Search

Background: The guidelines for Advanced Life Support issued by the European Resuscitation Council recommend considering drug delivery through intraosseous access if intravenous access to the vascular bed is not feasible or unsuccessful. Emergency prehospital intraosseous cannulation may theoretically lead to an increased risk of long-term complications such as osteomyelitis, osteonecrosis, or compartment syndrome. Such complications have previously been reported in case reports or small sample case series. We systematically investigated long-term complications potentially associated with intraosseous cannulation using validated Danish health registries., Methods: Data sources were the nationwide electronic Prehospital Patient Record system, the Danish National Patient Registry, and the Danish Civil Personal Registry. We investigated all patients who were subjected to prehospital intraosseous cannulation in Denmark from January 2016 through December 2019. During a follow-up period of 180 days from the index date we extracted information concerning mortality status and potential long-term complications defined as osteomyelitis, osteonecrosis, or compartment syndrome from the day of prehospital intraosseous cannulation., Results: Of the 5,387 patients receiving intraosseous access, 375 were unidentified and lost to follow-up. Of the 5012 remaining patients, 4,775 were adults, and 237 were children. No children and "less than five" adults had long-term complications. No osteonecrosis, osteomyelitis or compartment syndrome appeared later than 175 days after an intraosseous cannulation., Conclusions: Long-term complications such as osteomyelitis, osteonecrosis, or compartment syndrome following prehospital intraosseous cannulation and drug delivery occurred in less than 0.1% of the cases. Our findings indicate that prehospital intraosseous cannulation may be safe across age groups., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Study Objective: To examine the diagnostic pattern, level of severity of illness or injuries, and mortality among children for whom a physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) was dispatched., Methods: Population-based cohort study including patients aged less than 16 years treated by the Danish national HEMS from October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2018. Diagnoses were retrieved from inhospital medical records, and the severity of illness or injuries was assessed by a severity score on scene, administration of advanced out-of-hospital care, need for intensive care in a hospital, and mortality., Results: In total, 651 HEMS missions included pediatric patients aged less than 1 year (9.2%), 1 to 2 years (29.0%), 3 to 7 years (28.3%), and 8 to 15 years (33.5%). A third of the patients had critical emergencies (29.6%), and for 20.1% of the patients, 1 or more out-of-hospital interventions were performed: intubation, mechanical chest compressions, intraosseous vascular access, blood transfusion, chest tube insertion, and/or ultrasound examination. Among the 525 patients with hospital follow-up, the most frequent hospital diagnoses were injuries (32.2%), burns (11.2%), and respiratory diseases (7.8%). Within 24 hours of the mission, 18.1% of patients required intensive care. Twenty-nine patients (5.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6 to 7.3) died either on or within 1 day of the mission, and the cumulative 30-day mortality was 35 of 565 (6.2%, 95% CI 4.5 to 8.5) (N=565 first-time missions)., Conclusion: On Danish physician-staffed HEMS missions, 1 in 5 pediatric patients required advanced out-of-hospital care. Among hospitalized patients, nearly one-fifth of the patients required immediate intensive care and 6.2% died within 30 days of the mission., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Since development of the Utstein style recommendations for the uniform reporting of cardiac arrest, increasing numbers of national and regional out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) registries have been established worldwide. The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) created the Research and Registries Working Group and aimed to systematically report data collected from these registries., Methods: We conducted two surveys of voluntarily participating national and regional registries. The first survey aimed to identify which core elements of the current Utstein style for OHCA were collected by each registry. The second survey collected descriptive summary data from each registry. We chose the data collected for the second survey based on the availability of core elements identified by the first survey., Results: Seven national and four regional registries were included in the first survey and nine national and seven regional registries in the second survey. The estimated annual incidence of emergency medical services (EMS)-treated OHCA was 30.0-97.1 individuals per 100,000 population. The combined data showed the median age varied from 64 to 79 years and more than half were male in all 16 registries. The provision of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and bystander automated external defibrillator (AED) use was 19.1-79.0% in all registries and 2.0-37.4% among 11 registries, respectively. