No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
In Reply to Dr Soteras et al
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Background
Human external cargo (HEC) extrication during helicopter rescue missions is commonly used in mountain emergency medical services. Furthermore, longline or winch operations offer the opportunity to deliver professional medical care onsite. As the safety and quality of emergency medical care depends on training and experience, we aimed to investigate characteristics of mountain rescue missions with HEC.
Methods
We retrospectively reviewed all rescue missions conducted by Air Zermatt (a commercial rescue service in the high-alpine region of Switzerland) from January 2010 to September 2016.
Results
Out of 11,078 rescue missions 1137 (10%) required a HEC rescue. In 3% (n = 29) rapid sequence induction and endotracheal intubation, in 2% (n = 14) cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and in 0.4% (n = 3) a chest tube insertion had to be performed onsite prior to HEC extraction. The most common medical intervention onsite is analgesia or analgosedation, in 17% (n = 142) fentanyl or ketamine was used in doses of ≥ 0.2 mg or ≥ 50 mg, respectively.
Conclusions
As these interventions have to be performed in challenging terrain, with reduced personnel resources, and limited monitoring, our results point out the need for physicians onsite who are clinically experienced in these procedures and specially and intensively trained for the specific characteristics and challenges of HEC rescue missions.
Background:
In 2011, the role of Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) was defined as one of the top five research priorities in physician-provided prehospital critical care and future research topics were proposed; the feasibility of prehospital POCUS, changes in patient management induced by POCUS and education of providers. This systematic review aimed to assess these three topics by including studies examining all kinds of prehospital patients undergoing all kinds of prehospital POCUS examinations and studies examining any kind of POCUS education in prehospital critical care providers.
Methods and results:
By a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, we identified and screened titles and abstracts of 3264 studies published from 2012 to 2017. Of these, 65 studies were read in full-text for assessment of eligibility and 27 studies were ultimately included and assessed for quality by SIGN-50 checklists. No studies compared patient outcome with and without prehospital POCUS. Four studies of acceptable quality demonstrated feasibility and changes in patient management in trauma. Two studies of acceptable quality demonstrated feasibility and changes in patient management in breathing difficulties. Four studies of acceptable quality demonstrated feasibility, outcome prediction and changes in patient management in cardiac arrest, but also that POCUS may prolong pauses in compressions. Two studies of acceptable quality demonstrated that short (few hours) teaching sessions are sufficient for obtaining simple interpretation skills, but not image acquisition skills. Three studies of acceptable quality demonstrated that longer one- or two-day courses including hands-on training are sufficient for learning simple, but not advanced, image acquisition skills. Three studies of acceptable quality demonstrated that systematic educational programs including supervised examinations are sufficient for learning advanced image acquisition skills in healthy volunteers, but that more than 50 clinical examinations are required for expertise in a clinical setting.
Conclusion:
Prehospital POCUS is feasible and changes patient management in trauma, breathing difficulties and cardiac arrest, but it is unknown if this improves outcome. Expertise in POCUS requires extensive training by a combination of theory, hands-on training and a substantial amount of clinical examinations - a large part of these needs to be supervised.
In cardiac arrest, high quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a key determinant of patient survival. However, delivery of effective chest compressions is often inconsistent, subject to fatigue and practically challenging.
Mechanical CPR devices provide an automated way to deliver high-quality CPR. However, large randomised controlled trials of the routine use of mechanical devices in the out-of-hospital setting have found no evidence of improved patient outcome in patients treated with mechanical CPR, compared with manual CPR. The limited data on use during in-hospital cardiac arrest provides preliminary data supporting use of mechanical devices, but this needs to be robustly tested in randomised controlled trials.
In situations where high-quality manual chest compressions cannot be safely delivered, the use of a mechanical device may be a reasonable clinical approach. Examples of such situations include ambulance transportation, primary percutaneous coronary intervention, as a bridge to extracorporeal CPR and to facilitate uncontrolled organ donation after circulatory death.
The precise time point during a cardiac arrest at which to deploy a mechanical device is uncertain, particularly in patients presenting in a shockable rhythm. The deployment process requires interruptions in chest compression, which may be harmful if the pause is prolonged. It is recommended that use of mechanical devices should occur only in systems where quality assurance mechanisms are in place to monitor and manage pauses associated with deployment.
