Automated Versus Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Flight: Are We Being Safe?

OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this study was to compare the percentage of return of spontaneous circulation of in-flight cardiac arrest (IFCA) patients on admission to the emergency department (ED) who received in-flight standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation (s-CPR) versus automated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (a-CPR). SETTING: EMS helicopter (HEMS) service in Midwest USA. METHODS: This was a prospective, consecutive case series of adult patients who had IFCA of any cause managed with a-CPR between October 1, 2012, and February 8, 2016 (40 months), at a helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) in the Midwestern United States. The series was compared with a historical control of patients who had IFCA managed by s-CPR between June 1, 2009, and September 30, 2012 (40 months). RESULTS: Ninety-five runs (39 s-CPR and 54 a-CPR) were included. There was no significant difference in survival between the 2 groups upon HEMS leaving the ED. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was performed for a significantly longer period of time in the a-CPR cohort than in the s-CPR cohort, and a significantly higher percentage of patients were undergoing active compressions upon loading into the aircraft in the a-CPR cohort. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in return of spontaneous circulation on ED admission between the 2 compression methodologies. In-flight use of a-CPR allows HEMS providers to be safe and compliant with Federal Aviation Administration regulations. It also meets the public and medical profession's expectations of the treatment of IFCA with high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation by HEMS.

Labels improve emergency medicine physician comfort and ability to use a slit lamp.

Slit-lamp (SL) biomicroscopy is an important skill for emergency medicine (EM) clinicians. However, residents and faculty have varying levels of comfort and skill with this procedure. While some of the discomfort may be from a knowledge gap, we hypothesized that at least some difficulty came from infrequent use and forgetting which of the many knobs, levers, buttons, and switches of the SL create the desired effects. We strategically labeled a SL and tested the impact of this on the ability of 39 EM faculty and residents to identify a target on a maladjusted SL. Time to target identification was significantly lower with the labeled SL compared to the unlabeled SL, with median (IQR) time decreasing from 93 (31.5-154.5) seconds to 47 (0-141) seconds (p < 0.0001). Comfort level, as measured by a written survey and a graphic rating scale, also increased significantly with the labeled SL compared to the unlabeled SL.

Evaluation of fixed versus variable dosing of 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for emergent warfarin reversal.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study compares the safety and efficacy of a fixed dose of 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4FPCC) to the FDA-approved variable dosing for reversal of warfarin-induced anticoagulation. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial with subjects randomized to 4FPCC at a fixed dose of 1500 IU or the FDA-approved variable dosing regimen. The primary efficacy outcome (reversal success) was defined as a post-intervention international normalized ratio (INR) of less than or equal to 1.5. Given that 4FPCC is the standard of care for reversal of warfarin-induced anticoagulation an active-controlled approach was employed with the two dosing regimens compared based on efficacy, cost, and safety outcomes. RESULTS: 71 subjects (34 in the fixed dose group and 37 in the variable dose group) completed the study. There were no significant differences in age, gender, weight, initial INR, or indication for 4FPCC administration between the two treatment groups. Reversal success in the fixed-dose group was 61.8%, while in the variable dose group reversal success was 89.2%. Reversal success in the fixed-dose group was significantly lower than the rate of reversal success in the variable dose group (27.4% lower, p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide evidence that fixed dosing results in lower reversal success rates as compared to variable dosing of 4FPCC for warfarin-induced anticoagulation.

Quick cuts: A comparative study of two tools for ring tourniquet removal.

BACKGROUND: Ring tourniquet occurs when a ring becomes entrapped due to swelling or trauma. As the finger expands the blood flow restriction causes additional swelling, which can lead to nerve damage and other complications. Ring tourniquet can be an emergency that requires rapid ring removal. Standard devices for ring removal have been described but rarely tested. We conducted a randomized study to compare removal time, user and participant satisfaction and complications between a motorized diamond disc ring cutter (MDDRC) and a ring cutter attached to trauma shears (TS). METHODS: In pairs, emergency medicine providers removed rings using both devices and wore randomized rings to be removed (silver or steel). Each effort was timed from initiation to removal. After each effort both user and subject rated their satisfaction with the device, using a visual analog scale and reported any complications. Median and interquartile ranges were generated for the primary and secondary outcomes with 95% confidence intervals where applicable. Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests were calculated with a = 0.05 to compare removal time and secondary outcomes between the two tools. RESULTS: Thirty subjects completed the study. Median time to ring removal was significantly lower with the TS compared to the MDDRC (7.7 vs 67.0 s, p < .0001). Device user satisfaction (9.7/10 vs 3.8/10, p < .0001) and participant satisfaction (9.7/10 vs 6.8/10, p < .0001) were significantly higher with the TS, while participant discomfort was significantly lower with the TS (0.0/10 vs 2.2/10, p < .0001). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to compare efficacy, satisfaction and complications of two standard tools for removal of ring tourniquets. The TS took significantly less time than the GEM MDDRC and demonstrated significantly better satisfaction for both the ring wearer and ring remover.

Elimination of Routine Screening Laboratory Tests for Psychiatric Admission: A Quality Improvement Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Research has shown that routine screening laboratory tests for patients with mental health symptoms admitted to psychiatry units find little unexpected clinical abnormalities. This study examined the effects on cost of care and patient safety measures of a hospital change in policy in which such routine tests were no longer required. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from all patients admitted from the emergency department (ED) to inpatient psychiatry at a tertiary care hospital 4 months before and 4 months after the policy change. Primary outcome measures were number and costs of laboratory tests ordered in the ED and during the inpatient stay. Secondary measures included length of stay (LOS) and number of hospital consultations during admission, patient transfers to nonpsychiatry services, and inpatient deaths. Chi-square tests and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to examine group differences. RESULTS: In total, data from 1,910 patients were included (886 preimplementation and 1,024 postimplementation). The median number of lab tests ordered during the hospital stay decreased from three (interquartile range [IQR]=3) to two (IQR=3). The median total lab charges decreased from $445 (IQR=$291) to $312 (IQR=$497). Mean ED LOS decreased by 5.5 hours, and the proportion of patients with no blood lab orders increased from 22% to 40%. No increases in consultations or transfers were noted. No patients died at any point. CONCLUSIONS: A policy that avoids routine laboratory screening tests for patients admitted to inpatient psychiatry can save money, improve patient care, and decrease LOS, without increasing adverse outcomes.