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day survival after EMS-treated OHCA was 3.1-20.4% across all registries. Favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge or 30 days after EMS-treated OHCA was 2.8-18.2%. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day survival after bystander-witnessed shockable OHCA ranged from 11.7% to 47.4% and favorable neurological outcome from 9.9% to 33.3%., Conclusion: This report from ILCOR describes data on systems of care and outcomes following OHCA from nine national and seven regional registries across the world. We found variation in reported survival outcomes and other core elements of the current Utstein style recommendations for OHCA across nations and regions., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Prehospital acute pain is a frequent symptom that is often inadequately managed. The concerns of opioid induced side effects are well-founded. To ensure patient safety, ambulance personnel are therefore provided with treatment protocols with dosing restrictions, however, with the concomitant risk of insufficient pain treatment of the patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of a liberal intravenous fentanyl treatment protocol on efficacy and safety measures., Methods: A two-armed, cluster-randomised trial was conducted in the Central Denmark Region over a 1-year period. Ambulance stations (stratified according to size) were randomised to follow either a liberal treatment protocol (3 μg/kg) or a standard treatment protocol (2 μg/kg). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with sufficient pan relief (numeric rating scale (NRS, 0-10) < 3) at hospital arrival. Secondary outcomes included abnormal vital parameters as proxy measures of safety. A multi-level mixed effect logistic regression model was applied., Results: In total, 5278 patients were included. Ambulance personnel following the liberal protocol administered higher doses of fentanyl [117.7 μg (95% CI 116.7-118.6)] than ambulance personnel following the standard protocol [111.5 μg (95% CI 110.7-112.4), P = 0.0001]. The number of patient with sufficient pain relief at hospital arrival was higher in the liberal treatment group than the standard treatment group [44.0% (95% CI 41.8-46.1) vs. 37.4% (95% CI 35.2-39.6), adjusted odds ratio 1.47 (95% CI 1.17-1.84)]. The relative decrease in NRS scores during transport was less evident [adjusted odds ratio 1.18 (95% CI 0.95-1.48)]. The occurrences of abnormal vital parameters were similar in both groups., Conclusions: Liberalising an intravenous fentanyl treatment protocol applied by ambulance personnel slightly increased the number of patients with sufficient pain relief at hospital arrival without compromising patient safety. Future efforts of training ambulance personnel are needed to further improve protocol adherence and quality of treatment., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02914678 ). Date of registration: 26th September, 2016.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine whether the addition of brain natriuretic peptide measurement to the routine diagnostic work-up by prehospital critical care team physicians improves triage in patients with severe dyspnoea., Methods: Prehospital critical care team physicians randomly assigned patients older than 18 years with severe dyspnoea to routine diagnostic work-up or diagnostic work-up with incorporated point-of-care N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) measurement. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with dyspnoea of primary cardiac origin triaged directly to a department of cardiology., Results: A total of 747 patients were randomly assigned and 711 patients consented to participate, 350 were randomly assigned to the NT-proBNP group and 361 to the routine work-up group. NT-proBNP was measured in 90% (315/350) of patients in the NT-proBNP group and in 19% (70/361) of patients in the routine work-up group. There was no difference in the proportion of patients with dyspnoea of primary cardiac origin triaged directly to a department of cardiology between the NT-proBNP group and the routine work-up group (75% vs. 69%, P=0.22) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Sensitivity analysis according to the de facto diagnostics performed showed results consistent with this. No differences in hospital length of stay, intensive care unit admission rates or mortality between the NT-proBNP group and the routine work-up group were observed., Conclusion: Routine supplementary point-of-care measurement of NT-proBNP in patients with severe dyspnoea did not improve triage of patients with dyspnoea primarily caused by heart disease. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02050282.

