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.

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/FIO2 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.

Development, validation and translation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillator training and placement bilingual questionnaire.

OBJECTIVES: This paper describes the development and translation of a questionnaire purported to measure (1) the perception of the placement strategy of automated external defibrillator, (2) the perception on the importance of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillator (3) the perception on the confidence and willingness to apply these two lifesaving interventions as well as (4) the fears and concerns in applying these two interventions. For construct validation, exploratory factor analysis was performed using principal axis factoring and promax oblique rotation and confirmatory factor analysis performed using partial least square. RESULTS: Five factors with eigenvalue > 1 were identified. Pattern matrix analysis showed that all items were loaded into the factors with factor loading > 0.4. One item was subsequently removed as Cronbach's alpha > 0.9 which indicates redundancy. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated acceptable factor loadings except for one item which was subsequently removed. Internal consistency and discriminant validity was deemed acceptable with no significant cross-loading.

Individually-tailored multifactorial intervention to reduce falls in the Malaysian Falls Assessment and Intervention Trial (MyFAIT): A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of an individually-tailored multifactorial intervention in reducing falls among at risk older adult fallers in a multi-ethnic, middle-income nation in South-East Asia. DESIGN: Pragmatic, randomized-controlled trial. SETTING: Emergency room, medical outpatient and primary care clinic in a teaching hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 65 years and above with two or more falls or one injurious fall in the past 12 months. INTERVENTION: Individually-tailored interventions, included a modified Otago exercise programme, HOMEFAST home hazards modification, visual intervention, cardiovascular intervention, medication review and falls education, was compared against a control group involving conventional treatment. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was any fall recurrence at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were rate of fall and time to first fall. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-eight participants (mean age 75.3 ±7.2 SD years, 67% women) were randomized to multifactorial intervention (n = 134) or convention treatment (n = 134). All participants in the intervention group received medication review and falls education, 92 (68%) were prescribed Otago exercises, 86 (64%) visual intervention, 64 (47%) home hazards modification and 51 (38%) cardiovascular intervention. Fall recurrence did not differ between intervention and control groups at 12-months [Risk Ratio, RR = 1.037 (95% CI 0.613-1.753)]. Rate of fall [RR = 1.155 (95% CI 0.846-1.576], time to first fall [Hazard Ratio, HR = 0.948 (95% CI 0.782-1.522)] and mortality rate [RR = 0.896 (95% CI 0.335-2.400)] did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Individually-tailored multifactorial intervention was ineffective as a strategy to reduce falls. Future research efforts are now required to develop culturally-appropriate and affordable methods of addressing this increasingly prominent public health issue in middle-income nations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry no. ISRCTN11674947.