Recommendations for Prehospital Airway Management in Patients with Suspected COVID-19 Infection

Association Between Emergency Medical Service Agency Intubation Rate and Intubation Success

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Airway management is a crucial part of out-of-hospital care. It is not known if the rate of overall agency intubation attempts is associated with intubation success. We sought to evaluate the association between agency intubation attempt rate and intubation success using a national out-of-hospital database.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective secondary analysis of the ESO Data Collaborative from 2018 to 2019, and included all adult cases with an endotracheal intubation attempt. We calculated the number of intubations attempted per 100 responses, advanced life support responses, and transports for each agency. We excluded cases originating at health care facilities and outliers. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between agency intubation attempt rate and 1) intubation success and 2) first-pass success. We adjusted for confounders.

RESULTS

We included 1,005 agencies attempting 58,509 intubations. Overall, the intubation success rate was 78.8%, and the first-pass success rate was 68.5%. Per agency, the median rate of intubation attempts per 100 emergency medical service responses was 0.8 (interquartile range 0.6 to 1.1). Rates of intubation attempts per 100 responses (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6 to 1.8), advanced life support responses (aOR 1.18; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.20), and transports (aOR 1.21; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.22) were all associated with intubation success. These relationships were similar for first-pass success but with smaller effect sizes.

CONCLUSION

Higher agency rates of intubation attempts were associated with increased rates of intubation success and first-pass success.

2022 Systematic Review of Evidence-Based Guidelines for Prehospital Care

INTRODUCTION

Multiple national organizations and federal agencies have promoted the development, implementation, and evaluation of evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) for prehospital care. Previous efforts have identified opportunities to improve the quality of prehospital guidelines and highlighted the value of high-quality EBGs to inform initial certification and continued competency activities for EMS personnel.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to perform a systematic review of prehospital guidelines published from January 2018 to April 2021, evaluate guideline quality, and identify top-scoring guidelines to facilitate dissemination and educational activities for EMS personnel.

METHODS

We searched the literature in Ovid Medline and EMBASE from January 2018 to April 2021, excluding guidelines identified in a prior systematic review. Publications were retained if they were relevant to prehospital care, based on organized reviews of the literature, and focused on providing recommendations for clinical care or operations. Included guidelines were appraised to identify if they met the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) criteria for high-quality guidelines and scored across the six domains of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool.

RESULTS

We identified 75 guidelines addressing a variety of clinical and operational aspects of EMS medicine. About half (n = 39, 52%) addressed time/life-critical conditions and 33 (44%) contained recommendations relevant to non-clinical/operational topics. Fewer than half (n = 35, 47%) were based on systematic reviews of the literature. Nearly one-third (n = 24, 32%) met all NAM criteria for clinical practice guidelines. Only 27 (38%) guidelines scored an average of >75% across AGREE II domains, with content relevant to guideline implementation most commonly missing.

CONCLUSIONS

This interval systematic review of prehospital EBGs identified many new guidelines relevant to prehospital care; more than all guidelines reported in a prior systematic review. Our review reveals important gaps in the quality of guideline development and the content in their publications, evidenced by the low proportion of guidelines meeting NAM criteria and the scores across AGREE II domains. Efforts to increase guideline dissemination, implementation, and related education may be best focused around the highest quality guidelines identified in this review.

Prehospital Respiratory Early Warning Score for airway management in-ambulance: A score comparison

BACKGROUND

Prehospital Respiratory Early Warning Scores to estimate the requirement for advanced respiratory support is needed. To develop a prehospital Respiratory Early Warning Score to estimate the requirement for advanced respiratory support.

METHODS

Multicentre, prospective, emergency medical services (EMS)-delivered, longitudinal cohort derivationvalidation study carried out in 59 ambulances and five hospitals across five Spanish provinces. Adults with acute diseases evaluated, supported and discharged to the Emergency Department with high priority were eligible. The primary outcome was the need for invasive or non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS or IRS) in the prehospital scope at the first contact with the patient. The measures included the following: epidemiological endpoints, prehospital vital signs (respiratory rate, pulse oximetry saturation, fraction of inspired oxygen, systolic and diastolic mean blood pressure, heart rate, tympanic temperature and consciousness level by the GCS).

RESULTS

Between 26 Oct 2018 and 26 Oct 2021, we enrolled 5793 cases. For NIRS prediction, the final model of the logistic regression included respiratory rate and pulse oximetry saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio. For the IRS case, the motor response from the Glasgow Coma Scale was also included. The REWS showed an AUC of 0.938 (95% CI: 0.918-0.958), a calibration-in-large of 0.026 and a higher net benefit as compared with the other scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that REWS is a remarkably aid for the decision-making process in the management of advanced respiratory support in prehospital care. Including this score in the prehospital scenario could improve patients' care and optimise the resources' management.

Maintaining Prehospital Intubation Success with COVID-19 Personal Protective Precautions

Background:

Tracheal intubation is a high-risk intervention for exposure to airborne infective pathogens, including the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). During the recent pandemic, personal protective equipment (PPE) was essential to protect staff during intubation but is recognized to make the practical conduct of anesthesia and intubation more difficult. In the early phase of the coronavirus pandemic, some simple alterations were made to the emergency anesthesia standard operating procedure (SOP) of a prehospital critical care service to attempt to maintain high intubation success rates despite the challenges posed by wearing PPE. This retrospective observational cohort study aims to compare first-pass intubation success rates before and after the introduction of PPE and an altered SOP.

Methodology:

A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2019 through August 30, 2021. The retrospective analysis used prospectively collected data using prehospital electronic patient records. Anonymized data were held in Excel (v16.54) and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (v28). Patient inclusion criteria were those of all ages who received a primary tracheal intubation attempt outside the hospital by critical care teams. March 27, 2020 was the date from which the SOP changed to mandatory COVID-19 SOP including Level 3 PPE – this date is used to separate the cohort groups.

