section name header

Evidence summaries

Emergency Intubation for Acutely Ill and Injured Patients

There is no evidence on the difference between endotracheal intubation and other airway securing strategies for reducing deaths after acute illness or injury. Level of evidence: "D"

A Cochrane review [Abstract] 1 included 3 studies with a total of 1 177 subjects. Two trials involved adults with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. One of these trials found a non-significant survival disadvantage in patients randomised to receive a physician-operated intubation versus a combi-tube (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.99). The second trial detected a non-significant survival disadvantage in patients randomised to paramedic intubation versus an oesophageal gastric airway (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.90). The third included study was a trial of children requiring airway intervention in the prehospital environment. The results indicated no difference in survival (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.11) or neurologic outcome (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.22) between paramedic intubation versus bag-valve-mask ventilation and later hospital intubation by emergency physicians; however, only 42% of the children randomised to paramedic endotracheal intubation actually received it.

Comment: The quality of evidence is downgraded by several inconsistencies (heterogeneity of patients, practitioners and alternatives to intubation).

References

  • Lecky F, Bryden D, Little R, Tong N, Moulton C. Emergency intubation for acutely ill and injured patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008 Apr 16;(2):CD001429. [PubMed]

Primary/Secondary Keywords