Isotonic balanced fluid versus 0.9% saline in patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: A double-blinded randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a global health concern with significant economic impact. Optimal fluid therapy aims to restore intravascular volume, maintain cerebral perfusion pressure and blood flow, thus preventing secondary brain injury. While 0.9% saline (NS) is commonly used, concerns about acid-base and electrolyte imbalance and development of acute kidney injury (AKI) lead to consideration of balanced fluids as an alternative.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with moderate to severe TBI treated with Sterofundin (SF) versus NS.

DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

A double-blinded randomised controlled trial of patients aged 18 to 65 years with TBI was conducted at the University Malaya Medical Centre from February 2017 to November 2019.

INTERVENTION OR EXPOSURE

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either NS or SF. The study fluids were administered for 72 h as continuous infusions or boluses. Participants, investigators, and staff were blinded to the fluid type.

OUTCOMES MEASURE AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 70 patients were included in the analysis, with 38 in the NS group and 32 in the SF group. The in-hospital mortality rate were 3 (7.9%) in the NS group vs. 4 (12.5%) in the SF group, RR = 1.29 (95% CI, 0.64 to 2.59; p = 0.695). No patients developed AKI and required renal replacement therapy. ICP on day 3 was significantly higher in the SF group (18.60 ± 9.26) compared to 12.77 ± 3.63 in the NS group, (95% CI, -11.46 to 0.20; p = 0.037). There were no significant differences in 3-day biochemical parameters and cerebral perfusion pressure, ventilator-free days, length of ICU stay, or Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E) score at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with moderate to severe TBI, the use of SF was not associated with reduced in-hospital mortality, development of AKI, or improved 6-month GOS-E when compared to NS.

Subcutaneous versus intravenous tramadol for extremity injury with moderate pain in the emergency department: a randomised controlled noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE

Musculoskeletal trauma is a common presentation in the emergency department (ED). Tramadol as an analgesic has been recommended by pain management guidelines for musculoskeletal pain. Parenteral tramadol in the ED is commonly administered intravenously. Subcutaneously administered tramadol may have other advantages such as easier and faster preparation, avoids the need for intravenous (i.v.) access, and reduces the incidence of respiratory and gastrointestinal effects. However, studies comparing subcutaneous (s.c.) and i.v. tramadol for the management of acute moderate pain in patients with extremity injury are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of s.c. tramadol vs. i.v. tramadol in patients with moderate pain due to extremity injury in the ED.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS

This non-inferiority randomized controlled trial included adult patients presented to an academic, tertiary hospital ED with moderate pain (pain score of 4-6 on the visual analog scale) due to extremity injury. Intervention patients stratified to pain score were randomized to receive 50 mg of i.v. or s.c. tramadol.

OUTCOMES MEASURE AND ANALYSIS

Primary outcome measure was the difference in the pain score reduction at 30 min after tramadol administration between the two groups. The noninferiority null hypothesis was that the therapeutic difference in terms of pain score reduction of more than 0.8 exists between the two treatment groups at the endpoint.

MAIN RESULTS

In total 232 patients were randomized to i.v. ( n  = 115) or s.c. ( n  = 117). Although 225 were analyzed in the per-protocol population (i.v. = 113; s.c. = 112). The baseline median pain score was 6 (IQR, 5-6). Median pain score reduction at 30 min after administration was 2 (IQR, 1-3) in the IV group vs. 2 (IQR, 1-2) in the s.c. group with a median difference of 0 (IQR, 0-0), which was below the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.8. Adverse events in the i.v. group were higher compared to the s.c. group (33.6% vs. 8.9%, P  ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The s.c. tramadol is noninferior to i.v. tramadol in the treatment of moderate pain from extremity injuries.

Non-rebreather mask and low-flow nasal cannula vs high-flow nasal cannula in severe COVID-19 pneumonia in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

To assess the effectiveness of non-rebreather mask combined with low-flow nasal cannula (NRB + NC) compared to high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in improving oxygenation in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic respiratory failure (HRF).

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted in emergency departments of two tertiary hospitals from June 1 to August 31, 2021. Consecutive patients aged >18 years admitted for COVID-19-related HRF (World Health Organization criteria: confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia with respiratory rate > 30 breaths/min, severe respiratory distress, or peripheral oxygen saturation < 90% on room air) requiring NRB + NC or HFNC were screened for enrollment. Primary outcome was improvement of partial pressure arterial oxygen (PaO₂) at two hours. Secondary outcomes were intubation rate, ventilator-free days, hospital length of stay, and 28-day mortality. Data were analyzed using linear regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity score.

RESULTS

Among the 110 patients recruited, 52 (47.3%) were treated with NRB + NC, and 58 (52.7%) with HFNC. There were significant improvements in patients' PaO₂, PaO₂/F_IO2 ratio, and respiratory rate two hours after the initiation of NRB + NC and HFNC. Comparing the two groups, after IPTW adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in PaO₂ improvement (adjusted mean ratio [MR] 2.81; 95% CI -5.82 to 11.43; p = .524), intubation rate (adjusted OR 1.76; 95% CI 0.44 to 6.92; p = .423), ventilator-free days (adjusted MR 0.00; 95% CI -8.84 to 8.85; p = .999), hospital length of stay (adjusted MR 3.04; 95% CI -2.62 to 8.69; p = .293), and 28-day mortality (adjusted OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.15 to 2.98; p = .608).

CONCLUSION

HFNC may be beneficial in COVID-19 HRF. NRB + NC is a viable alternative, especially in resource-limited settings, given similar improvement in oxygenation at two hours, and no significant differences in long-term outcomes. The effectiveness of NRB + NC needs to be investigated by a powered randomized controlled trial.

COVID-19 aerosol box as protection from droplet and aerosol contaminations in healthcare workers performing airway intubation: a randomised cross-over simulation study

BACKGROUND

Concerns over high transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 have led to innovation and usage of an aerosol box to protect healthcare workers during airway intubation in patients with COVID-19. Its efficacy as a barrier protection in addition to the use of a standard personal protective equipment (PPE) is not fully known. We performed a simulated study to investigate the relationship between aerosol box usage during intubation and contaminations on healthcare workers pre-doffing and post-doffing of PPE.

METHODS

This was a randomised cross-over study conducted between 9 April to 5 May 2020 in the ED of University Malaya Medical Centre. Postgraduate Emergency Medicine trainees performed video laryngoscope-assisted intubation on an airway manikin with and without an aerosol box in a random order. Contamination was simulated by nebulised Glo Germ. Primary outcome was number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing and post-doffing of PPE of the intubator and assistant. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, Cormack-Lehane score, number of intubation attempts and participants' feedback.

RESULTS

Thirty-six trainees completed the study interventions. The number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing of PPE was significantly higher without the aerosol box (all p values<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the number of contaminations post-doffing of PPE between using and not using the aerosol box, with a median contamination of zero. Intubation time was longer with the aerosol box (42.5 s vs 35.5 s, p<0.001). Cormack-Lehane scores were similar with and without the aerosol box. First-pass intubation success rate was 94.4% and 100% with and without the aerosol box, respectively. More participants reported reduced mobility and visibility when intubating with the aerosol box.

CONCLUSIONS

An aerosol box may significantly reduce exposure to contaminations but with increased intubation time and reduced operator's mobility and visibility. Furthermore, the difference in degree of contamination between using and not using an aerosol box could be offset by proper doffing of PPE.