In summary, mechanical CPR devices may provide a useful adjunct to standard treatment in specific situations, but current evidence does not support their routine use.
The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The ESC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy and/or ambiguity between the ESC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the ESC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the ESC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient's caregiver. Nor do the ESC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.
Telemedicine has deeply innovated the field of emergency cardiology, particularly the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. The ability to record an ECG in the early prehospital phase, thus avoiding any delay in diagnosing myocardial infarction with direct transfer to the cath-lab for primary angioplasty, has proven to significantly reduce treatment times and mortality. This consensus document aims to analyse the available evidence and organizational models based on a support by telemedicine, focusing on technical requirements, education, and legal aspects.
Background:
Evidence suggests that EMS-physician-guided cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) may be associated with improved outcomes, yet randomized controlled trials are not available. The goal of this meta-analysis was to determine the association between EMS-physician- versus paramedic-guided CPR and survival after OOHCA.
Methods and results:
Studies that compared EMS-physician- versus paramedic-guided CPR in OOHCA published until June 2014 were systematically searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. All studies were required to contain survival data. Data on study characteristics, methods, and as well as survival outcomes were extracted. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis due to a high degree of heterogeneity among the studies (I (2) = 44 %). Return of spontaneous circulation [ROSC], survival to hospital admission, and survival to hospital discharge were the outcome measures. Out of 3,385 potentially eligible studies, 14 met the inclusion criteria. In the pooled analysis (n = 126,829), EMS-physician-guided CPR was associated with significantly improved outcomes compared to paramedic-guided CPR: ROSC 36.2 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 31.0 - 41.7 %) vs. 23.4 % (95 % CI 18.5 - 29.2 %) (pooled odds ratio [OR] 1.89, 95 % CI 1.36 - 2.63, p < 0.001); survival to hospital admission 30.1 % (95 % CI 24.2 - 36.7 %) vs. 19.2 % (95 % CI 12.7 - 28.1 %) (pooled OR 1.78, 95 % CI 0.97 - 3.28, p = 0.06); and survival to discharge 15.1 % (95 % CI 14.6 - 15.7 %) vs. 8.4 % (95 % CI 8.2 - 8.5 %) (pooled OR 2.03, 95 % CI 1.48 - 2.79, p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
This systematic review suggests that EMS-physician-guided CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is associated with improved survival outcomes.
Introduction
Cardiac events are one of the leading causes of death in the Spanish population. Given the increase in the nontraumatic medical conditions found in mountain rescues, the objective of this study was to report on the heart conditions of patients rescued in the mountains of Aragón in the Spanish Pyrenees.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective observational study based on data collected from patients’ medical histories for rescues undertaken in from 2010 to 2016 (at altitudes between 500 m [1640 ft] and 3404 m [11,168 ft]).
Results
Of the 2079 individuals rescued from 2010 to 2016, 34 (2%) were diagnosed with heart conditions, accounting for 21% of all nontraumatic medical conditions. The data showed a statistically significant increase in the age of the rescued patients with heart conditions (55±15 y) and those with acute coronary syndrome/sudden death (60±8 y). Eighty-five percent of the rescued patients with heart conditions were men, 62% were rescued above 2000 m (6500 ft), 42% had acute coronary syndrome (of whom 56% had inferior infarction), and 35% died suddenly.
Conclusions
Aragón mountain rescues show an increase in patient age in recent years. The most common medical case among rescued individuals with heart conditions was a hiker over the age of 50 y with cardiovascular risk factors, inferior infarction, and occurrence at an altitude above 2000 m. Based on our observations, appropriate training should be undertaken, especially by older hikers, who may also benefit from cardiac screening, and rescue vehicles/personnel and mountain huts should be equipped with semiautomatic external defibrillators.
Atención al Accidentado en el medio natural.
- Avellanas M.L.
Avellanas ML. Atenci on al Accidentado en el medio natural.
Guía de urgencias; 2009. EdikaMed SL. ISBN 978-84-7877-542-2.