Background. Immobilization of the cervical spine worsens tracheal intubation conditions. Various intubation devices have been tested in this setting. Their relative usefulness remains unclear.Methods. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials comparing any intubation device with the Macintosh laryngoscope in human subjects with cervical spine immobilization. The primary outcome was the risk of tracheal intubation failure at the first attempt. Secondary outcomes were quality of glottis visualization, time until successful intubation, and risk of oropharyngeal complications.Results. Twenty-four trials (1866 patients) met inclusion criteria. With alternative intubation devices, the risk of intubation failure was lower compared with Macintosh laryngoscopy [risk ratio (RR) 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35–0.80]. Meta-analyses could be performed for five intubation devices (Airtraq, Airwayscope, C-Mac, Glidescope, and McGrath). The Airtraq was associated with a statistically significant reduction of the risk of intubation failure at the first attempt (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.06–0.33), a higher rate of Cormack–Lehane grade 1 (RR 2.98; 95% CI 1.94–4.56), a reduction of time until successful intubation (weighted mean difference −10.1 s; 95% CI −3.2 to −17.0), and a reduction of oropharyngeal complications (RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.06–0.93). Other devices were associated with improved glottis visualization but no statistically significant differences in intubation failure or time to intubation compared with conventional laryngoscopy.Conclusions. In situations where the spine is immobilized, the Airtraq device reduces the risk of intubation failure. There is a lack of evidence for the usefulness of other intubation devices.
LUCAS™2-CPR is associated with more rib fractures than standard CPR. Typical round concentric skin lesions were observed in cases of mechanical reanimation. No life-threatening injuries were reported. Petechiae were common findings.
ObjectiveThe implementation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines, updated every five years, appears to improve patient survival rates after Out-Of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA). The aim of this study is: 1) to measure the level of improvement in the prognosis of OHCA patient survival rates for the years 2009 and 2010 and the following two years 2011 and 2012; and 2) correlate the improvement in prognosis with the updated 2010 Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support (ACLS) Guidelines.MethodWe performed a retrospective observational study based on Geneva’s OHCA register that includes data from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2012. We compared the evolution of prognostic factors that influenced survival at hospital discharge between the periods before and after the implementation of the 2010 guidelines. We then compared the survival rates between each period. Finally, we adjusted the effects on survival in the second period to prognostic factors not linked with the care provided by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) teams, using a multivariable logistic regression model. Changes in advanced resuscitation treatment provided by EMS personnel were also examined.Results795 OHCA were resuscitated between 1st January, 2009 and 31st December, 2012. The prognosis of patient survival at the time of hospital discharge rose from 10.33% in 2009–2010 to 17.01% in 2011–2012 (p = 0.007). After making adjustments for the effect of improved survival rates on the second period with factors not related to care provided by EMS teams, the odds ratio (OR) remains comparable (OR = 1.87, 95% CI [1.08–3.22]). Measured changes in treatment provided by EMS personnel were minor.ConclusionsSurvival rate for OHCA patients improved significantly in 2011–2012. This study suggests that it was probably the improvement in the quality of care provided during CPR and post-cardiac arrest care that have contributed to the increase in survival rates at the time of hospital discharge.
Objective The aim of this study was to assess the effect of prehospital noninvasive ventilation for acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema on endotracheal intubation rate and on ICU admission rate. Methods We carried out a retrospective study on patients’ prehospital files between 2007 and 2010 (control period), and between 2013 and 2016 (intervention period). Adult patients were included if a diagnosis of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema was made by the prehospital physician. Exclusion criteria were a Glasgow coma scale score less than 9 or any other respiratory diagnosis. We analyzed the association between noninvasive ventilation implementation and endotracheal intubation or ICU admission with univariable and multivariable regression models. The primary outcome was prehospital endotracheal intubation rate. Secondary outcomes were admission to an ICU, prehospital intervention length, and 30-day mortality. Results A total of 1491 patients were included. Noninvasive ventilation availability was associated with a significant decrease in endotracheal intubation rate (2.6% in the control versus 0.7% in the intervention period), with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.3 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.1–0.7]. There was a decrease in ICU admissions (18.6% in the control versus 13.0% in the intervention period) with an adjusted OR of 0.6 (95% CI, 0.5–0.9). There was no significant change in 30-day mortality (11.2% in the control versus 11.0% in the intervention period, P = 0.901). Conclusion In our physician-staffed prehospital system, use of noninvasive ventilation for acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema decreased both endotracheal intubation and ICU admission rates.
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.