The ever-present risk of mass casualties and disaster situations may result in airway management situations that overwhelm local emergency medical services (EMS) resources. Endotracheal intubation requires significant user education/training and carries the risk of malposition. Furthermore, personal protective equipment (PPE) required in hazardous environments may decrease dexterity and hinder timely airway placement. Alternative airway devices may be beneficial in these situations.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the time needed to place the King LT Supralaryngeal Airway compared to endotracheal intubation when performed by community EMS personnel with and without PPE.

Following training, 47 EMS personnel were timed placing both endotracheal tubes and the King LT supralaryngeal airway in a simulator mannikin. The study participants then repeated this exercise wearing PPE.

The EMS personnel wearing PPE took significantly longer to place an endotracheal tube than they did without protective equipment (53.4 seconds and 39.5 seconds, p <0.002). The time to place the King LT was significantly faster than the placement of the endotracheal tube without protective equipment (18.4 seconds and 39.5 seconds, respectively, p<0.00003). There also were statistically significant differences between the time required to place the King LT and endotracheal tube in EMS personnel wearing protective equipment (19.7 seconds and 53.4 seconds, p <0.000007).

The King LT Supralaryngeal Airway device may be advantageous in prehospital airway management situations involving multiple patients or hazardous environments. In this study, its insertion was faster than endotracheal intubation when performed by community EMS providers.

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear personal protective equipment (CBRN-PPE) on the ability to secure an endotracheal tube (ETT) with either the Thomas Tube Holder™ or cotton tape tied in a knot.

Seventy-five clinicians secured an ETT in a previously intubated manikin with the Thomas Tube Holder™ and cotton tape. A mixed quantitative and qualitative research design was used to gauge actual performance times and perceptions of difficulties. Following completion of the study, 25 clinicians were interviewed to gauge their experiences of securing the ETT with both devices while wearing CBRN-PPE.

The mean time to apply the Thomas Tube Holder was 29.02 seconds, compared with tape which took a mean of 58 seconds (p = 0.001). Clinicians rated the Thomas Tube Holder as easier to use than tape (Mann-Whitney z = 9.934; p <0.001), which was confirmed during interviews. Of the clinicians interviewed, 92% perceived that the Thomas Tube Holder provided the better method for securing an ETT, none of the clinicians identified the tape as the best method for securing the endotracheal tube while wearing CBRN-PPE. Clinicians identified that the design of the Thomas Tube Holder facilitated the gross motor movement required for application.

The Thomas Tube Holder is easier and faster to apply when wearing CBRN-PPE when compared with cotton, and the Thomas Tube Holder is perceived by the participants as being more effective at preventing accidential extubation

During deployment following Hurricane Ike in September 2008, bites from domestic animals were among the top three trauma complaints seen at the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) Disaster Medical Assistance Team (DMAT) base of operations.

Unlike previous reports of frightened, misplaced dogs and cats biting strangers and rescue workers, there was an increase in bites associated with presumed non-rabid pets who were known to the bite victim.

This was an observational sampling of all patients presenting for medical care during deployment to the AL-3 DMAT base of operations in Webster, Texas, following Hurricane Ike. Findings were compared with unofficial local norms and observations from the literature.

Of the people with animal bites presenting to the field hospital, dog bites accounted for 55%, cat bites, 40%, and snake bites, 5%. Most of the wounds required suturing and were not simple punctures. Most bites (70%) involved the hand(s). Some patients presented > 24 hours after the bite, and already had developed cellulitis. One patient required transfer and inpatient admission for intravenous antibiotics and debridement of a hand injury with spread into the metacarpophalangeal space.

Most of the bites were severe and occurred within the first 72 hours after the hurricane, and waned steadily over the following weeks to baseline levels. No animal bites caused by misplaced dogs and cats biting strangers were seen. There was an increase in bites associated with domesticated pets known to the bite victim. The current NDMS cache is stocked adequately to care for most wounds caused by animal bites. However post-exposure rabies treatment is not part of the routine medications offered. For future disaster preparedness training, pet owners should be aware of the increased potential for dog and cat bites.