Publications

STUDY OBJECTIVE: It is unclear whether laryngoscopy using a standard-geometry blade shape, able to obtain both direct and indirect views, is associated with different first-attempt success or adverse events during emergency intubation compared with using a hyperangulated blade capable of indirect laryngoscopy only. We sought to compare first-attempt intubation success between patients intubated with a standard geometry video laryngoscope versus a hyperangulated video laryngoscope.

METHODS: We analyzed data from the National Emergency Airway Registry from January 2016 to December 2018. Patients aged 14 years or older were included if the first attempt at oral intubation was performed with a standard-geometry or hyperangulated video laryngoscope. We used multiple logistic regression to determine whether blade shape was independently associated with first-attempt intubation success.

RESULTS: During the study period, 11,927 of 19,071 intubation encounters met inclusion criteria, including 7,255 (61%) with a standard blade and 4,672 (39%) with a hyperangulated blade. Unadjusted analysis revealed higher success with a standard-geometry blade, 91.9% versus 89.2% (absolute difference 2.7% [95% confidence interval 1.6% to 3.8%]; odds ratio for standard-geometry laryngoscope compared with hyperangulated laryngoscope 1.37 [95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.55]). The logistic regression model, however, demonstrated no association between blade shape and first-attempt success (adjusted odds ratio for standard-geometry laryngoscopy compared with hyperangulated laryngoscopy 1.32 [95% confidence interval 0.81 to 2.17]).

CONCLUSION: In this large registry of patients intubated with video laryngoscopy in the emergency department, we observed no association between blade shape (standard-geometry versus hyperangulated laryngoscope) and first-attempt intubation success after adjusting for confounding variables.

OBJECTIVE: Emergency physicians are commonly compared by their patients' length of stay (LOS). We test the hypothesis that LOS is associated with patient characteristics and that accounting for these features impacts physician LOS rankings.

METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of all encounters at an emergency department in 2010 to 2015. We compared the characteristics of patients seen by physicians in different quartiles of LOS. Primary outcome was variation in patient characteristics at time of physician assignment (age, sex, comorbidities, Emergency Severity Index [ESI], and chief complaint) across LOS quartiles. We also quantified the change in LOS rankings after accounting for difference in characteristics of patients seen by different physicians.

RESULTS: A total of 264,776 encounters seen by 62 attending physicians met inclusion criteria. Physicians in the longest LOS quartile saw patients who were older (age = 49.1 vs 48.6 years, difference = +0.5 years, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.3 to 0.7) with more comorbidities (Gagne score = 1.3 vs. 0.9, difference = +0.4, 95% CI = 0.4 to 0.4) and higher acuity (ESI = 2.8 vs. 2.9, difference = -0.1, 95% CI = 0.1 to 0.1) than physicians in the shortest LOS quartile. The odds ratio (OR) of physicians in the longest LOS quartile seeing patients over age 50 compared to the shortest LOS quartile was 1.1 (95% CI = 1.0 to 1.1); the OR of physicians in the longest LOS quartile seeing patients with ESI of 1 or 2 was also 1.1 (95% CI = 1.0 to 1.1). Accounting for variation in patient characteristics seen by different physicians resulted in substantial reordering of physician LOS rankings: 62.9% (39/62) of physicians reclassified into a different quartile with mean absolute percentile change of 25.8 (95% CI = 20.3 to 31.3). A total of 62.5% (10/16) of physicians in the shortest LOS quartile and 56.3% (9/16) in the longest LOS quartile moved into a different quartile after accounting for variation in patient characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS: Length of stay was significantly associated with patient characteristics, and accounting for variation in patient characteristics resulted in substantial reordering of relative physician rankings by LOS. Comparisons of emergency physicians by LOS that do not account for patient characteristics should be reconsidered.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were 1) to describe the current use of etomidate and other induction agents in patients with sepsis and 2) to compare adverse events between etomidate and ketamine in sepsis.

METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of the prospective National Emergency Airway Registry (NEAR) data set. Descriptive statistics were used to report the distribution of induction agents used in patients with sepsis. Adverse events were compared using bivariate analysis, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted using a propensity score-adjusted analysis of etomidate versus ketamine.

RESULTS: A total of 531 patients were intubated for sepsis, and the majority (71%) were intubated with etomidate as the initial induction agent. Etomidate was less frequently used in sepsis patients than nonsepsis patients (71% vs. 85%, odds ratio [OR] = 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.4 to 0.5). Sepsis patients had a greater risk of adverse events, and vasopressor therapy was required for 25% of patients after intubation. Postprocedure hypotension was higher between those intubated for sepsis with ketamine versus etomidate (74% vs. 50%, OR = 2.9, 95% CI = 1.9 to 4.5). After confounding by indication in the propensity score-adjusted analysis was accounted for, ketamine was associated with more postprocedure hypotension (OR = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.1 to 6.7). No difference in emergency department deaths was observed.

CONCLUSIONS: Etomidate is used less frequently in sepsis patients than nonsepsis patients, with ketamine being the most frequently used alternative. Ketamine was associated with more postprocedural hypotension than etomidate. Future clinical trials are needed to determine the optimal induction agent in patients with sepsis.

BACKGROUND: The hemodynamic impact of induction agents is a critically important consideration in emergency intubations. We assessed the relationship between peri-intubation hypotension and the use of ketamine versus etomidate as an induction agent for emergency department (ED) intubation.

