Safety of Nurse-Managed Inhaled Nitric Oxide During Critical Care Interfacility Transport.

Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is an advanced therapy typically managed by physicians and respiratory therapists in order to increase arterial oxygenation and decrease pulmonary arterial pressure. The Johns Hopkins Lifeline Critical Care Transportation Program (Lifeline) initiated a novel nurse-managed iNO protocol in order to optimize the oxygenation of critically ill patients during interfacility transport. This study was a retrospective chart review of adverse events associated with iNO initiation or continuation by Lifeline on patients transported from March 1, 2020, to August 1, 2022. Basic demographic data and adverse events were recorded. Recorded adverse events included hypotension defined as a mean arterial pressure (MAP) < 65 mm Hg, hypoxemia defined as a decrease of ≥ 10% arterial oxygenation saturation measured by pulse oximetry, new bradycardia or tachyarrhythmia, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels greater than 1.0 ppm, methemoglobinemia, and cardiac arrest. Fifteen patients were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, of which one also had pulmonary emboli, 2 had bacterial pneumonia, 1 suffered cardiogenic shock from occlusive myocardial infarction and were on VA-ECMO, and 2 had significant thoracic trauma resulting in pulmonary contusions and hemopneumothorax. iNO was continued on 10 patients and initiated on 8 patients, 2 of whom were transitioned from inhaled epoprostenol. Hypotension occurred in 3 (16.7%) patients and one (5.56%) of the hypotensive patients subsequently went on to experience new atrial fibrillation with vasopressor titration. No patients developed worsening hypoxemia, elevated NO2 levels, methemoglobinemia, or suffered cardiac arrest. All 3 patients who experienced hypotension were already on vasopressor support and the hypotension resolved with medication titration. This study shows that iNO administration can be safely managed by appropriately trained nurses.

A Statewide EMS Viral Syndrome Pandemic Triage Protocol: 24 Hour Outcomes.

Background: Early during the COVID-19 pandemic, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems encountered many challenges that prompted crisis-level strategies. Maryland's statewide EMS system implemented the Viral Syndrome Pandemic Triage Protocol which contained a decision tool to help identify patients potentially safe for self-care at home. Objectives: This study assessed the effects of the Maryland Viral Syndrome Pandemic Triage Protocol and the safety of referring patients for self-care at home. Methods: This is a retrospective statewide analysis of EMS patients from March 19 thru September 4, 2020, who were not transported and had documentation of the Viral Syndrome Pandemic Triage Protocol's decision support tool completed, as well as a random sample of 150 patients who were not transported and did not have documentation of the decision tool. Descriptive statistics were performed as well as a two-stage multivariable logistic regression model for the outcomes of ED presentation within 24 hours and subsequent hospitalization. Results: 301 EMS patients were documented as triaged to home using the protocol and outcomes data were available for 282 (94%). 41(14.5%) patients presented to an ED within 24 hours and 14 (5% of 282) required inpatient hospitalization. Nine (3.2%) patients were subsequently hospitalized with a diagnosis of COVID-19 illness. Of those patients for whom the decision tool was not documented, 35 (23%) had an ED visit within 24 hours and 15 (10%) were hospitalized (p = 0.075). Multivariate logistic regression model results (N = 432) suggest that those with documentation of triage protocol use had some advantage over those patients without documentation. The 95% CIs of the estimated effect of Triage/No Triage protocol documented were wide and crossed the 1.0 limit but overall, all effects Odds Ratios and Adjust Odds Ratios were consistently over 1.0 with the lowest value of 1.3 and the highest value of 2.1. Conclusion: Most patients (95%) who were triaged to self-care at home with home documented decision support tool use did not require hospitalization within 24 hours following EMS encounter and this appears to be safe. Future opportunity exists to incorporate such tools into comprehensive pandemic preparedness strategies along with appropriate follow up and quality improvement mechanisms.

911 EMS Activations by Pregnant Patients in Maryland (USA) during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: In the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, United States Emergency Medical Services (EMS) experienced a decrease in calls, and at the same time, an increase in out-of-hospital deaths. This finding led to a concern for the implications of potential delays in care for the obstetric population. HYPOTHESIS/PROBLEM: This study examines the impact of the pandemic on prehospital care amongst pregnant women. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted comparing obstetric-related EMS activations in Maryland (USA) during the pandemic (March 10-July 20, 2020) to a pre-pandemic period (March 10-July 20, 2019). Comparative analysis was used to analyze the difference in frequency and acuity of calls between the two periods. RESULTS: There were fewer obstetric-related EMS encounters during the pandemic compared to the year prior (daily average during the pandemic 12.5 [SD = 3.8] versus 14.6 [SD = 4.1] pre-pandemic; P <.001), although the percent of total female encounters remained unchanged (1.6% in 2020 versus 1.5% in 2019; P = .091). Key indicators of maternal status were not significantly different between the two periods. African-American women represented a disproportionately high percentage of obstetric-related activations (36.2% in 2019 and 34.8% in 2020). CONCLUSIONS: In this state-wide analysis of EMS calls in Maryland early in the pandemic, no significant differences existed in the utilization of EMS by pregnant women. Prehospital EMS activations amongst pregnant women in Maryland only decreased slightly without an increase in acuity. Of note, over-representation by African-American women compared to population statistics raises concern for broader systemic differences in access to obstetric care.

Decision Making and Interventions During Interfacility Transport of High-Acuity Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection.

OBJECTIVE: There are limited data regarding the typical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients requiring interfacility transport or the clinical capabilities of the out-of-hospital transport clinicians required to provide safe transport. The objective of this study is to provide epidemiologic data and highlight the clinical skill set and decision making needed to transport critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of persons under investigation for COVID-19 transported during the first 6 months of the pandemic by Johns Hopkins Lifeline was performed. Patients who required interfacility transport and tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by polymerase chain reaction assay were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients (25.4%) required vasopressor support, 35 patients (13.1%) were pharmacologically paralyzed, 15 (5.60%) were prone, and 1 (0.75%) received an inhaled pulmonary vasodilator. At least 1 ventilator setting change occurred for 59 patients (22.0%), and ventilation mode was changed for 11 patients (4.10%) during transport. CONCLUSION: The safe transport of critically ill patients with COVID-19 requires experience with vasopressors, paralytic medications, inhaled vasodilators, prone positioning, and ventilator management. The frequency of initiated critical interventions and ventilator adjustments underscores the tenuous nature of these patients and highlights the importance of transport clinician reassessment, critical thinking, and decision making.