Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40033329›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2025

Utilization of non-invasive ventilation before prehospital emergency anesthesia in trauma - a cohort analysis with machine learning.

André Luckscheiter, Manfred Thiel, Wolfgang Zink, Johanna Eisenberger, Tim Viergutz, Verena Schneider-Lindner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

André LuckscheiterMedical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany. andre.luckscheiter@medma.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5724-7130
Manfred ThielMedical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6267-4380
Wolfgang ZinkDepartment of Anesthesiology, Operative Intensive Care Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Ludwigshafen City Hospital, Bremserstrasse 79, 67063, Ludwigshafen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4224-8384
Johanna EisenbergerCentre for Quality Management in Emergency Medical Service Baden-Wuerttemberg (SQR-BW), Stuttgart, Germany.
Tim ViergutzMedical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8104-1047
Verena Schneider-LindnerMedical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5207-8203

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor preoxygenation, German guidelines consider non-invasive ventilation (NIV) as a possible method in prehospital trauma care in the absence of aspiration, severe head or face injuries, unconsciousness, or patient non-compliance. As data on the utilization and characteristics of patients receiving NIV are lacking, this study aims to identify predictors of NIV usage in trauma patients using machine learning and compare these findings with the current national guideline.

methodsA cross-regional registry of prehospital emergency services in southwestern Germany was searched for cases of emergency anesthesia in multiply injured patients in the period from 2018 to 2020. Initial vital signs, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), injury pattern, shock index and age were examined using logistic regression. A decision tree algorithm was then applied in parallel to reduce the number of attributes, which were subsequently tested in several machine learning algorithms to predict the usage of NIV before the induction of anesthesia.

resultsOf 992 patients with emergency anesthesia, 333 received NIV (34%). Attributes with a statistically significant influence (p < 0.05) in favour of NIV were bronchial spasm (odds ratio (OR) 119.75), dyspnea/cyanosis (OR 2.28), moderate and severe head injury (both OR 3.37) and the respiratory rate (OR 1.07). Main splitting points in the initial decision tree included auscultation (rhonchus and bronchial spasm), respiratory rate, heart rate, age, oxygen saturation and head injury with moderate head injury being more frequent in the NIV group (23% vs. 12%, p < 0.01). The rates of aspiration and the level of consciousness were equal in both groups (0.01% and median GCS 15, both p > 0.05). The prediction accuracy for NIV usage was high for all algorithms, except for multilayer perceptron and logistic regression. For instance, a Bayes Network yielded an AUC-ROC of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.96) and PRC-areas of 0.96 [0.96-0.96] for predicting and 0.95 [0.95-0.96] for excluding NIV usage.

conclusionsMachine learning demonstrated an excellent categorizability of the cohort using only a few selected attributes. Injured patients without severe head injury who presented with dyspnea, cyanosis, or bronchial spasm were regularly preoxygenated with NIV, indicating a common prehospital practice. This usage appears to be in accordance with current German clinical guidelines. Further research should focus on other aspects of the decision making like airway anatomy and investigate the impact of preoxygenation with NIV in prehospital trauma care on relevant outcome parameters, as the current evidence level is limited.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaEmergency Medical ServicesMachine LearningNoninvasive VentilationWounds and InjuriesAdultCohort StudiesFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedRegistriesRetrospective StudiesBayes theoremDecision treesIntubation, intratracheal*Machine learning*Non-invasive ventilationTrauma

Identifiers

PMID40033329
PMCPMC11877787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.