Study Objective: Emergency medical services (EMS) provides out-of-hospital care to patients with life-threatening conditions, but the long-term outcomes of EMS patients are unknown. We seek to determine the long-term mortality of EMS patients in Denmark., Methods: We analyzed linked EMS, hospital, and vital status data from 3 of 5 geographic regions in Denmark. We included events from July 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012. We classified EMS events according to primary dispatch category (unconsciousness/cardiac arrest, accidents/trauma, chest pain, dyspnea, neurologic symptoms, and other EMS patients). The primary outcome was 1-year mortality adjusted for age, sex, and Charlson comorbidity index., Results: Among 142,125 EMS events, primary dispatch categories were unconsciousness or cardiac arrest 5,563 (3.9%), accidents or trauma 40,784 (28.7%), chest pain 20,945 (14.7%), dyspnea 9,607 (6.8%), neurologic symptoms 17,804 (12.5%), and other EMS patients 47,422 (33.4%). One-year mortality rates were unconscious or cardiac arrest 54.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 53.4% to 56.1%), accidents or trauma 7.8 (95% CI 7.5% to 8.1%), chest pain 8.5% (95% CI 8.1% to 9.0%), dyspnea 27.7% (95% CI 26.7% to 28.7%), neurologic symptoms 14.1% (95% CI 13.6% to 14.7%), and other EMS patients 11.1% (95% CI 10.8% to 11.4%). Compared with other EMS conditions, adjusted 1-year mortality was higher in unconsciousness or cardiac arrest (risk ratio [RR] 2.6; 95% CI 2.5 to 2.7), dyspnea (RR 1.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 1.5), and in neurologic symptoms (RR 1.1; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.1), but lower in chest pain (RR 0.6; 95% CI 0.6 to 0.7) and accidents or trauma (RR 0.8; 95% CI 0.8 to 0.8)., Conclusion: EMS patients with unconsciousness or cardiac arrest, dyspnea, and neurologic symptoms are at highest risk of long-term mortality. Our results suggest a potential for outcome improvement in these patients., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are frequently used inhospital for treating respiratory failure, especially in treatment of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema and exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Early initiation of treatment is important for success and introduction already in the prehospital setting may be beneficial. Our goal was to assess the evidence for an effect of prehospital CPAP or NIV as a supplement to standard medical treatment alone on the following outcome measures; mortality, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, and intubation rate. We undertook a systematic review based on a search in the three databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane. We included 12 studies in our review, but only four of these were of acceptable size and quality to conclude on our endpoints of interest. All four studies examine prehospital CPAP. Of these, only one small, randomized controlled trial shows a reduced mortality rate and a reduced intubation rate with supplemental CPAP. The other three studies have neutral findings, but in two of these a trend toward lower intubation rate is found. The effect of supplemental NIV has only been evaluated in smaller studies with insufficient power to conclude on our endpoints. None of these studies have shown an effect on neither mortality nor intubation rate, but two small, randomized controlled trials show a reduction in intensive care unit length of stay and a trend toward lower intubation rate. The risk of both type two errors and publication bias is evident, and the findings are not consistent enough to make solid conclusion on supplemental prehospital NIV. Large, randomized controlled trials regarding the effect of NIV and CPAP as supplement to standard medical treatment alone, in the prehospital setting, are needed.

