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

Prehospital tracheal intubations by anaesthetist-staffed critical care teams: a prospective observational multicentre study

Background Prehospital tracheal intubation is a potentially lifesaving intervention, but is associated with prolonged time on-scene. Some services strongly advocate performing the procedure outside of the ambulance or aircraft, while others also perform the procedure inside the vehicle. This study was designed as a non-inferiority trial registering the rate of successful tracheal intubation and incidence of complications performed by a critical care team either inside or outside an ambulance or helicopter. Methods This observational multicentre study was performed between March 2020 and September 2021 and involved 12 anaesthetist-staffed critical care teams providing emergency medical services by helicopter in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. The primary outcome was first-pass successful tracheal intubations. Results Of the 422 drug-assisted tracheal intubations examined, 240 (57%) took place in the cabin of the ambulance or helicopter. The rate of first-pass success was 89.2% for intubations in-cabin vs 86.3% outside. This difference of 2.9% (confidence interval −2.4% to 8.2%) (two sided 10%, including 0, but not the non-inferiority limit Δ=−4.5) fulfils our criteria for non-inferiority, but not significant superiority. These results withstand after performing a propensity score analysis. The mean on-scene time associated with the helicopter in-cabin procedures (27 min) was significantly shorter than for outside the cabin (32 min, P=0.004). Conclusions Both in-cabin and outside the cabin, prehospital tracheal intubation by anaesthetists was performed with a high success rate. The mean on-scene time was shorter in the in-cabin helicopter cohort.publishedVersio

The development of emergency medical services benefit score: a European Delphi study

BackgroundThe helicopter emergency services (HEMS) Benefit Score (HBS) is a nine-level scoring system developed to evaluate the benefits of HEMS missions. The HBS has been in clinical use for two decades in its original form. Advances in prehospital care, however, have produced demand for a revision of the HBS. Therefore, we developed the emergency medical services (EMS) Benefit Score (EBS) based on the former HBS. As reflected by its name, the aim of the EBS is to measure the benefits produced by the whole EMS systems to patients.MethodsThis is a four-round, web-based, international Delphi consensus study with a consensus definition made by experts from seven countries. Participants reviewed items of the revised HBS on a 5-point Likert scale. A content validity index (CVI) was calculated, and agreement was defined as a 70% CVI. Study included experts from seven European countries. Of these, 18 were prehospital expert panellists and 11 were in-hospital commentary board members.ResultsThe first Delphi round resulted in 1248 intervention examples divided into ten diagnostic categories. After removing overlapping examples, 413 interventions were included in the second Delphi round, which resulted in 38 examples divided into HBS categories 3–8. In the third Delphi round, these resulted in 37 prehospital interventions, examples of which were given revised version of the score. In the fourth and final Delphi round, the expert panel was given an opportunity to accept or comment on the revised scoring system.ConclusionsThe former HBS was revised by a Delphi methodology and EBS developed to represent its structural purpose better. The EBS includes 37 exemplar prehospital interventions to guide its clinical use.Trial registration The study permission was requested and granted by Turku University Hospital (decision number TP2/010/18)

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