Dataset Information

Premedication practices for tracheal intubation in neonates transported by French medical transport teams: a prospective observational study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Premedication practices for neonatal tracheal intubations have not yet been described for neonatal transport teams. Our objective is to describe the use of sedation/analgesia (SA) for tracheal intubations and to assess its tolerance in neonates transported by medical transport teams in France. SETTING:This prospective observational study was part of the EPIPPAIN 2 project and collected around-the-clock data on SA practices in neonates intubated by all five paediatric medical transport teams of the Paris region during a 2-month period. Intubations were classified as emergent, semiemergent and non-emergent. Sedation level and conditions of intubation were assessed with the Tonus, Reactivity, Awareness and Conditions of intubation to Help in Endotracheal intubation Assessment (TRACHEA score). The scores range from 0 to 10 representing an increasing ladder from adequate to inadequate sedation, and from excellent to very poor conditions of intubation. PARTICIPANTS:40 neonates intubated in 28 different centres. RESULTS:The mean (SD) age was 34.9 (3.9) weeks, and 62.5% were intubated in the delivery room. 30/40 (75%) of intubations were performed with the use of SA. In 18/30 (60.0%) intubations performed with SA, the drug regimen was the association of sufentanil and midazolam. Atropine was given in 19/40 intubations. From the 16, 21 and 3 intubations classified as emergent, semiemergent and non-emergent, respectively, 8 (50%), 19 (90.5%) and 3 (100%) were performed with SA premedication. 79.3% of intubations performed with SA had TRACHEA scores of 3 or less. 22/40 (55%) infants had at least one of the following adverse events: muscle rigidity, bradycardia below 100/min, desaturation below 80% and nose or pharynx-larynx bleeding. 7/24 (29.2%) of those who had only one attempt presented at least one of these adverse events compared with 15/16 (93.8%) of those who needed two or more attempts (p<0.001). CONCLUSION:SA premedication is largely feasible for tracheal intubations performed in neonates transported by medical transport teams including intubations judged as emergent or semiemergent. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT01346813; Results.

SUBMITTER: Carbajal R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6886912 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Premedication practices for tracheal intubation in neonates transported by French medical transport teams: a prospective observational study.

Carbajal Ricardo R Lode Noella N Ayachi Azzedine A Chouakri Ourida O Henry-Larzul Véronique V Kessous Katia K Normand Audrey A Courtois Emilie E Rousseau Jessica J Cimerman Patricia P Chabernaud Jean-Louis JL

BMJ open 20191114 11

<h4>Objectives</h4>Premedication practices for neonatal tracheal intubations have not yet been described for neonatal transport teams. Our objective is to describe the use of sedation/analgesia (SA) for tracheal intubations and to assess its tolerance in neonates transported by medical transport teams in France.<h4>Setting</h4>This prospective observational study was part of the EPIPPAIN 2 project and collected around-the-clock data on SA practices in neonates intubated by all five paediatric me ...[more]

PMID: 31727669

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEstablishment of a secure airway is a critical part of neonatal resuscitation in the delivery room and the neonatal unit. Videolaryngoscopy has the potential to facilitate successful endotracheal intubation and decrease adverse consequences of delay in airway stabilization. Videolaryngoscopy may enhance visualization of the glottis and intubation success in neonates.ObjectivesTo determine the efficacy and safety of videolaryngoscopy compared to direct laryngoscopy in decreasing the time and attempts required for endotracheal intubation and increasing the success rate at first intubation in neonates.Search methodsWe used the search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal. In May 2017, we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating videolaryngoscopy for neonatal endotracheal intubation in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, abstracts of the Pediatric Academic Societies, websites for registered trials at www.clinicaltrials.gov and www.controlled-trials.com, and reference lists of relevant studies.Selection criteriaRCTs or quasi-RCTs in neonates evaluating videolaryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation compared with direct laryngoscopy.Data collection and analysisReview authors performed data collection and analysis as recommended by Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors independently assessed studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion.We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.Main resultsThe search yielded 7057 references of which we identified three RCTs for inclusion, four ongoing trials and one study awaiting classification. All three included RCTs compared videolaryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy during intubation attempts by trainees.Time to intubation was similar between videolaryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy (mean difference (MD) -0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.50 to 5.26; 2 studies; 311 intubations) (very low quality evidence). Videolaryngoscopy did not decrease the number of intubation attempts (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.07; 2 studies; 427 intubations) (very low quality evidence). Moderate quality evidence suggested that videolaryngoscopy increased the success of intubation at first attempt (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.73; typical risk difference (RD) 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.28; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5, 95% CI 4 to 10; 3 studies; 467 intubation attempts).Desaturation episodes during intubation attempts were similar between videolaryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy (MD -0.76, 95% CI -5.74 to 4.23; 2 studies; 359 intubations) (low quality evidence). There was no difference in the incidence of airway trauma due to intubation attempts (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.80; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.00; 1 study; 213 intubations) (low quality evidence).There were no data available on other adverse effects of videolaryngoscopy.Authors' conclusionsModerate to very low quality evidence suggests that videolaryngoscopy increases the success of intubation in the first attempt but does not decrease the time to intubation or the number of attempts for intubation. However, these studies were conducted with trainees performing the intubations and these results highlight the potential usefulness of the videolaryngoscopy as a teaching tool. Well-designed, adequately powered RCTs are necessary to confirm efficacy and address safety and cost-effectiveness of videolaryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in neonates by trainees and those proficient in direct laryngoscopy.

