Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Am J Emerg Med ; 53: 122-126, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1638161

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is still the gold standard of airway management, but in cases of sudden cardiac arrest in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, ETI is associated with risks for both the patient and the medical personnel. We hypothesized that the Vie Scope® is more useful for endotracheal intubation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cardiac arrest patients than the conventional laryngoscope with Macintosh blade when operators are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). METHODS: Study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed by Emergency Medical Services in Poland. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who needed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prehospital setting were included. Patients under 18 years old or with criteria predictive of impossible intubation under direct laryngoscopy, were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to Vie Scope® versus direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade. Study groups were compared on success of intubation attempts, time to intubation, glottis visualization and number of optimization maneuvers. RESULTS: We enrolled 90 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, aged 43-92 years. Compared to the VieScope® laryngoscope, use of the Macintosh laryngoscope required longer times for tracheal intubation with an estimated mean difference of -48 s (95%CI confidence interval [CI], -60.23, -35.77; p < 0.001). Moreover VieScope® improved first attempt success rate, 93.3% vs. 51.1% respectively (odds ratio [OR] = 13.39; 95%CI: 3.62, 49.58; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Vie Scope® laryngoscope in OHCA patients improved the first attempt success rate, and reduced intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in paramedics wearing PPE for against aerosol generating procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials registration number NCT04365608.


Subject(s)
Allied Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Intubation, Intratracheal/instrumentation , Laryngoscopes/standards , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Airway Management/instrumentation , Airway Management/methods , Airway Management/statistics & numerical data , Allied Health Personnel/standards , Female , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Laryngoscopes/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Prospective Studies , Resuscitation/instrumentation , Resuscitation/methods , Resuscitation/statistics & numerical data
3.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 9(1): 185, 2020 11 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1067275

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Prehospital professionals such as emergency physicians or paramedics must be able to choose and adequately don and doff personal protective equipment (PPE) in order to avoid COVID-19 infection. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a gamified e-learning module on adequacy of PPE in student paramedics. METHODS: This was a web-based, randomized 1:1, parallel-group, triple-blind controlled trial. Student paramedics from three Swiss schools were invited to participate. They were informed they would be presented with both an e-learning module and an abridged version of the current regional prehospital COVID-19 guidelines, albeit not in which order. After a set of 22 questions designed to assess baseline knowledge, the control group was shown the guidelines before answering a set of 14 post-intervention questions. The e-learning group was shown the gamified e-learning module right after the guidelines, and before answering post-intervention questions. The primary outcome was the difference in the percentage of adequate choices of PPE before and after the intervention. RESULTS: The participation rate was of 71% (98/138). A total of 90 answer sets was analyzed. Adequate choice of PPE increased significantly both in the control (50% [33;83] vs 25% [25;50], P = .013) and in the e-learning group (67% [50;83] vs 25% [25;50], P = .001) following the intervention. Though the median of the difference was higher in the e-learning group, there was no statistically significant superiority over the control (33% [0;58] vs 17% [- 17;42], P = .087). The e-learning module was of greatest benefit in the subgroup of student paramedics who were actively working in an ambulance company (42% [8;58] vs 25% [- 17;42], P = 0.021). There was no significant effect in student paramedics who were not actively working in an ambulance service (0% [- 25;33] vs 17% [- 8;50], P = .584). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a gamified e-learning module increases the rate of adequate choice of PPE only among student paramedics actively working in an ambulance service. In this subgroup, combining this teaching modality with other interventions might help spare PPE and efficiently protect against COVID-19 infection.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/physiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Health Personnel/education , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Adult , Allied Health Personnel/education , Allied Health Personnel/standards , Betacoronavirus/genetics , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Education, Distance/statistics & numerical data , Europe , Female , Health Personnel/standards , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional , Internet , Knowledge , Learning , Male , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Students/psychology , Young Adult
5.
J Am Soc Echocardiogr ; 33(6): 654-657, 2020 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-378870

ABSTRACT

Sonographers need to be familiar with and prepared to implement strategies for reducing the risk of exposure to and transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Strategies to employ can be grouped into three broad categories: (1) whom to scan, (2) where to scan, and (3) how to scan. Whom to scan addresses sonographer strategies for determining essential and emergent scan status. Where to scan addresses sonographer practice strategies for selecting equipment, use of rooms, portable examinations, and training personnel. How to scan addresses the topics of scanning techniques (tailored protocols, right-handed scanning, use of barrier devices) and equipment cleaning and disinfecting.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Consensus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Echocardiography/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Societies, Medical , Allied Health Personnel/standards , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL