[Systematic analysis of airway registries in emergency medicine].

BACKGROUND: A myriad of publications have contributed to an evidence-based approach to airway management in emergency services and admissions in recent years; however, it remains unclear which international registries on airway management in emergency medicine currently exist and how they are characterized concerning inclusion criteria, patient characteristics and definition of complications.

METHODS: A systematic literature research was carried out in PubMed with respect to publications from 2007-2017. All publications from airway registries collecting data on prehospital or emergency department (ED) airway management were included. Publications from pediatric intensive care units (PICU) were also included as long as they were the primary place of pediatric emergency care.

RESULTS: A total of eleven emergency airway registries (EAR) were identified that were primarily concerned with airway management. Furthermore, reported data on emergency airway management were extracted from different, national resuscitation registries. There was only one multinational EAR which exclusively collects data on pediatric emergency airway management (NEAR4KIDS, National Emergency Airway Registry for Kids). Additionally, all emergency department airway registries identified include data on pediatric emergency airway management to varying degrees (0.2-10.5%). Published observation periods were also highly variable with a minimum of 18 months and a maximum of 156 months. The ANZEDAR (Australia and New Zealand Emergency Airway Registry) is currently the largest EAR with data from 43 participating institutions in 2 different countries, while the NEAR III (National Emergency Airway Registry) includes data on 21,374 emergency intubations over a 10-year period and thus has the largest number of emergency interventions. Reported rapid sequence induction (RSI) rates in the registries are between 27.5% and 100%. First-pass success rates vary between 69% and 89%, while the reported use of video laryngoscopy is 0-73%.

CONCLUSION: This study identified eleven EARs that sometimes widely differed concerning inclusion periods, inclusion criteria, definition of complications and application of newer methods of emergency airway management. Thus, comparability of the reported results and first-pass success rates is only possible to a limited extent. The authors therefore advocate the initiation of an airway registry in emergency medicine in German-speaking countries.