| Literature DB >> 26048574 |
Jan Wnent1, Rüdiger Franz2, Stephan Seewald3, Rolf Lefering4, Matthias Fischer5, Andreas Bohn6,7, Jörg W Walther8, Jens Scholz9, Roman-Patrik Lukas10, Jan-Thorsten Gräsner11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Airway management during resuscitation attempts is pivotal for treating hypoxia, and endotracheal intubation is the standard procedure. This German Resuscitation Registry analysis investigates the influence of airway management on primary outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, in a physician-based emergency system.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26048574 PMCID: PMC4457979 DOI: 10.1186/s13049-015-0124-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med ISSN: 1757-7241 Impact factor: 2.953
Predictors of impossible intubation. (forwards stepwise binary logistic regression analysis) Variables not shown in equation: Resident physician in internal medicine
| Regression-coefficient | SE |
| OR (95 % CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender male | 0.82 | 0.24 |
| 2.28 (1.43–3.63) |
| Age < 80 years | 0.78 | 0.28 |
| 2.18 (1.26–3.76) |
| presumed etiology |
| |||
| presumed etiology – trauma | 0.80 | 0.40 |
| 2.22 (1.01–4.85) |
| presumed etiology – hypoxia | 0.49 | 0.27 |
| 1.63 (0.97–2.74) |
| board certified physician in Anesthesia | −0.43 | 0.20 |
| 0.65 (0.44–0.96) |
| constant | −5.22 | 0.32 |
|
Fig. 1Flow chart for study patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest between January 2007 and October 2011. CPR,cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Comparison of Study Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Documented in the German Resuscitation Registry Relative to Intubation Problems (January 2007–October 2011)
| Difficult endotracheal intubation | Impossible endotracheal intubation | Normal endotracheal intubation (control group) |
| Test method | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | 510 | 147 | 7855 | ||
| Gender male | 378 (74.1 %) | 117 (79.6 %) | 5194 (66.1 %) |
| Chi2 |
| Age in years (MD +/− SD) | 64.5 +/−14.9 | 64.1 +/−14.9 | 68.7 +/−15.2 |
| Kruskal-Wallis |
| Age > 80 years | 85 (16.7 %) | 18 (12.2 %) | 1973 (25.1 %) |
| Chi2 |
| Location | |||||
| - At home | 325 (63.7 %) | 97 (66.0 %) | 5271 (67.1 %) | 0.028 | Chi2 |
| - Nursing home | 30 (5.9 %) | 7 (4.8 %) | 611 (7.8 %) | ||
| - Doctor’s office | 5 (1.0 %) | 4 (2.7 %) | 147 (1.9 %) | ||
| - Public place | 111 (21.8 %) | 32 (21.8 %) | 1357 (17.3 %) | ||
| - Medical institution | 11 (2.2 %) | 2 (1.4 %) | 191 (2.4 %) | ||
| - Others | 28 (5.5 %) | 5 (3.4 %) | 278 (3.5 %) | ||
| Presenting rhythm | |||||
| - Ventricular Fibrillation | 154 (30.2 %) | 40 (27.2 %) | 2235 (28.5 %) | 0.274 | Chi2 |
| - EMD | 79 (15.5 %) | 17 (11.6 %) | 1345 (17.1 %) | ||
| - Asystole | 277 (54.3 %) | 90 (61.2 %) | 4275 (54.4 %) | ||
| Witnessed | |||||
| - None | 153 (30.0 %) | 60 (40.8 %) | 3046 (38.8 %) |
| Chi2 |
| - Lay people | 309 (60.6 %) | 70 (47.6 %) | 3952 (50.3 %) | ||
| - Professionals | 48 (9.4 %) | 17 (11.6 %) | 857 (10.9 %) | ||
| Bystander CPR | 125 (24.5 %) | 29 (19.7 %) | 1173 (14.9 %) |
| Chi2 |
| Presumed etiology | |||||
| - Cardial | 375 (73.5 %) | 109 (74.1 %) | 6360 (81.0 %) |
| Chi2 |
| - Trauma | 21 (4.1 %) | 7 (4.8 %) | 181 (2.3 %) | ||
| - Hypoxia | 66 (12.9 %) | 20 (13.6 %) | 698 (8.9 %) | ||
| - Intoxikation | 6 (1.2 %) | 5 (3.4 %) | 114 (1.5 %) | ||
| - Other not cardial | 42 (8.2 %) | 6 (4.1 %) | 502 (6.4 %) | ||
| use of SGD | 152 (29.8 %) | 97 (66.0 %) | 530 (6.7 %) |
| Chi2 |
| Arrest to EMS arrival time (MD +/−SD) | 9.1 +/− 5.8 | 8.3 +/−5.6 | 8.7 +/−6.0 | 0.092 | Kruskal-Wallis |
| observed ROSC | 222 (43.5 %) | 46 (31.3 %) | 3297 (42.0 %) | 0.025 | Chi2 |
| (95 % CI) | (39.2–47.8 %) | (23.8–38.8 %) | (40.9–43.1 %) | ||
| expected ROSC (RACA) | 42.0 % | 40.5 % | 39.8 % |
CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; EMD, electromechanical dissociation; EMS, emergency medical system; RACA, ROSC after cardiac arrest score; ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation; SGD, supraglottic airway device
Fig. 2Mean rate of observed return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (95 % confidence intervals) in comparison with the predicted rate of return of spontaneous circulation (black bar) in difficult intubation group. ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation; SGD, supraglottic airway device
Qualification of the physician on scene relative to intubation problems
| Difficult endotracheal intubation | Impossible endotracheal intubation | Normal endotracheal intubation (control group) | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 510 | 147 | 7855 |
|
| |||
| - resident physicians | 224 (45.3 %) | 61 (45.9 %) | 3015 (41.2 %) |
| - Board-certified physicians | 270 (54.7 %) | 72 (54.1 %) | 4308 (58.8 %) |
| - unkown | 16 | 14 | 532 |
|
| |||
| - anesthetists | 271 (55.0 %) | 74 (55.2 %) | 4829 (66.1 %) |
| - internists | 129 (26.2 %) | 36 (26.9 %) | 1428 (19.5 %) |
| - surgeons | 61 (12.4 %) | 17 (12.7 %) | 701 (9.6 %) |
| - other specialties | 32 (6.5 %) | 7 (5.2 %) | 350 (4.8 %) |
| - unkown | 17 | 13 | 547 |
Fig. 3Mean rate of observed return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (95 % confidence intervals) in comparison with the predicted rate of return of spontaneous circulation (black bar) in impossible intubation group. ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation; SGD, supraglottic airway device