Airway management in the air medical setting.

BACKGROUND: Airway management is a key component of air medical care for seriously ill and injured patients. This meta-analysis of the prehospital airway management literature explored the pooled air-medical placement success rates for oral endotracheal intubation (OETI), including rapid sequence intubation (RSI) and drug-facilitated intubation (DFI), nasotracheal intubation (NTI), blind insertion airway devices (BIAD), and surgical cricothyrotomy (SCRIC). METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search for all English language articles reporting success rates for airway procedures performed in the prehospital setting. After identifying articles specific to the air-medical environment, pooled estimates of success rates for each airway technique were calculated using a random effects meta-analysis model. RESULTS: Thirty-six unique studies, encompassing 4,574 procedures, reported airway management success rates in the air medical environment. The pooled estimates (95% CI) for intervention success across all clinicians and patients were: OETI (without RSI/DFI): 86.4% (81.2%-90.3%); DFI: 95.1% (84.1%-98.6%); RSI: 96.7% (94.8%-97.9%); NTI: 76.1% (71.9%-79.9%); BIAD: 94.0% (85.8%-97.6%); and SCRIC: 90.8% (80.6%-95.9%). CONCLUSION: We provide pooled estimates for airway management procedural success rates in the air medical setting. These data can be used by program managers and medical directors in determining the most appropriate airway management procedures to incorporate into their services and for benchmarking in quality improvement activities.

A meta-analysis of prehospital airway control techniques part II: alternative airway devices and cricothyrotomy success rates.

BACKGROUND: Airway management is a key component of prehospital care for seriously ill and injured patients. Oral endotracheal intubation (OETI) is the definitive airway of choice in most emergency medical services (EMS) systems. However, OETI may not be an approved skill for some clinicians or may prove problematic in certain patients because of anatomic abnormalities, trauma, or inadequate relaxation. In these situations alternative airways are frequently employed. However, the reported success rates for these devices vary widely, and established benchmarks are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine pooled estimates of the success rates of alternative airway devices (AADs) and needle cricothyrotomy (NCRIC) and surgical cricothyrotomy (SCRIC) placement through a meta-analysis of the literature. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search for all English-language articles reporting success rates for AADs, SCRIC, and NCRIC. Studies of field procedures performed by prehospital personnel from any nation were included. All titles were reviewed independently by two authors using prespecified inclusion criteria. Pooled estimates of success rates for each airway technique were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis model. RESULTS: Of 2,005 prehospital airway titles identified, 35 unique studies were retained for analysis of AAD success rates, encompassing a total of 10,172 prehospital patients. The success rates for SCRIC and NCRIC were analyzed across an additional 21 studies totaling 512 patients. The pooled estimates (and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for intervention success across all clinicians and patients were as follows: esophageal obturator airway-esophageal gastric tube airway (EOA-EGTA) 92.6% (90.1%-94.5%); pharyngeotracheal lumen airway (PTLA) 82.1% (74.0%-88.0%); esophageal-tracheal Combitube (ETC) 85.4% (77.3%-91.0%); laryngeal mask airway (LMA) 87.4% (79.0%-92.8%); King Laryngeal Tube airway (King LT) 96.5% (71.2%-99.7%); NCRIC 65.8% (42.3%-83.59%); and SCRIC 90.5% (84.8%-94.2%). CONCLUSIONS: We provide pooled estimates for prehospital AAD, NCRIC, and SCRIC airway interventions. Of the AADs, the King LT demonstrated the highest insertion success rate (96.5%), although this estimate is based on limited data, and data regarding its ventilatory effectiveness are lacking; more data are available for the ETC and LMA. The ETC, LMA, and PTLA all had similar-but lower-success rates (82.1%-87.4%). NCRIC has a low rate of success (65.8%); SCRIC has a much higher success rate (90.5%) and should be considered the preferred percutaneous rescue airway.

A meta-analysis of prehospital airway control techniques part I: orotracheal and nasotracheal intubation success rates.

