Background: COVID-19, the pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2, is challenging healthcare systems worldwide. Little is known about problems faced by emergency medical services—particularly helicopter services—caring for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. We aimed to describe the issues faced by air ambulance services in Europe as they transport potential COVID-19 patients. Methods: Nine different HEMS providers in seven different countries across Europe were invited to share their experiences and to report their data regarding the care, transport, and safety measures in suspected or confirmed COVID-19 missions. Six air ambulance providers in six countries agreed and reported their data regarding development of special procedures and safety instructions in preparation for the COVID-19 pandemic. Four providers agreed to provide mission related data. Three hundred eighty-five COVID-19-related missions were analysed, including 119 primary transport missions and 266 interfacility transport missions. Results: All providers had developed special procedures and safety instructions in preparation for COVID-19. Ground transport was the preferred mode of transport in primary missions, whereas air transport was preferred for interfacility transport. In some countries the transport of COVID-19 patients by regular air ambulance services was avoided. Patients in interfacility transport missions had a significantly higher median (range) NACA Score 4 (2-5) compared with 3 (1-7), needed significantly more medical interventions, were significantly younger (59.6 ± 16 vs 65 ± 21 years), and were significantly more often male (73% vs 60.5%). Conclusions: All participating air ambulance providers were prepared for COVID-19. Safe care and transport of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients is achievable. Most patients on primary missions were transported by ground. These patients were less sick than interfacility transport patients, for whom air transport was the preferred method.

Electrical injuries represent life-threatening emergencies. Evidence on differences between high (HVI) and low voltage injuries (LVI) regarding characteristics at presentation, rhabdomyolysis markers, surgical and intensive burn care and outcomes is scarce. Consecutive patients admitted to two burn centers for electrical injuries over an 18-year period (1998–2015) were evaluated. Analysis included comparisons of HVI vs. LVI regarding demographic data, diagnostic and treatment specific variables, particularly serum creatinine kinase (CK) and myoglobin levels over the course of 4 post injury days (PID), and outcomes. Of 4075 patients, 162 patients (3.9%) with electrical injury were analyzed. A total of 82 patients (50.6%) were observed with HVI. These patients were younger, had considerably higher morbidity and mortality, and required more extensive burn surgery and more complex burn intensive care than patients with LVI. Admission CK and myoglobin levels correlated significantly with HVI, burn size, ventilator days, surgical interventions, amputation, flap surgery, renal replacement therapy, sepsis, and mortality. The highest serum levels were observed at PID 1 (myoglobin) and PID 2 (CK). In 23 patients (14.2%), cardiac arrhythmias were observed; only 4 of these arrhythmias occurred after hospital admission. The independent predictors of mortality were ventilator days (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.06–1.51, p = 0.009), number of surgical interventions (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27–0.834, p = 0.010) and limb amputations (OR 14.26, 95% CI 1.26–162.1, p = 0.032). Patients with electrical injuries, HVI in particular, are at high risk for severe complications. Due to the need for highly specialized surgery and intensive care, treatment should be reserved to burn units. Serum myoglobin and CK levels reflect the severity of injury and may predict a more complex clinical course. Routine cardiac monitoring > 24 h post injury does not seem to be necessary.

Background: Severely injured trauma patients suffering from traumatic cardiac arrest (TCA) and requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) rarely survive. The role of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) performed early after hospital admission in patients with TCA is not well-defined. As the use of REBOA increases, there is great interest in knowing if there is a survival benefit related to the early use of REBOA after TCA. Using data from the ABOTrauma Registry, we aimed to study the role of REBOA used early after hospital admission in trauma patients who required pre-hospital CPR.Methods: Retrospective and prospective data on the use of REBOA were collected from the ABOTrauma Registry from 11 centers in seven countries globally between 2014 and 2019. In all patients with pre-hospital TCA, the predicted probability of survival, calculated with the Revised Injury Severity Classification II (RISC II), was compared with the observed survival rate.Results: Of 213 patients in the ABOTrauma Registry, 26 patients (12.2%) who had received pre-hospital CPR were identified. The median (range) Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 45.5 (25–75). Fourteen patients (54%) had been admitted to the hospital with ongoing CPR. Nine patients (35%) died within the first 24 h, while seventeen patients (65%) survived post 24 h. The survival rate to hospital discharge was 27% (n= 7). The predicted mortality using the RISC II was 0.977 (25 out of 26). The observed mortality (19 out of 26) was significantly lower than the predicted mortality (p= 0.049). Patients not responding to REBOA were more likely to die. Only one (10%) out of 10 non-responders survived. The survival rate in the 16 patients responding to REBOA was 37.5% (n= 6). REBOA with a median (range) duration of 45 (8–70) minutes significantly increases blood pressure from the median (range) 56.5 (0–147) to 90 (0–200) mmHg.Conclusions: Mortality in patients suffering from TCA and receiving REBOA early after hospital admission is significantly lower than predicted by the RISC II. REBOA may improve survival after TCA. The use of REBOA in these patients should be further investigated.

Performance of patients immediately after anaesthesia is an area of special interest and so a clinical trial was conducted to compare Xenon with Isoflurane anaesthesia. In order to assess the early cognitive recovery the syndrome short test (SST) according to Erzigkeit (Geromed GmbH) was applied.