Haemodynamic effects of a prehospital emergency anaesthesia protocol consisting of fentanyl, ketamine and rocuronium in patients with trauma: a retrospective analysis of data from a Helicopter Emergency Medical Service.

OBJECTIVES: Prehospital rapid sequence induction (RSI) of anaesthesia is an intervention with significant associated risk. In this study, we aimed to investigate the haemodynamic response over time of a prehospital RSI protocol of fentanyl, ketamine and rocuronium in a heterogeneous population of trauma patients. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANT: We performed a retrospective study of all trauma patients who received a prehospital RSI for trauma by a physician staffed Helicopter Emergency Medical Service in the UK between 1 June 2018 and 1 February 2020. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary outcome was defined as the incidence of clinically relevant hypotensive (systolic blood pressure (SBP) or mean arterial pressure (MAP) >20% below baseline, with an absolute SBP <90 mm Hg or MAP <65 mm Hg) or hypertensive (SBP or MAP >20% above baseline) episodes in the first 10 minutes post-RSI. RESULTS: In total, 322 patients were included. 204 patients (63%) received a full-dose induction of 3 µg/kg fentanyl, 2 mg/kg ketamine and 1 mg/kg rocuronium, whereas 128 patients (37%) received a reduced-dose induction. Blood pressures decreased on average 12 mm Hg (95% CI 7 to 16) in the full-dose group and 6 mm Hg (95% CI 1 to 11) in the reduced-dose group, p=0.10). A hypotensive episode (mean SBP drop 53 mm Hg) was noted in 29 patients: 17 (8.3%) receiving a full dose and 12 (10.2%) receiving a reduced-dose induction, p=0.69. The blood pressure nadir was recorded on average 6-8 min after RSI. A hypertensive episode was present in 22 patients (6.8%). The highest blood pressures were recorded in the first 3 min after RSI. CONCLUSION: Prehospital induction of anaesthesia for trauma with fentanyl, ketamine and rocuronium is not related to a significant change in haemodynamics in most patients. However, a (delayed) hypotensive response with a significant drop in SBP should be anticipated in a minority of patients irrespective of the dose regimen chosen.

Feasibility of Prehospital Emergency Anesthesia in the Cabin of an AW169 Helicopter Wearing Personal Protective Equipment During Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVE: Prehospital emergency anesthesia in the form of rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is a critical intervention delivered by advanced prehospital critical care teams. Our previous simulation study determined the feasibility of in-aircraft RSI. We now examine whether this feasibility is preserved in a simulated setting when clinicians wear personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) for in-aircraft, on-the-ground RSI. METHODS: Air Ambulance Kent Surrey Sussex is a helicopter emergency medical service that uses an AW169 cabin simulator. Wearing full AGP PPE (eye protection, FFP3 mask, gown, and gloves), 10 doctor-paramedic teams performed RSI in a standard "can intubate, can ventilate" scenario and a "can't intubate, can't oxygenate" (CICO) scenario. Prespecified timings were reported, and participant feedback was sought by questionnaire. RESULTS: RSI was most commonly performed by direct laryngoscopy and was successfully achieved in all scenarios. The time to completed endotracheal intubation (ETI) was fastest (287 seconds) in the standard scenario and slower (370 seconds, P = .01) in the CICO scenario. The time to ETI was not significantly delayed by wearing PPE in the standard (P = .19) or CICO variant (P = .97). Communication challenges, equipment complications, and PPE difficulties were reported, but ways to mitigate these were also reported. CONCLUSION: In-aircraft RSI (aircraft on the ground) while wearing PPE for AGPs had no significant impact on the time to successful completion of ETI in a simulated setting. Patient safety is paramount in civilian helicopter emergency medical services, but the adoption of in-aircraft RSI could confer significant patient benefit in terms of prehospital time savings, and further research is warranted.

Feasibility of Prehospital Rapid Sequence Intubation in the Cabin of an AW169 Helicopter.

OBJECTIVE: Prehospital rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is an important aspect of prehospital care for helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS). This study examines the feasibility of in-aircraft (aircraft on the ground) RSI in different simulated settings. METHODS: Using an AW169 aircraft cabin simulator at Air Ambulance Kent Surrey Sussex, 3 clinical scenarios were devised. All required RSI in a "can intubate, can ventilate" (easy variant) and a "can't intubate, can't ventilate" scenario (difficult variant). Doctor-paramedic HEMS teams were video recorded, and elapsed times for prespecified end points were analyzed. RESULTS: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) was achieved fastest outside the simulator for the easy variant (median = 231 seconds, interquartile range = 28 seconds). Time to ETI was not significantly longer for in-aircraft RSI compared with RSI outside the aircraft, both in the easy (p = .14) and difficult variant (p = .50). Wearing helmets with noise distraction did not impact the time to intubation when compared with standard in-aircraft RSI, both in the easy (p = .28) and difficult variant (p = .24). CONCLUSION: In-aircraft, on-the-ground RSI had no significant impact on the time to successful completion of ETI. Future studies should prospectively examine in-cabin RSI and explore the possibilities of in-flight RSI in civilian HEMS services.

Community emergency medicine: taking the ED to the patient: a 12-month observational analysis of activity and impact of a physician response unit.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: International and national health policies advocate greater integration of emergency and community care. The Physician Response Unit (PRU) responds to 999 calls 'taking the Emergency Department to the patient'. Operational since 2001, the service was reconfigured in September 2017. This article presents service activity data and implications for the local health economy from the first year since remodelling. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive analysis of a prospectively maintained database was undertaken. Data collected included dispatch information, diagnostics and treatments undertaken, diagnosis and disposition. Treating clinical teams recorded judgments whether patients managed in the community would have been (1) conveyed to an emergency department (ED)and (2) admitted to hospital, in the absence of the PRU. Hospital Episode Statistics data and NHS referencing costs were used to estimate the monetary value of PRU activity. RESULTS: 1924 patients were attended, averaging 5.3 per day. 1289 (67.0%) patients were managed in the community. Based on the opinion of the treating team, 945 (73.3%) would otherwise have been conveyed to hospital, and 126 (9.7%) would subsequently have been admitted. The service was estimated to deliver a reduction of 868 inpatient bed days and generate a net economic benefit of £530 107. CONCLUSIONS: The PRU model provides community emergency medical care and early patient contact with a senior clinical decision-maker. It engages with community providers in order to manage 67.0% of patients in the community. We believe the PRU offers an effective model of community emergency medicine and helps to integrate local emergency and community providers.