No abstract

BackgroundEvidence suggests that EMS-physician-guided cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) may be associated with improved outcomes, yet randomized controlled trials are not available. The goal of this meta-analysis was to determine the association between EMS-physician- versus paramedic-guided CPR and survival after OOHCA.Methods and ResultsStudies that compared EMS-physician- versus paramedic-guided CPR in OOHCA published until June 2014 were systematically searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. All studies were required to contain survival data. Data on study characteristics, methods, and as well as survival outcomes were extracted. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis due to a high degree of heterogeneity among the studies (I 2 = 44 %). Return of spontaneous circulation [ROSC], survival to hospital admission, and survival to hospital discharge were the outcome measures.Out of 3,385 potentially eligible studies, 14 met the inclusion criteria. In the pooled analysis (n = 126,829), EMS-physician-guided CPR was associated with significantly improved outcomes compared to paramedic-guided CPR: ROSC 36.2 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 31.0 – 41.7 %) vs. 23.4 % (95 % CI 18.5 – 29.2 %) (pooled odds ratio [OR] 1.89, 95 % CI 1.36 – 2.63, p < 0.001); survival to hospital admission 30.1 % (95 % CI 24.2 – 36.7 %) vs. 19.2 % (95 % CI 12.7 – 28.1 %) (pooled OR 1.78, 95 % CI 0.97 – 3.28, p = 0.06); and survival to discharge 15.1 % (95 % CI 14.6 – 15.7 %) vs. 8.4 % (95 % CI 8.2 – 8.5 %) (pooled OR 2.03, 95 % CI 1.48 – 2.79, p < 0.001).ConclusionsThis systematic review suggests that EMS-physician-guided CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is associated with improved survival outcomes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-1156-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: The current COVID-19 pandemic highlights the challenges air ambulance services are facing when transporting highly infectious patients for several hours in enclosed spaces. This overview provides an example of a standard operating procedure (SOP) for infection prevention measures in HEMS missions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, we describe different methods used by several organizations in Europe and the experience of the Swiss air rescue organization Rega in transporting these patients. Possible benefits of the use of small patient isolation units (PIU) are discussed, including the fact that accompanying medical personnel do not need to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) during the transport but can still maintain full access to the patient. Rega has developed and patented its own PIU. This device allows spontaneously breathing or mechanically ventilated patients to be transported in pressurized jet cabins, small helicopters and ambulance vehicles, without the need to change between transport units. This PIU is unique, as it remains air-tight even when there is a sudden loss of cabin pressure. Conclusion: A wide variety of means are being used for the aeromedical transport of infectious patients. These involve isolating either the patient or the medical crew. One benefit of PIUs is that the means of transport can be easily changed without contaminating the surroundings and while still allowing access to the patient.

Background COVID-19, the pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2, is challenging healthcare systems worldwide. Little is known about problems faced by emergency medical services—particularly helicopter services—caring for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. We aimed to describe the issues faced by air ambulance services in Europe as they transport potential COVID-19 patients. Methods Nine different HEMS providers in seven different countries across Europe were invited to share their experiences and to report their data regarding the care, transport, and safety measures in suspected or confirmed COVID-19 missions. Six air ambulance providers in six countries agreed and reported their data regarding development of special procedures and safety instructions in preparation for the COVID-19 pandemic. Four providers agreed to provide mission related data. Three hundred eighty-five COVID-19-related missions were analysed, including 119 primary transport missions and 266 interfacility transport missions. Results All providers had developed special procedures and safety instructions in preparation for COVID-19. Ground transport was the preferred mode of transport in primary missions, whereas air transport was preferred for interfacility transport. In some countries the transport of COVID-19 patients by regular air ambulance services was avoided. Patients in interfacility transport missions had a significantly higher median (range) NACA Score 4 (2-5) compared with 3 (1-7), needed significantly more medical interventions, were significantly younger (59.6 ± 16 vs 65 ± 21 years), and were significantly more often male (73% vs 60.5%). Conclusions All participating air ambulance providers were prepared for COVID-19. Safe care and transport of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients is achievable. Most patients on primary missions were transported by ground. These patients were less sick than interfacility transport patients, for whom air transport was the preferred method.