Background: The scientific evidence of a beneficial effect of physicians in prehospital treatment is scarce. The objective of this systematic review of controlled studies was to examine whether physicians, as opposed to paramedical personnel, increase patient survival in prehospital treatment and if so, to identify the patient groups that gain benefit., Methods: A systematic review of studies published in the databases PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane from January 1, 1990 to November 24, 2008. Controlled studies comparing patient survival with prehospital physician treatment vs. treatment by paramedical personnel in trauma patients or patients with any acute illness were included., Results: We identified 1.359 studies of which 26 met our inclusion criteria. In nine of 19 studies including between 25 and 14.702 trauma patients in the intervention group, physician treatment increased survival compared to paramedical treatment. In four of five studies including between nine and 85 patients with out of hospital cardiac arrest, physician treatment increased survival. Only two studies including 211 and 2.869 patients examined unselected, broader patient groups. Overall, they demonstrated no survival difference between physician and paramedical treatment but one found increased survival with physician treatment in subgroups of patients with acute myocardial infarction and respiratory diseases., Conclusion: Our systematic review revealed only few controlled studies of variable quality and strength examining survival with prehospital physician treatment. Increased survival with physician treatment was found in trauma and, based on more limited evidence, cardiac arrest. Indications of increased survival were found in respiratory diseases and acute myocardial infarction. Many conditions seen in the prehospital setting remain unexamined.

Objectives: Severe injury is the leading cause of death among the young. Trauma systems have improved management of the severely injured and increased survival rates, but there is no level-1 evidence of advanced prehospital trauma care. Advanced prehospital trauma care prolongs on-scene time, which may imply a risk of significant delay in definitive trauma care. The aim of this study was to evaluate on-scene time and influence of (1) the presence of an anaesthesiologist on-scene, (2) prehospital intubation, (3) entrapment, and (4) injury severity., Methods: A cohort of registry-based patients brought to Aarhus Trauma Centre. Data were consecutively reported. On-scene time was defined as the time from vehicle arrival to departure. Severe injury is defined by an injury severity score >15. The study was conducted over the period 1998-2000; only patients brought primarily to the trauma centre were included. Statistical tests used include chi, Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon's rank sum and Spearman's rho., Results: Seven hundred and forty-one patients triaged to Aarhus Trauma Centre from which we obtained all information in 596 cases constituted the study group. In 472 cases, an anaesthesiologist was present. On-scene times, median and 95% confidence interval, were as follows: entire study group (n=596) 15.5 min (15-17); ambulance only: 14.0 min (12-15); anaesthesiologist present, no intubation, no entrapment: 15.0 min (14-16); intubation, no entrapment: 21.5 min (16-27); entrapment, no intubation: 21.5 min (17-25); both intubation and entrapment: 22.0 min (16-36)., Conclusion: The presence of an anaesthesiologist prolonged the median on-scene time by 1 min and in cases of prehospital intubation by 7.5 min. This result was no different from the prolongation caused by entrapment.

Background: Differences related to socioeconomic status (SES) in use of prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) have been reported. However, detailed data on potential disparities in the quality of the EMS according to SES are lacking. Methods: A nationwide cohort study of medical emergency calls made to the Danish emergency number 1-1-2 in the period 2016– 2017. To measure quality of care, performance indicators from the Danish Quality Registry for Prehospital Emergency Medical Services were used. SES was based on income, education and adherence to workforce. Poisson regression was used to measure relative risk (RR). Results: We included 388,378 medical 1-1-2 calls, of which 261,771 were unique individuals; 42% of the calls concerned patients with low education, 5% concerned patients living in relative poverty and 23% concerned patients receiving social subsidy. There were no significant differences between the SES regarding time span for arrival of first EMS units. However, patients receiving social subsidy and retired people were more likely to be released at scene and to call again within 24 hours: Adjusted RRs were 2.79 [2.20; 3.54] and 2.08 [1.58; 2.75], respectively, compared with patients having a job. In addition, patients receiving social subsidy and retired people were more likely to call again within 24 hours after receiving telephone advice only: Adjusted RRs 2.35 [1.95; 2.82] and 1.88 [1.51; 2.35], respectively compared with patients having a job. Adjusted RRs for unplanned hospital contact after being treated and released at scene were higher for patients receiving social subsidy and retired people, respectively, relative to patients having a job. Conclusion: Patients with low SES were significantly more likely to contact the hospital or EMS again after their first call or after treatment and release at scene compared with patients with high SES. This indicates that callers with low SES did not receive the appropriate help. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]