BACKGROUND: Airway management is a key component of prehospital care for seriously ill and injured patients. Although endotracheal intubation has been a commonly performed prehospital procedure for nearly three decades, the safety and efficacy profile of prehospital intubation has been challenged in the last decade. Reported intubation success rates vary widely, and established benchmarks are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine pooled estimates for oral endotracheal intubation (OETI) and nasotracheal intubation (NTI) placement success rates through a meta-analysis of the literature. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search for all English-language articles reporting placement success rates for prehospital intubation. Studies of field procedures performed by prehospital personnel from any nation were included. All titles were reviewed independently by two authors using prespecified inclusion criteria. Pooled estimates of success rates for each airway technique, including drug-facilitated intubation (DFI) and rapid-sequence intubation (RSI), were calculated using a random-effects model. Historical trends were evaluated using meta-regression. RESULTS: Of 2,005 identified titles reviewed, 117 studies addressed OETI and 23 addressed NTI, encompassing a total of 57,132 prehospital patients. There was substantial interrater reliability in the review process (kappa = 0.81). The pooled estimates (and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for intervention success for nonphysician clinicians were as follows: overall non-RSI/non-DFI OETI success rate: 86.3% (82.6%-89.4%); OETI for non-cardiac arrest patients: 69.8% (50.9%-83.8%); DFI 86.8% (80.2%-91.4%); and RSI 96.7% (94.7%-98.0%). For pediatric patients, the paramedic OETI success rate was 83.2% (55.2%-95.2%). The overall NTI success rate for nonphysician clinicians was 75.9% (65.9%-83.7%). The historical trend of OETI reflects a 0.49% decline in success rates per year. CONCLUSIONS: We provide pooled estimates of placement success rates for prehospital airway interventions. For some patient and clinician characteristics, OETI has relatively low success rates. For nonarrest patients, DFI and RSI appear to increase success rates. Across all clinicians, NTI has a low rate of success, raising questions about the safety and efficacy of this procedure.

Advanced clinical insights & practice: acute coronary syndrome.

This article provides the critical care paramedic with a review of the ongoing management of a patient with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). In the March issue, we focused on the management and critical care transport of an unstable ACS patient from a small outlying community hospital back to the cath lab. In this article, we focus on the same patient as she progresses through the catheterization lab with complications. It is important to remember that, due to the instability of the precipitating condition, not all patients have a successful outcome with catheterization, and the critical care transport crew may be summoned again for transport.

Advanced clinical insights & practice: ischemic heart disease.

This issue sees the debut of a new series of continuing education articles. The series, Advanced Clinical Insights & Practice, is designed to provide continuing education to an ever-expanding realm of paramedicine that needs more of it: the critical care transport paramedic. Secondly, and equally important, are the benefits that can be reaped by other certification levels reading this feature. For EMT-Basics and Intermediates, it will provide a great enhancement to your core knowledge, although most of the interventions discussed will be beyond your traditional scope. For paramedics, it will augment both your pathophysiological understanding and clinical assessment/management skills of diseases and injuries discussed. Ultimately though, it is hoped that anyone who reads these articles will become a better clinician. The next article will appear in the July issue.

Attitudes of Ohio dentists and dental hygienists on the use of automated external defibrillators.

The American Heart Association reports that approximately 220,000 people die each year of sudden cardiac arrest. In ventricular fibrillation (VF), the most common abnormal heart rhythm that causes cardiac arrest, the heart's electrical impulses suddenly become chaotic, often without warning. Death will follow within minutes if the victim is not treated appropriately, and the only known treatment is defibrillation. An automated external defibrillator (AED) can restore a victim's normal heart rhythm by providing defibrillation. The purpose of this study was to gather data from dentists and dental hygienists in Ohio on their use of and attitudes toward using AEDs in dental offices. Six percent of Ohio dentists and dental hygienists were randomly selected to receive a twenty-three question survey related to their use of and attitudes toward their use of AEDs in dental offices. Thirty-three percent (244) of the surveys were returned; 41 percent of the respondents were dentists, and 59 percent were dental hygienists. Six percent said they have had to administer nitroglycerin to a patient during a dental visit; 5 percent have performed CPR on a patient in the dental office; and 78 percent said their last CPR training course included training on an AED. Eleven percent said there was an AED at their dental office. With the increased likelihood of dealing with a cardiac emergency in the dental office setting and the willingness of dental professionals to use an AED, all dental offices should consider obtaining an AED. Dental educators should become familiar with current protocols for handling cardiac medical emergencies in the dental office and prepare dental and dental hygiene students with the skills necessary to manage patients with cardiac emergencies. Graduating dental students entering private practice may want to consider the AED as part of their medical emergency office protocol.