Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Emergency Department Use: Focus on Patients Requiring Urgent Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus (2019-nCOV) appeared in China and precipitously extended across the globe. As always, natural disasters or infectious disease outbreaks have the potential to cause emergency department (ED) volume changes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the influence of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on ED visits and the impact on the handling of patients requiring urgent revascularization. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of all patients presenting to the ED of Hospital Sainte Anne (Toulon, France) from March 23 to April 5, 2020 and compared them with those of the same period in 2019. Then we analyzed complementary data on acute coronary syndrome (ST-elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction [NSTEMI]) and neurovascular emergencies (strokes and transient ischemic attacks). RESULTS: The total number of visits decreased by 47%. The number of people assessed as triage level 2 was 8% lower in 2020. There were five fewer cases of NSTEMI in 2020, but the same number of STEMI. The number of neurovascular emergencies increased (27 cases in 2019 compared with 30 in 2020). We observed a reduction in the delay between arrival at the ED and the beginning of coronary angiography for STEMI cases (27 min in 2019 and 22 min in 2020). In 2020, 7 more stroke patients were admitted. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic probably dissuaded "non-critical" patients from coming to the hospital, whereas the same number of patients with a critical illness attended the ED as attended prior to the pandemic. There does not seem to have been any effect of the pandemic on patients requiring reperfusion therapy (STEMI and stroke).

Combat Casualties Treated With Intranasal Ketamine for Prehospital Analgesia: A Case Series.

Optimal pain management is challenging in Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC), particularly in remote and austere settings. In these situations, appropriate treatment for prehospital analgesia can be limited or delayed due to the lack of intravenous access. Several guidelines suggest to implement intranasal (IN) analgesia in French Armed Forces for forward combat casualty care (Sauvetage au Combat), similar to the US TCCC. Four medical teams from the French Medical Military Service were deployed to the Middle East and Sahel from August 2017 to March 2019 and used IN ketamine for analgesia in 76 trauma patients, out of a total of 259 treated casualties. IN administration of ketamine 50mg appeared to be safe and effective, alone or in addition to other opioid analgesics. It also had minimal side effects and led to a reduction in the doses of ketamine and morphine used by the intravenous (IV) route. The French Military Medical Service supports current developments for personal devices delivering individual doses of IN ketamine. However, further studies are needed to analyze its efficacy and safety in combat zones.

Use of Intranasal Analgesia in French Armed Forces: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Pain management is essential in military medicine, particularly in Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) during deployments in remote and austere settings. The few previously published studies on intranasal analgesia (INA) focused only on the efficacy and onset of action of the medications used (ketamine, sufentanil, and fentanyl). Side-effects were rarely reported. The aim of our study was to evaluate the use of intranasal analgesia by French military physicians. METHODS: We carried out a multicentric survey between 15 January and 14 April 2020. The survey population included all French military physicians in primary-care centers (n = 727) or emergency departments (n = 55) regardless of being stationed in mainland France or French overseas departments and territories. RESULTS: We collected 259 responses (33% responsiveness rate), of which 201 (77.6%) physicians reported being familiar with INA. However, regarding its use, of the 256 physicians with completed surveys, only 47 (18.3%) had already administered it. Emergency medicine physicians supporting highly operational units (e.g., Special Forces) were more familiar with this route of administration and used it more frequently. Ketamine was the most common medication used (n = 32; 57.1%). Finally, 234 (90%) respondents expressed an interest in further education on INA. CONCLUSION: Although a majority of French military physicians who replied to the survey were familiar with INA, few used it in practice. This route of administration seems to be a promising medication for remote and austere environments. Specific training should, therefore, be recommended to spread and standardize its use.

Point-of-care ultrasound for treatment and triage in austere military environments.

BACKGROUND: Assessment and triage in an austere environment represent a major challenge in casualty care. Modern conflicts involve a significant proportion of multiple wounds, either superficial or penetrating, which complicate clinical evaluation. Furthermore, there is often poor accessibility to computed tomography scans and a limited number of surgical teams. Therefore, ultrasound (US) represents a potentially valuable tool for distinguishing superficial fragments or shrapnels from penetrating trauma requiring immediate damage-control surgery. METHODS: This retrospective observational multicenter study assessed casualties treated for 8 months by five medical teams deployed in Africa and Middle East. Two experts, who were experienced in military emergency medicine but did not take part in the missions, carried out an independent analysis for each case, evaluating the contribution of US to the following five items: triage categorization, diagnosis, clinical severity, prehospital therapeutic choices, and priority to operation room. Consensus was obtained using the Delphi method with three rounds. RESULTS: Of 325 casualties, 189 underwent US examination. The mean injury severity scale score was 25.6, and 76% were wounded by an improvised explosive device. Ultrasound was useful for confirming (23%) or excluding (63%) the suspected diagnosis made in the clinical assessment. It also helped obtain a diagnosis that had not been considered for 3% of casualties and was responsible for a major change in procedure or therapy in 4%. Ultrasound altered the surgical priority in 43% of cases. For 30% of cases, US permitted surgery to be temporarily delayed to prioritize another more urgent casualty. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound is a valuable tool for the management of mass casualties by improving treatment and triage, especially when surgical resources are limited. In some situations, US can also correct a diagnosis or improve prehospital therapeutic choices. Field medical teams should be trained to integrate US into their prehospital protocols. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case series (no criterion standard), level V.