Safety and Risk in Airway Management During Bariatric Air Medical Retrieval.

OBJECTIVE: Bariatric anatomy and physiology present added clinical challenges to the provision of safe critical care and patient transport. LifeFlight Retrieval Medicine provides air medical retrieval services in Queensland, Australia, and performs over 6,000 retrieval missions annually using rotary wing, fixed wing, and ground ambulance platforms. METHODS: Bariatric patient retrievals were identified from the LifeFlight Retrieval Medicine electronic patient database. These cases were interrogated to quantify and describe adverse events during patient transport. RESULTS: Over the study period from July 2019 to December 2021 11,096 patient retrievals were completed. Of these patients, 816 (7.3%) had a body weight ≥ 120 kg (range, 120-246 kg; median = 146 kg). Bariatric patients were more likely to be male (70%) and to require critical care interventions than nonbariatric patients (25.9% vs. 19.9%). There was an absolute 1.5% increase of high-interest events during patient retrieval, corresponding to a 1.9-fold increased relative risk. Five hundred eleven of 11,096 patients were intubated by the retrieval team, and 61 of these weighed ≥ 120 kg. Bariatric patients undergoing intubation were of similar age and sex, weighed significantly more, had nonsignificant trends toward poorer airway visualization by Cormack-Lehane laryngoscopic grade, and tended toward reduced first-attempt success compared with nonbariatric patients. Rates of airway adverse events (AAEs) were significantly increased for the bariatric group (30/61, 49.2%) compared with the nonbariatric group (135/450, 30.0%) (χ2 likelihood ratio, P = .004). Postintubation desaturation was the most common AAE and was the only criterion significantly increased when comparing bariatric (26%) versus nonbariatric (12%) patients (χ2 likelihood ratio, P = .005). Using patient weight as a continuous variable, nominal logistic regression revealed a significant effect of increasing weight on AAEs (χ2 = 12.9, P = .0003) with a threshold of 105 kg providing an optimal 88% sensitivity for predicting AAEs. The odds of AAEs were increased significantly for those weighing 105 to 119 kg versus those weighing < 105 kg (odds ratio [OR] = 3.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-7.5) and for those weighing ≥ 120 kg versus those weighing < 105 kg (OR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.4-4.3). There was no difference between those weighing ≥ 120 kg versus those weighing 105 to 119 kg (OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.3-1.8). CONCLUSION: Air medical retrieval of bariatric patients is safe despite an increased risk of adverse events. Strategies to optimize emergency anesthesia should be used to maximize safe intubation in bariatric patients.

Successful endotracheal intubation following a failed first attempt during aeromedical retrieval.

INTRODUCTION: First attempt intubation success is used by many prehospital services as a marker of quality and safety. An increasing complication rate is associated with repeated intubation attempts. The aim of this study was to identify changes to intubation technique following a failed intubation attempt. METHODS: LifeFlight Retrieval Medicine provides aeromedical retrieval services in Queensland, Australia. This retrospective study identified cases of failed intubation attempts from an electronic database registry over a 41-month period from March 2015 to July 2018. These data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 762 patients who required intubation 758 (99.5%) were successfully intubated, with 684 intubated at the first attempt (89.8%; 95% CI: 0.87 to 0.92). There was no difference in first attempt success between direct and video laryngoscopy (511/563 (90.8%) vs 172/194 (88.6%) p=0.38), trauma or medical (374/419 (89.3%) vs 310/343 (90.4%), p=0.61), primary or interhospital missions (329/370 (88.7%) vs 355/392 (90.8%), p=0.33). 78 cases of failed first attempt intubations were identified. In 65 of these cases, intubation was successful at the second attempt. A single change was made to the intubation procedure prior to a second successful attempt in 28/78 cases (35.9%), and more than one change was made in 41/78 (52.6%). The changes included the operator, intubation device, patient position, intubating aid and external laryngeal manipulation. No change between attempts was recorded in 9/78 (11.5%). 9 cases were successfully intubated at the third attempt, and changes prior to the third attempt included operator, device and intubating aid. CONCLUSION: Although a high overall intubation success was found, one in ten patients who were intubated had a failed first attempt. The majority of successful subsequent attempts were preceded by at least one change to intubating technique. Intubating clinicians need the ability to identify and correct issues leading to a failed first attempt.

Endotracheal intubation by a specialised paediatric retrieval team.

