OBJECTIVE: The aim is to evaluate the levels of knowledge, attitude, and practice among emergency HCW of the COVID-19 resuscitation protocol by the European Resuscitation Council (ERC).

METHODS: A cross-sectional study using a validated questionnaire was conducted among HCW in the emergency department of University of Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC), Malaysia from April to June 2021.

RESULTS: A total of 159 respondents were included in the analysis (89% response rate). Sixty-eight percent of respondents had adequate knowledge regarding COVID-19 resuscitation. Majority of the respondents had knowledge on airborne-precaution personal protective equipment (PPE) (99%) and infection control measures (98%). Nearly 73% were pessimistic about the COVID-19 prognosis. Seventy-three percent of respondents thought an arrested COVID-19 patient may benefit from cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and 94% were willing to administer CPR provided airborne-precaution PPE was available. Ninety percent of respondents reported adherence to resuscitation guidelines. There were significant differences in the mean knowledge scores between designation, education levels, and COVID-19 training. Overall, the respondents' level of practice was insufficient (27%), with a mean score of 53.7%(SD = 14.7). There was a lack of practicein the resuscitation oftheintubatedand patients who were beingprone. There was insufficient practice about ventilation technique, use ofsupraglotticdevices, and intubation barriers. There was a positive correlation between adequate knowledge and good practice.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with moderate to severe TBI treated with Sterofundin (SF) versus NS.

DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: A double-blinded randomised controlled trial of patients aged 18 to 65 years with TBI was conducted at the University Malaya Medical Centre from February 2017 to November 2019.

INTERVENTION OR EXPOSURE: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either NS or SF. The study fluids were administered for 72 h as continuous infusions or boluses. Participants, investigators, and staff were blinded to the fluid type.

OUTCOMES MEASURE AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.

MAIN RESULTS: A total of 70 patients were included in the analysis, with 38 in the NS group and 32 in the SF group. The in-hospital mortality rate were 3 (7.9%) in the NS group vs. 4 (12.5%) in the SF group, RR = 1.29 (95% CI, 0.64 to 2.59; p = 0.695). No patients developed AKI and required renal replacement therapy. ICP on day 3 was significantly higher in the SF group (18.60 ± 9.26) compared to 12.77 ± 3.63 in the NS group, (95% CI, -11.46 to 0.20; p = 0.037). There were no significant differences in 3-day biochemical parameters and cerebral perfusion pressure, ventilator-free days, length of ICU stay, or Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E) score at 6 months.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of s.c. tramadol vs. i.v. tramadol in patients with moderate pain due to extremity injury in the ED.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: This non-inferiority randomized controlled trial included adult patients presented to an academic, tertiary hospital ED with moderate pain (pain score of 4-6 on the visual analog scale) due to extremity injury. Intervention patients stratified to pain score were randomized to receive 50 mg of i.v. or s.c. tramadol.

OUTCOMES MEASURE AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcome measure was the difference in the pain score reduction at 30 min after tramadol administration between the two groups. The noninferiority null hypothesis was that the therapeutic difference in terms of pain score reduction of more than 0.8 exists between the two treatment groups at the endpoint.

MAIN RESULTS: In total 232 patients were randomized to i.v. ( n  = 115) or s.c. ( n  = 117). Although 225 were analyzed in the per-protocol population (i.v. = 113; s.c. = 112). The baseline median pain score was 6 (IQR, 5-6). Median pain score reduction at 30 min after administration was 2 (IQR, 1-3) in the IV group vs. 2 (IQR, 1-2) in the s.c. group with a median difference of 0 (IQR, 0-0), which was below the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.8. Adverse events in the i.v. group were higher compared to the s.c. group (33.6% vs. 8.9%, P  ≤ 0.001).

METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in emergency departments of two tertiary hospitals from June 1 to August 31, 2021. Consecutive patients aged >18 years admitted for COVID-19-related HRF (World Health Organization criteria: confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia with respiratory rate > 30 breaths/min, severe respiratory distress, or peripheral oxygen saturation < 90% on room air) requiring NRB + NC or HFNC were screened for enrollment. Primary outcome was improvement of partial pressure arterial oxygen (PaO2) at two hours. Secondary outcomes were intubation rate, ventilator-free days, hospital length of stay, and 28-day mortality. Data were analyzed using linear regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity score.

RESULTS: Among the 110 patients recruited, 52 (47.3%) were treated with NRB + NC, and 58 (52.7%) with HFNC. There were significant improvements in patients' PaO2, PaO2/FIO2 ratio, and respiratory rate two hours after the initiation of NRB + NC and HFNC. Comparing the two groups, after IPTW adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in PaO2 improvement (adjusted mean ratio [MR] 2.81; 95% CI -5.82 to 11.43; p = .524), intubation rate (adjusted OR 1.76; 95% CI 0.44 to 6.92; p = .423), ventilator-free days (adjusted MR 0.00; 95% CI -8.84 to 8.85; p = .999), hospital length of stay (adjusted MR 3.04; 95% CI -2.62 to 8.69; p = .293), and 28-day mortality (adjusted OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.15 to 2.98; p = .608).

METHODS: This was a randomised cross-over study conducted between 9 April to 5 May 2020 in the ED of University Malaya Medical Centre. Postgraduate Emergency Medicine trainees performed video laryngoscope-assisted intubation on an airway manikin with and without an aerosol box in a random order. Contamination was simulated by nebulised Glo Germ. Primary outcome was number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing and post-doffing of PPE of the intubator and assistant. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, Cormack-Lehane score, number of intubation attempts and participants' feedback.

RESULTS: Thirty-six trainees completed the study interventions. The number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing of PPE was significantly higher without the aerosol box (all p values<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the number of contaminations post-doffing of PPE between using and not using the aerosol box, with a median contamination of zero. Intubation time was longer with the aerosol box (42.5 s vs 35.5 s, p<0.001). Cormack-Lehane scores were similar with and without the aerosol box. First-pass intubation success rate was 94.4% and 100% with and without the aerosol box, respectively. More participants reported reduced mobility and visibility when intubating with the aerosol box.