Observational studyScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2025
Success of airway management in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest using different devices - a prospective, single-center, observational study comparing professions.
Observational study 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. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndotracheal intubation is the gold standard for airway management in out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) but requires practice, especially in difficult conditions. To facilitate this, video laryngoscopy (VL) is increasingly used. The extent to which it is actually used in practice by paramedics or emergency physicians (EPs) and its effectiveness remain unclear. This prospective observational study investigates these aspects.
methodsFrom January 2020 to June 2024, we surveyed emergency physicians and paramedics in a German county about out-of-hospital resuscitations. The questionnaire covered qualifications, airway devices, attempts, and complications. Data was analyzed descriptively and statistically. The significance level was set at alpha ≤ 0.05.
results301 questionnaires were analyzed, with an overall first pass success (FPS) rate of 62.8%. No significant difference was found between direct laryngoscopy (DL) and video laryngoscopy (VL), though VL with McGrath performed worse than DL and VL with C-Mac. FPS rates did not differ significantly between emergency physicians and paramedics. Both achieved better results with their regularly used device. Paramedics used laryngeal masks more frequently (34% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001). Among emergency physicians, anesthetists had the lowest FPS using DL (p < 0.001).
interpretationThe FPS rate did not differ between DL and VL but was low overall. This low rate, as well as the fact that emergency physicians and paramedics achieved comparable results in intubation, might indicate an increased need for training and further education in the area of airway management for emergency personnel. However, it can also be questioned to what extent ETI can be recommended at all, with supraglottic devices being an alternative. A possible benefit of more training can be seen in the higher success rates with the more frequently used devices in both professions. An uncertainty of paramedics regarding endotracheal intubation is also reflected in an more frequent use of laryngeal masks. The fact that internists who used VL more frequently had better FPS rates than anesthetists who intubated conventionally more often shows the potential of VL, especially under difficult out-of-hospital intubation conditions.
trial registrationThe study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS ID: DRKS00021821, 12.06.2020).
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.