Library

Description / Table of Contents: Abstract. In a controlled prospective randomized study, defibrillation by emergency medical technicians (EMTs) was compared with the current standard of care in Germany (basic life support by EMTs and defibrillation by emergency physicians only) in order to answer the following questions: 1. Does EMT defibrillation improve the survival rate and long-term prognosis of patients in ventricular fibrillation as compared to the current German standards in resuscitation (basic life support by EMTs and defibrillation by emergency physicians)? 2. Are the prerequisites for the use of semiautomatic defibrillators fulfilled in the emergency medical systems (EMS) of the participating centers? Methods. The study phase includes randomization of 121 adult patients with witnessed cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation (VF) as first ECG rhythm. Prior to the onset of the study, all EMTs of the participating EMS systems were retrained in basic life support (BLS) measures. In each center, randomly assessed EMT-Ds (EMTs trained in Defibrillation) were trained to use semiautomatic defibrillators. With the help of one-line tape recording, the time intervals during resuscitation and treatment steps were evaluated. Successfully resuscitated patients were followed up with the help of the Glascow Coma Scale and the Pittsburgh Cerebral and Overall Performance Categories. Results. From 1 February 1991 until 28 June 1992, 159 patients with VF were randomized. In 121 cases, collapse was witnessed. 25% (14/57) of the patients receiving defibrillation by EMT-Ds (study group=S) were discharged from the hospital alive. In the control group, 52 patients were defibrillated by emergency physicians, following BLS by EMTs [control group 1=C1; discharged: 29% (15/52)]. Fifty patients received BLS and advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) by the emergency physicians crews [control group 2=C2; discharged 18% (9/50)]. In the study group, the median time interval from collapse of the patient until initiation of BLS measures was 7.7 min, 7 min in C1 and 8 min in C2. ACLS measures were initiated significantly earlier (P〈0.05) in the control groups, as compared to the study group [S: 13 min, C1: 11 min; C2: 10.3 min]. Sixty-seven percent (30/45) of the study patients and 46% (36/76) of the control patients were defibrillated within 12 min. Study patients were defibrillated earlier (P〈0.05) (S: 9.9 min; C1: 12.2 min; C2: 12.75 min); return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was achieved earlier (P〈0.05) in the study group [S: 14 min; C1: 19 min; C2: 18.2 min] and the number of patients in the study group requiring no epinephrine during resuscitation was higher (P〈0.01) than in the control groups [S: 35.3% (12/34); C1: 10% (4/40); C2: 10.5% (4/38)]. Furthermore, the total amount of epinephrine [mean (±standard error)] administered in the study group [S: 2.35 (±0.49) mg; C1: 6.71 (±0.98) mg; C2: 7.71 (±1.31) mg] was significantly lower (P〈0.05). No significant differences in neurological long-term prognosis were found for the groups investigated. Conclusion. Neither the initial survival rate the number of patients discharged alive, nor the neurological long-term prognosis was significantly different for any of the groups investigated. Because of apparent differences in indirect prognostic parameters (time interval until ROSC, number of patients requiring no epinephrine) and because of the fact that the time interval to the first defibrillation was reduced by EMT defibrillation, EMT-Ds may perform defibrillation if: (a) they reach the patient before the emergency physician and (b) if they are trained intensively and supervised continuously. In order to increase the efficiency of defibrillation by EMT-Ds, far-reaching changes in our EMS are mandatory: (a) a reduction in the time interval from collapse until initiation of BCLS measures by intensifying layperson CPR training; (b) an increase in the number of emergency units equipped with semiautomatic defibrillators; (c) the consistent implementation of a tiered EMS.

