Evidence Hub

Trauma airway management in emergency departments: a multicentre, prospective, observational study in Japan

Nakao S, Kimura A, Hagiwara Y, Hasegawa K, Japanese Emergency Medicine Network Investigators

BMJ open, 2015

723 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Although successful airway management is essential for emergency trauma care, comprehensive studies are limited. We sought to characterise current trauma care practice of airway management in the emergency departments (EDs) in Japan.

DESIGN: Analysis of data from a prospective, observational, multicentre registry-the Japanese Emergency Airway Network (JEAN) registry.

SETTING: 13 academic and community EDs from different geographic regions across Japan.

PARTICIPANTS: 723 trauma patients who underwent emergency intubation from March 2010 through August 2012.

OUTCOME MEASURES: ED characteristics, patient and operator demographics, methods of airway management, intubation success or failure at each attempt and adverse events.

RESULTS: A total of 723 trauma patients who underwent emergency intubation were eligible for the analysis. Traumatic cardiac arrest comprised 32.6% (95% CI 29.3% to 36.1%) of patients. Rapid sequence intubation (RSI) was the initial method chosen in 23.9% (95% CI 21.0% to 27.2%) of all trauma patients and in 35.5% (95% CI 31.4% to 39.9%) of patients without cardiac arrest. Overall, intubation was successful in ≤3 attempts in 96% of patients (95% CI 94.3% to 97.2%). There was a wide variation in the initial methods of intubation; RSI as the initial method was performed in 0-50.9% of all trauma patients among 12 EDs. Similarly, there was a wide variation in success rates and adverse event rates across the EDs. Success rates varied between 35.5%…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 723 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free