ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine
Incidence and predisposing factors associated with peri-intubation cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Turkish journal of emergency medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesVarious studies have delved into its incidence and risk factors, but a comprehensive meta-analysis exploring this life-threatening complication during emergent endotracheal intubation has been lacking. This study quantitatively assesses the global incidence and associated risk factors of peri-intubation cardiac arrest (PICA).
methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to October 28, 2024. Two independent authors searched, reviewed, and evaluated selected studies. Any peer-reviewed published studies reporting the incidence of PICA among adults (≥18 years) outside of the operating theater were included. Studies reporting incidence within heterogeneous populations or from overlapping groups were excluded. The primary outcome focused on determining the global incidence of PICA, while the secondary outcome addressed associated risk factors. A random-effects model was used to aggregate overall incidence rates. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were conducted to examine PICA incidence in different locations and with the study's sample size. The publication bias was assessed via Egger's test and visualization of the funnel plot. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist.
resultsFifteen articles met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. PICA incidence varied from 0.5% to 23.3%. The estimated pooled incidence was 2.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9-3.6) across PICA in the emergency department (ED) (2.5%, 95% CI: 1.4-3.7) and outside of the ED (2.9%, 95% CI: 2.2-3.6). Egger's test yielded
conclusionPICA occurrences during emergent endotracheal intubation reached up to 3%, showing a similar rate both within and outside the ED. While limitations such as heterogeneity and potential bias exist, these findings underscore the imperative for prospective research. Prospective studies are warranted to further delineate this critical aspect of emergent intubation.
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.