Bruce Sawadsky

A randomized controlled feasibility trial comparing safety and effectiveness of prehospital pacing versus conventional treatment: 'PrePACE'.

Summary Objective To evaluate the feasibility of a prehospital randomized controlled trial comparing transcutaneous pacing (TCP) with dopamine for unstable bradycardia. Methods Unstable bradycardic patients who failed to respond to a fluid bolus and up to 3mg atropine were enrolled. The intervention was dopamine or TCP with crossover to dopamine if TCP failed. The primary outcome was survival to discharge or 30 days. Randomization compliance, safety, follow-up rates, primary outcome, and sample size requirements were assessed. Results Of 383 patients with unstable bradycardia, 151 (39%) failed to respond to atropine or fluid and were eligible for enrolment and 82 (55%) were correctly enrolled. Fifty-five (36%) of eligible patients could not be enrolled for practical reasons; 3 had advance directives, 32 met inclusion criteria on arrival at hospital and in 20 cases, paramedics chose not to enroll based on the circumstances of the case. The remaining 13 were missed cases; 8 were missing randomization envelopes and in 5, the paramedic forgot. Randomization compliance was 95% (78/82). Forty-two (51%) patients were randomized to TCP and seven of these crossed over to dopamine. Two cases were randomized but did not receive the intervention; either due to lack of time or loss of IV access. Three adverse events occurred in each group. Survival to discharge or 30 days in hospital was 70% (28/40) and 69% (29/42) in the dopamine and TCP groups, respectively with 100% follow up. To detect a 10% relative difference in 30 days survival between treatment arms, a sample size of 690 per group would be required. Conclusions It is feasible to conduct a prehospital randomized controlled trial of TCP for unstable bradycardia and a definitive trial would require a multi-centre study.

AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION CENTER IN RESPONSE TO THE TORONTO SEVERE ACUTE RESPIRATORY SYNDROME OUTBREAK

Abstract Objective To describe the rapid development and implementation of an innovative emergency medical services (EMS) command, control, and tracking system to mitigate the risk of iatrogenic spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) among health care facilities, health care workers, and patients in Ontario, Canada, as a result of interfacility patient transfers. Methods A working group of stakeholders in health care and transport medicine developed and implemented a medically based command, control, and tracking center for all interfacility (including acute and long-term care) patient transfers in Ontario, Canada. Development and implementation took place in three distinct but overlapping phases: needs assessment, design and implementation, and expansion and ongoing operations. Results The needs assessment, design, and implementation were completed in less than 48 hours using existing EMS infrastructure and personnel. The center was successfully handling more than 500 requests for interfacility patient transfer per day within 36 hours of operation and more than 1,100 requests per day within two weeks. Expansion into a new physical space enables 40 staff to process up to 1,500 requests per day. There was no reported spread of SARS resulting from interfacility patient transfers since the center began operation on April 1, 2003, and anecdotal evidence demonstrates it identified up to 13 new SARS cases. The center continues to operate as a part of Ontarios commitment as a result of diligence in transport medicine and infection control, even though no new cases of SARS were reported since June 12, 2003. Further study is needed to determine its overall efficacy at risk mitigation. Conclusions Rapid establishment of an EMS-based command, control, and tracking center is possible in the setting of a public health emergency. In addition to risk mitigation, this type of center could provide syndromic surveillance in real time and provide the earliest indication of a potential threat to public health in acute and long-term care facilities.

