Critical Care (2017) 21:31   DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1603-7 

Background:
Pre-hospital basic airway interventions can be ineffective at providing adequate oxygenation
and ventilation in some severely ill or injured patients, and advanced airway interventions are then required. Controversy exists regarding the level of provider required to perform successful pre-hospital intubation. A previous meta-analysis reported pre-hospital intubation success rates of 0.849 for non-physicians versus 0.991 for physicians. The evidence base on the topic has expanded significantly in the last 10 years. This study systematically reviewed recent literature and presents comprehensive data on intubation success rates.

Methods:
A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed using PRISMA methodology to identify articles on pre-hospital tracheal intubation published between 2006 and 2016. Overall success rates were estimated using random effects meta-analysis. The relationship between intubation success rate and provider type was assessed in weighted linear regression analysis.

Results:
Of the 1838 identified studies, 38 met the study inclusion criteria. Intubation was performed by non-physicians in half of the studies and by physicians in the other half. The crude median (range) reported overall success rate
was 0.969 (0.616–1.000). In random effects meta-analysis, the estimated overall intubation success rate was 0.953 (0.938–0.965). The crude median (range) reported intubation success rates for non-physicians were 0.917 (0.616–1.000) and, for physicians, were 0.988 (0.781–1.000) (p = 0.003).

Discussion:
​The reported overall success rate of pre-hospital intubation has improved, yet there is still a significant difference between non-physician and physician providers. The finding that less-experienced personnel perform less well is not unexpected, but since there is considerable evidence that poorly performed intubation carries a significant risk of morbidity and mortality careful consideration should be given to the training and experience required to deliver this intervention safely. 

Ann Emerg Med. 2017 Jan 19. [Epub ahead of print]

STUDY OBJECTIVE:
Angioedema is an uncommon but important cause of airway obstruction. Emergency airway management of angioedema is difficult. We seek to describe the course and outcomes of emergency airway management for severe angioedema in our institution.

METHODS:
We performed a retrospective, observational study of all intubations for angioedema performed in an urban academic emergency department (ED) between November 2007 and June 2015. We performed a structured review of video recordings of each intubation. We identified the methods of airway management, the success of each method, and the outcomes and complications of the effort.

RESULTS:
We identified 52 patients with angioedema who were intubated in the ED; 7 were excluded because of missing videos, leaving 45 patients in the analysis. Median time from arrival to the ED to the first intubation attempt was 33 minutes (interquartile range 17 to 79 minutes). Nasotracheal intubation was the most common first method (33/45; 73%), followed by video laryngoscopy (7/45; 16%). Two patients required attempts at more invasive airway procedures (retrograde intubation and cricothyrotomy). The intubating laryngeal mask airway was used as a rescue method 5 times after failure of multiple methods, with successful oxygenation, ventilation, and intubation through the laryngeal mask airway in all 5 patients. All patients were successfully intubated.

CONCLUSION:
In this series of ED patients who were intubated because of angioedema, emergency physicians used a range of methods to successfully manage the airway. These observations provide key lessons for the emergency airway management of these critical patients.