ABSTRACT
Background: With a rise in mass casualty incidents, training in hemorrhage control using tourniquets has been championed as a basic-and lifesaving-procedure for bystanders and medical professionals alike. The current standard for training is in-person (IP) courses, which can be limited based on instructor availability. Virtual reality (VR) has demonstrated the potential to improve the accuracy of certain medical tasks but has not yet been developed for hemorrhage control. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a VR hemorrhage trainer in learner retention of tourniquet application when compared to traditional IP instructor teaching among a cohort of emergency medicine residents practicing in a Level I trauma center. Methods: This was a prospective, observational study of 53 emergency medicine residents at an inner-city program. Participants were randomly assigned to either the control or the VR group. On Day 0, all residents underwent a training session (IP vs. VR) for the proper, stepwise application of a tourniquet, as defined by the American College of Trauma Surgeons. Each participant was then assessed on the application of a tourniquet by a blinded instructor using the National Registry Hemorrhage Control Skills Lab rubric. After 3 months, each resident was reevaluated on the same rubric, with subsequent data analysis on successful tourniquet placement (measured as under 90 s) and time to completion. Results: Of the 53 participants, the IP training group had an initial pass rate of 97% (28/29) compared to 92% (22/24) in the VR group (p = 0.58). On retention testing, the IP training group had a pass rate of 95% (20/21) compared to 90% (18/20) in the VR group (p = 0.62). Stratifying the success of tourniquet placement by level of resident training did not demonstrate any statistically significant differences. Conclusions: In this pilot study of emergency medicine residents, we found no significant differences in successful hemorrhage control by tourniquet placement between those trained with VR compared to a traditional IP course among emergency medicine residents. While more studies with greater power are needed, the results suggest that VR may be a useful adjunct to traditional IP medical training.
ABSTRACT
Guidelines for the management of in-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation are often drawn from evidence generated in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest populations and applied to the in-hospital setting. Approach to airway management during resuscitation is one example of this phenomenon, with the recommendation to place either a supraglottic airway or endotracheal tube when performing advanced airway management during in-hospital cardiac arrest based mainly in clinical trials conducted in the out-of-hospital setting. The Hospital Airway Resuscitation Trial (HART) is a pragmatic cluster-randomized superiority trial comparing a strategy of first choice supraglottic airway to a strategy of first choice endotracheal intubation during resuscitation from in-hospital cardiac arrest. The design includes a number of innovative elements such as a highly pragmatic design drawing from electronic health records and a novel primary outcome measure for cardiac arrest trials-alive-and-ventilator free days. Many of the topics explored in the design of HART have wide relevance to other trials in in-hospital cardiac arrest populations.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Dexamethasone decreases the frequency of migraine recurrence after emergency department (ED) discharge. However, the optimal dose of dexamethasone is unknown. We hypothesized that dexamethasone 16 mg IV would allow greater rates of sustained headache relief than 4 mg when coadministered with metoclopramide 10 mg IV. METHODS: This was a randomized double-blind study. Adults who presented with a headache meeting International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, migraine criteria were eligible if they rated the headache as moderate or severe in intensity. Pain intensity was assessed for up to 2 hours in the ED and through telephone 48 hours and 7 days later. The primary outcome was sustained headache relief. Secondary outcomes included headache relief within 2 hours and the number of headache days during the subsequent week. Relying on a priori criteria, the data safety monitoring committee recommended halting the study early for futility. RESULTS: A total of 1,823 patients were screened, and 209 patients were randomized. The mean age was 38 years (SD 11). One hundred seventy-nine of 209 (86%) identified as women. One hundred fifty-one of 209 (72%) of the population reported severe intensity; the rest reported moderate. Thirty-five of 102 (34%) participants in the metoclopramide +4 mg arm achieved sustained headache relief as did 42/102 (41%) participants in the metoclopramide +16 mg arm (absolute difference 7%, 95% CI -6% to 20%). Headache relief within 2 hours occurred in 77/104 (74%) low-dose and 82/105 (78%) high-dose participants (absolute difference 4%, 95% CI -8% to 16%). During the week after ED discharge, low-dose participants reported a median of 2 headache days (25th, 75th percentile 1, 5); in the high-dose arm, this was also 2 (25th, 75th percentile 0, 4) (mean difference 0.4, 95% CI -0.3 to 1.2). DISCUSSION: When added to 10 mg IV metoclopramide, doses of dexamethasone greater than 4 mg are unlikely to benefit patients in the ED with migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on October 2, 2019 (NCT04112823). The first patient was enrolled on December 22, 2019. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that 16 mg of IV dexamethasone is unlikely to provide greater rates of sustained headache relief than 4 mg of IV dexamethasone among patients in the ED with migraine treated concurrently with IV metoclopramide.
