The Pediatric Bougie for the First Tracheal Intubation Attempt in Critically Ill Children.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Bougie use during emergency tracheal intubation has not been well studied in children. METHODS: This was a 10-year observational study of pediatric intubations (<18 years of age) in the emergency department (ED) of an academic institution. Bougie training and use are standard in our ED, including for emergency medicine residents. Study data were collected by a combination of charts and video reviews. We compare first-attempt intubation success and procedural complications between pediatric patients with and without bougie use during tracheal intubation in the ED. In addition, we evaluate the independent association of bougie use with first-attempt intubation success using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: We collected data on intubation success and bougie use for 195 pediatric patients over more than 10 years. On the first tracheal intubation attempt, a pediatric bougie was used in 126 patients (65%). Median patient age was 5 years (interquartile range 1.7 to 9) in the bougie group and 1.7 years (interquartile range 0.2 to 5) in the no bougie group. Intubation was successful on the first attempt in 72% of intubations with a bougie versus 78% without a bougie (absolute difference -6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -19 to 6%); the adjusted odds of first-attempt success with a bougie were 0.54 (95% CI 0.24 to 1.19). A procedural complication occurred for 38% of patients in the bougie group versus 51% in the no bougie group (-13%, 95% CI -27% to 2%). Two neonates, one in each group, experienced a potential injury to the airway or lower respiratory tract. CONCLUSION: In an academic ED where the bougie is commonly used, bougie use in children was not associated with procedural success or complications. Our study suggests that a randomized clinical trial is needed to determine the effect of bougie use during emergency pediatric intubation.

Emergency Department Management of Out-of-Hospital Laryngeal Tubes.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Laryngeal tubes are commonly used by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel for out-of-hospital advanced airway management. The emergency department (ED) management of EMS-placed laryngeal tubes is unknown. We seek to describe ED airway management techniques, success, and complications of patients receiving EMS laryngeal tubes. METHODS: Using a keyword text search of ED notes, we identified patients who arrived at our ED with a laryngeal tube from 2010 through 2017. We performed structured chart and video reviews for all eligible patients. In our ED, emergency physicians perform all airway management, and there is no protocol dictating airway management for patients arriving with a laryngeal tube. Using descriptive methods, we report the techniques, success, and complications of ED airway management. RESULTS: We analyzed data on 647 patients receiving out-of-hospital laryngeal tubes, including 472 (73%) with cardiac arrest from medical causes, 75 (21%) with cardiac arrest from trauma, and 100 (15%) with other conditions. For 580 patients (89%), emergency physicians exchanged the laryngeal tube for a definitive airway in the ED. Of the 67 patients not intubated in the ED, 66 died in the ED without further airway management. Of the 580 patients intubated in the ED, orotracheal intubation was the first method attempted for 578 (>99%) and was successful on the first attempt for 515 of 578 (89%). Macintosh video laryngoscopy (88% of initial attempts) and a bougie (68% of initial attempts) were commonly used adjuncts. For 345 of 578 patients (60%), the laryngeal tube was removed before intubation attempts. For 112 of 578 patients (19%), the first intubation attempt occurred with the deflated laryngeal tube left in place. Three patients (<1%) required a surgical airway. CONCLUSION: In this cohort, emergency physicians successfully exchanged an out-of-hospital laryngeal tube for an endotracheal tube, using commonly available airway management techniques. ED clinicians should be familiar with techniques for exchanging out-of-hospital extraglottic airways for an endotracheal tube.

Intramuscular Midazolam, Olanzapine, Ziprasidone, or Haloperidol for Treating Acute Agitation in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Agitation in the emergency department (ED) can pose a threat to patient and provider safety; therefore, treatment is indicated. The purpose of this study is to compare haloperidol, olanzapine, midazolam, and ziprasidone to treat agitation. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of consecutive patients receiving intramuscular medication to treat agitation in the ED. Medications were administered according to an a priori protocol in which the initial medication given was predetermined in the following 3-week blocks: haloperidol 5 mg, ziprasidone 20 mg, olanzapine 10 mg, midazolam 5 mg, and haloperidol 10 mg. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients adequately sedated at 15 minutes, assessed with the Altered Mental Status Scale. RESULTS: Seven hundred thirty-seven patients were enrolled (median age 40 years; 72% men). At 15 minutes, midazolam resulted in a greater proportion of patients adequately sedated (Altered Mental Status Scale <1) compared with ziprasidone (difference 18%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6% to 29%), haloperidol 5 mg (difference 30%; 95% CI 19% to 41%), haloperidol 10 mg (difference 28%; 95% CI 17% to 39%), and olanzapine (difference 9%; 95% CI -1% to 20%). Olanzapine resulted in a greater proportion of patients adequately sedated at 15 minutes compared with haloperidol 5 mg (difference 20%; 95% CI 10% to 31%), haloperidol 10 mg (difference 18%; 95% CI 7% to 29%), and ziprasidone (difference 8%; 95% CI -3% to 19%). Adverse events were uncommon: cardiac arrest (0), extrapyramidal adverse effects (2; 0.3%), hypotension (5; 0.5%), hypoxemia (10; 1%), and intubation (4; 0.5%), and occurred at similar rates in each group. CONCLUSION: Intramuscular midazolam achieved more effective sedation in agitated ED patients at 15 minutes than haloperidol, ziprasidone, and perhaps olanzapine. Olanzapine provided more effective sedation than haloperidol. No differences in adverse events were identified.

Human Errors and Adverse Hemodynamic Events Related to "Push Dose Pressors" in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Though the use of small bolus doses of vasopressors, termed "push dose pressors," has become common in emergency medicine, data examining this practice are scant. Push dose pressors frequently involve bedside dilution, which may result in errors and adverse events. The objective of this study was to assess for instances of human error and adverse hemodynamic events during push dose pressor use in the emergency department. METHODS: This was a structured chart and video review of all patients age ≥ 16 years undergoing resuscitation and receiving push dose pressors from a single center from January 2010 to November 2017. Push dose pressors were defined as intended intravenous boluses of phenylephrine (any dose) or epinephrine (≤ 100 mcg). RESULTS: A total of 249 patients were analyzed. Median age was 60 years (range, 16-97), 58% were male, 49% survived to discharge. Median initial epinephrine dose was 20 mcg (n = 139, IQR 10-100, range 1-100); median phenylephrine dose was 100 mcg (n = 110, IQR 100-100, range 25-10,000). Adverse hemodynamic events occurred in 98 patients (39%); 30 in the phenylephrine group (27%; 95% CI, 19-36%), and 68 in the epinephrine group (50%; 95% CI, 41-58%). Human errors were observed in 47 patients (19%), including 7 patients (3%) experiencing dosing errors (all overdoses; range, 2.5- to 100-fold) and 43 patients (17%) with a documentation error. Only one dosing error occurred when a pharmacist was present. CONCLUSIONS: Human errors and adverse hemodynamic events were common with the use of push dose pressors in the emergency department. Adverse hemodynamic events were more common than in previous studies. Future research should determine if push dose pressors improve outcomes and if so, how to safely implement them into practice.