Airway management by physician-staffed Helicopter Emergency Medical Services - a prospective, multicentre, observational study of 2,327 patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced 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. STUDY REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01502111 . Registered 22 December 2011.

Prospective observational study on tracheal tube cuff pressures in emergency patients--is neglecting the problem the problem?

BACKGROUND: Inappropriately cuffed tracheal tubes can lead to inadequate ventilation or silent aspiration, or to serious tracheal damage. Cuff pressures are of particular importance during aeromedical transport as they increase due to decreased atmospheric pressure at flight level. We hypothesised, that cuff pressures are frequently too high in emergency and critically ill patients but are dependent on providers' professional background. METHODS: Tracheal cuff pressures in patients intubated before arrival of a helicopter-based rescue team were prospectively recorded during a 12-month period. Information about the method used for initial cuff pressure assessment, profession of provider and time since intubation was collected by interview during patient handover. Indications for helicopter missions were either Intensive Care Unit (ICU) transports or emergency transfers. ICU transports were between ICUs of two hospitals. Emergency transfers were either evacuation from the scene or transfer from an emergency department to a higher facility. RESULTS: This study included 101 patients scheduled for aeromedical transport. Median cuff pressure measured at handover was 45 (25.0/80.0) cmH2O; range, 8-120 cmH2O. There was no difference between patient characteristics and tracheal tube-size or whether anaesthesia personnel or non-anaesthesia personnel inflated the cuff (30 (24.8/70.0) cmH2O vs. 50 (28.0/90.0) cmH2O); p = 0.113.With regard to mission type (63 patients underwent an emergency transfer, 38 patients an ICU transport), median cuff pressure was different: 58 (30.0/100.0) cmH2O in emergency transfers vs. 30 (20.0/45.8) cmH2O in inter-ICU transports; p < 0.001. For cuff pressure assessment by the intubating team, a manometer had been applied in 2 of 59 emergency transfers and in 20 of 34 inter-ICU transports (method was unknown for 4 cases each). If a manometer was used, median cuff pressure was 27 (20.0/30.0) cmH2O, if not 70 (47.3/102.8) cmH2O; p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Cuff pressures in the pre-hospital setting and in intensive care units are often too high. Interestingly, there is no significant difference between non-anaesthesia and anaesthesia personnel. Acceptable cuff pressures are best achieved when a cuff pressure manometer has been used. This method seems to be the only feasible one and is recommended for general use.