Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med ; 29(1): 78, 2021 Jun 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1259209

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, as the number of available Intensive Care beds in France did not meet the needs, it appeared necessary to transfer a large number of patients from the most affected areas to the less ones. Mass transportation resources were deemed necessary. To achieve that goal, the concept of a Collective Critical Care Ambulance (CCCA) was proposed in the form of a long-distance bus re-designed and equipped to accommodate up to six intensive care patients and allow Advanced Life Support (ALS) techniques to be performed while en route. METHODS: The expected benefit of the CCCA, when compared to ALS ambulances accommodating a single patient, was to reduce the resources requirements, in particular by a lower personnel headcount for several patients being transferred to the same destination. A foreseen prospect, comparing to other collective transportation vectors such as airplanes, was the door-to-door capability, minimalizing patients' handovers for safety concerns and time efficiency. With the project of a short-distance transfer of several Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients together, the opportunity came to test the CCCA under real-life conditions and evaluate safely its technical feasibility and impact in time and resources saving, before it could be proposed for longer distances. RESULTS: Four COVID-19 patients were transported over 37 km. All patients were intubated and under controlled ventilation. One of them was under Norepinephrine support. Mean loading time was 1 min 39 s. Transportation time was 29 min. At destination, the mean unloading time was 1 min 15 s. No serious adverse effect, in particular regarding hemodynamic instability or ventilation disorder, has been observed. No harmful incident has occurred. CONCLUSIONS: It was a very instructive test. Collective medical evacuation by bus for critically ill patients under controlled ventilation is suitable and easy to implement. Design, ALS equipment, power autonomy, safety and resources saving, open the way for carrying up to 6 ICU-patients over a long distance. The CCCA could bring a real added-value in an epidemic context and could also be helpful in many other events generating multiple victims such as an armed conflict, a terrorist attack or a natural disaster.


Subject(s)
Ambulances/organization & administration , COVID-19/epidemiology , Critical Care/organization & administration , Female , France , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Open Heart ; 7(2)2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-892315

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To understand the impact of COVID-19 on delivery and outcomes of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Furthermore, to compare clinical presentation and outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with active COVID-19 against those without COVID-19. METHODS: We systematically analysed 348 STEMI cases presenting to the PPCI programme in London during the peak of the pandemic (1 March to 30 April 2020) and compared with 440 cases from the same period in 2019. Outcomes of interest included ambulance response times, timeliness of revascularisation, angiographic and procedural characteristics, and in-hospital clinical outcomes RESULTS: There was a 21% reduction in STEMI admissions and longer ambulance response times (87 (62-118) min in 2020 vs 75 (57-95) min in 2019, p<0.001), but that this was not associated with a delays in achieving revascularisation once in hospital (48 (34-65) min in 2020 vs 48 (35-70) min in 2019, p=0.35) or increased mortality (10.9% (38) in 2020 vs 8.6% (38) in 2019, p=0.28). 46 patients with active COVID-19 were more thrombotic and more likely to have intensive care unit admissions (32.6% (15) vs 9.3% (28), OR 5.74 (95%CI 2.24 to 9.89), p<0.001). They also had increased length of stay (4 (3-9) days vs 3 (2-4) days, p<0.001) and a higher mortality (21.7% (10) vs 9.3% (28), OR 2.72 (95% CI 1.25 to 5.82), p=0.012) compared with patients having PPCI without COVID-19. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that PPCI pathways can be maintained during unprecedented healthcare emergencies but confirms the high mortality of STEMI in the context of concomitant COVID-19 infection characterised by a heightened state of thrombogenicity.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Critical Pathways/organization & administration , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/organization & administration , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care/organization & administration , Pandemics , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Pneumonia, Viral , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/therapy , Aged , Ambulances/organization & administration , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Databases, Factual , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Length of Stay , London/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Admission , Patient Safety , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effects , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/diagnosis , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/mortality , Thrombosis/mortality , Thrombosis/therapy , Time Factors , Time-to-Treatment/organization & administration , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL