Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Ter Avest E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8689168 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Earlier use of in-hospital plasma, platelets, and red blood cells (RBCs) has improved survival in trauma patients with severe hemorrhage. Retrospective studies have associated improved early survival with prehospital blood product transfusion (PHT). We hypothesized that PHT of plasma and/or RBCs would result in improved survival after injury in patients transported by helicopter. METHODS:Adult trauma patients transported by helicopter from the scene to nine Level 1 trauma centers were prospectively observed from January to November 2015. Five helicopter systems had plasma and/or RBCs, whereas the other four helicopter systems used only crystalloid resuscitation. All patients meeting predetermined high-risk criteria were analyzed. Patients receiving PHT were compared with patients not receiving PHT. Our primary analysis compared mortality at 3 hours, 24 hours, and 30 days, using logistic regression to adjust for confounders and site heterogeneity to model patients who were matched on propensity scores. RESULTS:Twenty-five thousand one hundred eighteen trauma patients were admitted, 2,341 (9%) were transported by helicopter, of which 1,058 (45%) met the highest-risk criteria. Five hundred eighty-five of 1,058 patients were flown on helicopters carrying blood products. In the systems with blood available, prehospital median systolic blood pressure (125 vs 128) and Glasgow Coma Scale (7 vs 14) was significantly lower, whereas median Injury Severity Score was significantly higher (21 vs 14). Unadjusted mortality was significantly higher in the systems with blood products available, at 3 hours (8.4% vs 3.6%), 24 hours (12.6% vs 8.9%), and 30 days (19.3% vs 13.3%). Twenty-four percent of eligible patients received a PHT. A median of 1 unit of RBCs and plasma were transfused prehospital. Of patients receiving PHT, 24% received only plasma, 7% received only RBCs, and 69% received both. In the propensity score matching analysis (n = 109), PHT was not significantly associated with mortality at any time point, although only 10% of the high-risk sample were able to be matched. CONCLUSION:Because of the unexpected imbalance in systolic blood pressure, Glasgow Coma Scale, and Injury Severity Score between systems with and without blood products on helicopters, matching was limited, and the results of this study are inconclusive. With few units transfused to each patient and small outcome differences between groups, it is likely large, multicenter, randomized studies will be required to detect survival differences in this important population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Level II.

Project description:BackgroundMaintaining effective oxygenation throughout the process of Pre-Hospital Emergency Anaesthesia (PHEA) is critical. There are multiple strategies available to clinicians to oxygenate patients both prior to and during PHEA. The optimal pre-oxygenation technique remains unclear, and it is unknown what techniques are being used by United Kingdom Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS). This study aimed to determine the current pre- and peri-PHEA oxygenation strategies used by UK HEMS services.MethodsAn electronic questionnaire survey was delivered to all UK HEMS services between 05 July and 26 December 2019. Questions investigated service standard operating procedures (SOPs) and individual clinician practice regarding oxygenation strategies prior to airway instrumentation (pre-oxygenation) and oxygenation strategies during airway instrumentation (apnoeic oxygenation). Service SOPs were obtained to corroborate questionnaire replies.ResultsReplies were received from all UK HEMS services (n = 21) and 40 individual clinicians. All services specified oxygenation strategies within their PHEA/RSI SOP and most referred to pre-oxygenation as mandatory (81%), whilst apnoeic oxygenation was mandatory in eight (38%) SOPs. The most commonly identified pre-oxygenation strategies were bag-valve-mask without PEEP (95%), non-rebreathable face mask (81%), and nasal cannula at high flow (81%). Seven (33%) services used Mapleson C circuits, whilst there were eight services (38%) that did not carry bag-valve-masks with PEEP valve nor Mapleson C circuits. All clinicians frequently used pre-oxygenation, however there was variability in clinician use of apnoeic oxygenation by nasal cannula. Nearly all clinicians (95%) reported manually ventilating patients during the apnoeic phase, with over half (58%) stating this was their routine practice. Differences in clinician pre-hospital and in-hospital practice related to availability of humidified high flow nasal oxygenation and Mapleson C circuits.ConclusionsPre-oxygenation is universal amongst UK HEMS services and is most frequently delivered by