Complication rates for the esophageal obturator airway and endotracheal tube in the prehospital setting.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the complication rates associated with the use of the endotracheal tube (ET) and the use of the esophageal obturator airway/esophageal gastric tube airway (EOA/EGTA) during the treatment of patients with prehospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: A descriptive, quasi-experimental study of 509 consecutive adults, cardiac arrest patients was conducted. Patients were examined prospectively for airway intervention type and complications. Some patients were examined at their final destinations (field, morgue, funeral home), while other patients were examined by EMS providers in the field when airway adjuncts were switched. Also, airways were evaluated for complications by emergency physicians at destination emergency departments. RESULTS: The airway in use at the time of examination was the esophageal obturator airway (EOA) or esophageal gastric tube airway (EGTA) in 208 patients (40.1%); the ET (endotracheal tube) in 232 patients (45.6%); and an oral or nasopharyngeal airway in 47 patients (9.2%). Twenty-two patients (4.3%) had both an EOA/EGTA and an ET tube in place at the time of the examination. The survival rates were similar between the EOA/EGTA and the ET groups (28% and 32%, respectively). The complication rates overall also were similar, but the serious or potentially lethal complication rate was 3.3 times more common with the use of the EOA/EGTA than with the ET tube (8.7% versus 2.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The complication rate for the EOA/EGTA is unacceptably high, and careful thought must be given to its continued use.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Esophageal gastric tube airway vs endotracheal tube in prehospital cardiopulmonary arrest.

We evaluated the efficacy of the esophageal airway (EA) by prospectively randomizing 175 prehospital cardiopulmonary arrest patients to receive either an esophageal gastric tube airway (EGTA) or an endotracheal tube (ET). If attempts with the initial airway failed, the alternate airway was attempted. The cost of training paramedics in EA use was considerably less than the ET ($80 vs $1,000). Survival to the emergency room, to hospitalization and to discharge in ET and EGTA groups were 64.4 percent, 25.6 percent, 11.1 percent, and 54.1 percent, 27.1 percent, 12.9 percent, respectively--differences not statistically significant. The incidence of neurologic residual (ET 50 percent, EGTA 36.4 percent) and congestive heart failure (ET 40 percent, EGTA 45.5 percent) in surviving ET and EGTA patients did not differ (NS). An additional 125 consecutive patients with only the opportunity to receive an EA were also evaluated and did not differ in mortality, neurologic residual, or congestive heart failure from ET patients. We conclude that the EA is a satisfactory alternative to the ET for short-term prehospital use in cardiopulmonary arrest patients.

Feasibility of simulating physicians' judgments of patient severity.

This article reports on adopting Gustafson's multiattribute utility method to develop a specific momentary severity index (vis-à-vis severity over time) for nontraumatic chest pain patients. A panel of physicians identified an appropriate set of indicators for the index. Three mathematic models were generated on the basis of these indicators with each model predicting no less than 81% of the variance in overall scores of 96 simulated patients with chest pain. High interrater reliability (0.94) was demonstrated. Congruent validity coefficients between the three model scores and the overall scores vary between 0.71 and 0.92 depending on how the panel physicians are grouped. Results indicate the feasibility of simulating physician judgments regarding patient severity in chest-pain-related cases.