Search

Introduction: Although largely used, the place of oxygen therapy and its devices in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ARF) deserves to be clarified. The French Intensive Care Society (Société de Réanimation de Langue Française, SRLF) and the French Emergency Medicine Society (Société Française de Médecine d'Urgence, SFMU) organized a consensus conference on oxygen therapy in ARF (excluding acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema and hypercapnic exacerbation of chronic obstructive diseases) in December 2023. Methods: A committee without any conflict of interest (CoI) with the subject defined 7 generic questions and drew up a list of sub questions according to the population, intervention, comparison and outcomes (PICO) model. An independent work group reviewed the literature using predefined keywords. The quality of the data was assessed using the GRADE methodology. Fifteen experts in the field from both societies proposed their own answers in a public session and answered questions from the jury (a panel of 16 critical-care and emergency medicine physicians, nurses and physiotherapists without any CoI) and the public. The jury then met alone for 48 h to write its recommendations. Results: The jury provided 22 statements answering 11 questions: in patients with ARF (1) What are the criteria for initiating oxygen therapy? (2) What are the targets of oxygen saturation? (3) What is the role of blood gas analysis? (4) When should an arterial catheter be inserted? (5) Should standard oxygen therapy, high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) be preferred? (6) What are the indications for non-invasive ventilation (NIV)? (7) What are the indications for invasive mechanical ventilation? (8) Should awake prone position be used? (9) What is the role of physiotherapy? (10) Which criteria necessarily lead to ICU admission? (11) Which oxygenation device should be preferred for patients for whom a do-not-intubate decision has been made? Conclusion: These recommendations should optimize the use of oxygen during ARF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of virtual reality (VR) in healthcare education is on the increase. In disaster medicine, it could be a solution to the cost and logistic constraints for a "full-scale" scenarios. However, VR is mainly designed for single players, which is not appropriate for the objectives pursued in disaster medicine. We decided to evaluate the educational value of using individual VR simulation in disaster medicine on a group of learners. Methods: The VR scenario used was a reproduction of a major train crash, with 21 victims and whose objectives were START triage and first aid techniques. The sessions were carried out in multi-participant groups with different roles (active and immersed with headset, paper triage without headset, and active for communications not immersed in the headset). Their perceived self-efficacy was assessed before (T0), after (T1) and 2 months (T2) after the training. Satisfaction and confidence in learning were also measured. Results: The median levels of satisfaction and confidence in learning were of 21/25 and 32/40 respectively. Their perceived self-efficacy increased significantly between T0 and T1 (p < 0.001), and remained stable until T2. The different roles of participant showed no difference in terms of satisfaction, confidence in learning or changes in perceived self-efficacy. One third of the participants agreed that the number of participants had interfered with their learning. A significant negative correlation (rS = -0.51, p = 0.002) was found between satisfaction and the fact of having been hindered by the number of participants. Around 90% of participants found the activity entertaining and found the new technologies appropriate for learning technical skills. Conclusions: This first experience of VR in a group setting is satisfactory and shows its positive effects. The limitations highlighted here will enable areas of improvement to be identified for the use of VR in disaster medicine, pending the development of multi-player tools. It would now be appropriate to analyse the impact of this type of simulation on learning and its retention over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The overloading of health care systems is an international problem. In this context, new tools such as symptom checker (SC) are emerging to improve patient orientation and triage. This SC should be rigorously evaluated and we can take a cue from the way we evaluate medical students, using objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) with simulated patients. Objective: The main objective of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of a symptom checker versus emergency physicians using OSCEs as an assessment method. Methods: We explored a method to evaluate the ability to set a diagnosis and evaluate the emergency of a situation with simulation. A panel of medical experts wrote 220 simulated patients cases. Each situation was played twice by an actor trained to the role: once for the SC, then for an emergency physician. Like a teleconsultation, only the patient's voice was accessible. We performed a prospective non-inferiority study. If primary analysis had failed to detect non-inferiority, we have planned a superiority analysis. Results: The SC established only 30% of the main diagnosis as the emergency physician found 81% of these. The emergency physician was also superior compared to the SC in the suggestion of secondary diagnosis (92% versus 52%). In the matter of patient triage (vital emergency or not), there is still a medical superiority (96% versus 71%). We prove a non-inferiority of the SC compared to the physician in terms of interviewing time. Conclusions and relevance: We should use simulated patients instead of clinical cases in order to evaluate the effectiveness of SCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Sleep trackers are used widely by patients with sleep complaints, however their metrological validation is often poor and relies on healthy subjects. We assessed the metrological validity of two commercially available sleep trackers (Withings Activité/Fitbit Alta HR) through a prospective observational monocentric study, in adult patients referred for polysomnography (PSG). We compared the total sleep time (TST), REM time, REM latency, nonREM1 + 2 time, nonREM3 time, and wake after sleep onset (WASO). We report absolute and relative errors, Bland–Altman representations, and a contingency table of times spent in sleep stages with respect to PSG. Sixty‐five patients were included (final sample size 58 for Withings and 52 for Fitbit). Both devices gave a relatively accurate sleep start time with a median absolute error of 5 (IQR −43; 27) min for Withings and −2.0 (−12.5; 4.2) min for Fitbit but both overestimated TST. Withings tended to underestimate WASO with a median absolute error of −25.0 (−61.5; −8.5) min, while Fitbit tended to overestimate it (median absolute error 10 (−18; 43) min. Withings underestimated light sleep and overestimated deep sleep, while Fitbit overestimated light and REM sleep and underestimated deep sleep. The overall kappas for concordance of each epoch between PSG and devices were low: 0.12 (95%CI 0.117–0.121) for Withings and VPSG indications 0.07 (95%CI 0.067–0.071) for Fitbit, as well as kappas for each VPSG indication 0.07 (95%CI 0.067–0.071). Thus, commercially available sleep trackers are not reliable for sleep architecture in patients with sleep complaints/pathologies and should not replace actigraphy and/or PSG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Introduction: According to recent studies, the ratio of C-reactive-protein to lymphocyte is more sensitive and specific than other biomarkers associated to systemic inflammatory processes. This study aimed to determine the prognostic value of CLR on COVID-19 severity and mortality at emergency department (ED) admission. (2) Methods: Between 1 March and 30 April 2020, we carried out a multicenter and retrospective study in six major hospitals of northeast France. The cohort was composed of patients hospitalized for a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. (3) Results: A total of 1,035 patients were included in this study. Factors associated with infection severity were the CLR (OR: 1.001, CI 95%: (1.000–1.002), p = 0.012), and the lymphocyte level (OR: 1.951, CI 95%: (1.024–3.717), p = 0.042). In multivariate analysis, the only biochemical factor significantly associated with mortality was lymphocyte rate (OR: 2.308, CI 95%: (1.286–4.141), p = 0.005). The best threshold of CLR to predict the severity of infection was 78.3 (sensitivity 79%; specificity 47%), and to predict mortality, was 159.5 (sensitivity 48%; specificity 70%). (4) Conclusion: The CLR at admission to the ED could be a helpful prognostic biomarker in the early screening and prediction of the severity and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]