Impact of VieScope® on first-attempt success during simulated COVID-19 patients intubation: A randomized cross-over simulation trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of our study was to determine the efficacy of intubation with VieScope® and Macintosh laryngoscope in different scenarios of simulated COVID-19 patients by paramedics wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol gener-ating procedures (AGPs). METHODS: Study was designed as a prospective, observational, randomized, crossover simulation trial. 37 paramedics took part in the study. They performed endotracheal intubation (ETI) of a person suspected of COVID-19. Intubation was performed using VieS-cope® and Macintosh laryngoscopes in two research scenarios: Scenario A - normal airway and Scenario B - difficult airway. Both the order of participants and the methods of intubation were random. RESULTS: In Scenario A, time to intubation using VieScope® and Macintosh laryngoscope amounted to 35.3 (IQR; 32-40) seconds and 35.8 (IQR: 30-40)s, respectively. Nearly all participants performed ETI successfully both with VieScope® and Macintosh laryngo-scope (100% vs. 94.6%). In scenario B, intubation with the VieScope®, compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope, was associated with a shorter intubation time (p<0.001), a higher success rate of the first intubation attempt (p<0.001), a better visualization degree glottis (p=0.012) and ease of intubation (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that the use of a VieScope® compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in difficult airway intuba-tion performed by paramedics wearing PPE-AGP is associated with shorter intubation times, greater intubation efficiency as well as better visualization of the glottis. Additional clinical trials are necessary to confirm the obtained results.

The Impact of Lung Ultrasound on Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia Suspected Patients Admitted to Emergency Departments.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the sensitivity and specificity of lung ultrasound (LUS) and show its place in diagnosing patients with known coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia, according to chest computed tomography and the COVID-19 reporting and data system (CO-RADS). METHODS: Nineteen patients who admitted to a single university hospital emergency department between March 5, 2020, and April 27, 2020, describing dyspnea were included in the study and underwent LUS by a single emergency specialist. The patient population was divided into 2 groups, COVID-19 positive and negative, and the sensitivity and specificity of LUS according to chest computed tomography were calculated for COVID-19 pneumonia diagnosis. In the subgroup analysis, the patient group was divided into real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction positive (n = 7) and negative (n = 12), and sensitivity and specificity were calculated according to the CO-RADS. RESULTS: According to the CO-RADS, significant differences were detected between the LUS positive and negative groups in terms of COVID-19 pneumonia presence. Only 1 patient was evaluated as CO-RADS 2 in the LUS positive group, and 2 patients were evaluated as CO-RADS 4 in the LUS negative group (P = 0.04). The sensitivity of LUS according to the CO-RADS for COVID-19 pneumonia diagnosis was measured to be 77.78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.9%-97.1%), specificity was 90% (95% CI, 55.5%-99.75%), positive predictive value was 87.5% (95% CI, 51.35%-97.8%), and accuracy was 84.21% (95% CI, 60.4%-96.62%; P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, LUS is easily used in the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia because it has bedside application and is fast, easy to apply, reproducible, radiation free, safe for pregnant women, and cheap.

Resuscitation of Patient with Suspected/Confirmed COVID-19: How to Increase Medical Staff Safety

Medical personnel, including physicians, nurses, and paramedics, as provided by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, should be in full personal protective equipment (PPE) during aerosol-generating procedures (2,3). During CPR, however, performing chest compression may cause the rescuer’s face protection devices to adhere to exposing the rescuer to viral infection (5) poorly. Authorship Contributions Concept: T.E., L.S., Design: T.E., B.K., A.D., Data Collection or Processing: S.K., T.E., L.S., Analysis or Interpretation: T.E., A.D., LS., Literature Search: S.K., B.K., J.S., Writing: S.K., T.E., B.K., J.S., A.D., L.S. Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.