To Intubate or Not to Intubate—Is That (the Only) Question?*:

Pre-hospital emergency anaesthesia in trauma patients treated by anaesthesiologist and nurse anaesthetist staffed critical care teams

Background

Pre‐hospital tracheal intubation in trauma patients has recently been questioned. However, not only the trauma and patient characteristics but also airway provider competence differ between systems making simplified statements difficult.

Method

The study is a subgroup analysis of trauma patients included in the PHAST study. PHAST was a prospective, observational, multicentre study on pre‐hospital advanced airway management by anaesthesiologist and nurse anaesthetist manned pre‐hospital critical care teams in the Nordic countries May 2015‐November 2016. Endpoints include intubation success rate, complication rate (airway‐related complication according to Utstein Airway Template by Sollid et al), scene time (time from arrival of the critical care team to departure of the patient) and pre‐hospital mortality.

Result

The critical care teams intubated 385 trauma patients, of which 65 were in shock (SBP <90 mm Hg), during the study. Of the trauma patients, 93% suffered from blunt trauma, the mean GCS was 6 and 75% were intubated by an experienced provider who had performed >2500 tracheal intubations. The pre‐hospital tracheal intubation overall success rate was 98.6% and the complication rate was 13.6%, with no difference between patients with or without shock. The mean scene time was significantly shorter in trauma patients with shock (21.4 min) compared to without shock (21.4 vs 25.1 min). Following pre‐hospital tracheal intubation, 97% of trauma patients without shock and 91% of the patients in shock with measurable blood pressure were alive upon arrival to the ED.

Conclusion

Pre‐hospital tracheal intubation success and complication rates in trauma patients were comparable with in‐hospital rates in a system with very experienced airway providers. Whether the short scene times contributed to a low pre‐hospital mortality needs further investigation in future studies.

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.

Application of the LMA-Supreme™ and i-gel™ laryngeal masks during pelvic operations in adults

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the practical application and safety of the i-gel and LMA-Supreme laryngeal masks for airway management during pelvic operations in adults.

METHODS

Ninety patients undergoing general anesthesia for elective pelvic operations (ASA Grades I-II) were randomly divided into two groups, the i-gel group and the Supreme group. The laryngeal mask was inserted after induction, and the relevant examination grading indexes were recorded.

RESULTS

The Supreme group required less time for laryngeal mask insertion and gastric tube indwelling time. Gastric tube indwelling was easier, compared with those in the i-gel group (p = 0.03), but the i-gel group had fewer complications (p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in the degree of difficulty in insertion, airway sealing pressure, PETCO2, Ppeak, and laryngeal mask alignment accuracy between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in fibrobronchoscopy grading between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The i-gel and LMA-Supreme laryngeal masks are safe and effective for airway management in patients during pelvic operations.