Positive-pressure ventilation during transport: a randomized crossover study of self-inflating and flow-inflating resuscitators in a simulation model.

BACKGROUND: Positive-pressure ventilation during transport of intubated patients is generally delivered via a hand-pressurized device. Of these devices, self-inflating resuscitators (SIR) and flow-inflating resuscitators (FIR) constitute the two major types used. Selection of a particular device for transport, however, remains largely an institutional practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the hypothesis that transport ventilation goals of intubated pediatric patients are better achieved using an FIR compared to an SIR. METHODS: This randomized crossover simulation study compared the performance of SIR and FIR among anesthesia providers in a pediatric transport scenario. Subjects hand-ventilated a test lung while simultaneously maneuvering a stretcher bed to simulate patient transport. Hand ventilation was carried out using a Jackson-Rees circuit (FIR) and a Laerdal pediatric silicone resuscitator (SIR). The primary outcome was the proportion of total breaths delivered within the predefined target PIP/PEEP range (30+/- 3, 10+/- 3 cm H2O). Secondary outcomes included proportion of total breaths delivered with operationally defined unacceptable breath variables (PIP > 35 cm H2O or PEEP < 5 cm H2O). RESULTS: Overall, participants were four times more likely to deliver target breaths and one-third less likely to deliver unacceptable breaths using the FIR compared to the SIR. When comparing device performance, a 44% increase in the proportions of target breaths and a 40.4% decrease in unacceptable breaths using the FIR were observed (P < 0.0001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Hand ventilation during patient transport is superior using the FIR compared to the SIR to achieve target ventilatory goals and avoid unacceptable ventilatory cycles.

Addressing the Long-Term Care Crisis: Identifying Opportunities for Improvement Using Rapid Reviews.

Background: Long-term care (LTC) facilities require urgent, evidence-based care renewal. During 2020 three medical student-driven research projects aiming to study care satisfaction, patient care team dynamics, and advance care directive effectiveness in a local LTC facility required a marked shift in approach due to COVID-19 regulations. Methods: All three projects were re-invented as rapid reviews from their initial designs intended to provide a baseline for quality improvement projects. English-limited PubMed searches for publications within the past 10 years were undertaken. Review articles were prioritized and supplemented by individual studies. Students reviewed the initial abstracts, reviewed them with a supervisor/mentor, assessed the articles for quality, and synthesized major themes. Results: A total of 52 publications were evaluated for the final synthesis of all three projects. Relevant information was retrieved for all three areas, suitable for local evaluation/intervention at micro, meso, and macro policy levels. Conclusions: Rapid reviews of issue-specific, long-term care literature are low resource avenues towards coordinated care improvement. They may also serve as rapid means for regular policy updates while providing next-generation care providers with improved LTC perspectives.

Transfusion Use and Hemoglobin Levels by Blood Conservation Method After Cardiopulmonary Bypass.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend modified ultrafiltration (MUF) and cell washing for blood conservation after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), although information on outcomes is lacking. This research compared online MUF (ultrafiltration of the patient's entire circulating volume) with off-line MUF (ultrafiltration of the residual CPB volume) and centrifugation (cell washing of the residual CPB volume). METHODS: This prospective cohort study enrolled 99 consecutive patients, grouped by method (group I, online MUF, n = 35; group II, off-line MUF, n = 30; group III, centrifugation, n = 34). Primary outcome was transfusion by 18 hours. Secondary outcomes were 18-hour hemoglobin levels, fluid balance (weight change), and biomarker levels indicating coagulation and organ function. RESULTS: By 18 hours, 22.9%, 6.7%, and 14.7% of group I, II, and III patients, respectively, had undergone transfusion (P = .19). Percentage weight gain differed by group (group I, 5.7%; group II, 1.3%; group III, 4.5%; P < .0001). Baseline to 18-hour hemoglobin change also differed by group, with the group I increase significantly exceeding that of group II (P = .002) but not differing from group III (P = .36). After adjustment for European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II (EuroSCORE), weight gain, and transfusion, only the group II to III difference remained significant (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Online MUF does not appear to offer a reduction in blood transfusion over other methods. Although patients undergoing online MUF had greater improvement in baseline to 18-hour hemoglobin compared with patients undergoing off-line MUF, this benefit appeared attributable to fluid shifting. Off-line MUF was associated with the least frequent transfusions. Although online MUF does not appear to reduce blood transfusion, larger prospective randomized controlled studies are required for confirmation.