Observational studyCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2023
Emergency airway management in a tertiary trauma centre (AIRMAN): a one-year prospective longitudinal study.
Observational study in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Indications, techniques, success rates and complications of emergency airway management in Thuringian emergency departments: a prospective registry analysis.World journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Observational
- Evidence-based Emergency Tracheal Intubation.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Review
- Introduction of Infection Prevention Tracheal Intubation Protocol during the COVID-19 Pandemic Is Not Associated with First-Pass Success Rates of Endotracheal Intubation in the Emergency Department: A Before-and-After Comparative Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEmergency airway management can be associated with a range of complications including long-term neurologic injury and death. We studied the first-pass success rate with emergency airway management in a tertiary care trauma centre. Secondary outcomes were to identify factors associated with first-pass success and factors associated with adverse events peri-intubation.
methodsWe performed a single-centre, prospective, observational study of patients ≥ 17 yr old who were intubated in the emergency department (ED), surgical intensive care unit (SICU), medical intensive care unit (MICU), and inpatient wards at our institution. Ethics approval was obtained from the local research ethics board.
resultsIn a seven-month period, there were 416 emergency intubations and a first-pass success rate of 73.1%. The first-pass success rates were 57.5% on the ward, 66.1% in the intensive care units (ICUs) and 84.3% in the ED. Equipment also varied by location; videolaryngoscopy use was 65.1% in the ED and only 10.6% on wards. A multivariate regression model using the least absolute shrinkage and selection algorithm (LASSO) showed that the odds ratios for factors associated with two or more intubation attempts were location (wards, 1.23; MICU, 1.24; SICU, 1.19; reference group, ED), physiologic instability (1.19), an anatomically difficult airway (1.05), hypoxemia (1.98), lack of neuromuscular blocker use (2.28), and intubator inexperience (1.41).
conclusionsFirst-pass success rates varied widely between locations within the hospital and were less than those published from similar institutions, except for the ED. We are revamping ICU protocols to improve the first-pass success rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.