A pilot study of the King LT supralaryngeal airway use in a rural Iowa EMS system

Introduction In 2003, the King Laryngeal Tube (LT) received FDA approval for US sales. Prehospital systems in urban setting have begun evaluating and adopting the LT for clinical airway management. However, it is not routinely approved by State EMS Boards for use by all prehospita

Determinants of Success and Failure in Prehospital Endotracheal Intubation

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to identify factors associated with successful endotracheal intubation (ETI) by a multisite emergency medical services (EMS) agency. METHODS: We collected data from the electronic prehospital record for all ETI attempts made from January through May 2010 by paramedics and other EMS crew members at a single multistate agency. If documentation was incomplete, the study team contacted the paramedic. Paramedics use the current National Association of EMS Physicians definition of an ETI attempt (laryngoscope blade entering the mouth). We analyzed patient and EMS factors affecting ETI. RESULTS: During 12,527 emergent ambulance responses, 200 intubation attempts were made in 150 patients. Intubation was successful in 113 (75%). A crew with paramedics was more than three times as likely to achieve successful intubation as a paramedic/emergency medical technician-Basic crew (odds ratio [OR], 3.30; p=0.03). A small tube (≤7.0 inches) was associated with a more than 4-fold increased likelihood of successful ETI compared with a large tube (≥7.5 inches) (OR, 4.25; p=0.01). After adjustment for these features, compared with little or no view of the glottis, a partial or entire view of the glottis was associated with a nearly 13-fold (OR, 12.98; p=0.001) and a nearly 40-fold (OR, 39.78; p<0.001) increased likelihood of successful intubation, respectively. CONCLUSION: Successful ETI was more likely to be accomplished when a paramedic was partnered with another paramedic, when some or all of the glottis was visible and when a smaller endotracheal tube was used

Barrier Enclosure for Endotracheal Intubation in a Simulated COVID-19 Scenario: A Crossover Study

Introduction: Barrier enclosures have been developed to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission to healthcare providers during intubation, but little is known about their impact on procedure performance. We sought to determine whether a barrier enclosure delays time to successful intubation by experienced airway operators.Methods: We conducted a crossover simulation study at a tertiary academic hospital. Participants watched a four-minute video, practiced one simulated intubation with a barrier enclosure, and then completed one intubation with and one without the barrier enclosure (randomized to determine order). The primary outcome measure was time from placement of the video laryngoscope at the lips to first delivered ventilation. Secondary outcomes were periprocedural complications and participant responses to a post-study survey.Results: Proceduralists (n = 50) from emergency medicine and anesthesiology had median intubation times of 23.6 seconds with practice barrier enclosure, 20.5 seconds with barrier enclosure, and 16.7 seconds with no barrier. Intubation with barrier enclosure averaged 4.5 seconds longer (95% confidence interval, 2.7-6.4, p &lt; .001) than without, but was less than the predetermined clinical significance threshold of 10 seconds. Three complications occurred, all during the practice intubation. Barrier enclosure made intubation more challenging according to 48%, but 90% indicated they would consider using it in clinical practice.Conclusion: Experienced airway operators performed intubation using a barrier enclosure with minimal increased time to procedure completion in this uncomplicated airway model. Given potential to reduce droplet spread, use of a barrier enclosure may be an acceptable adjunct to endotracheal intubation for those familiar with its use

Hours and Miles: Patient and Health System Implications of Transfer for Psychiatric Bed Capacity

Introduction: An increasing number of behavioral health (BH) patients are presenting to the emergency department (ED) while BH resources continue to decline. This situation may lead to more external transfers to find care.Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients presenting to a tertiary care academic ED from February 1, 2013, through January 31, 2014. Patients were identified through electronic health record documentation of psychiatric consultation during ED evaluation. Electronic health records were reviewed for demographic characteristics, diagnoses, payer source, ED length of stay, ED disposition, arrival method, and distance traveled to an external facility for inpatient admission. Univariable and multivariable associations with transfer to an external facility in comparison with patients admitted internally were evaluated with logistic regression models and summarized with odds ratios (ORs). Results: We identified 2,585 BH visits, of which 1,083 (41.9%) resulted in discharge. A total of 1,502 patient visits required inpatient psychiatric admission, and of these cases, 177 patients (11.8%; 95% CI, 10.2%-13.5%) required transfer to an external facility. The median ED length of stay for transferred patients was 13.9 hours (interquartile range [IQR], 9.3-20.2 hours; range, 3.0-243.0 hours). The median distance for transport was 83 miles (IQR, 42-111 miles; range, 42-237 miles). In multivariable analysis, patients with suicidal or homicidal ideation had increased risk of transfer (odds ratio [OR] [95% CI], 1.93 [1.22-3.06]; P=.005). Children younger than 18 years (OR [95% CI], 2.34 [1.60-3.40]; P&lt;.001) and adults older than 65 years (OR [95% CI], 3.46 [1.93-6.19]; P&lt;.001) were more likely to require transfer and travel farther to access care.Conclusions: Patients requiring external transfer for inpatient psychiatric care were found to have prolonged ED lengths of stay. Patients with suicidal and homicidal ideation as well as children and adults older than 65 years are more likely to require transfer

