0.05) for a critical limit of 7 minutes between D5W-LA and LA groups for onset time of the primary criterion, light touch block at index finger (mean ± SD, respectively: 23.9 ± 7.4 and 22.0 ± 7.9 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.9 to 2.1 minutes), and for cold block at index fingertip, sensory blocks at thenar eminence, and motor block. Success rate at 30 minutes (defined as complete abolition for cold and light touch at index finger) was noted in 100% and 98.1% (95% CI, -6% to 10%) and 95.2% and 96.2% (95% CI, -13% to 9%) of patients for the D5W-LA and the LA groups. CONCLUSION: Performing an ultrasound-guided perineural circumferential hydrodissection with D5W into which LA is injected leaves nerve block outcome unchanged. The assumption that this procedure may reduce the risk of intravascular injection and systemic toxicity remains to be demonstrated.

A case of combat-related scorpion envenomation in Afghanistan.

We report a case of scorpion envenomation occurring during combat in Tagab district, province of Kapisa, Afghanistan. A French soldier was stung by a yellow scorpion (suspected Androctonus australis) and sustained systemic envenomation with hemodynamic and neurological manifestations. We discuss the clinical features, prevention, and management of a scorpion sting.

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.

Management of severe thermal burns in the acute phase in adults and children.

OBJECTIVES: To provide recommendations to facilitate the management of severe thermal burns during the acute phase in adults and children. DESIGN: A committee of 20 experts was asked to produce recommendations in six fields of burn management, namely, (1) assessment, admission to specialised burns centres, and telemedicine; (2) haemodynamic management; (3) airway management and smoke inhalation; (4) anaesthesia and analgesia; (5) burn wound treatments; and (6) other treatments. At the start of the recommendation-formulation process, a formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed and enforced throughout the process. The entire process was conducted independently of any industry funding. The experts drew up a list of questions that were formulated according to the PICO model (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes). Two bibliography experts per field analysed the literature published from January 2000 onwards using predefined keywords according to PRISMA recommendations. The quality of data from the selected literature was assessed using GRADE® methodology. Due to the current paucity of sufficiently powered studies regarding hard outcomes (i.e. mortality), the recommendations are based on expert opinion. RESULTS: The SFAR guidelines panel generated 24 statements regarding the management of acute burn injuries in adults and children. After two scoring rounds and one amendment, strong agreement was reached for all recommendations. CONCLUSION: Substantial agreement was reached among a large cohort of experts regarding numerous strong recommendations to optimise the management of acute burn injuries in adults and children.