Pre-hospital ECPR in an Australian metropolitan setting: a single-arm feasibility assessment-The CPR, pre-hospital ECPR and early reperfusion (CHEER3) study.

INTRODUCTION: Survival from refractory out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) without timely return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) utilising conventional advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) therapies is dismal. CHEER3 was a safety and feasibility study of pre-hospital deployed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for refractory OHCA in metropolitan Australia. METHODS: This was a single jurisdiction, single-arm feasibility study. Physicians, with pre-existing ECMO expertise, responded to witnessed OHCA, age < 65 yrs, within 30 min driving-time, using an ECMO equipped rapid response vehicle. If pre-hospital ECPR was undertaken, patients were transported to hospital for investigations and therapies including emergent coronary catheterisation, and standard intensive care (ICU) therapy until either cardiac and neurological recovery or palliation occurred. Analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: From February 2020 to May 2023, over 117 days, the team responded to 709 "potential cardiac arrest" emergency calls. 358 were confirmed OHCA. Time from emergency call to scene arrival was 27 min (15-37 min). 10 patients fulfilled the pre-defined inclusion criteria and all were successfully cannulated on scene. Time from emergency call to ECMO initiation was 50 min (35-62 min). Time from decision to ECMO support was 16 min (11-26 min). CPR duration was 46 min (32-62 min). All 10 patients were transferred to hospital for investigations and therapy. 4 patients (40%) survived to hospital discharge neurologically intact (CPC 1/2). CONCLUSION: Pre-hospital ECPR was feasible, using an experienced ECMO team from a single-centre. Overall survival was promising in this highly selected group. Further prospective studies are now warranted.

The aerosol box for intubation in coronavirus disease 2019 patients: an in-situ simulation crossover study.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to the manufacturing of novel devices to protect clinicians from the risk of transmission, including the aerosol box for use during tracheal intubation. We evaluated the impact of two aerosol boxes (an early-generation box and a latest-generation box) on intubations in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 with an in-situ simulation crossover study. The simulated process complied with the Safe Airway Society coronavirus disease 2019 airway management guidelines. The primary outcome was intubation time; secondary outcomes included first-pass success and breaches to personal protective equipment. All intubations were performed by specialist (consultant) anaesthetists and video recorded. Twelve anaesthetists performed 36 intubations. Intubation time with no aerosol box was significantly shorter than with the early-generation box (median (IQR [range]) 42.9 (32.9-46.9 [30.9-57.6])s vs. 82.1 (45.1-98.3 [30.8-180.0])s p = 0.002) and the latest-generation box (52.4 (43.1-70.3 [35.7-169.2])s, p = 0.008). No intubations without a box took more than 1 min, whereas 14 (58%) intubations with a box took over 1 min and 4 (17%) took over 2 min (including one failure). Without an aerosol box, all anaesthetists obtained first-pass success. With the early-generation and latest-generation boxes, 9 (75%) and 10 (83%) participants obtained first-pass success, respectively. One breach of personal protective equipment occurred using the early-generation box and seven breaches occurred using the latest-generation box. Aerosol boxes may increase intubation times and therefore expose patients to the risk of hypoxia. They may cause damage to conventional personal protective equipment and therefore place clinicians at risk of infection. Further research is required before these devices can be considered safe for clinical use.

Should ongoing airway education be a mandatory component of continuing professional development for College of Intensive Care Medicine Fellows?

This study aimed to determine whether airway education should be introduced to the continuing professional development (CPD) program for College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM) Fellows. A random representative sample of 11 tertiary intensive care units (ICUs) was chosen from the list of 56 units accredited for 12 or 24 months of CICM training. All specialist intensive care Fellows (n=140) currently practising at the eleven ICUs were sent the questionnaire via email. Questionnaire data collection and post-collection data analysis was used to determine basic respondent demographics, frequency of certain airway procedures in the past 12 months, confidence with advanced airway practices in ICU, participation in airway education in the past three years, knowledge of can't intubate, can't oxygenate (CICO) algorithms, preference for certain airway equipment/techniques, and support for required airway education as a component of the CICM CPD program. All responses were tabled for comparison. Data was analysed to establish any significant effect of another specialty qualification and current co-practice in anaesthesia on volume of practice, confidence with multiple airway procedures, use of airway equipment, and support for airway education. In total, 112 responses (response rate 80%) to the questionnaire were received within four weeks; 107 were completed in full (compliance 96%). All results were tabled. There is currently widespread support amongst CICM Fellows for airway skills education as a CPD requirement for CICM Fellows. Volumes of practice and confidence levels with different airway procedures vary amongst Fellows and further support the need for education.