OBJECTIVES: Intubation of critically ill children is an infrequent procedure, and is associated with significant risk. We set out to describe intubations carried out by the Children's Health Queensland Retrieval Service (CHQRS), with the intention to identify areas for improvement in the performance of intubation in the retrieval setting. METHODS: Paediatric patients undergoing transport while intubated were identified, and cases where intubation occurred after the arrival of the CHQRS team were examined. RESULTS: Over the study period of January 2015 to September 2018, 498 intubated retrievals were undertaken; 85 patients were intubated after the arrival of CHQRS; the age range was 1 day to 16.5 years (median 0.5, interquartile range [IQR] 0.11-3 years). The median weight was 6.2 kg (IQR 3.7-16.5 kg). The pathology requiring intubation included respiratory 36 (42.3%), sepsis 21 (24.7%), neurological 11 (12.9%) and trauma 7 (8.2%). A total of 470 of 498 (94.4%) of intubated patients were from regional referral or tertiary hospitals, 28 of 498 (5.6%) were from rural and remote facilities. Of 85 patients, 57 (67.1%) were intubated by CHQRS and 28 (32.9%) were intubated by a doctor from the referring facility. The CHQRS team was more likely to perform the intubation in smaller children (median weight 5.0 vs 9.9 kg, P = 0.03). The mean scene time was 2.8 h. The scene time was shorter if the intubation was performed by CHQRS (mean 2.6 h, median 2.5, IQR 1.8-3.3; median 3, IQR 2.2-3.9; P = 0.048). The scene time was shorter when the intubation was predicted from tasking information (2.6 vs 3.1 h; P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Paediatric endotracheal intubation is an infrequent procedure in our service. An airway registry could improve documentation and gather information to identify specific training requirements and areas for practice improvement.

A BRILL idea? The benefits, risks, insights, learning and limitations of an emergency airway registry in pre-hospital and retrieval medicine.

Airway management is a cornerstone of emergency care. Development of a robust evidence base to support the practice of pre-hospital emergency anaesthesia is key to the safety and evolution of this common but high-risk procedure. This paper discusses the benefits, risks, insights, learning and limitations of the use of an airway registry in pre-hospital and retrieval medicine, for both research and quality improvement purposes.

Endotracheal Intubation for Traumatic Cardiac Arrest by an Australian Air Medical Service.

OBJECTIVE: Traumatic cardiac arrest (TCA) has been associated with poor outcome, but there are survivors with good neurological outcome. Treatment of hypoxia plays a key part in resuscitation algorithms, but little evidence exists on the ideal method of airway management in TCA. METHODS: LifeFlight Retrieval Medicine is an aeromedical retrieval service based in Queensland, Australia. Data regarding all intubations performed over a 28-month period were accessed from an electronic airway registry. RESULTS: 13/22 TCA patients were male, age range 2-81 years. 7/22 (31.8%) survived to hospital admission. During the same period 271 patients were intubated due to trauma, but were not in cardiac arrest (N-TCA). There was no difference in the likelihood of difficult laryngoscopy in the TCA group (16/22 (72.7%) compared to N-TCA (215/271 (79.3%); p = 0.46). The first attempt success rate was similar in TCA group (19/22 (86.4%)) and N-TCA (241/271 (88.9%) p = 0.71.). TCA patients were more likely to be intubated while lying on the ground than the N-TCA group (11/22 (50%) versus 17/271 (6.3%) p = <0.001). CONCLUSION: Resuscitation for predominantly blunt TCA is not futile. The endotracheal intubation first attempt success rate for TCA is comparable to that of N-TCA trauma patients.

Review of therapeutic agents employed by an Australian aeromedical prehospital and retrieval service.

OBJECTIVE: There is little current evidence regarding which therapeutic agents are actually used within existing aeromedical services. The Greater Sydney Area Helicopter Emergency Medical Service operates a large, physician-staffed, multimodal, prehospital and interhospital retrieval service. The aim of the present study was to identify the range and frequency of drug, fluid and blood product use within our service. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study. Case sheets relating to a 12 month period were inspected to identify the therapeutic agents used by retrieval teams during each mission. Corresponding case notes, demographic data (age, sex) and case data (prehospital vs interhospital, trauma vs medical) were extracted from an electronic database. RESULTS: Of 2566 missions, 848 were prehospital, 1662 interhospital and 56 mixed. Prehospital missions were associated with fewer agents per case (median, 2 vs 3) and a narrower range of agents overall (45 vs 117) compared to interhospital missions. In both mission types, the most frequently used agents included morphine, fentanyl, Hartmann's solution, ketamine, rocuronium, ondansetron and midazolam. Noradrenaline, propofol and metaraminol were used frequently in interhospital missions only. A number of stocked and unstocked agents were used less commonly, or not at all, over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study form a practical guide to aid prehospital and retrieval services in establishing or reviewing their medical agent formularies. Key practice points illuminated by the data provide insights into current practice in critical care. There remains a clear need for similar studies from other services worldwide.

