Anaphylaxis is one of those conditions we think we have got pretty well sorted. Recognise it early, give adrenaline, support the airway and circulation, and crack on. And in fairness, for the vast majority of patients, that approach works really well. But in this Roadside to Resus episode we take a step back and ask a pretty uncomfortable question, have we actually been thinking about anaphylaxis in the wrong way?

Using some fascinating new evidence from the UK National Child Mortality Database, we explore the emerging understanding that fatal food-triggered anaphylaxis may be much more of a respiratory catastrophe than the classic circulatory collapse we often picture in our heads. The findings are genuinely thought provoking. Many of the fatal paediatric cases reviewed showed overwhelming airway and breathing compromise long before cardiovascular collapse occurred, with deterioration happening frighteningly quickly in the prehospital phase.

We work through the current Resuscitation Council UK and NICE guidance, look at where diagnostic confusion still exists, and discuss why early adrenaline absolutely remains the cornerstone of treatment. But we also explore whether our mental model of anaphylaxis needs updating, particularly when it comes to respiratory assessment, escalation and oxygenation strategies.

We're also incredibly grateful to be joined by Ben McKenzie, who shares the devastating personal story behind the development of the AMAX4 approach and the lessons it holds for all of us managing critically unwell patients in the ED and prehospital environment.

This is a really powerful episode about recognition, trajectory and reframing how we think about severe anaphylaxis.

Once again we'd love to hear any thoughts or feedback either on the website or via X @TheResusRoom!

Simon & Rob

This month's Papers of the Month is a real mix of papers that challenge some of the things we think we know, whilst also highlighting just how important systems and processes are in improving patient care.

We start with intracerebral haemorrhage and the tricky issue of blood pressure management. We've all been taught that early, aggressive blood pressure reduction is key, but this paper raises some important questions about whether we may sometimes be overshooting. It looks at whether rapidly driving the blood pressure down really improves outcomes, or whether going too low may actually be associated with harm.

From there, we move into trauma, with a sobering look at the timing of deaths from uncontrolled haemorrhage. Despite all of the advances in trauma systems, blood products, haemostatic resuscitation and major trauma care, this paper suggests that the overall timing of haemorrhagic deaths has changed very little in the last 30 years. It is a stark reminder that bleeding remains one of the biggest challenges we face, and that there is still plenty of work to do if we want to reduce preventable deaths.

Finally, we finish with something a bit different but arguably just as important: airway governance and quality improvement. This paper from Ireland looks at how a structured programme of airway training, governance, simulation and feedback can improve first-pass success and keep complication rates low. It's a really useful reminder that good outcomes are not just about kit and technical skills, but about systems, training, competency and making sure teams maintain currency through repeated exposure and practice.

Once again we'd love to hear any thoughts or feedback either on the website or via X @TheResusRoom!

Simon & Rob

Timely and effective defibrillation is fundamental to excellent outcomes in cardiac arrest care. But there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that how we deliver those shocks may matter just as much as when we deliver them. Over the last few years we've seen increasing interest in alternative defibrillation strategies, particularly AP pad positioning and double sequential external defibrillation, and the potential impact they can have on outcomes in refractory VF.

The DOSE-VF trial was a landmark trial in the area, showing markedly better survival to hospital discharge with both vector change defibrillation and DSED compared with standard antero-lateral pad positioning. Since then, further analyses have suggested that the timing of DSED shocks, pad positioning and the vectors of defibrillation my all play an important role in improving the chances of ROSC and good neurological recovery.

Now we've got new evidence from Sheldon Cheskes and colleagues exploring what may actually be driving these improved outcomes. Is it simply that AP pad positioning delivers more current? Or is there something more important about the direction that current travels through the myocardium? The findings from this piece of the puzzle has potential to change the fundamentals of resuscitation strategies.

In this episode we take a deep dive into the emerging evidence around defibrillation, what the latest guidelines are saying and, importantly, what this means for practice. We're also hugely fortunate to be joined by Sheldon Cheskes himself to talk through the science behind defibrillation, the evidence and how systems can implement change.

Once again we'd love to hear any thoughts or feedback either on the website or via X @TheResusRoom!

Simon & James