Requirement for urgent tracheal intubation after traumatic injury: a retrospective analysis of 11,010 patients in the Trauma Audit Research Network database.

Advanced airway management is a treatment priority in trauma care. It is likely that a proportion of patients who receive urgent airway management on arrival in the emergency department represent an unmet demand for airway intervention in the pre-hospital phase. This study aimed to investigate emergency airway practice in major trauma patients and establish any unmet demand in this patient group. A retrospective review of the Trauma Audit and Research Network database was performed to identify airway intervention(s) performed for patients admitted to major trauma centres in England from 01 April 2012 to 27 June 2016. In total, 11,010 patients had airway interventions: 4375 patients (43%) had their tracheas intubated in the pre-hospital setting compared with 5889 patients (57%) in the emergency department. Of the patients whose tracheas were intubated in the emergency department, this was done within 30 min of hospital arrival in 3264 patients (75%). Excluding tracheal intubation, 1593 patients had a pre-hospital airway intervention of which 881 (55%) subsequently had their trachea intubated in the emergency department; tracheal intubation was done within 30 min of arrival in the majority of these cases (805 patients (91%)). Over 70% of emergency department tracheal intubations in patients with traumatic injuries were performed within 30 min of hospital arrival; this suggests there may be an unmet demand in pre-hospital advanced airway management for trauma patients in England.

Pre-hospital emergency anaesthesia in awake hypotensive trauma patients: beneficial or detrimental?

BACKGROUND: The benefits of pre-hospital emergency anaesthesia (PHEA) are controversial. Patients who are hypovolaemic prior to induction of anaesthesia are at risk of severe cardiovascular instability post-induction. This study compared mortality for hypovolaemic trauma patients (without major neurological injury) undergoing PHEA with a patient cohort with similar physiology transported to hospital without PHEA. METHODS: A retrospective database review was performed to identify patients who were hypotensive on scene [systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 90 mmHg], and GCS 13-15. Patient records were reviewed independently by two pre-hospital clinicians to identify the likelihood of hypovolaemia. Primary outcome measure was mortality defined as death before hospital discharge. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-six patients were included; 101 patients underwent PHEA. Fifteen PHEA patients died (14.9%) compared with six non-PHEA patients (4.4%), P = 0.01; unadjusted OR for death was 3.73 (1.30-12.21; P = 0.01). This association remained after adjustment for age, injury mechanism, heart rate and hypovolaemia (adjusted odds ratio 3.07 (1.03-9.14) P = 0.04). Fifty-eight PHEA patients (57.4%) were hypovolaemic prior to induction of anaesthesia, 14 died (24%). Of 43 PHEA patients (42.6%) not meeting hypovolaemia criteria, one died (2%); unadjusted OR for mortality was 13.12 (1.84-578.21). After adjustment for age, injury mechanism and initial heart rate, the odds ratio for mortality remained significant at 9.99 (1.69-58.98); P = 0.01. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest an association between PHEA and in-hospital mortality in awake hypotensive trauma patients, which is strengthened when hypotension is due to hypovolaemia. If patients are hypovolaemic and awake on scene it might, where possible, be appropriate to delay induction of anaesthesia until hospital arrival.

The success of pre-hospital tracheal intubation by different pre-hospital providers: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pre-hospital basic airway interventions can be ineffective at providing adequate oxygenation and ventilation in some severely ill or injured patients, and advanced airway interventions are then required. Controversy exists regarding the level of provider required to perform successful pre-hospital intubation. A previous meta-analysis reported pre-hospital intubation success rates of 0.849 for non-physicians versus 0.991 for physicians. The evidence base on the topic has expanded significantly in the last 10 years. This study systematically reviewed recent literature and presents comprehensive data on intubation success rates. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed using PRISMA methodology to identify articles on pre-hospital tracheal intubation published between 2006 and 2016. Overall success rates were estimated using random effects meta-analysis. The relationship between intubation success rate and provider type was assessed in weighted linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 1838 identified studies, 38 met the study inclusion criteria. Intubation was performed by non-physicians in half of the studies and by physicians in the other half. The crude median (range) reported overall success rate was 0.969 (0.616-1.000). In random effects meta-analysis, the estimated overall intubation success rate was 0.953 (0.938-0.965). The crude median (range) reported intubation success rates for non-physicians were 0.917 (0.616-1.000) and, for physicians, were 0.988 (0.781-1.000) (p = 0.003). DISCUSSION: The reported overall success rate of pre-hospital intubation has improved, yet there is still a significant difference between non-physician and physician providers. The finding that less-experienced personnel perform less well is not unexpected, but since there is considerable evidence that poorly performed intubation carries a significant risk of morbidity and mortality careful consideration should be given to the training and experience required to deliver this intervention safely.

AAGBI: Safer pre-hospital anaesthesia 2017: Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.

