Randomised trial of the clinical and cost effectiveness of a supraglottic airway device compared with tracheal intubation for in-hospital cardiac arrest (AIRWAYS-3): Protocol, design and implementation.

Survival from in-hospital cardiac arrest is approximately 18%, but for patients who require advanced airway management survival is lower. Those who do survive are often left with significant disability. Traditionally, resuscitation of cardiac arrest patients has included tracheal intubation, however insertion of a supraglottic airway has gained popularity as an alternative approach to advanced airway management. Evidence from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest suggests no significant differences in mortality or morbidity between these two approaches, but there is no randomised evidence for airway management during in-hospital cardiac arrest. The aim of the AIRWAYS-3 randomised trial, described in this protocol paper, is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a supraglottic airway versus tracheal intubation during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Patients will be allocated randomly to receive either a supraglottic airway or tracheal intubation as the initial advanced airway management. We will also estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of these two approaches. The primary outcome is functional status, measured using the modified Rankin Scale at hospital discharge or 30 days post-randomisation, whichever occurs first. AIRWAYS-3 presents ethical challenges regarding patient consent and data collection. These include the enrolment of unconscious patients without prior consent in a way that avoids methodological bias. Other complexities include the requirement to randomise patients efficiently during a time-critical cardiac arrest. Many of these challenges are encountered in other emergency care research; we discuss our approaches to addressing them. Trial registration: ISRCTN17720457. Prospectively registered on 29/07/2022.

Assessment Tools for Use During Anesthesia-Centric Pediatric Advanced Life Support Training and Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric perioperative cardiac arrests are rare events that require rapid, skilled and coordinated efforts to optimize outcomes. We developed an assessment tool for assessing clinician performance during perioperative critical events termed Anesthesia-centric Pediatric Advanced Life Support (A-PALS). Here, we describe the development and evaluation of the A-PALS scoring instrument. METHODS: A group of raters scored videos of a perioperative team managing simulated events representing a range of scenarios and competency. We assessed agreement with the reference standard grading, as well as interrater and intrarater reliability. RESULTS: Overall, raters agreed with the reference standard 86.2% of the time. Rater scores concerning scenarios that depicted highly competent performance correlated better with the reference standard than scores from scenarios that depicted low clinical competence (P < 0.0001). Agreement with the reference standard was significantly (P < 0.0001) associated with scenario type, item category, level of competency displayed in the scenario, correct versus incorrect actions and whether the action was performed versus not performed. Kappa values were significantly (P < 0.0001) higher for highly competent performances as compared to lesser competent performances (good: mean = 0.83 [standard deviation = 0.07] versus poor: mean = 0.61 [standard deviation = 0.14]). The intraclass correlation coefficient (interrater reliability) was 0.97 for the raters' composite scores on correct actions and 0.98 for their composite scores on incorrect actions. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence for the validity of the A-PALS scoring instrument and demonstrates that the scoring instrument can provide reliable scores, although clinician performance affects reliability.