Cargando…

Emergency cricothyrotomy – a systematic review

BACKGROUND: An emergency cricothyrotomy is the last-resort in most airway management protocols and is performed when it is not possible to intubate or ventilate a patient. This situation can rapidly prove fatal, making it important to identify the best method to establish a secure airway. We conduct...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Langvad, Sofie, Hyldmo, Per Kristian, Nakstad, Anders Rostrup, Vist, Gunn Elisabeth, Sandberg, Marten
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3704966/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23725520
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-21-43
_version_ 1782476376281972736
author Langvad, Sofie
Hyldmo, Per Kristian
Nakstad, Anders Rostrup
Vist, Gunn Elisabeth
Sandberg, Marten
author_facet Langvad, Sofie
Hyldmo, Per Kristian
Nakstad, Anders Rostrup
Vist, Gunn Elisabeth
Sandberg, Marten
author_sort Langvad, Sofie
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: An emergency cricothyrotomy is the last-resort in most airway management protocols and is performed when it is not possible to intubate or ventilate a patient. This situation can rapidly prove fatal, making it important to identify the best method to establish a secure airway. We conducted a systematic review to identify whether there exists superiority between available commercial kits versus traditional surgical and needle techniques. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE and other databases were searched for pertinent studies. The inclusion criteria included manikin, animal and human studies and there were no restrictions regarding the professional background of the person performing the procedure. RESULTS: In total, 1,405 unique references were identified; 108 full text articles were retrieved; and 24 studies were included in the review. Studies comparing kits with one another or with various surgical and needle techniques were identified. The outcome measures included in this systematic review were success rate and time consumption. The investigators performing the studies had chosen unique combinations of starting and stopping points for time measurements, making comparisons between studies difficult and leading to many conflicting results. No single method was shown to be better than the others, but the size of the studies makes it impossible to draw firm conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The large majority of the studies were too small to demonstrate statistically significant differences, and the limited available evidence was of low or very low quality. That none of the techniques in these studies demonstrated better results than the others does not necessarily indicate that each is equally good, and these conclusions will likely change as new evidence becomes available.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3704966
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37049662013-07-10 Emergency cricothyrotomy – a systematic review Langvad, Sofie Hyldmo, Per Kristian Nakstad, Anders Rostrup Vist, Gunn Elisabeth Sandberg, Marten Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Review BACKGROUND: An emergency cricothyrotomy is the last-resort in most airway management protocols and is performed when it is not possible to intubate or ventilate a patient. This situation can rapidly prove fatal, making it important to identify the best method to establish a secure airway. We conducted a systematic review to identify whether there exists superiority between available commercial kits versus traditional surgical and needle techniques. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE and other databases were searched for pertinent studies. The inclusion criteria included manikin, animal and human studies and there were no restrictions regarding the professional background of the person performing the procedure. RESULTS: In total, 1,405 unique references were identified; 108 full text articles were retrieved; and 24 studies were included in the review. Studies comparing kits with one another or with various surgical and needle techniques were identified. The outcome measures included in this systematic review were success rate and time consumption. The investigators performing the studies had chosen unique combinations of starting and stopping points for time measurements, making comparisons between studies difficult and leading to many conflicting results. No single method was shown to be better than the others, but the size of the studies makes it impossible to draw firm conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The large majority of the studies were too small to demonstrate statistically significant differences, and the limited available evidence was of low or very low quality. That none of the techniques in these studies demonstrated better results than the others does not necessarily indicate that each is equally good, and these conclusions will likely change as new evidence becomes available. BioMed Central 2013-05-31 /pmc/articles/PMC3704966/ /pubmed/23725520 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-21-43 Text en Copyright © 2013 Langvad et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Langvad, Sofie
Hyldmo, Per Kristian
Nakstad, Anders Rostrup
Vist, Gunn Elisabeth
Sandberg, Marten
Emergency cricothyrotomy – a systematic review
title Emergency cricothyrotomy – a systematic review
title_full Emergency cricothyrotomy – a systematic review
title_fullStr Emergency cricothyrotomy – a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Emergency cricothyrotomy – a systematic review
title_short Emergency cricothyrotomy – a systematic review
title_sort emergency cricothyrotomy – a systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3704966/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23725520
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-21-43
work_keys_str_mv AT langvadsofie emergencycricothyrotomyasystematicreview
AT hyldmoperkristian emergencycricothyrotomyasystematicreview
AT nakstadandersrostrup emergencycricothyrotomyasystematicreview
AT vistgunnelisabeth emergencycricothyrotomyasystematicreview
AT sandbergmarten emergencycricothyrotomyasystematicreview