Ventilation assisted feedback in out of hospital cardiac arrest.

Excessive ventilatory volumes and rates during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can lead to adverse effects, such as elevated intrathoracic pressure and decreased coronary blood flow. The 2020 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines acknowledge the value of real-time feedback devices in improving CPR performance. In this case series, three out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases received ventilation feedback during prehospital resuscitation and the initial in-hospital care phase. In each case, a notable increase in ventilation rate and volume was observed following the transfer of care from emergency medical services to hospital staff. This deviation from established ventilation guidelines emphasizes the importance of monitoring and addressing ventilation strategy during the transition to hospital care. Existing evidence supports the importance of maintaining specific ventilation rates and tidal volumes during cardiac arrest to improve outcomes. We believe further research is essential to establish a definitive link between ventilation strategies and patient outcomes, ultimately enhancing resuscitation efforts and patient survival rates. Integrating real-time ventilation feedback devices both in and out of the hospital during cardiac arrest presents an opportunity for quality improvement and adherence to national standards.

Efficacy of Video Laryngoscopy versus Direct Laryngoscopy in the Prehospital Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Placing an endotracheal tube is a life-saving measure. Direct laryngoscopy (DL) is traditionally the default method. Video laryngoscopy (VL) has been shown to improve efficiency, but there is insufficient evidence comparing VL versus DL in the prehospital settings. This study, comprising a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis, assesses current literature for the efficacy of VL in prehospital settings. METHODS: PubMed and Scopus databases were searched from their beginnings through March 1, 2022 for eligible studies. Outcomes were the first successful intubation, overall success rate, and number of total DL versus VL attempts in real-life clinical situations. Cochrane's Risk of Bias (RoB) tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were applied to assess risk of bias and study quality; Q-statistics and I2 values were used to assess heterogeneity. RESULTS: The search yielded seven studies involving 23,953 patients, 6,674 (28%) of whom underwent intubation via VL. Compared to DL, VL was associated with a statistically higher risk ratio for first-pass success (Risk Ratio [RR] = 1.116; 95% CI, 1.005-1.239; P = .041; I2 = 87%). The I2 value for the subgroup of prospective studies was 0% compared to 89% for retrospective studies. In addition, VL was associated with higher likelihood of overall success rate (RR = 1.097; 95% CI, 1.01-1.18; P = .021; I2 = 85%) and lower mean number of attempts (Mean Difference = -0.529; 95% CI, -0.922 to -0.137; P = .008). CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis suggested that VL was associated with higher likelihood of achieving first-pass success, greater overall success rate, and lower number of intubation attempts for adults in the prehospital settings. This study had high heterogeneity, likely presenced by the inclusion of retrospective observational studies. Further studies with more rigorous methodology are needed to confirm these results.