Pre-hospital emergency anaesthesia with oral tracheal intubation is the technique of choice for trauma patients who cannot maintain their airway or achieve adequate ventilation. It should be carried out as soon as safely possible, and performed to the same standards as in-hospital emergency anaesthesia. It should only be conducted within organisations with comprehensive clinical governance arrangements. Techniques should be straightforward, reproducible, as simple as possible and supported by the use of checklists. Monitoring and equipment should meet in-hospital anaesthesia standards. Practitioners need to be competent in the provision of in-hospital emergency anaesthesia and have supervised pre-hospital experience before carrying out pre-hospital emergency anaesthesia. Training programmes allowing the safe delivery of pre-hospital emergency anaesthesia by non-physicians do not currently exist in the UK. Where pre-hospital emergency anaesthesia skills are not available, oxygenation and ventilation should be maintained with the use of second-generation supraglottic airways in patients without airway reflexes, or basic airway manoeuvres and basic airway adjuncts in patients with intact airway reflexes.

Advanced airway management is necessary in prehospital trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of airway compromise in trauma patients is a priority. Basic airway management is provided by all emergency personnel, but the requirement for on-scene advanced airway management is controversial. We attempted to establish the demand for on-scene advanced airway interventions. Trauma patients managed with standard UK paramedic airway interventions were assessed to determine whether airway compromise had been effectively treated or whether more advanced airway management was required. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted to identify trauma patients requiring prehospital advanced airway management attended by a doctor-paramedic team. The team assessed and documented airway compromise on arrival, interventions performed before and after their arrival, and their impact on airway compromise. RESULTS: Four hundred and seventy-two patients required advanced airway intervention and received 925 airway interventions by ground-based paramedics. Two hundred and sixty-nine patients (57%) still had airway compromise on arrival of the enhanced care team; no oxygen had been administered to 52 patients (11%). There were 45 attempted intubations by ground paramedics with a 64% success rate and 11% unrecognized oesophageal intubation rate. Doctor-paramedic teams delivering prehospital anaesthesia achieved definitive airway management for all patients. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of severely injured trauma patients required advanced airway interventions to effectively treat airway compromise. Standard ambulance service interventions were only effective for a proportion of patients, but might not have always been applied appropriately. Complications of advanced airway management occurred in both provider groups, but failed intubation and unrecognized oesophageal intubation were a particular problem in the paramedic intubation group.

Pre-hospital anaesthesia: the same but different.

Advanced airway management is one of the most controversial areas of pre-hospital trauma care and is carried out by different providers using different techniques in different Emergency Medical Services systems. Pre-hospital anaesthesia is the standard of care for trauma patients arriving in the emergency department with airway compromise. A small proportion of severely injured patients who cannot be managed with basic airway management require pre-hospital anaesthesia to avoid death or hypoxic brain injury. The evidence base for advanced airway management is inconsistent, contradictory and rarely reports all key data. There is evidence that poorly performed advanced airway management is harmful and that less-experienced providers have higher intubation failure rates and complication rates. International guidelines carry many common messages about the system requirements for the practice of advanced airway management. Pre-hospital rapid sequence induction (RSI) should be practiced to the same standard as emergency department RSI. Many in-hospital standards such as monitoring, equipment, and provider competence can be achieved. Pre-hospital and emergency in-hospital RSI has been modified from standard RSI techniques to improve patient safety, physiological disturbance, and practicality. Examples include the use of opioids and long-acting neuromuscular blocking agents, ventilation before intubation, and the early release of cricoid pressure to improve laryngoscopic view. Pre-hospital RSI is indicated in a small proportion of trauma patients. Where pre-hospital anaesthesia cannot be carried out to a high standard by competent providers, excellent quality basic airway management should be the mainstay of management.

Observational study of the success rates of intubation and failed intubation airway rescue techniques in 7256 attempted intubations of trauma patients by pre-hospital physicians.

BACKGROUND: Effective airway management is a priority in early trauma management. Data on physician pre-hospital tracheal intubation are limited; this study was performed to establish the success rate for tracheal intubation in a physician-led system and examine the management of failed intubation and emergency surgical cricothyroidotomy in pre-hospital trauma patients. Failed intubation rates for anaesthetists and non-anaesthetists were compared. METHODS: A retrospective database review was conducted to identify trauma patients undergoing pre-hospital advanced airway management between September 1991 and December 2012. The success rate of tracheal intubation and the use and success of rescue techniques were established. Success rates of tracheal intubation by individuals and by speciality were recorded. RESULTS: The doctor-paramedic team attended 28 939 patients; 7256 (25.1%) required advanced airway management. A surgical airway was performed immediately, without attempted laryngoscopy, in 46 patients (0.6%). Tracheal intubation was successful in 7158 patients (99.3%). Rescue surgical airways were performed in 42 patients, seven had successful insertion of supraglottic devices, and two patients had supraglottic device insertion and a surgical airway. One patient breathed spontaneously with bag-valve-mask support during transfer. All rescue techniques were successful. Non-anaesthetists performed 4394 intubations and failed to intubate in 41 cases (0.9%); anaesthetists performed 2587 intubations and failed in 11 (0.4%) (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series of physician pre-hospital tracheal intubation; the success rate of 99.3% is consistent with other reported data. All rescue airways were successful. Non-anaesthetists were twice as likely to have to perform a rescue airway intervention than anaesthetists. Surgical airway rates reported here (0.7%) are lower than most other physician-led series (median 3.1%, range 0.1-7.7%).