The use of propofol for procedural sedation in emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that propofol is efficacious and safe for procedural sedation (PS) in the emergency department (ED) setting. However, propofol has a narrow therapeutic window and lacks of a reversal agent. The aim of this review was to cohere the evidence base regarding the efficacy and safety profile of propofol when used in the ED setting for PS. OBJECTIVES: To identify and evaluate all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing propofol with alternative drugs (benzodiazepines, barbiturates, etomidate and ketamine) used in the ED setting for PS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1950 to September week 2 2013) and EMBASE (1980 to week 2 2013). We searched the Current Controlled Trials metaRegister of Clinical Trials (compiled by Current Science) (September 2013). We checked the reference lists of trials and contacted trial authors. We imposed no language restriction. We re-ran the search in February 2015. We will deal with the one study awaiting classification when we update the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing propofol to alternative drugs (benzodiazepines, barbiturates, etomidate and ketamine) used in the ED setting for PS in participants of all ages. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed data extraction. Two authors performed trial quality assessment. We used mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to measure effect sizes. Two authors independently assessed and rated the methodological quality of each trial using The Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies (813 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Two studies only included participants 18 years and younger; six studies only included participants 18 years and older; one study included participants between 16 and 65 years of age and one study included only adults but did not specify the age range. Eight of the included studies had a high risk of bias. The included studies were clinically heterogeneous. We undertook no meta-analysis.The primary outcome measures of this review were: adverse effects (as defined by the study authors) and participant satisfaction (as defined by the study authors). In one study comparing propofol/fentanyl with ketamine/midazolam, delayed adverse reactions (nightmares and behavioural change) were noted in 10% of the ketamine/midazolam group and none in the propofol/fentanyl group. Seven individual studies reported no evidence of a difference in adverse effects between intravenous propofol, with and without adjunctive analgesic agents, and alternative interventions. Three individual studies reported no evidence of a difference in pain at the injection site between intravenous propofol and alternative interventions. Four individual studies reported no evidence of a difference in participant satisfaction between intravenous propofol, with and without adjunctive analgesic agents, and alternative interventions (ketamine, etomidate, midazolam). All the studies employed propofol without the use of an adjunctive analgesic and all, except one, were small (fewer than 100 participants) studies. The quality of evidence for the adverse effects and participant satisfaction outcomes was very low.Nine included studies (eight comparisons) reported all the secondary outcome measures of the review except mortality. It was not possible to pool the results of the included studies for any of the secondary outcome measures because the comparator interventions were different and the measures were reported in different ways. Seven individual studies reported no evidence of difference in incidence of hypoxia between intravenous propofol, with and without adjunctive analgesic agents, and alternative interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No firm conclusions can be drawn concerning the comparative effects of administering intravenous propofol, with or without an adjunctive analgesic agent, with alternative interventions in participants undergoing PS in the ED setting on adverse effects (including pain at the injection site) and participant satisfaction. The review was limited because no two included studies employed the same comparator interventions, and because the number of participants in eight of the included studies were small (fewer than 100 participants).

Maxillofacial Injury-Not Always a Difficult Airway.

The optimal method for securing the airway in injured patients is controversial. Maxillofacial injury has been shown to be a marker for difficult airway management; however, a delay in intubation may result in deterioration of intubating conditions due to further airway bleeding and swelling. Decisions on the timing and method of airway management depend on multiple factors, including patient characteristics, the skill set of the clinicians, and logistical considerations. This report describes the case of a multi-agency response to a motor-vehicle collision in a rural area in Ireland. One young male patient had sustained significant maxillofacial injuries, multiple limb injuries, and had a decreased level of consciousness. Further airway compromise occurred following extrication. Difficult intubation was predicted; however, abnormal jaw mobility from bilateral mandibular fractures enabled easy laryngoscopy and intubation. Although preparation must be made for difficult airway management in the setting of maxillofacial injury, appropriately trained and experienced practitioners should not be deterred from performing early intubation when indicated.