bag-valve-mask without PEEP or non-rebreathable face masks, whereas apnoeic oxygenation by nasal cannula is highly variable. Multiple services carry Mapleson C circuits, however many services are unable to deliver PEEP due to the equipment they carry. Clinicians are regularly manually ventilating patients during the apnoeic phase of PHEA. The identified variability in clinical practice may indicate uncertainty and further research is warranted to assess the impact of different strategies on clinical outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThe Air Medical Prehospital Triage (AMPT) score was developed to identify injured patients who may benefit from scene helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) transport. External validation using a different data set is essential to ensure reliable performance. The study objective was to validate the effectiveness of the AMPT score to identify patients with a survival benefit from HEMS using the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study registry.MethodsPatients 16 years or older undergoing scene HEMS or ground EMS (GEMS) transport in the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study registry 2000-2013 were included. Patients with 2 or higher AMPT score points were triaged to HEMS, while those with less than 2 points were triaged to GEMS. Multilevel Poisson regression determined the association of survival with actual transport mode across AMPT score triage assignments, adjusting for demographics, mechanism, vital signs, interventions, and injury severity. Successful validation was defined as no survival benefit for actual HEMS transport in patients triaged to GEMS by the AMPT score, with a survival benefit for actual HEMS transport in patients triaged to HEMS by the AMPT score. Subgroup analyses were performed in patients treated by advanced life support providers and patients with transport times longer than 10 minutes.ResultsThere were 222,827 patients included. For patients triaged to GEMS by the AMPT score, actual transport mode was not associated with survival (adjusted relative risk, 1.004; 95% confidence interval, 0.999-1.009; p = 0.08). For patients triaged to HEMS by the AMPT score, actual HEMS transport was associated with a 6.7% increase in the relative probability of survival (adjusted relative risk, 1.067; 95% confidence interval, 1.040-1.083, p < 0.001). Similar results were seen in all subgroups.ConclusionsThis study is the first to externally validate the AMPT score, demonstrating the ability of this tool to reliably identify trauma patients most likely to benefit from HEMS transport. The AMPT score should be considered when protocols for HEMS scene transport are developed and reviewed.Level of evidenceEpidemiologic/prognostic study, level III; therapeutic/care management study, level IV.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Making ethically sound treatment limitations in prehospital care is a complex topic. Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) physicians were surveyed on their experiences with limitations of care orders in the prehospital setting, including situations where they are dispatched to healthcare facilities or nursing homes. METHODS:A nationwide multicentre study was conducted among all HEMS physicians in Finland in 2017 using a questionnaire with closed five-point Likert-scale questions and open questions. The Ethics Committee of the Tampere University Hospital approved the study protocol (R15048). RESULTS:Fifty-nine (88%) physicians responded. Their median age was 43 (IQR 38-47) and median medical working experience was 15 (IQR 10-20) years. All respondents made limitation of care orders and 39% made them often. Three fourths (75%) of the physicians were often dispatched to healthcare facilities and nursing homes and the majority (93%) regularly met patients who should have already had a valid limitation of care order. Every other physician (49%) had sometimes decided not to implement a medically justifiable limitation of care order because they wanted to avoid conflicts with the patient and/or the next of kin and/or other healthcare staff. Limitation of care order practices varied between the respondents, but neither age nor working experience explained these differences in answers. Most physicians (85%) stated that limitations of care orders are part of their work and 81% did not find them especially burdensome. The most challenging patient groups for treatment limitations were the under-aged patients, the severely disabled patients and the patients in healthcare facilities or residing in nursing homes. CONCLUSION:Making limitation of care orders is an important but often invisible part of a HEMS physician's work. HEMS physicians expressed that patients in long-term care were often without limitations of care orders in situations where an order would have been ethically in accordance with the patient's best interests.