Project description:ContextLaryngoscopy is frequently required in neonatal intensive care. Awake laryngoscopy has deleterious effects but practice remains heterogeneous regarding premedication use. The goal of this statement was to provide evidence-based good practice guidance for clinicians regarding premedication before tracheal intubation, less invasive surfactant administration (LISA) and laryngeal mask insertion in neonates.MethodsA group of experts brought together by the French Society of Neonatology (SFN) addressed 4 fields related to premedication before upper airway access in neonates: (1) tracheal intubation; (2) less invasive surfactant administration; (3) laryngeal mask insertion; (4) use of atropine for the 3 previous procedures. Evidence was gathered and assessed on predefined questions related to these fields. Consensual statements were issued using the GRADE methodology.ResultsAmong the 15 formalized good practice statements, 2 were strong recommendations to do (Grade 1+) or not to do (Grade 1-), and 4 were discretionary recommendations to do (Grade 2+). For 9 good practice statements, the GRADE method could not be applied, resulting in an expert opinion. For tracheal intubation premedication was considered mandatory except for life-threatening situations (Grade 1+). Recommended premedications were a combination of opioid + muscle blocker (Grade 2+) or propofol in the absence of hemodynamic compromise or hypotension (Grade 2+) while the use of a sole opioid was discouraged (Grade 1-). Statements regarding other molecules before tracheal intubation were expert opinions. For LISA premedication was recommended (Grade 2+) with the use of propofol (Grade 2+). Statements regarding other molecules before LISA were expert opinions. For laryngeal mask insertion and atropine use, no specific data was found and expert opinions were provided.ConclusionThis statement should help clinical decision regarding premedication before neonatal upper airway access and favor standardization of practices.

Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to study the associations between pre- and in-hospital tracheal intubation and outcomes in traumatic brain injury (TBI), and whether the association varied according to injury severity.MethodsData from the international prospective pan-European cohort study, Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research for TBI (CENTER-TBI), were used (n=4509). For prehospital intubation, we excluded self-presenters. For in-hospital intubation, patients whose tracheas were intubated on-scene were excluded. The association between intubation and outcome was analysed with ordinal regression with adjustment for the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI variables and extracranial injury. We assessed whether the effect of intubation varied by injury severity by testing the added value of an interaction term with likelihood ratio tests.ResultsIn the prehospital analysis, 890/3736 (24%) patients had their tracheas intubated at scene. In the in-hospital analysis, 460/2930 (16%) patients had their tracheas intubated in the emergency department. There was no adjusted overall effect on functional outcome of prehospital intubation (odds ratio=1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.28; P=0.96), and the adjusted overall effect of in-hospital intubation was not significant (odds ratio=0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.13; P=0.28). However, prehospital intubation was associated with better functional outcome in patients with higher thorax and abdominal Abbreviated Injury Scale scores (P=0.009 and P=0.02, respectively), whereas in-hospital intubation was associated with better outcome in patients with lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores (P=0.01): in-hospital intubation was associated with better functional outcome in patients with Glasgow Coma Scale scores of 10 or lower.ConclusionThe benefits and harms of tracheal intubation should be carefully evaluated in patients with TBI to optimise benefit. This study suggests that extracranial injury should influence the decision in the prehospital setting, and level of consciousness in the in-hospital setting.Clinical trial registrationNCT02210221.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Intubation is a lifesaving procedure that is often performed in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but leads to serious adverse events in 20-40% of cases. Recent trials aimed to provide guidance about which medications, devices, and modalities maximize patient safety. Videolaryngoscopes are being offered in an increasing range of options and used in broadening indications (from difficult to unremarkable intubation). The objective of this study was to describe intubation practices and device availability in French ICUs. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We conducted an online nationwide survey by emailing an anonymous 26-item questionnaire to physicians in French ICUs. A single questionnaire was sent to either the head or the intubation expert at each ICU. RESULTS:Of 257 ICUs, 180 (70%) returned the completed questionnaire. The results showed that 43% of intubators were not fully proficient in intubation; among them, 18.8% had no intubation training or had received only basic training (lectures and observation at the bedside). Among the participating ICUs, 94.4% had a difficult intubation trolley, 74.5% an intubation protocol, 92.2% a capnography device (used routinely to check tube position in 69.3% of ICUs having the device), 91.6% a laryngeal mask, 97.2% front-of-neck access capabilities, and 76.6% a videolaryngoscope. In case of difficult intubation, 85.6% of ICUs used a bougie (154/180) and 7.8% switched to a videolaryngoscope (14/180). Use of a videolaryngoscope was reserved for difficult intubation in 84% of ICUs (154/180). Having a videolaryngoscope was significantly associated with having an intubation protocol (P = 0.043) and using capnography (P = 0.02). Airtraq® was the most often used videolaryngoscope (39.3%), followed by McGrath®Mac (36.9%) then by Glidescope® (14.5%). CONCLUSION:Nearly half the intubators in French ICUs are not fully proficient with OTI. Access to modern training methods such as simulation is inadequate. Most ICUs own a videolaryngoscope, but reserve it for difficult intubations.

Dataset Information

Premedication practices for tracheal intubation in neonates transported by French medical transport teams: a prospective observational study.

Publications

Premedication practices for tracheal intubation in neonates transported by French medical transport teams: a prospective observational study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets