Paramedic-performed rapid sequence intubation of patients with severe head injuries.

San Diego County Emergency Medical Service, CA, USA.
Annals of Emergency Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.33). 09/2002; 40(2):159-67. DOI: 10.1067/mem.2002.126397
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We evaluate the ability of paramedic rapid sequence intubation (RSI) to facilitate intubation of patients with severe head injuries in an urban out-of-hospital system.
Adult patients with head injuries were prospectively enrolled over a 1-year period by using the following inclusion criteria: Glasgow Coma Scale score of 3 to 8, transport time of greater than 10 minutes, and inability to intubate without RSI. Midazolam and succinylcholine were administered before laryngoscopy, and rocuronium was given after tube placement was confirmed by means of capnometry, syringe aspiration, and pulse oximetry. The Combitube was used as a salvage airway device. Outcome measures included intubation success rates, preintubation and postintubation oxygen saturation values, arrival arterial blood gas values, and total out-of-hospital times for patients intubated en route versus on scene.
Of 114 enrolled patients, 96 (84.2%) underwent successful endotracheal intubation, and 17 (14.9%) underwent Combitube intubation, with only 1 (0.9%) airway failure. There were no unrecognized esophageal intubations. On arrival at the trauma center, median oxygen saturation was 99%, mean arrival PO2 was 307 mm Hg, and mean arrival PCO2 was 35.8 mm Hg. Total out-of-hospital times were higher when RSI was performed on scene (26 versus 13 minutes).
Paramedics can use RSI protocols that include neuromuscular blocking and sedative agents to facilitate intubation of patients with head injuries.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a motor skill that demands practice. Emergency medical service providers with limited intubation experience should consider using airway adjuncts other than ETI for respiratory compromise. Prehospital ETI has been recently interrogated by evidence exposing worsened patient outcomes. The laryngeal tube (LT) airway was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2003 for use in the United States. Using difficult airway-simulated models, we sought to describe the time difference between placing the ETI and LT and the successful placement of each adjunct in varied levels of healthcare providers. Emergency medicine resident physicians, fourth year medical students, and paramedic students were asked to use both ETI and the LT. Subjects were timed (seconds) on ETI and LT placement on 2 different simulators (AirMan and SimMan; Laerdal Co, Wappingers Falls, NY). After ETI was complete, they were given 30 seconds to review an instructional card before placement of the LT. We measured placement time and successful placement of the device for ETI vs LT. Successful placement in the manikin was defined by a combination of breath sounds, chest rise, and absence of epigastric sounds. Overall mean placement time in the AirMan and SimMan for ETI was 76.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 63.3-89.5) and 45.9 (95% CI, 41.0-50.2) seconds, respectively. Mean placement time for the LT in the AirMan and SimMan was 26.9 (95% CI, 24.3-29.5) and 20.3 (95% CI, 18.1-22.5) seconds, respectively. The time difference between ETI and LT for both simulators was significant (P < .0001). Successful placement of the LT compared with ETI in the AirMan was significant (P = .001). A significant time difference and simplicity exists in placing the LT, making it an attractive device for expeditious airway management. Further studies will need to validate the LT effectiveness in ventilation and oxygenation; however, its uncomplicated design allows for successful use by a variety of healthcare providers.
    American Journal of Emergency Medicine 03/2007; 25(3):263-7. DOI:10.1016/j.ajem.2006.03.018 · 1.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Unlike the response to landmark studies in other disciplines of medicine, the few existing controlled, randomized EMS studies have not led to any calls for "moratoriums" on the practices in question. Why haven't they? It is all too easy to continue to dismiss the negative results of studies from a system other than our own. The paramedics in the system studied were not as well trained, were not as closely supervised, or did not have adequate medical oversight; the study was flawed, etc. Any or all of these variables may be true. A particular system may be safely performing one of the practices in question. However, the published results of any study that finds a high-risk practice to be more harmful than beneficial should immediately mandate the close examination of the practice in each and every system. To do otherwise is in direct conflict with the mission of EMS, and minimizes the value of the lives of the people in the communities who depend on us. First do no harm... is anyone listening?
    Prehospital Emergency Care 08/2009; 8(4):444-6. DOI:10.1016/j.prehos.2004.07.004 · 1.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Partial contents: The Military To Military Connection: Combating HIV/AIDS among African Militaries Part II: Bridging the Training Gap with Special Operations Forces, Bad Decisions, Poor Outcomes: A Model to Explain Why Some Threatening Events Become Worse, The Esophageal-Tracheal Combitube: A review of the device and its application in the SOF environment, The Impact of Hypoxia and Hyperventilation on Outcome after Paramedic Rapid Sequence Intubation of Severely Head-Injured Patients, Headaches, Introduction of Functional Physical Training into Special Operations Units.