ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Pediatric out-of-hospital cardiorespiratory arrest (CRA) is a rare event but has a high mortality and morbidity among survivors. In 2005, an international consensus on science and treatment recommendations has been released, with the aim of improving the assistance of patients who had and, eventually, increasing survival without neurologic sequelae. Our objective was to assess the impact of the 2005 guidelines on the initial prehospital assistance of children with out-of-hospital CRA in a community with scattered population. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study following the Utstein-style guidelines of pediatric CRA in 2 periods: group 1 (pre-2005), from July 2002 to February 2005 (32 months); and group 2 (post-2005), from January 2007 to December 2008 (24 months). Patients aged from 0 months to 16 years who had an out-of-hospital respiratory or cardiac arrest were included in the study. RESULTS: There were 31 patients (84% cardiac) who had CRA in group 1 and 21 patients (62% cardiac) who had CRA in group 2 (P = 0.073). Both groups were comparable in age, sex, CRA cause, place of CRA incident, management of airway, fluid administrations, and defibrillation attempts. A significant increment in the number of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was observed in group 2 (13 [62%] vs 7 [29%], P = 0.004). The intraosseous access was more frequently used in the post-2005 group (8 [38%] vs 5 [16%], P = 0.021). In group 2, a higher percentage of patients received more than 1 adrenaline dose (95% vs 61%, P = 0.006), were treated with bicarbonate (7 [33%] vs 3 [10%], P = 0.045), and were not treated with atropine (5 [24%] vs 17 [55%], P = 0.020). Survival to hospital admission, sustained return of spontaneous circulation, and survival to hospital discharge were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In cases of pediatric out-of-hospital CRA in a community with scattered population, after the introduction of the 2005 international CPR recommendations, there was an increase in bystander CPR and changes in immediate treatment were detected. However, these changes did not result in a significant outcome improvement.
Subject(s)
Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Adolescent , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/mortality , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Prospective Studies , SpainABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Videolaryngoscopy has been developed mainly to assist difficult airway intubation. However, there is a lack of studies demonstrating the real efficacy of its use in children. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that GlideScope (Verathon Inc, Bothell, Wash) videolaryngoscope improves tracheal intubation when used by pediatric residents in an advanced patient simulation model. METHODS: Pediatric residents who passed a pediatric advanced life support course were eligible for the study. An advanced infant simulator was used, and 4 scenarios were proposed: normal airway (NA), tongue edema (TE), tongue edema and oropharyngeal edema, and cervical collar. No participant had prior experience with any videolaryngoscope. After a brief instruction in GlideScope technique, each participant performed the 4 scenarios using both the standard Miller and GlideScope laryngoscopes, in a random sequence. RESULTS: Sixteen residents were included. The number of failed intubations was higher with GlideScope in NA and TE scenarios (3 vs 0, in both cases). Mean (SD) time to successful intubation was significantly longer with GlideScope in the NA scenario (GlideScope, 38 [SD, 13] vs Miller, 26 [SD, 16] seconds; P = 0.043). The number of maneuvers was significantly higher with GlideScope in the tongue edema and oropharyngeal edema scenario (2.3 [SD, 1.5] vs 1.5 [SD, 1]; P = 0.04). Upper jaw injury index was significantly lower with GlideScope in NA (2.0 [SD, 1] vs 2.6 [SD, 0.8]; P = 0.008) and cervical collar (2.1 [SD, 1.0] vs 2.8 [SD, 0.5]; P = 0.011) scenarios. Participants considered GlideScope technique more difficult than standard Miller in NA (5 [SD, 2.0] vs 3 [SD, 1.3]; P = 0.04) and TE (5.9 [SD, 2.5] vs 3.9 [SD, 1.7]; P = 0.02) scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: In simulated scenarios of infant NA and difficult airway, when used by pediatric residents, GlideScope did not improve intubation performance when compared with the standard laryngoscope. Nevertheless, GlideScope may be safer for upper jaw injury and could have advantages in the management of complicated airway. Further studies are needed to assess if specific training will improve GlideScope intubation performance and whether the "in simulator" results translate into clinical practice.
