EMS-physicians' self reported airway management training and expertise; a descriptive study from the Central Region of Denmark

Abstract Background Prehospital advanced airway management, including prehospital endotracheal intubation is challenging and recent papers have addressed the need for proper training, skill maintenance and quality control for emergency medical service personnel. The aim of this study was to provide data regarding airway management-training and expertise from the regional physician-staffed emergency medical service (EMS). Methods The EMS in this part of The Central Region of Denmark is a two tiered system. The second tier comprises physician staffed Mobile Emergency Care Units. The medical directors of the programs supplied system data. A questionnaire addressing airway management experience, training and knowledge was sent to the EMS-physicians. Results There are no specific guidelines, standard operating procedures or standardised program for obtaining and maintaining skills regarding prehospital advanced airway management in the schemes covered by this study. 53/67 physicians responded; 98,1% were specialists in anesthesiology, with an average of 17,6 years of experience in anesthesiology, and 7,2 years experience as EMS-physicians. 84,9% reported having attended life support course(s), 64,2% an advanced airway management course. 24,5% fulfilled the curriculum suggested for Danish EMS physicians. 47,2% had encountered a difficult or impossible PHETI, most commonly in a patient in cardiac arrest or a trauma patient. Only 20,8% of the physicians were completely familiar with what back-up devices were available for airway management. Conclusions In this, the first Danish study of prehospital advanced airway management, we found a high degree of experience, education and training among the EMS-physicians, but their equipment awareness was limited. Check-outs, guidelines, standard operating procedures and other quality control measures may be needed.</p

Is the supine position associated with loss of airway patency in unconscious trauma patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Airway compromise is a leading cause of death in unconscious trauma patients. Although endotracheal intubation is regarded as the gold standard treatment, most prehospital providers are not trained to perform ETI in such patients. Therefore, various lateral positions are advocated for unconscious patients, but their use remains controversial in trauma patients. We conducted a systematic review to investigate whether the supine position is associated with loss of airway patency compared to the lateral position. Methods The review protocol was published in the PROSPERO database (Reg. no. CRD42012001190). We performed literature searches in PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and British Nursing Index and included studies related to airway patency, reduced level of consciousness and patient position. We conducted meta-analyses, where appropriate. We graded the quality of evidence with the GRADE methodology. The search was updated in June 2014. Results We identified 1,306 publications, 39 of which were included for further analysis. Sixteen of these publications were included in meta-analysis. We did not identify any studies reporting direct outcome measures (mortality or morbidity) related to airway compromise caused by the patient position (lateral vs. supine position) in trauma patients or in any other patient group. In studies reporting only indirect outcome measures, we found moderate evidence of reduced airway patency in the supine vs. the lateral position, which was measured by the apnea/hypopnea index (AHI). For other indirect outcomes, we only found low or very low quality evidence. Conclusions Although concerns other than airway patency may influence how a trauma patient is positioned, our systematic review provides evidence supporting the long held recommendation that unconscious trauma patients should be placed in a lateral position

Femoral nerve blocks for the treatment of acute pre‐hospital pain:a systematic review with meta‐analysis

Abstract Background: Pain management is one of the most important interventions in the emergency medical services. The femoral nerve block (FNB) is, among other things, indicated for pre‐ and post‐operative pain management for patients with femoral fractures but its role in the pre‐hospital setting has not been determined. The aim of this review was to assess the effect and safety of the FNB in comparison to other forms of analgesia (or no treatment) for managing acute lower extremity pain in adult patients in the pre‐hospital setting. Methods: A systematic review (PROSPERO registration (CRD42018114399)) was conducted. The Cochrane and GRADE methods were used to assess outcomes. Two authors independently reviewed each study for eligibility, extracted the data and performed risk of bias assessments. Results: Four studies with a total of 252 patients were included. Two RCTs (114 patients) showed that FNB may reduce pain more effectively than metamizole (mean difference 32 mm on a 100 mm VAS (95% CI 24 to 40)). One RCT (48 patients) compared the FNB with lidocaine and magnesium sulphate to FNB with lidocaine alone and was only included here for information regarding adverse effects. One case series included 90 patients. Few adverse events were reported in the included studies. The certainty of evidence was very low. We found no studies comparing FNB to inhaled analgesics, opioids or ketamine. Conclusions: Evidence regarding the effectiveness and adverse effects of pre‐hospital FNB is limited. Studies comparing pre‐hospital FNB to inhaled analgesics, opioids or ketamine are lacking

Femoral nerve blocks for the treatment of acute pre-hospital pain: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Oulu University HospitalBackground: Pain management is one of the most important interventions in the emergency medical services. The femoral nerve block (FNB) is, among other things, indicated for pre- and post-operative pain management for patients with femoral fractures but its role in the pre-hospital setting has not been determined. The aim of this review was to assess the effect and safety of the FNB in comparison to other forms of analgesia (or no treatment) for managing acute lower extremity pain in adult patients in the pre-hospital setting. Methods: A systematic review (PROSPERO registration (CRD42018114399)) was conducted. The Cochrane and GRADE methods were used to assess outcomes. Two authors independently reviewed each study for eligibility, extracted the data and performed risk of bias assessments. Results: Four studies with a total of 252 patients were included. Two RCTs (114 patients) showed that FNB may reduce pain more effectively than metamizole (mean difference 32 mm on a 100 mm VAS (95% CI 24 to 40)). One RCT (48 patients) compared the FNB with lidocaine and magnesium sulphate to FNB with lidocaine alone and was only included here for information regarding adverse effects. One case series included 90 patients. Few adverse events were reported in the included studies. The certainty of evidence was very low. We found no studies comparing FNB to inhaled analgesics, opioids or ketamine. Conclusions: Evidence regarding the effectiveness and adverse effects of pre-hospital FNB is limited. Studies comparing pre-hospital FNB to inhaled analgesics, opioids or ketamine are lacking.Oulu University Hospita

Ketamine for the treatment of prehospital acute pain:a systematic review of benefit and harm

Abstract Background: Few publications have addressed prehospital use of ketamine in analgesic doses. We aimed to assess the effect and safety profile of ketamine compared with other analgesic drugs (or no drug) in adult prehospital patients with acute pain. Methods: A systematic review of clinical trials assessing prehospital administration of ketamine in analgesic doses compared with other analgesic drugs or no analgesic treatment in adults. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos from inception until 15 February 2020, including relevant articles in English and Nordic languages. We used the Cochrane and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodologies and exclusively assessed patient-centred outcomes. Two independent authors screened trials for eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Results: We included eight studies (2760 patients). Ketamine was compared with various opioids given alone, and intranasal ketamine given with nitrous oxide was compared with nitrous oxide given alone. Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one cluster randomised trial included 699 patients. One prospective cohort included 27 patients and two retrospective cohorts included 2034 patients. Five of the eight studies had high risks of bias. Pain score with ketamine is probably lower than after opioids as demonstrated in a cluster-RCT (308 patients) and a retrospective cohort (158 patients) study, Δvisual analogue scale −0.4 (−0.8 to 0.0) and Δnumeric pain rating scale −3.0 (−3.86 to −2.14), respectively. Ketamine probably leads to less nausea and vomiting (risk ratio (RR) 0.24 (0.11 to 0.52)) but more agitation (RR 7.81 (1.85 to 33)) than opioids. Conclusions: This systematic literature review finds that ketamine probably reduces pain more than opioids and with less nausea and vomiting but higher risk of agitation. Risk of bias in included studies is high. Other: Scandinavian society of anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine funded meetings and software. The Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation funded publication. Otherwise this research received no grant from any agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018114399