BackgroundDespite numerous studies on prehospital airway management, results are difficult to compare due to inconsistent or heterogeneous data. The objective of this study was to assess advanced airway management from international physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical services.MethodsWe collected airway data from 21 helicopter emergency medical services in Australia, England, Finland, Hungary, Norway and Switzerland over a 12-month period. A uniform Utstein-style airway template was used for collecting data.ResultsThe participating services attended 14,703 patients on primary missions during the study period, and 2,327 (16 %) required advanced prehospital airway interventions. Of these, tracheal intubation was attempted in 92 % of the cases. The rest were managed with supraglottic airway devices (5 %), bag-valve-mask ventilation (2 %) or continuous positive airway pressure (0.2 %). Intubation failure rates were 14.5 % (first-attempt) and 1.2 % (overall). Cardiac arrest patients showed significantly higher first-attempt intubation failure rates (odds ratio: 2.0; 95 % CI: 1.5-2.6; p < 0.001) compared to non-cardiac arrest patients. Complications were recorded in 13 %, with recognised oesophageal intubation being the most frequent (25 % of all patients with complications). For non-cardiac arrest patients, important risk predictors for first-attempt failure were patient age (a non-linear association) and administration of sedatives (reduced failure risk). The patient’s sex, provider’s intubation experience, trauma type (patient category), indication for airway intervention and use of neuromuscular blocking agents were not risk factors for first-attempt intubation failure.ConclusionsAdvanced airway management in physician-staffed prehospital services was performed frequently, with high intubation success rates and low complication rates overall. However, cardiac arrest patients showed significantly higher first-attempt failure rates compared to non-cardiac arrest patients. All failed intubations were handled successfully with a rescue device or surgical airway.Trial registrationStudy registration: www.clinicaltrials.govNCT01502111. Registered 22 December 2011.
IntroductionThe National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics' (NACA) severity score is widely used in pre-hospital emergency medicine to grade the severity of illness or trauma in patient groups but is scarcely validated. The aim of this study was to assess the score's ability to predict mortality and need for advanced in-hospital interventions in a cohort from one anaesthesiologist-manned helicopter service in Northern Norway.MethodsAll missions completed by one helicopter service during January 1999 to December 2009 were reviewed. One thousand eight hundred forty-one patients were assessed by the NACA score. Pre-hospital and in-hospital interventions were collected from patient records. The relationship between NACA score and the outcome measures was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.ResultsA total of 1533 patients were included in the analysis; uninjured and dead victims were excluded per protocol. Overall mortality rate of the patients with NACA score 1–6 was 5.2%. Trauma patients with NACA score 1–6 had overall mortality rate of 1.9% (12/625) and non-trauma patients 7.4% (67/908). The NACA score's ability to predict mortality was assessed by using ROC area under curve (AUC) and was 0.86 for all, 0.82 for non-trauma and 0.98 for trauma patients. The NACA score's ability to predict a need for respiratory therapy within 24 h revealed an AUC of 0.90 for all patients combined.ConclusionThe NACA score had good discrimination for predicting mortality and need for respiratory therapy. It is thus useful as a tool to measure overall severity of the patient population in this kind of emergency medicine system.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.