CJEM Articles: rapid sequence intubation

Displaying 1-6 of 6 results

  • March 2010 12 2
    Jesse Kao, Philip Miller, Yevgeny Filanovsky
  • March 2007 9 2
    Beth Sealy, Jennifer M. Ahmed, John M. Tallon

    Objectives: The optimal approach to airway management in penetrating neck injuries (PNIs) remains controversial. The primary objective of this study was to review the method of endotracheal intubation in PNI at a Canadian tertiary trauma centre. Secondarily, we sought to determine the incidence of PNI in our trauma population and to describe the epidemiologic elements of this population.

    Methods: We conducted a review of patients with PNIs who were enrolled in the Nova Scotia Trauma Registry database. We included all penetrating injuries of the neck in patients ≥16 years of age from April 1, 1994 to March 31 2005 with an Injury severity Score (ISS) ≥ 9 or who underwent Trauma Team activation at our Tertiary Trauma Centre (regardless of ISS) and/or who were identified upon admission as a "major" trauma case. The variables of interest were patient age and sex, injury mechanism, injury location, place of intubation and method of intubation.

    Results: There were 19 people who met inclusion criteria and they were enrolled in our study. The injury mechanisms involved knife (n = 13) or gunshot (n = 5) wounds (one patient's injuries were categorized as "other"). Three patients (15.8%) were not intubated. The remaining 16 patients were intubated during prehospital care (n = 5), in the emergency department (n = 6) or in the operating room (n = 5). Of these, 8 patients (42.1%) underwent awake intubation and 8 (42.1%) underwent rapid sequence intubation.

    Conclusion: There is clear variability of airway management in PNI. We believe that such patients represent a heterogeneous group where the attending physician must have a conservative yet varied approach to airway management based on the individual clinical scenario.

  • September 2006 8 5
    Marco L.A. Sivilotti
  • November 2004 6 6
    Angela J. Oglesby, Colin A. Graham, Dermot W. McKeown, Diana Beard

    Objectives: Our objective was to document and compare the views obtained at laryngoscopy during emergency department (ED) rapid sequence intubation (RSI) by anesthetists and emergency physicians of varying seniority and experience.

    Methods: Data were prospectively collected on every intubation attempt in 7 urban Scottish EDs for 2 calendar years, commencing Jan. 11, 1999. Data included patient's age, gender, grade and specialty of intubator, laryngoscopic grade, and number of intubation attempts. Quality of laryngoscopic visualization was graded using the Cormack-Lehane scale, with grades I and II considered good visualization. A descriptive analysis was performed, and key statistical comparisons made.

    Results: During the study period, 735 patients underwent RSI, and grade of intubation was documented in 672 cases (91%). In total, 68.2%, 23.4%, 6.1% and 2.4% of the intubations were classified as Cormack-Lehane grade I, II, III and IV respectively. Overall, anesthetists and anesthesia trainees achieved good laryngoscopic visualization in 94.0% of cases (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.8%-96.4%) and emergency physicians and emergency medicine trainees did so in 89.2% of cases (95% CI, 85.5%-92.3%; p = 0.027). Specialist registrars and senior house officers in anesthesia were more likely to obtain good visualization than their emergency medicine counterparts (p = 0.034 and 0.035 respectively). Consultants in emergency medicine were more likely to obtain good views than their anesthesia counterparts, but this difference was not statistically significant.

    Conclusions: Anesthetic trainees obtain better laryngoscopic views than emergency medicine trainees, but these differences disappear with increasing emergency physician seniority, suggesting a training and experience effect. Emergency medicine trainees may benefit from additional focus on laryngoscopic visualization techniques early in their training period.

  • May 2002 4 3
    Janice K. Yeung, Peter J. Zed

    Etomidate is a sedative-hypnotic chemically unrelated to other induction agents. The pharmacological and safety profile of etomidate offers many advantages for induction during rapid sequence intubation (RSI) in the emergency department (ED). Its onset of action is within 5 to 15 seconds, and its duration of action is 5 to 15 minutes. Unlike thiopental, propofol, midazolam and, to a lesser extent, ketamine, etomidate has minimal respiratory or cardiovascular effects and can be safely used in patients with hemodynamic instability or cardiac ischemia. Etomidate is cerebroprotective, with the ability to decrease intracranial pressure and maintain cerebral perfusion, making it an ideal agent for patients with head injuries. Of the currently available induction agents, etomidate offers the most favourable safety profile and is the least likely to produce adverse effects in patients with unknown or untreated medical conditions. Etomidate may cause pain on injection, myoclonic movements on induction, hiccups, nausea and vomiting. Transient adrenal suppression has been reported, but not to a clinically significant degree, after single induction doses for ED RSI. Etomidate has been well studied in the ED and should be adopted for RSI in specific ED patient groups.

  • October 2001 3 4
    Kerry Wilbur, Peter J. Zed

    Objective: We conducted a qualitative systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of propofol for direct current cardioversion (DCC), rapid sequence intubation (RSI) and procedural sedation in adult emergency department (ED) patients.
    Data source: MEDLINE (1966 to September 2000), PubMed (to September 2000), EMBASE (1988 to September 2000), Database of Systematic Reviews (to September 2000), Best Evidence (1991 to September 2000) and Current Contents (1996 to September 2000) databases.
    Study selection: English-language, randomized, comparative evaluations of propofol for procedures routinely conducted in adults (>18 years) were included. Direct current cardioversion, RSI and procedural sedation were considered.
    Data extraction: Efficacy and safety endpoints were evaluated for all trials. For DCC and procedural sedation trials, efficacy measures included induction and recovery times, as well as the association for successful procedure. For the RSI trials, optimal intubating conditions were evaluated as the primary efficacy endpoint. Safety measures included hemodynamic changes, apnea rates and adverse effects.
    Data synthesis: In the setting of DCC, efficacy and safety outcomes were similar for propofol, thiopental, etomidate and methohexital. All of these agents provided markedly shorter induction and recovery times than midazolam. Patients who were pre-medicated with fentanyl exhibited prolonged recovery times and greater decreases in blood pressure. When used for RSI, propofol administration was associated with satisfactory intubating conditions that were comparable to those seen with thiopental and etomidate. Blood pressure reductions were seen in both DCC and RSI studies. Apneic episodes (>30 seconds) occurred in 23% of propofol recipients, 28% of thiopental recipients and 7% of etomidate and midazolam recipients. Apart from the DCC studies described, no procedural sedation studies met our predefined review eligibility criteria.
    Conclusion: The body of literature evaluating propofol for DCC and RSI in the ED is limited. There is evidence to support the use of propofol for DCC and RSI, but this evidence comes from stable patients in non-ED settings. Further ED-based randomized comparative trials should be conducted before propofol is adopted for widespread use in the ED.