We studied genetic differentiation of two subarctic Daphnia species (subgenus Hyalodaphnia; Cladocera: Anomopoda) in relation to ecological and morphological diversification. Daphnia longispina and the recently discovered species Daphnia umbra are genetically differentiated based on mitochondrial 12S rDNA and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions. Genetic differentiation of 12S rDNA among the two sister taxa is in the range of differentiation among other Hyalodaphnia species (uncorrected genetic distance ϭ 0.11). Despite frequent interspecific hybridization among Daphnia (Hyalodaphnia) species, we found no interspecific hybrids of D. umbra and D. longispina. D.

This porcine model shows that IRE is feasible and safe in the pancreatic parenchyma. Computed tomography imaging reveals significant changes at 60 minutes after IRE and therefore might serve as an early indicator of therapeutic success. Clinical studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of IRE in pancreatic cancer.

Background Tracheal intubation remains the gold standard of airway management in emergency medicine and maximizing safety, intubation success, and especially first-pass intubation success (FPS) in these situations is imperative. Methods We conducted a prospective observational study on all 12 helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) bases of the Swiss Air Rescue, between February 15, 2018, and February 14, 2019. All 428 patients on whom out-of-hospital advanced airway management was performed by the HEMS crew were included. The C-MAC video laryngoscope was used as the primary device for tracheal intubation. Intubation procedures were recorded by the video laryngoscope and precise time points were recorded to verify the time necessary for each attempt and the overall procedure time until successful intubation. The videos were further analysed for problems and complications during airway management by an independent reviewer. Additionally, a questionnaire about the intubation procedure, basic characteristics of the patient, circumstances, environmental factors, and the provider’s level of experience in airway management was filled out. Main outcome measures were FPS of tracheal intubation, overall success rate, overall intubation time, problems and complications of video laryngoscopy. Results FPS rate was 87.6% and overall success rate 98.6%. Success rates, overall time to intubation, and subjective difficulty were not associated to the providers’ expertise in airway management. In patients undergoing CPR FPS was 84.8%, in trauma patients 86.4% and in non-trauma patients 93.3%. FPS in patients with difficult airway characteristics, facial trauma/burns or obesity ranges between 87 and 89%. Performing airway management indoors or inside an ambulance resulted in a significantly higher FPS of 91.1% compared to outdoor locations (p < 0.001). Direct solar irradiation on the screen, fogging of the lens, and blood on the camera significantly impaired FPS. Several issues for further improvements in the use of video laryngoscopy in the out-of-hospital setting and for quality control in airway management were identified. Conclusion Airway management using the C-MAC video laryngoscope with Macintosh blade in a group of operators with mixed experience showed high FPS and overall rates of intubation success. Video recording emergency intubations may improve education and quality control.

Background: As trauma is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, there is great potential for reducing mortality in trauma patients. However, there is continuing controversy over the benefit of deploying EMS physicians in the prehospital setting. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess how out-of-hospital hospital management of severely injured patients by EMS teams with and without physicians affects mortality. Methods: PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles and the search was supplemented by a hand search. Injury severity in the group of patients treated by an EMS team including a physician had to be comparable to the group treated without a physician. Primary outcome parameter was mortality. Helicopter transport as a confounder was accounted for by subgroup analyses including only the studies with comparable modes of transport. Quality of all included studies was assessed according to the Cochrane handbook. Results: 2,249 publications were found, 71 full-text articles assessed and 22 studies included. Nine of these studies were matched or adjusted for injury severity. The odds ratio (OR) of mortality was significantly lower in the EMS physician-treated group of patients: 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.71-0.92. When analysis was limited to the studies that were adjusted or matched for injury severity, the OR was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.73-1.01). Analysing only studies published after 2005 yielded an OR for mortality of 0.75 (95%