Description / Table of Contents: Abstract. There is no doubt that a single emergency phone number is desirable, but in contrast to other countries, in Germany different emergency phone numbers and dispatching centers exist for the fire brigade (FB), the emergency medical service system (EMS), and the general practitioners' emergency service (GPS). Due to this fact, valuable time is often wasted by connecting or transferring emergency calls from one dispatching center to another. The purpose of this study was to analyse all calls received by the different dispatching centers in the city and county area of Mainz with respect to total number, fraction of emergency calls, and specificity. Further, the total number of calls potentially referring to a hypothetic single dispatching center with a general emergency phone number (112) was calculated. During a 4-month period, all telephone calls were registered and related to day, time, and origin of the call (city or county) and classified as non-urgent or emergency calls, calls appropriate to the dispatching center dialed, emergency calls to be transferred, or unspecific calls. A total of 80 987 calls were received (city area 84.3%, county area 15.7%), most of them directed to the FB of Mainz (33 086). The EMS dispatching center received 31 286 calls, the five GPS-centers 15 256 calls; 1359 emergency calls that were directed to the police or FB needed transfer to the EMS. During weekdays the EMS and FB received the most calls, with a reduced frequency on Saturdays and Sundays (Table 2). Nevertheless, the highest total numbers of calls were received on Saturdays due to multiple calls directed to the GPS. The FB had the highest specificity of calls; more than 50% of the calls to the GPS were unspecific (Fig. 1). Of all calls, 4.37% were classified as emergency calls; two-thirds of these came from the area of Mainz during the daytime. During off-duty hours of the GPS in the city, 51% of the emergency calls reached the EMS directly; 49% had to be connected by the police or FB. During duty hours of the GPS, the fraction of calls directed to the EMS decreased significantly to 35%. During duty hours of the GPS centers in the county area, only 14% of the urgent emergency calls reached the EMS dispatcher directly (Fig. 2). Compared to the multiple-center mode, a hypothetic single dispatching center for all systems would probably be followed by a slight increase in total number of calls due to the fact that the GPS numbers would be answered 24 h a day, but there would be only minimal differences in the total number received on most days; only on Sundays would a decrease be expected. The EMS area of Mainz, with a total of 13 different telephone numbers for 7 dispatching centers, can be regarded as typical of the German situation. The high number of emergency calls to be transferred (up to 86% under special circumstances) demonstrated that this weak point in the German EMS system must be eliminated by introducing a single emergency number. This should occur when a Europe-wide three-digit number "112" will be instituted, probably in 1995. Additionally, the continued existence of 5- or 10-digit telephone numbers for non-urgent calls may be useful for allowing non-verbal differentiation of calls. In any case, all telephone numbers, including the latter calls, have to enter one dispatching center. The main advantage of a single dispatching center would be avoidance of the time-consuming transfer of emergency calls from one dispatching center to the other.

Description / Table of Contents: Abstract. The primary goals of scoring in emergency medicine are grading of the severity of the patient's condition, measurement of diagnostic and therapeutic efforts, forecasting the outcome, and support in decision making on triage and therapy. Scores can also be used as tools for measuring efficacy and controlling quality. There has been less experience with use of scoring systems to estimate quality of life. The ability to make a prognosis in an individual case is the most critical point; a score may support decisions on therapy in very specific situations only. Scores for use in emergency medicine should be based on physiological parameters, universally applicable and suitable for use throughout the course of diseases. Appropriate score systems are the Glasgow Coma Scale, the Rapid Acute Physiology Score, and the Mainz Emergency Evaluation Score, Trauma Score and Injury Severity Score. Scores suitable for estimation of quality of life following emergencies are the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the Glasgow-Pittsburgh Scale.

Description / Table of Contents: Abstract. Efficient analgesia may be the major objective in the cardiovascular risk patient following myocardial infarction, acute occlusion of peripheral vessels, or dissection/perforation of major abdominal vessels. It was the purpose of the study to investigate the haemodynamic and respiratory side effects of eight different opioids in 57 circulatory risk patients prior to major vascular surgery. Methods. Patients were randomly allocated to eight groups, each receiving a different opioid within a clinical, equipotent dose range (buprenorphine, fentanyl, morphine, nalbuphine, pentazocine, pethidine, tramadol, alfentanil). A complete haemodynamic and blood gas status was obtained prior to as well as 5, 10, 15, and 20 min following opioid administration. Monitoring included a complete invasive haemodynamic and blood gas status. Statistical evaluation was performed by 1- and 2-factorial ANOVA (P〈0.05). Results. Significant time effects (changes from baseline at the time of measurement) were observed for heart rate and total peripheral resistance, while significant group (group-specific differences in the course of values at the different times of measurements) and time effects were noted for mean pulmonary artery pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, stroke volume index, and PaO2. No major effects were observed following morphine, fentanyl, alfentanil, tramadol, and nalbuphine. Buprenorphine caused distinct respiratory depression accompanied by an increase in pulmonary vascular tone. Pentazocine and pethidine caused a significant increase in MPAP and peripheral vascular resistance while pethidine also produced marked respiratory depression. Conclusions. For interpretation of the results, factors such as respiratory depression, histamine release, secretion of endogenous catecholamines, and hypoxia-induced pulmonary vasoconstriction have to be discussed. Tramadol, an opioid with moderate potency, seems to offer some advantages due to its minor cardiovascular and respiratory side effects.

Description / Table of Contents: Modern Europe/L'Europe moderne