Airway management during in-hospital cardiac arrest : An international, multicentre, retrospective, observational cohort study

Näytä kaikki kuvailutiedot



Pysyväisosoite

http://hdl.handle.net/10138/331868

Lähdeviite

Penketh , J A , Nolan , J P , Skrifvars , M B , Rylander , C , Frenell , Tirkkonen , J , Reynolds , E C , Parr , M J A & Aneman , A 2020 , ' Airway management during in-hospital cardiac arrest : An international, multicentre, retrospective, observational cohort study ' , Resuscitation , vol. 153 , pp. 143-148 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.05.028

Julkaisun nimi: Airway management during in-hospital cardiac arrest : An international, multicentre, retrospective, observational cohort study
Tekijä: Penketh, J. A.; Nolan, J. P.; Skrifvars, M. B.; Rylander, C.; Frenell; Tirkkonen, J.; Reynolds, E. C.; Parr, M. J. A.; Aneman, A.
Tekijän organisaatio: HUS Emergency Medicine and Services
Department of Diagnostics and Therapeutics
University of Helsinki
Helsinki University Hospital Area
Päiväys: 2020-08
Kieli: eng
Sivumäärä: 6
Kuuluu julkaisusarjaan: Resuscitation
ISSN: 0300-9572
DOI-tunniste: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.05.028
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10138/331868
Tiivistelmä: Aim: To determine the type of airway devices used during in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) resuscitation attempts. Methods: International multicentre retrospective observational study of in-patients aged over 18 years who received chest compressions for cardiac arrest from April 2016 to September 2018. Patients were identified from resuscitation registries and rapid response system databases. Data were collected through review of resuscitation records and hospital notes. Airway devices used during cardiac arrest were recorded as basic (adjuncts or bag-mask), or advanced, including supraglottic airway devices, tracheal tubes or tracheostomies. Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression modelling were used for data analysis. Results: The final analysis included 598 patients. No airway management occurred in 36 (6%), basic airway device use occurred at any time in 562 (94%), basic airway device use without an advanced airway device in 182 (30%), tracheal intubation in 301 (50%), supraglottic airway in 102 (17%), and tracheostomy in 1 (0.2%). There was significant variation in airway device use between centres. The intubation rate ranged between 21% and 90% while supraglottic airway use varied between 1% and 45%. The choice of tracheal intubation vs. supraglottic airway as the second advanced airway device was not associated with immediate survival from the resuscitation attempt (odds ratio 0.81; 95% confidence interval 0.35-1.8). Conclusion: There is wide variation in airway device use during resuscitation after IHCA. Only half of patients are intubated before return of spontaneous circulation and many are managed without an advanced airway. Further investigation is needed to determine optimal airway device management strategies during resuscitation following IHCA.
Kuvaus: Correction: Volume: 156 Pages: 194-195 DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.05.028 Published: NOV 2020
Avainsanat: Airway management
In-hospital cardiac arrest
Resuscitation
RESUSCITATION COUNCIL GUIDELINES
CARDIOVASCULAR CARE SCIENCE
CARDIOPULMONARY-RESUSCITATION
ENDOTRACHEAL INTUBATION
TRACHEAL INTUBATION
MASK VENTILATION
CONSENSUS
STRATEGY
3126 Surgery, anesthesiology, intensive care, radiology
Vertaisarvioitu: Kyllä
Tekijänoikeustiedot: cc_by_nc_nd
Pääsyrajoitteet: openAccess
Rinnakkaistallennettu versio: acceptedVersion


Tiedostot

Latausmäärä yhteensä: Ladataan...

Tiedosto(t) Koko Formaatti Näytä
Penketh_et_al_Resuscitation_2020.pdf 466.6KB PDF Avaa tiedosto

Viite kuuluu kokoelmiin:

Näytä kaikki kuvailutiedot