Barrier Enclosure for Endotracheal Intubation in a Simulated COVID-19 Scenario: A Crossover Study

Introduction: Barrier enclosures have been developed to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission to healthcare providers during intubation, but little is known about their impact on procedure performance. We sought to determine whether a barrier enclosure delays time to successful intubation by experienced airway operators.Methods: We conducted a crossover simulation study at a tertiary academic hospital. Participants watched a four-minute video, practiced one simulated intubation with a barrier enclosure, and then completed one intubation with and one without the barrier enclosure (randomized to determine order). The primary outcome measure was time from placement of the video laryngoscope at the lips to first delivered ventilation. Secondary outcomes were periprocedural complications and participant responses to a post-study survey.Results: Proceduralists (n = 50) from emergency medicine and anesthesiology had median intubation times of 23.6 seconds with practice barrier enclosure, 20.5 seconds with barrier enclosure, and 16.7 seconds with no barrier. Intubation with barrier enclosure averaged 4.5 seconds longer (95% confidence interval, 2.7-6.4, p &lt; .001) than without, but was less than the predetermined clinical significance threshold of 10 seconds. Three complications occurred, all during the practice intubation. Barrier enclosure made intubation more challenging according to 48%, but 90% indicated they would consider using it in clinical practice.Conclusion: Experienced airway operators performed intubation using a barrier enclosure with minimal increased time to procedure completion in this uncomplicated airway model. Given potential to reduce droplet spread, use of a barrier enclosure may be an acceptable adjunct to endotracheal intubation for those familiar with its use

A Comparison of Chest Compression Quality Delivered During On-Scene and Ground Transport Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Introduction: American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines recommend cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) chest compressions 1.5 to 2 inches (3.75-5 cm) deep at 100 to 120 per minute. Recent studies demonstrated that manual CPR by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel is substandard. We hypothesized that transport CPR quality is significantly worse than on-scene CPR quality. Methods: We analyzed adult patients receiving on-scene and transport chest compressions from nine EMS sites across Minnesota and Wisconsin from May 2008 to July 2010. Two periods were analyzed: before and after visual feedback. CPR data were collected and exported with the Zoll M series monitor and a sternally placed accelerometer measuring chest compression rate and depth. We compared compression data with 2010 AHA guidelines and Zoll RescueNet Code Review software. CPR depth and rate were “above (deep),” “in,” or “below (shallow)” the target range according to AHA guidelines. We paired on-scene and transport data for each patient; paired proportions were compared with the nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results: In the pre-feedback period, we analyzed 105 of 140 paired cases (75.0%); in the post-feedback period, 35 of 140 paired cases (25.0%) were analyzed. The proportion of correct depths during on-scene compressions (median, 41.9%; interquartile range [IQR], 16.1-73.1) was higher compared to the paired transport proportion (median, 8.7%; IQR, 2.7-48.9). Proportions of on-scene median correct rates and transport median correct depths did not improve in the post-feedback period. Conclusion: Transport chest compressions are significantly worse than on-scene compressions. Implementation of visual real-time feedback did not affect performance

A Comparison of Chest Compression Quality Delivered During On-Scene and Ground Transport Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Introduction: American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines recommend cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) chest compressions 1.5 to 2 inches (3.75-5 cm) deep at 100 to 120 per minute. Recent studies demonstrated that manual CPR by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel is substandard. We hypothesized that transport CPR quality is significantly worse than on-scene CPR quality. Methods: We analyzed adult patients receiving on-scene and transport chest compressions from nine EMS sites across Minnesota and Wisconsin from May 2008 to July 2010. Two periods were analyzed: before and after visual feedback. CPR data were collected and exported with the Zoll M series monitor and a sternally placed accelerometer measuring chest compression rate and depth. We compared compression data with 2010 AHA guidelines and Zoll RescueNet Code Review software. CPR depth and rate were “above (deep),” “in,” or “below (shallow)” the target range according to AHA guidelines. We paired on-scene and transport data for each patient; paired proportions were compared with the nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results: In the pre-feedback period, we analyzed 105 of 140 paired cases (75.0%); in the post-feedback period, 35 of 140 paired cases (25.0%) were analyzed. The proportion of correct depths during on-scene compressions (median, 41.9%; interquartile range [IQR], 16.1-73.1) was higher compared to the paired transport proportion (median, 8.7%; IQR, 2.7-48.9). Proportions of on-scene median correct rates and transport median correct depths did not improve in the post-feedback period. Conclusion: Transport chest compressions are significantly worse than on-scene compressions. Implementation of visual real-time feedback did not affect performance