Clinical evaluation of the use of laryngeal tube versus laryngeal mask airway for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest by paramedics in Singapore.

INTRODUCTION: It remains unclear which advanced airway device has better placement success and fewer adverse events in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the VBM laryngeal tube (LT) against the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in OHCAs managed by emergency ambulances in Singapore. METHODS: This was a real-world, prospective, cluster-randomised crossover study. All OHCA patients above 13 years of age who were suitable for resuscitation were randomised to receive either LT or LMA. The primary outcome was placement success. Per-protocol analysis was performed, and the association between outcomes and airway device group was compared using multivariate binomial logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 965 patients with OHCAs from March 2016 to January 2018, 905 met the inclusion criteria, of whom 502 (55.5%) were randomised to receive LT while 403 (44.5%) were randomised to receive LMA. Only 174 patients in the LT group actually received the device owing to noncompliance. Placement success rate for LT was lower than for LMA (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.90). Complications were more likely when using LT (OR 2.82,0 95% CI 1.64-4.86). Adjusted OR for prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was similar in both groups. A modified intention-to-treat analysis showed similar outcomes to the per-protocol analysis between the groups. CONCLUSION: LT was associated with poorer placement success and higher complication rates than LMA. The likelihood of prehospital ROSC was similar between the two groups. Familiarity bias and a low compliance rate to LT were the main limitations of this study.

Who needs and continues to need paediatric palliative care? An evaluation of utility and feasibility of the Paediatric Palliative Screening scale (PaPaS).

BACKGROUND: While the populations of children who can benefit from paediatric palliative care (PPC) have been broadly defined, identifying individual patients to receive PPC has been problematic in practice. The Paediatric Palliative Screening scale (PaPaS) is a multi-dimensional tool that assesses palliative care needs in children and families to facilitate timely referrals. This study evaluates its use to manage new referrals and ongoing review of patients receiving home-based PPC in Singapore. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort study design, 199 patients admitted to receive PPC via clinician screening were scored using PaPaS. Eighty-four patients in two groups were scored again at one of two following milestones: one-year service continuation mark or point of discharge before a year. Accuracy measures were compared against clinical assessment. RESULTS: 96.98% of patients scored 15 and above on admission (indicating need for PPC). Patients assessed at following milestones were effectively stratified; those who continued to receive service after 1 year scored significantly higher (M = 19.23) compared to those who were discharged within a year (M = 7.86). Sensitivity and specificity for PaPaS were calculated at 82.54 and 100% respectively. Overall congruence with clinician-based decisions supports the utility of PaPaS as a screening tool in PPC. Recommendations to improve the scale further are proposed. CONCLUSION: The PaPaS is a practical screening tool that signposts PPC needs within the clinical setting. This facilitates early referrals to PPC, without having to specify individual prognoses that are often uncertain. Other benefits include optimised continuity of care and implications for resource allocation.