Interfacility Transport of Patients With Decompression Illness: Literature Review andConsensus Statement

Objective. Decompression illness (DCI) is a potentially lethal complication of diving andmay occur far from hyperbaric facilities. The need for prompt transport to a hyperbaric facility often involves air medical transport, but this may exacerbate DCI. The authors reviewed available literature to establish evidence-based transport strategies utilizing safe altitudes for patients, with DCI. Methods. MEDLINE, EMBASE, andmaterials from organizations with expertise in diving medicine were searched for the following terms: decompression sickness, caisson disease, hyperbaric oxygenation, depth intoxication, or diving. Two reviewers independently selected relevant citations involving patients with DCI andair medical transport for review andconsensus statement development by an expert working group. Results. A total of 341 citations were identified, and53 unique citations were reviewed. Nine relevant citations were selected for consensus statement development. There were no clinical trials or prospective cohort studies. Only two retrospective case series, including nine patients, specifically examined the effect of altitude on patients with DCI during transport. No symptom recurrence occurred when the cabin altitude remained within 500 feet of ground level. Seven citations were either letters or statements of expert opinion, recommending a maximum cabin altitude of 500–1000 feet (152–305 meters). Conclusions. The working group identified the paucity of clinical studies andevidence-based recommendations for air medical transport of patients with DCI. Transport selection should be based on minimizing total transport time and, when transporting by air, ensuring that a cabin altitude of the transporting vehicle does not exceed 500 feet (152 meters) above the departure point. Key words: decompression sickness; atmospheric pressure; depth intoxication; air ambulance; emergency medical services.

Can a single primary care paramedic configuration safely transport low-acuity patients in air ambulances?

OBJECTIVE To determine if utilizing a single paramedic crew configuration is safe for transporting low acuity patients requiring only a primary care paramedic (PCP) level of care in Air Ambulances. METHODS We studied single-PCP transports of low acuity patients done by contract air ambulance carriers, organized by Ornge (Ontarios Air Ambulance Service) for one year. We only included interfacility transports. We excluded all scene calls, and all Code 4 (emergent) calls. Our primary outcome was clinical deterioration during transport. We then asked a panel to analyze each case of deterioration to determine if a dual-PCP configuration might have reasonably prevented the deterioration or have better treated the deterioration, compared to a single-PCP configuration. RESULTS In one year, contract carriers moved 3264 patients, who met inclusion criteria. 85% were from Northern Ontario. There were 21 cases of medical deterioration (0.6%±0.26%). Paper charts were found for 20 of these cases. Most were self-limited cases of pain or nausea. A small number of cases (n=5) were cardiorespiratory decompensation. There was 100% consensus amongst the panel that all cases of clinical deterioration were not related to team size. There was also 100% consensus that a dual-PCP team would not have been better able to deal with the deterioration, compared to a single-PCP crew. CONCLUSIONS We found that using a single-PCP configuration for transporting low acuity patients is safe. This finding is particularly important for rural areas where air ambulance is the only means for accessibility to care and where staffing issues are magnified.

Comparison of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services Transport Types and Delays on Patient Outcomes at Two Level I Trauma Centers

Abstract Background: Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) have become an engrained component of trauma systems. In Ontario, transportation for trauma patients is through one of three ways: scene call, modified scene call, or interfacility transfer. We hypothesize that differences exist between these types of transports in both patient demographics and patient outcomes. This study compares the characteristics of patients transported by each of these methods to two level 1 trauma centers and assesses for any impact on morbidity or mortality. As a secondary outcome reasons for delay were identified. Methods: A local trauma registry was used to identify and abstract data for all patients transported to two trauma centers by HEMS over a 36-month period. Further chart abstraction using the HEMS patient care reports was done to identify causes of delay during HEMS transport. Results: During the study period HEMS transferred a total of 911 patients of which 139 were scene calls, 333 were modified scene calls and 439 were interfacility transfers. Scene calls had more patients with an ISS of less than 15 and had more patients discharged home from the ED. Modified scene calls had more patients with an ISS greater than 25. The most common delays that were considered modifiable included the sending physician doing a procedure, waiting to meet a land EMS crew, delays for diagnostic imaging and confirming disposition or destination. Conclusions: Differences exist between the types of transports done by HEMS for trauma patients. Many identified reasons for delay to HEMS transport are modifiable and have practical solutions. Future research should focus on solutions to identified delays to HEMS transport. Key words: helicopter emergency medical services; trauma; prehospital care; delays