Evaluation of a single-use intubating videoscope (Ambu aScope ™) in three airway training manikins for oral intubation, nasal intubation and intubation via three supraglottic airway devices.

We compared the Ambu aScope™ with a conventional fibrescope in two simulated settings. First, 22 volunteers performed paired oral and nasal fibreoptic intubations in three different manikins: the Laerdal Airway Trainer, Bill 1 and the Airsim (a total of 264 intubations). Second, 21 volunteers intubated the Airway Trainer manikin via three supraglottic airways: classic and intubating laryngeal mask airways and i-gel (a total of 66 intubations). Performance of the aScope was good with few failures and infrequent problems. In the first study, choice of fibrescope had an impact on the number of user-reported problems (p=0.004), and user-assessed ratings of ease of endoscopy (p<0.001) and overall usefulness (p<0.001), but not on time to intubate (p=0.19), or ease of railroading (p=0.72). The manikin chosen and route of endoscopy had more consistent effects on performance: best performance was via the nasal route in the Airway Trainer manikin. In the second study, the choice of fibrescope did not significantly affect any performance outcome (p=0.3), but there was a significant difference in the speed of intubation between the devices (p=0.02) with the i-gel the fastest intubation conduit (mean (SD) intubation time i-gel 18.5 (6.8) s, intubating laryngeal mask airway = 24.1 (11.2) s, classic laryngeal mask airway = 31.4 (32.5) s, p=0.02). We conclude that the aScope performs well in simulated fibreoptic intubation and (if adapted for untimed use) would be a useful training tool for both simulated fibreoptic intubation and conduit-assisted intubation. The choice of manikin and conduit are also important in the success of such training. This manikin study does not predict performance in humans and a clinical study is required.

Airway management in pre-hospital critical care: a review of the evidence for a 'top five' research priority.

The conduct and benefit of pre-hospital advanced airway management and pre-hospital emergency anaesthesia have been widely debated for many years. In 2011, prehospital advanced airway management was identified as a 'top five' in physician-provided pre-hospital critical care. This article summarises the evidence for and against this intervention since 2011 and attempts to address some of the more controversial areas of this topic.

Outcome from paediatric cardiac arrest associated with trauma.

OBJECTIVE: To examine survival rates for paediatric trauma patients requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the pre-hospital setting, and to identify characteristics that may be associated with survival. DESIGN: Ten-year retrospective trauma database review. SETTING: An urban physician-led pre-hospital trauma service serving a population of approximately 7.5 million, in the United Kingdom. PATIENTS: Eighty paediatric trauma patients (15 years or less) who received pre-hospital resuscitation following cardiorespiratory arrest between July 1994 and June 2004. INTERVENTION: Pre-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS: Eighty children met inclusion criteria for the study. Nineteen (23.8%) were discharged alive from the emergency department and seven children (8.75%) survived to hospital discharge. Of the seven survivors, one had spinal cord injury. Two suffered asphyxial injury associated with blunt trauma and three sustained hypoxic insults following drowning or burns/smoke inhalation. In one patient with known congenital cardiac disease the cause of cardiac arrest was likely to have been medical. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the poor outcome for children requiring pre-hospital CPR following trauma. However, the results are better in this physician-attended group than in other studies where physicians were not present. They also suggest that cardiac arrest associated with trauma in children has a better outcome than in adults. In common with adults treated in this system, those patients with hypovolaemic cardiac arrest did not survive (Ann Emerg Med 2006;48:240-4). A large proportion of the survivors suffered hypoxic or asphyxial injuries. Targeted aggressive out-of-hospital resuscitation in certain patient groups can produce good outcomes.

Is the prevalence of deliberate penetrating trauma increasing in London? Experiences of an urban pre-hospital trauma service.

BACKGROUND: Recent media interest in stabbings and shootings has lead to the general assumption that injury and death secondary to deliberate penetrating trauma are rising. The aim of this study was to establish the prevalence of deliberate penetrating trauma within a London-based physician-led pre-hospital trauma service, and evaluate whether the perceived increase reported by the media translates into a real increase in penetrating trauma caseload. METHOD: A retrospective review of a physician-led pre-hospital care trauma database was conducted to identify all patients who sustained stabbing or shooting injuries over a 16-year period. Patients who died in the pre-hospital phase and paediatric patients were included. Other local and national datasets were examined to determine whether similar trends were observed. RESULTS: 1564 penetrating trauma victims were identified, including 92 children. 1358 patients (86.8%) sustained stab wounds; 206 patients were shot (13.2%). Penetrating injury accounted for 9.9% of the overall trauma caseload during the study period. The annual increase in patients sustaining stabbing injuries was 23.2%. Gun shot wounds increased by 11.0% per year. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates a significant annual rise in the number of cases of deliberate penetrating trauma managed by a UK physician-led pre-hospital trauma service.