A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing mortality in pre-hospital tracheal intubation to emergency department intubation in trauma patients

Background Pre-hospital endotracheal intubation is frequently used for trauma patients in many emergency medical systems. Despite a wide range of publications in the field, it is debated whether the intervention is associated with a favourable outcome, when compared to more conservative airway measures. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted to identify interventional and observational studies where the mortality rates of adult trauma patients undergoing pre-hospital endotracheal intubation were compared to those undergoing emergency department intubation. Results Twenty-one studies examining 35,838 patients were included. The median mortality rate in patients undergoing pre-hospital intubation was 48% (range 8–94%), compared to 29% (range 6–67%) in patients undergoing intubation in the emergency department. Odds ratios were in favour of emergency department intubation both in crude and adjusted mortality, with 2.56 (95% CI: 2.06, 3.18) and 2.59 (95% CI: 1.97, 3.39), respectively. The overall quality of evidence is very low. Twelve of the twenty-one studies found a significantly higher mortality rate after pre-hospital intubation, seven found no significant differences, one found a positive effect, and for one study an analysis of the mortality rate was beyond the scope of the article. Conclusions The rationale for wide and unspecific indications for pre-hospital intubation seems to lack support in the literature, despite several publications involving a relatively large number of patients. Pre-hospital intubation is a complex intervention where guidelines and research findings should be approached cautiously. The association between pre-hospital intubation and a higher mortality rate does not necessarily contradict the importance of the intervention, but it does call for a thorough investigation by clinicians and researchers into possible causes for this finding.publishedVersio

Reporting Helicopter Emergency Medical Services in Major Incidents: A Delphi Study

Peer reviewe

The top five research priorities in physician-provided pre-hospital critical care: a consensus report from a European research collaboration

Background: Physician-manned emergency medical teams supplement other emergency medical services in some countries. These teams are often selectively deployed to patients who are considered likely to require critical care treatment in the pre-hospital phase. The evidence base for guidelines for pre-hospital triage and immediate medical care is often poor. We used a recognised consensus methodology to define key priority areas for research within the subfield of physician-provided pre-hospital critical care. Methods: A European expert panel participated in a consensus process based upon a four-stage modified nominal group technique that included a consensus meeting. Results: The expert panel concluded that the five most important areas for further research in the field of physician-based pre-hospital critical care were the following: Appropriate staffing and training in pre-hospital critical care and the effect on outcomes, advanced airway management in pre-hospital care, definition of time windows for key critical interventions which are indicated in the pre-hospital phase of care, the role of pre-hospital ultrasound and dispatch criteria for pre-hospital critical care services. Conclusion: A modified nominal group technique was successfully used by a European expert group to reach consensus on the most important research priorities in physician-provided pre-hospital critical care

The top five research priorities in physician-provided pre-hospital critical care: a consensus report from a European research collaboration

Abstract Background Physician-manned emergency medical teams supplement other emergency medical services in some countries. These teams are often selectively deployed to patients who are considered likely to require critical care treatment in the pre-hospital phase. The evidence base for guidelines for pre-hospital triage and immediate medical care is often poor. We used a recognised consensus methodology to define key priority areas for research within the subfield of physician-provided pre-hospital critical care. Methods A European expert panel participated in a consensus process based upon a four-stage modified nominal group technique that included a consensus meeting. Results The expert panel concluded that the five most important areas for further research in the field of physician-based pre-hospital critical care were the following: Appropriate staffing and training in pre-hospital critical care and the effect on outcomes, advanced airway management in pre-hospital care, definition of time windows for key critical interventions which are indicated in the pre-hospital phase of care, the role of pre-hospital ultrasound and dispatch criteria for pre-hospital critical care services. Conclusion A modified nominal group technique was successfully used by a European expert group to reach consensus on the most important research priorities in physician-provided pre-hospital critical care.</p

Semiprone position is superior to supine position for paediatric endotracheal intubation during massive regurgitation, a randomized crossover simulation trial

Background: Endotracheal intubation of patients with massive regurgitation represents a challenge in emergency airway management. Gastric contents tend to block suction catheters, and few treatment alternatives exist. Based on a technique that was successfully applied in our district, we wanted to examine if endotracheal intubation would be easier and quicker to perform when the patient is turned over to a semiprone position, as compared to the supine position. Methods: In a randomized crossover simulation trial, a child manikin with on-going regurgitation was intubated both in the supine and semiprone positions. Endpoints were experienced difficulty with the procedure and time to intubation, as well as visually confirmed intubation and first-pass success rate. Results: Intubation in the semiprone position was significantly easier and faster compared to the supine position; the median experienced difficulty on a visual analogue scale was 27 and 65, respectively (p = 0.004), and the median time to intubation was 26 and 45 s, respectively (p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in frequency of visually confirmed intubation (16 and 18, p = 0.490) of first-pass success rate (17 and 18, p = 1.000). Conclusion: In this experiment, endotracheal intubation during massive regurgitation with the patient in the semiprone position was significantly easier and quicker to perform than in the supine position. Endotracheal intubation in the semiprone position can provide a quick rescue method in situations where airway management is hindered by massive regurgitation, and it represents a possible supplement to current airway management training