Are interfacility ground transports of patients utilizing intra-aortic balloon pumps safe?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the interfacility ground transport of patients with intra-aortic balloon pumps results in morbidity or mortality during transfer. METHODS: Charts of all intra-aortic balloon pump transports by a private ambulance company occurring from January 1998 through December 1999 (24 months) were reviewed retrospectively. Records were assessed by a single reviewer for adverse events, explicitly defined as any notation on the record describing death, chest pain, dyspnea, altered mental status, device malfunction, bleeding, unstable vital signs (heart rate <50 beats/min or > or = 120 beats/min, respiratory rate <12 breaths/min or > or = 30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg), or hypoxia (oxygen saturation <93%). Unstable vital signs as defined above did not count as adverse events if they represented a patient's baseline condition prior to transport. RESULTS: Thirty-two transports were identified during the study period. Twenty-seven patients (84.4%) had no adverse events. There were no mortalities. Adverse events, none of which resulted in morbidity, were: 1) chest pain and transient paroxysmal atrial tachycardia (relieved with increasing the nitroglycerin infusion); 2) continuous mild chest pain (began during transport and diminished with giving sublingual nitroglycerin and increasing the nitroglycerin infusion); 3) dyspnea and hypoxia (relieved with increased oxygen); 4) transient hypotension (spontaneously resolved); 5) hypotension (resolved by increasing the dopamine infusion). CONCLUSION: Although a few adverse events occurred, interfacility ground transport of patients with intra-aortic balloon pumps was not associated with morbidity or mortality in this study.

The effect of lower-extremity position on cerebrospinal fluid pressures.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of lower-extremity positioning on cerebrospinal fluid opening pressure (CSFp). The authors believed that during lumbar puncture (LP), CSFp does not meaningfully decrease when the lower extremities are extended from flexion, as is often suggested. METHODS: In a convenience sample of adult patients who clinically required LP in an urban emergency department, three sequential CSFp measurements were obtained in either sequence A (knee, hip, and neck flexion [90 degrees ], then extension, then flexion) or sequence B (extension, flexion, then extension) prior to CSF withdrawal. The neck was flexed at 30 degrees when the lower extremities were flexed, while the thoracolumbar spine was kept in the neutral position for all measurements. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were studied in each sequence. Although variable, overall within-patient changes between positions were not clinically meaningful. Mean and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for the decrease in CSFp from position 1 to position 3 (same position) were 0.2 cm H(2)O (1.7%) and 0.9 to -0.6 cm H(2)O (6% to -2.7%), respectively. Changing from flexion to extension decreased pressure measurements by a mean of 0.9 cm H(2)O (2.5%) [95% CI = 2.1 to -0.1 cm H(2)O (7.6% to -2.4%)]. Changing from extension to flexion increased CSFp by a mean of 1.1 cm H(2)O (6.1%) [95% CI = 0.2 to 2.0 cm H(2)O (1.3% to 11.5%)], a statistically but not clinically meaningful change. CONCLUSIONS: Changing lower-extremity position did not meaningfully change mean CSFp. These data do not support the common suggestion that extending the lower extremities during LP meaningfully decreases CSF opening pressures.

Now that we have the Utstein style, are we using it?

OBJECTIVES: To examine the extent to which the Utstein style has been used for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) research since its publication in 1991. The style was developed in an effort to standardize OOHCA research and reporting. METHODS: To locate all OOHCA research papers published between 1992 and 1997, all issues of six emergency medicine/emergency medical services (EM/ EMS) journals were examined manually, and papers from other journals were located using computerized searches. All located articles were examined by the first author to determine whether use of the Utstein style was indicated and if so, whether it had actually been used. When either of these was uncertain, all three authors reviewed the paper, and a consensus was reached. The Pearson chi-square test was used to compare rates of use from U.S. and non-U.S. institutions, and from the EM/EMS and non-EM/EMS literature, with significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: All 143 OOHCA research articles identified by the search were examined. The Utstein style was found to be not applicable to 41 (29%), and these were eliminated. The Utstein style was indicated for the remaining 102 studies. Of these, 41 (40%) used the Utstein style, and 61 (60%) did not. There was no difference in rates between papers from sites in the United States (18/48, 38%) and elsewhere (23/54, 43%), or between papers from the EM/EMS literature (17/44, 39%) and non-EM/EMS literature (25/59, 42%). Despite an upward trend in the use of the Utstein style seen from 1992 to 1994, use leveled off from 1994 to 1997, and has not exceeded 60% in any given calendar year studied. CONCLUSIONS: Six years after the release of the Utstein style for OOHCA research, fewer than 60% of OOHCA research articles actually use the style.