Cargando…
A Randomized Comparison of In-hospital Rescuer Positions for Endotracheal Intubation in a Difficult Airway
INTRODUCTION: Emergency endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a common and critical procedure performed in both prehospital and in-hospital settings. Studies of prehospital providers have demonstrated that rescuer position influences ETI outcomes. However, studies of in-hospital rescuer position for ETI...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6040908/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30013701 http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2018.4.37227 |
_version_ | 1783338909700194304 |
---|---|
author | Le Parc, Joanna M. Bischof, Jason J. King, Andrew M. Greenberger, Sarah Way, David P. Panchal, Ashish R. Finnegan, Geoffrey I. Terndrup, Thomas E. |
author_facet | Le Parc, Joanna M. Bischof, Jason J. King, Andrew M. Greenberger, Sarah Way, David P. Panchal, Ashish R. Finnegan, Geoffrey I. Terndrup, Thomas E. |
author_sort | Le Parc, Joanna M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Emergency endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a common and critical procedure performed in both prehospital and in-hospital settings. Studies of prehospital providers have demonstrated that rescuer position influences ETI outcomes. However, studies of in-hospital rescuer position for ETI are limited. While we adhere to strict standards for the administration of ETI, we posited that perhaps requiring in-hospital rescuers to stand for ETI is an obstacle to effectiveness. Our objective was to compare in-hospital emergency medicine (EM) trainees’ performance on ETI delivered from both the seated and standing positions. METHODS: EM residents performed ETI on a difficult airway mannequin from both a seated and standing position. They were randomized to the position from which they performed ETI first. All ETIs were recorded and then scored using a modified version of the Airway Management Proficiency Checklist. Residents also rated the laryngeal view and the difficulty of the procedure. We analyzed comparisons between ETI positions with paired t-tests. RESULTS: Forty-two of our 49 residents (85.7%) participated. Fifteen (35.7%) were female, and all three levels of training were represented. The average number of prior ETI experiences among our subjects was 44 (standard deviation=34). All scores related to ETI performance were statistically equivalent across the two positions (performance score, number of attempts, time to intubation success, and ratings of difficulty and laryngeal view). We also observed no differences across levels of training. CONCLUSION: The position of the in-hospital provider, whether seated or standing, had no effect on the provider’s ETI performance. Since environmental circumstances sometimes necessitate alternative positioning for effective ETI administration, our findings suggest that there may be value in training residents to perform ETI from both positions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6040908 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60409082018-07-16 A Randomized Comparison of In-hospital Rescuer Positions for Endotracheal Intubation in a Difficult Airway Le Parc, Joanna M. Bischof, Jason J. King, Andrew M. Greenberger, Sarah Way, David P. Panchal, Ashish R. Finnegan, Geoffrey I. Terndrup, Thomas E. West J Emerg Med Procedure Safety INTRODUCTION: Emergency endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a common and critical procedure performed in both prehospital and in-hospital settings. Studies of prehospital providers have demonstrated that rescuer position influences ETI outcomes. However, studies of in-hospital rescuer position for ETI are limited. While we adhere to strict standards for the administration of ETI, we posited that perhaps requiring in-hospital rescuers to stand for ETI is an obstacle to effectiveness. Our objective was to compare in-hospital emergency medicine (EM) trainees’ performance on ETI delivered from both the seated and standing positions. METHODS: EM residents performed ETI on a difficult airway mannequin from both a seated and standing position. They were randomized to the position from which they performed ETI first. All ETIs were recorded and then scored using a modified version of the Airway Management Proficiency Checklist. Residents also rated the laryngeal view and the difficulty of the procedure. We analyzed comparisons between ETI positions with paired t-tests. RESULTS: Forty-two of our 49 residents (85.7%) participated. Fifteen (35.7%) were female, and all three levels of training were represented. The average number of prior ETI experiences among our subjects was 44 (standard deviation=34). All scores related to ETI performance were statistically equivalent across the two positions (performance score, number of attempts, time to intubation success, and ratings of difficulty and laryngeal view). We also observed no differences across levels of training. CONCLUSION: The position of the in-hospital provider, whether seated or standing, had no effect on the provider’s ETI performance. Since environmental circumstances sometimes necessitate alternative positioning for effective ETI administration, our findings suggest that there may be value in training residents to perform ETI from both positions. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine 2018-07 2018-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6040908/ /pubmed/30013701 http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2018.4.37227 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Le Parc et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Procedure Safety Le Parc, Joanna M. Bischof, Jason J. King, Andrew M. Greenberger, Sarah Way, David P. Panchal, Ashish R. Finnegan, Geoffrey I. Terndrup, Thomas E. A Randomized Comparison of In-hospital Rescuer Positions for Endotracheal Intubation in a Difficult Airway |
title | A Randomized Comparison of In-hospital Rescuer Positions for Endotracheal Intubation in a Difficult Airway |
title_full | A Randomized Comparison of In-hospital Rescuer Positions for Endotracheal Intubation in a Difficult Airway |
title_fullStr | A Randomized Comparison of In-hospital Rescuer Positions for Endotracheal Intubation in a Difficult Airway |
title_full_unstemmed | A Randomized Comparison of In-hospital Rescuer Positions for Endotracheal Intubation in a Difficult Airway |
title_short | A Randomized Comparison of In-hospital Rescuer Positions for Endotracheal Intubation in a Difficult Airway |
title_sort | randomized comparison of in-hospital rescuer positions for endotracheal intubation in a difficult airway |
topic | Procedure Safety |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6040908/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30013701 http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2018.4.37227 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT leparcjoannam arandomizedcomparisonofinhospitalrescuerpositionsforendotrachealintubationinadifficultairway AT bischofjasonj arandomizedcomparisonofinhospitalrescuerpositionsforendotrachealintubationinadifficultairway AT kingandrewm arandomizedcomparisonofinhospitalrescuerpositionsforendotrachealintubationinadifficultairway AT greenbergersarah arandomizedcomparisonofinhospitalrescuerpositionsforendotrachealintubationinadifficultairway AT waydavidp arandomizedcomparisonofinhospitalrescuerpositionsforendotrachealintubationinadifficultairway AT panchalashishr arandomizedcomparisonofinhospitalrescuerpositionsforendotrachealintubationinadifficultairway AT finnegangeoffreyi arandomizedcomparisonofinhospitalrescuerpositionsforendotrachealintubationinadifficultairway AT terndrupthomase arandomizedcomparisonofinhospitalrescuerpositionsforendotrachealintubationinadifficultairway AT leparcjoannam randomizedcomparisonofinhospitalrescuerpositionsforendotrachealintubationinadifficultairway AT bischofjasonj randomizedcomparisonofinhospitalrescuerpositionsforendotrachealintubationinadifficultairway AT kingandrewm randomizedcomparisonofinhospitalrescuerpositionsforendotrachealintubationinadifficultairway AT greenbergersarah randomizedcomparisonofinhospitalrescuerpositionsforendotrachealintubationinadifficultairway AT waydavidp randomizedcomparisonofinhospitalrescuerpositionsforendotrachealintubationinadifficultairway AT panchalashishr randomizedcomparisonofinhospitalrescuerpositionsforendotrachealintubationinadifficultairway AT finnegangeoffreyi randomizedcomparisonofinhospitalrescuerpositionsforendotrachealintubationinadifficultairway AT terndrupthomase randomizedcomparisonofinhospitalrescuerpositionsforendotrachealintubationinadifficultairway |