Results:

Data were analyzed from 1,266 patients who received primary intubations by the service. The overall first-pass intubation success rate was 89.7% and the overall intubation success rate was 99.9%. There was no statistically significant difference in first-pass success rate between the two groups: 90.3% in the pre-COVID-19 group (n = 546) and 89.3% in the COVID-19 group (n = 720); Pearson chi-square 0.329; P = .566. In addition, there was no statistical difference in overall intubation success rate between groups: 99.8% in the pre-COVID-19 group and 100.0% in the COVID-19 group; Pearson chi-square 1.32; P = .251.

Non-drug-assisted intubations were more than twice as likely to require multiple attempts in both the pre-COVID-19 group (n = 546; OR = 2.15; 95% CI, 1.19-3.90; P = .01) and in the COVID-19 group (n = 720; OR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.1; P = <.001).

Conclusion:

This study presents simple changes to a prehospital intubation SOP in response to COVID-19 which included mandatory use of PPE, the first intubator always being the most experienced clinician, and routine first use of video laryngoscopy (VL). These changes allowed protection of the clinical team while successfully maintaining the first-pass and overall success rates for prehospital tracheal intubation.

Chronic Rhinosinusitis and COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised awareness about olfactory dysfunction, although a loss of smell was present in the general population before COVID-19. Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common upper airway chronic inflammatory disease that is also one of the most common causes of olfactory dysfunction. It can be classified into different phenotypes (ie, with and without nasal polyps) and endotypes (ie, type 2 and non-type 2 inflammation). However, scientific information regarding CRS within the context of COVID-19 is still scarce. This review focuses on (1) the potential effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection on CRS symptoms, including a loss of smell, and comorbidities; (2) the pathophysiologic mechanisms involved in the olfactory dysfunction; (3) CRS diagnosis in the context of COVID-19, including telemedicine; (4) the protective hypothesis of CRS in COVID-19; and (5) the efficacy and safety of therapeutic options for CRS within the context of COVID-19.

Emergency Medical Services Prehospital Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic in the US: A Brief Literature Review

This study aimed to analyze prehospital Emergency Medical Services (EMS) response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the US through a brief systematic review of available literature in context with international prehospital counterparts. An exploration of the NCBI repository was performed using a search string of relevant keywords which returned n=5128 results; articles that met the inclusion criteria (n=77) were reviewed and analyzed in accordance with PRISMA and PROSPERO recommendations. Methodical quality was assessed using critical appraisal tools, and the Egger’s test was used for risk of bias reduction upon linear regression analysis of a funnel plot. Sources of heterogeneity as defined by P < 0.10 or I^2 > 50% were interrogated. Findings were considered within ten domains: structural/systemic; clinical outcomes; clinical assessment; treatment; special populations; dispatch/activation; education; mental health; perspectives/experiences; and transport. Findings suggest, EMS clinicians have likely made significant and unmeasured contributions to care during the pandemic via nontraditional roles, ie, COVID-19 testing and vaccine deployment. EMS plays a critical role in counteracting the COVID-19 pandemic in addition to the worsening opioid epidemic, both of which disproportionately impact patients of color. As such, being uniquely influential on clinical outcomes, these providers may benefit from standardized education on care and access disparities such as racial identity. Access to distance learning continuing education opportunities may increase rates of provider recertification. Additionally, there is a high prevalence of vaccine hesitancy among surveyed nationally registered EMS providers. Continued rigorous investigation on the impact of COVID-19 on EMS systems and personnel is warranted to ensure informed preparation for future pandemic and infectious disease responses.

Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on ENT clinical practice and training: the resident's perspective

BACKGROUND

The arrival of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic disrupted life suddenly and forcefully, and healthcare systems around the world are still struggling to come to terms with it. This paper reviews the impact of the pandemic on ENT practice and training.

METHODS

The present manuscript was developed as a narrative review to examine the role of otorhinolaryngologists in the management of the pandemic, and assess its impact on practice and training in the specialty.

RESULTS

Otorhinolaryngologists handle secretions of organs implicated in disease transmission, leaving them particularly vulnerable even while performing simple procedures. Although the pandemic increased skill expectations, it simultaneously reduced learning opportunities for trainees. In addition, attention to emergencies has been delayed. Further, the suspension of elective procedures has affected patients with malignancies.

CONCLUSION

While planning service resumption, provisions need to be made for protective equipment and training; improving teleconsultation services will help provide sustainable care during further waves.

Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on trauma surgical education at a level I trauma center

BACKGROUND

During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, trauma presentations to the emergency room decreased across the country. The goal of this study is to analyze the educational impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on trauma education and training at a level I trauma center.

METHODS

Trauma patient presentations were analyzed 6 months before a Tennessee executive stay-at-home order and 6 months after the state executive order. To control for the seasonal trauma volumes, an additional 6 months before the executive order was then analyzed comparing month to month. Total number of presentations, demographics, procedures, airway management, and coronavirus disease 2019 status of patients and residents were analyzed.

RESULTS

The number of trauma presentations were sustained after executive orders at our level I trauma center. There was no significant difference in intubations, central line placements, and chest tube placements before and during the pandemic. Blunt trauma decreased after stay-at-home orders. Of the 36 residents, no residents tested positive during the study period.

CONCLUSION

Trauma-focused surgical education was not affected at an academic level I trauma center. Understanding that it is region, city, and hospital specific, this study shows that quality trauma education can continue throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic while keeping trainees safe. Proper airway management, personal protective equipment, social distancing, and coronavirus disease 2019-preventative protocols seem to protect residents from potential harm while allowing them to participate and continue in quality trauma education and training.