Efficacy of Laryngeal Tube versus Bag Mask Ventilation by Inexperienced Providers.

INTRODUCTION: Bag mask ventilation (BMV) and extraglottic devices (EGDs) are two common methods of providing rescue ventilation. BMV can be difficult to perform effectively, especially for inexperienced providers and in patients with difficult airway characteristics. There is some evidence that the laryngeal tube (LT) can be successfully placed by inexperienced providers to provide effective ventilation. However, it is unclear whether ventilation provided by LT is superior to that of BMV, especially in the hands of inexperienced airway providers. Therefore, we aimed to compare ventilation efficacy of inexperienced airway providers with BMV versus LT by primarily measuring tidal volumes and secondarily measuring peak pressures on a simulated model. METHODS: We performed a crossover study first year emergency medicine residents and third and fourth year medical students. After a brief instructional video followed by hands on practice, participants performed both techniques in random order on a simulated model for two minutes each. Returned tidal volumes and peak pressures were measured. RESULTS: Twenty participants were enrolled and 1200 breaths were measured, 600 per technique. The median ventilation volumes were 194 milliliters (mL) for BMV, and 387 mL for the laryngeal tube, with a median absolute difference of 170 mL (95% confidence interval [CI] 157-182 mL) (mean difference 148 mL [95% CI, 138-158 mL], p<0.001). The median ventilation peak pressures were 23 centimeters of water (cm H2O) for BMV, and 30 cm H2O for the laryngeal tube, with a median absolute difference of 7 cm H2O (95% CI, 6-8 cm H2O) (mean difference 8 cm H2O [95% CI, 7-9 cm H2O], p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Inexperienced airway providers were able to provide higher ventilation volumes and peak pressures with the LT when compared to BMV in a manikin model. Inexperienced providers should consider using an LT when providing rescue ventilations in obtunded or hypoventilating patients without intact airway reflexes. Further study is required to understand whether these findings are generalizable to live patients.

Utility of plain abdominal radiography in adult ED patients with suspected constipation.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal radiographs are often obtained in ED patients with suspected constipation, although their utility in adults is not well understood. We sought to compare ED management when an abdominal radiograph is and is not obtained. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review study of adult ED patients with a chief complaint of constipation from 2010 through 2016. Trained abstractors recorded radiologic tests ordered, treatments received, and final diagnosis. We determined the physician interpretation of the abdominal radiograph and its use in clinical decision making. RESULTS: Of 1142 eligible patients, 481 (42%) patients underwent abdominal radiography. Stool burden rated moderate or large was observed in 271 patients (46%). Sixteen patients (3%) were diagnosed with small bowel obstruction; 15/16 of these patients had high risk features such as old age, complex surgical history, history of small bowel obstruction, abdominal malignancy, or presented with vomiting or inability to pass flatus. Of the 197 patients with no or mild stool burden or normal radiograph, 109 (55%) were diagnosed with constipation and 89 (45%) received constipation treatment in the ED. Conversely, of the 271 patients with moderate or greater stool burden, 114 (42%) received no treatment for constipation in the ED and 104 (38%) were prescribed no discharge medications for constipation; 77 of these 271 patients (28%) were diagnosed with something other than constipation. CONCLUSION: Plain abdominal radiography did not appear to significantly affect the ED management of patients presenting with constipation; it was common for patients to receive treatment that was in direct opposition to radiographic findings. Though a small number of patients had concerning diagnoses identified on plain radiography, the history and physical examination should have sufficiently excluded simple constipation, prompting an alternate diagnostic approach. Fecal loading on radiography does not preclude a more serious diagnosis. In conclusion, abdominal radiography appears to have low value in patients with constipation.

Drug Order in Rapid Sequence Intubation.

BACKGROUND: The optimal order of drug administration (sedative first vs. neuromuscular blocking agent first) in rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is debated. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if RSI drug order was associated with the time elapsed from administration of the first RSI drug to the end of a successful first intubation attempt. METHODS: We conducted a planned secondary analysis of a randomized trial of adult ED patients undergoing emergency orotracheal intubation that demonstrated higher first-attempt success with bougie use compared to a tracheal tube + stylet. Drug choice, dose, and the order of sedative and neuromuscular blocking agent were not stipulated. We analyzed trial patients who received both a sedative and a neuromuscular blocking agent within 30 seconds of each other who were intubated successfully on the first attempt. The primary outcome was the time elapsed from complete administration of the first RSI drug to the end of the first intubation attempt, a surrogate outcome for apnea time. We performed a multivariable analysis using a mixed-effects generalized linear model. RESULTS: Of 757 original trial patients, 562 patients (74%) met criteria for analysis; 153 received the sedative agent first, and 409 received the neuromuscular blocking agent first. Administration of the neuromuscular blocking agent before the sedative agent was associated with a reduction in time from RSI administration to the end of intubation attempt of 6 seconds (95% confidence interval = 0 to 11 sec). CONCLUSION: Administration of either the neuromuscular blocking or the sedative agent first are both acceptable. Administering the neuromuscular blocking agent first may result in modestly faster time to intubation. For now, it is reasonable for physicians to continue performing RSI in the way they are most comfortable with. If future research determines that the order of medication administration is not associated with awareness of neuromuscular blockade, administration of the neuromuscular blocking agent first may be a logical default administration method to attempt to minimize apnea time during intubation.