Allan S McHenry1, Leigh Curtis1, E Ter Avest2, Malcolm Q Russell1, Amy V Halls3, Sophie Mitchinson1, Joanne E Griggs4, Richard M Lyon5. 1. Air Ambulance Kent Surrey Sussex, Redhill, Surrey, UK. 2. Air Ambulance Kent Surrey Sussex, Redhill, Surrey, UK; Department of Emergency Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. University of Southampton, Chilworth, Southampton, UK. 4. Air Ambulance Kent Surrey Sussex, Redhill, Surrey, UK. Electronic address: JoG@aakss.org.uk. 5. Air Ambulance Kent Surrey Sussex, Redhill, Surrey, UK; University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prehospital rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is an important aspect of prehospital care for helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS). This study examines the feasibility of in-aircraft (aircraft on the ground) RSI in different simulated settings. METHODS: Using an AW169 aircraft cabin simulator at Air Ambulance Kent Surrey Sussex, 3 clinical scenarios were devised. All required RSI in a "can intubate, can ventilate" (easy variant) and a "can't intubate, can't ventilate" scenario (difficult variant). Doctor-paramedic HEMS teams were video recorded, and elapsed times for prespecified end points were analyzed. RESULTS: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) was achieved fastest outside the simulator for the easy variant (median = 231 seconds, interquartile range = 28 seconds). Time to ETI was not significantly longer for in-aircraft RSI compared with RSI outside the aircraft, both in the easy (p = .14) and difficult variant (p = .50). Wearing helmets with noise distraction did not impact the time to intubation when compared with standard in-aircraft RSI, both in the easy (p = .28) and difficult variant (p = .24). CONCLUSION: In-aircraft, on-the-ground RSI had no significant impact on the time to successful completion of ETI. Future studies should prospectively examine in-cabin RSI and explore the possibilities of in-flight RSI in civilian HEMS services. Crown
OBJECTIVE: Prehospital rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is an important aspect of prehospital care for helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS). This study examines the feasibility of in-aircraft (aircraft on the ground) RSI in different simulated settings. METHODS: Using an AW169 aircraft cabin simulator at Air Ambulance Kent Surrey Sussex, 3 clinical scenarios were devised. All required RSI in a "can intubate, can ventilate" (easy variant) and a "can't intubate, can't ventilate" scenario (difficult variant). Doctor-paramedic HEMS teams were video recorded, and elapsed times for prespecified end points were analyzed. RESULTS: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) was achieved fastest outside the simulator for the easy variant (median = 231 seconds, interquartile range = 28 seconds). Time to ETI was not significantly longer for in-aircraft RSI compared with RSI outside the aircraft, both in the easy (p = .14) and difficult variant (p = .50). Wearing helmets with noise distraction did not impact the time to intubation when compared with standard in-aircraft RSI, both in the easy (p = .28) and difficult variant (p = .24). CONCLUSION: In-aircraft, on-the-ground RSI had no significant impact on the time to successful completion of ETI. Future studies should prospectively examine in-cabin RSI and explore the possibilities of in-flight RSI in civilian HEMS services. Crown
Authors: Kat Hunter; Allan S McHenry; Leigh Curtis; Ewoud Ter Avest; Sophie Mitchinson; Joanne E Griggs; Richard M Lyon Journal: Air Med J Date: 2021-08-24