Leigh White1, Thomas Melhuish2, Rhys Holyoak3, Thomas Ryan4, Hannah Kempton5, Ruan Vlok6. 1. School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Sunshine Coast University Hospital, Sunshine Coast, QLD, Australia. Electronic address: lw844@uowmail.edu.au. 2. Intensive Care Service, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Graduate School of Medicine, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, NSW, Australia; Sydney Clinical School, University of Notre Dame, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 5. Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Department of Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 6. Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Sydney Clinical School, University of Notre Dame, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Wagga Wagga Rural Referral Hospital, Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the difference in survival and neurological outcomes between endotracheal tube (ETT) intubation and supraglottic airway (SGA) devices used during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: A systematic search of five databases was performed by two independent reviewers until September 2018. Included studies reported on (1) OHCA or cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and (2) endotracheal intubation versus supraglottic airway device intubation. Exclusion criteria (1) stimulation studies, (2) selectively included/excluded patients, (3) in-hospital cardiac arrest. Odds Ratios (OR) with random effect modelling was used. Primary outcomes: (1) return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), (2) survival to hospital admission, (3) survival to hospital discharge, (4) discharge with a neurologically intact state. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies (n = 539,146) showed that overall, ETT use resulted in a heterogeneous, but significant increase in ROSC (OR = 1.44; 95%CI = 1.27 to 1.63; I2 = 91%; p < 0.00001) and survival to admission (OR = 1.36; 95%CI = 1.12 to 1.66; I2 = 91%; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in survival to discharge or neurological outcome (p > 0.0125). On sensitivity analysis of RCTs, there was no significant difference in ROSC, survival to admission, survival to discharge or neurological outcome (p > 0.0125). On analysis of automated chest compression, without heterogeneity, ETT provided a significant increase in ROSC (OR = 1.55; 95%CI = 1.20 to 2.00; I2 = 0%; p = 0.0009) and survival to admission (OR = 2.16; 95%CI = 1.54 to 3.02; I2 = 0%; p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: The overall heterogeneous benefit in survival with ETT was not replicated in the low risk RCTs, with no significant difference in survival or neurological outcome. In the presence of automated chest compressions, ETT intubation may result in survival benefits.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the difference in survival and neurological outcomes between endotracheal tube (ETT) intubation and supraglottic airway (SGA) devices used during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: A systematic search of five databases was performed by two independent reviewers until September 2018. Included studies reported on (1) OHCA or cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and (2) endotracheal intubation versus supraglottic airway device intubation. Exclusion criteria (1) stimulation studies, (2) selectively included/excluded patients, (3) in-hospital cardiac arrest. Odds Ratios (OR) with random effect modelling was used. Primary outcomes: (1) return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), (2) survival to hospital admission, (3) survival to hospital discharge, (4) discharge with a neurologically intact state. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies (n = 539,146) showed that overall, ETT use resulted in a heterogeneous, but significant increase in ROSC (OR = 1.44; 95%CI = 1.27 to 1.63; I2 = 91%; p < 0.00001) and survival to admission (OR = 1.36; 95%CI = 1.12 to 1.66; I2 = 91%; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in survival to discharge or neurological outcome (p > 0.0125). On sensitivity analysis of RCTs, there was no significant difference in ROSC, survival to admission, survival to discharge or neurological outcome (p > 0.0125). On analysis of automated chest compression, without heterogeneity, ETT provided a significant increase in ROSC (OR = 1.55; 95%CI = 1.20 to 2.00; I2 = 0%; p = 0.0009) and survival to admission (OR = 2.16; 95%CI = 1.54 to 3.02; I2 = 0%; p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: The overall heterogeneous benefit in survival with ETT was not replicated in the low risk RCTs, with no significant difference in survival or neurological outcome. In the presence of automated chest compressions, ETT intubation may result in survival benefits.
Authors: Wim Breeman; Mark G Van Vledder; Michael H J Verhofstad; Albert Visser; Esther M M Van Lieshout Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 3.693