ArticleCureus2023
Pilot Study Examining Bed Angles and Heights During Ramped Position Intubation in the Emergency Department.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRamped positioning during emergent endotracheal intubation has been associated with fewer peri-intubation complications, including a decrease in difficult intubations, esophageal intubations, pulmonary aspiration, and hypoxemia. However, the optimal bed angle and height for ramped position intubation have not been determined. Our objective was to examine the effect bed angle and height in the ramped position may have on laryngeal views during emergent intubation in the emergency department (ED). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed a secondary analysis of prospectively collected quality improvement data on intubations from our ED. All adult medical intubations performed with ramped positioning in the ED over a 24-month study period (September 1, 2020, through August 30, 2022) were eligible. We compared laryngeal views using the percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score between ramp angles (≥30° and <30° from horizontal) and bed heights (relative to the intubator, including xiphoid or above, umbilicus or below, and between xiphoid and umbilicus).
resultsOf the 251 patients intubated during the study period, 201 were intubated in the supine position and 50 in the ramped position. Data forms were completed for 25 patients intubated using ramped position in the ED during the study period. The median ramp angle was 30° (interquartile range (IQR) 25, 40) with 16 (64%) subjects intubated at ≥30° and 9 (36%) subjects at <30°. The median POGO scores for bed angles ≥30° and <30° were 95% (IQR 79, 100) and 90% (IQR 75, 100), respectively. Bed heights varied, with four (16%) intubated at the xiphoid or above height, one (4%) at the umbilicus or below, and 20 (80%) between the xiphoid and umbilicus. The median POGO scores at each position were 95% (IQR 76, 100), 0% (IQR 0, 0), and 95% (IQR 79, 100), respectively.
conclusionED clinicians use a variety of bed angles and heights when intubating in the ramped position. More robust investigations are necessary to determine the optimal bed angle and height for ramped position intubation in the ED.
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.