Cricoid pressure and laryngeal manipulation in 402 pre-hospital emergency anaesthetics: essential safety measure or a hindrance to rapid safe intubation?

OBJECTIVES: This is the first study to look at the effects of cricoid pressure/laryngeal manipulation on the laryngeal view and intubation success in the emergency or pre-hospital environment. Cricoid pressure is applied in the hope of reducing the incidence of aspiration. However the technique has never been evaluated in a randomized trial and may adversely affect laryngeal view. In order to improve intubating conditions cricoid pressure may be released and the larynx manipulated into a more favourable position. METHODS: We carried out a prospective observational study to evaluate the effects of cricoid pressure and laryngeal manipulation on laryngeal view in our physician led pre-hospital trauma service. RESULTS: 402 patients were included over a 16-month period. We intubated 98.8% patients on the first or second attempt. In 61 intubations (in 55 patients, 13.6%) the larynx required manipulation to facilitate intubation. In 22 intubations cricoid pressure was removed with the laryngeal view improving in 50%. Bimanual laryngeal manipulation was used in 25 intubations and the larynx better visualised in 60% of these. Backwards upwards rightwards pressure was applied to the larynx in 14 intubations and the laryngeal view improved in 64%. Two patients regurgitated when cricoid pressure was released. Both had prolonged periods of bag valve mask ventilation and difficult intubations. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that cricoid pressure should be removed if the laryngeal view obtained is not sufficient to allow immediate intubation. Further manipulation of the larynx is likely to improve the chances of successful tracheal tube placement.

Epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The National Epirubicin Adjuvant Trial (NEAT) and the BR9601 trial examined the efficacy of anthracyclines in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer. METHODS: In NEAT, we compared four cycles of epirubicin followed by four cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) with six cycles of CMF alone. In the BR9601 trial, we compared four cycles of epirubicin followed by four cycles of CMF, with eight cycles of CMF alone every 3 weeks. The primary end points were relapse-free and overall survival. The secondary end points were adverse effects, dose intensity, and quality of life. RESULTS: The two trials included 2391 women with early breast cancer; the median follow-up was 48 months. Relapse-free and overall survival rates were significantly higher in the epirubicin-CMF groups than in the CMF-alone groups (2-year relapse-free survival, 91% vs. 85%; 5-year relapse-free survival, 76% vs. 69%; 2-year overall survival, 95% vs. 92%; 5-year overall survival, 82% vs. 75%; P<0.001 by the log-rank test for all comparisons). Hazard ratios for relapse (or death without relapse) (0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.82; P<0.001) and death from any cause (0.67; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.82; P<0.001) favored epirubicin plus CMF over CMF alone. Independent prognostic factors were nodal status, tumor grade, tumor size, and estrogen-receptor status (P<0.001 for all four factors) and the presence or absence of vascular or lymphatic invasion (P=0.01). These factors did not significantly interact with the effect of epirubicin plus CMF. The overall incidence of adverse effects was significantly higher with epirubicin plus CMF than with CMF alone but did not significantly affect the delivered-dose intensity or the quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Epirubicin plus CMF is superior to CMF alone as adjuvant treatment for early breast cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003577 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).