METHODS: We analyzed ED intubation data for patients aged >14 years from the National Emergency Airway Registry performed in 25 EDs during 2016 through 2018. We excluded patients with preintubation hypotension (systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg) or cardiac arrest prior to intubation. The primary outcome was peri-intubation hypotension. Secondary outcomes included interventions for hypotension (e.g., intravenous fluids or vasopressors). We report adjusted odds ratios (aOR) from multivariable logistic regression models controlling for patient demographics, difficult airway characteristics, and intubation modality.

RESULTS: There were 738 encounters with ketamine and 6,068 with etomidate. Patients receiving ketamine were more likely to have difficult airway characteristics (effect size difference = 8.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.3% to 12.4%) and to undergo intubation with video laryngoscopy (8.1%, 95% CI = 4.4% to 12.0%). Peri-intubation hypotension incidence was 18.3% among patients receiving ketamine and 12.4% among patients receiving etomidate (effect size difference = 5.9%, 95% CI = 2.9% to 8.8%). Patients receiving ketamine were more likely to receive treatment for peri-intubation hypotension (effect size difference = 6.5%, 95% CI = 3.9% to 9.3%). In logistic regression analyses, patients receiving ketamine remained at higher risk for peri-intubation hypotension (aOR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.2 to 1.7) and treatment for hypotension (aOR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.4 to 2.0). There was no difference in the aOR of hypotension between patients receiving ketamine at doses ≤1.0 mg/kg versus >1.0 mg/kg or patients receiving etomidate at doses ≤0.3 mg/kg versus >0.3 mg/kg.

CONCLUSIONS: Pending additional data, our results suggest that clinicians should not necessarily prioritize ketamine over etomidate based on concern for hemodynamic compromise among ED patients undergoing intubation.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding current practice and outcomes for emergency department airway management in status asthmaticus. This paper describes the foremost methods and outcomes of airway management in patients in the emergency department who required intubation for status asthmaticus.

METHODS: We analyzed all intubations with a primary indication of asthma over a 3-y period (January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018) using the National Emergency Airway Registry (NEAR), a 25-center, prospective, observational registry of emergency department intubations. We report the incidence of intubations for asthma, methods and medications used, devices used, peri-intubation adverse events, and intubation success and failures using univariate descriptive statistics and cluster-adjusted incidence with 95% CI.

RESULTS: A total of 19,071 encounters were recorded during the study period, with 14,517 patients intubated for medical indications. Of those, 173 (1.2%, 95% CI 0.9-1.6) were intubated for asthma. The first-attempt success rate was 90.8% (95% CI 81.9-95.5), and overall intubation success was 100%. Compared to the medical registry as a whole, patients with asthma were more likely to undergo rapid-sequence intubation (96.5% [95% CI 92.9-98.3] vs 80.8% [95% CI 75.1-82.5]), preoxygenation with bi-level positive airway pressure (BPAP) (62.9% [95% CI 49.6-74.6] vs 13.5% (95% CI 10.4-16.9]), and induction with ketamine (51.8% [95% CI 30.6-71.4] vs 11.6% [95% CI 7.6-16.8]). The adverse event rate in the patients with asthma was 12.14% (95% CI 8.1-17.9) compared to 11.93% (95% CI 9.79-14.12) in the medical registry.

CONCLUSIONS: Status asthmaticus accounted for about 1% of emergent medical intubations. The majority of patients were intubated using rapid-sequence intubation after preoxygenation with BPAP and induction with ketamine, with the latter 2 practices being much more common for emergent intubations for status asthmaticus than for other medical indications.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) equipment management is critical in optimizing daily clinical operations in emergency departments (EDs). Traditional consultative ultrasound laboratories are well practiced at operations management, but this is not the case for POCUS programs, because machine upgrade and replacement metrics have not been developed or tested. We present a data-driven method for assessment of POCUS equipment maintenance and replacement named the ULTrA (a data-driven approach to point-of-care ultrasound upgrade) score. This novel model of assessing each ultrasound machine by quantitative scoring in each of four mostly objective categories: use (U), likeability (L), trustworthiness (Tr), and age (A). We propose the ULTrA model as a method to identify underperforming devices which could be upgraded or eliminated, and to compare relative performance amongst a group of departmental ultrasound machines. This composite score may be a useful objective tool that could replace individual proxies for clinical effectiveness, such as age, use, or individual provider preference. Additional research in multiple centers would be needed to refine and validate the ULTrA score. Once fully developed, the ULTrA score could be deployed in EDs and other clinical settings where POCUS is used to help streamline resources to maintain a functional and state-of-the-art fleet of ultrasound machines over time.

INTRODUCTION: First detected in December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic upended the global community in a few short months. Diagnostic testing is currently limited in availability, accuracy, and efficiency. Imaging modalities such as chest radiograph (CXR), computed tomography, and lung ultrasound each demonstrate characteristic findings of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Lung ultrasound offers benefits over other imaging modalities including portability, cost, reduced exposure of healthcare workers as well as decreased contamination of equipment such as computed tomography scanners.

CASE SERIES: Here we present a case series describing consistent lung ultrasound findings in patients with confirmed COVID-19 despite variable clinical presentations and CXR findings. We discuss a triage algorithm for clinical applicability and utility of lung point-of-care ultrasound in the setting of COVID-19 and advocate for judicious and targeted use of this tool.

CONCLUSION: Lung point-of-care ultrasound can provide valuable data supporting diagnostic and triage decisions surrounding suspected cases of COVID-19. Prospective studies validating our proposed triage algorithm are warranted.