Effect of out-of-hospital pediatric endotracheal intubation on survival and neurological outcome: a controlled clinical trial. Comparison of a conventional tracheal airway with the Combitube in an urban emergency medical services system run by physicians. Esophageal gastric tube airway vs endotracheal tube in prehospital cardiopulmonary arrest.
Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is widely used for airway management of children in the out-of-hospital setting, despite a lack of controlled trials demonstrating a positive effect on survival or neurological outcome.
                To compare the survival and neurological outcomes of pediatric patients treated with bag-valve-mask ventilation (BVM) with those of patients treated with BVM followed by ETI.
                Controlled clinical trial, in which patients were assigned to interventions by calendar day from March 15, 1994, through January 1, 1997.
                Two large, urban, rapid-transport emergency medical services (EMS) systems.
                A total of 830 consecutive patients aged 12 years or younger or estimated to weigh less than 40 kg who required airway management; 820 were available for follow-up.
                Patients were assigned to receive either BVM (odd days; n = 410) or BVM followed by ETI (even days; n = 420).
                Survival to hospital discharge and neurological status at discharge from an acute care hospital compared by treatment group.
                There was no significant difference in survival between the BVM group (123/404 [30%]) and the ETI group (110/416 [26%]) (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.11) or in the rate of achieving a good neurological outcome (BVM, 92/404 [23%] vs ETI, 85/416 [20%]) (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.62-1.22).
                These results indicate that the addition of out-of-hospital ETI to a paramedic scope of practice that already includes BVM did not improve survival or neurological outcome of pediatric patients treated in an urban EMS system. This prospective randomised study was performed to compare the use of the Esophageal-Tracheal Combitube(R) (ETC; Tyco Healthcare, Mansfield, MA; http://www.combitube.org) with a conventional tracheal airway (ETA) for airway management by experienced physicians of the Emergency Medical Services System of the City of Vienna in the prehospital setting. Access to the patient's head, time of arrival of the ambulance, ease of insertion, time of insertion, potential substitution by the alternate airway, efficacy of adrenaline (epinephrine) administered via the airway, survival to the intensive care unit (ICU) ward and survival to discharge from the hospital were evaluated. One hundred and seventy-two non-traumatic cardiac arrest patients (131 males, 41 females) were enrolled in this study during a 12 months period. In 83 patients (48.3%), the conventional ETA (group 1) was used for the initial intubation attempt which was successful in 78 patients (94%). The remaining five patients of group 1 could not be intubated with an ETA, but were successfully managed with the ETC. Eighty-nine patients (51.7%) were intubated with the ETC (group 2) as first choice (79 in oesophageal position (89%); eight in tracheal position: (9%)), which was successful in 87 (98%) patients. The remaining two patients in group 2 (2%) were successfully managed with the ETA. Success of intubation and ventilation with ETC was comparable to the ETA. Recorded time of insertion was shorter with the ETC versus ETA (P<0.05). The Combitube worked well in cases of difficult access to the patient's head and in bleeding and vomiting patients. Both devices served as successful substitutes for each other. Adrenaline (epinephrine) applied via ETC with a 10-fold dosage was as effective as via the conventional ETA. To our knowledge this is the first study using physicians comparing ETC and ETA in the prehospital setting. We evaluated the efficacy of the esophageal airway (EA) by prospectively randomizing 175 prehospital cardiopulmonary arrest patients to receive either an esophageal gastric tube airway (EGTA) or an endotracheal tube (ET). If attempts with the initial airway failed, the alternate airway was attempted. The cost of training paramedics in EA use was considerably less than the ET ($80 vs $1,000). Survival to the emergency room, to hospitalization and to discharge in ET and EGTA groups were 64.4 percent, 25.6 percent, 11.1 percent, and 54.1 percent, 27.1 percent, 12.9 percent, respectively--differences not statistically significant. The incidence of neurologic residual (ET 50 percent, EGTA 36.4 percent) and congestive heart failure (ET 40 percent, EGTA 45.5 percent) in surviving ET and EGTA patients did not differ (NS). An additional 125 consecutive patients with only the opportunity to receive an EA were also evaluated and did not differ in mortality, neurologic residual, or congestive heart failure from ET patients. We conclude that the EA is a satisfactory alternative to the ET for short-term prehospital use in cardiopulmonary arrest patients.
The efficacy of emergency intubation as currently practised has not been rigorously studied. The skill level of the operator may be key in determining efficacy. In non-traumatic cardiac arrest, it is unlikely that intubation carries the same life saving benefit as early defibrillation and bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In trauma and paediatric patients, the current evidence base provides no imperative to extend the practice of prehospital intubation in urban systems. It would be ethical and pertinent to initiate a large, high quality randomised trial comparing the efficacy of competently practised emergency intubation with basic bag-valve-mask manoeuvres (BVM) in urban adult out-of-hospital non-traumatic cardiac arrest.