We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Advanced airway management in out of hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
American Journal of Emergency Medicine 2018 December
OBJECTIVES: To assess the difference in survival and neurological outcomes between endotracheal tube (ETT) intubation and supraglottic airway (SGA) devices used during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).
METHODS: A systematic search of five databases was performed by two independent reviewers until September 2018. Included studies reported on (1) OHCA or cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and (2) endotracheal intubation versus supraglottic airway device intubation. Exclusion criteria (1) stimulation studies, (2) selectively included/excluded patients, (3) in-hospital cardiac arrest. Odds Ratios (OR) with random effect modelling was used. Primary outcomes: (1) return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), (2) survival to hospital admission, (3) survival to hospital discharge, (4) discharge with a neurologically intact state.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies (n = 539,146) showed that overall, ETT use resulted in a heterogeneous, but significant increase in ROSC (OR = 1.44; 95%CI = 1.27 to 1.63; I2 = 91%; p < 0.00001) and survival to admission (OR = 1.36; 95%CI = 1.12 to 1.66; I2 = 91%; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in survival to discharge or neurological outcome (p > 0.0125). On sensitivity analysis of RCTs, there was no significant difference in ROSC, survival to admission, survival to discharge or neurological outcome (p > 0.0125). On analysis of automated chest compression, without heterogeneity, ETT provided a significant increase in ROSC (OR = 1.55; 95%CI = 1.20 to 2.00; I2 = 0%; p = 0.0009) and survival to admission (OR = 2.16; 95%CI = 1.54 to 3.02; I2 = 0%; p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS: The overall heterogeneous benefit in survival with ETT was not replicated in the low risk RCTs, with no significant difference in survival or neurological outcome. In the presence of automated chest compressions, ETT intubation may result in survival benefits.
METHODS: A systematic search of five databases was performed by two independent reviewers until September 2018. Included studies reported on (1) OHCA or cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and (2) endotracheal intubation versus supraglottic airway device intubation. Exclusion criteria (1) stimulation studies, (2) selectively included/excluded patients, (3) in-hospital cardiac arrest. Odds Ratios (OR) with random effect modelling was used. Primary outcomes: (1) return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), (2) survival to hospital admission, (3) survival to hospital discharge, (4) discharge with a neurologically intact state.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies (n = 539,146) showed that overall, ETT use resulted in a heterogeneous, but significant increase in ROSC (OR = 1.44; 95%CI = 1.27 to 1.63; I2 = 91%; p < 0.00001) and survival to admission (OR = 1.36; 95%CI = 1.12 to 1.66; I2 = 91%; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in survival to discharge or neurological outcome (p > 0.0125). On sensitivity analysis of RCTs, there was no significant difference in ROSC, survival to admission, survival to discharge or neurological outcome (p > 0.0125). On analysis of automated chest compression, without heterogeneity, ETT provided a significant increase in ROSC (OR = 1.55; 95%CI = 1.20 to 2.00; I2 = 0%; p = 0.0009) and survival to admission (OR = 2.16; 95%CI = 1.54 to 3.02; I2 = 0%; p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS: The overall heterogeneous benefit in survival with ETT was not replicated in the low risk RCTs, with no significant difference in survival or neurological outcome. In the presence of automated chest compressions, ETT intubation may result in survival benefits.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app