Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:43:56.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Complication Rates for the Esophageal Obturator Airway and Endotracheal Tube in the Prehospital Setting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Daniel G. Hankins ,
Nancy Carruthers ,
R. J. Frascone ,
Linda Ann Long  and
Brian C. Campion
Daniel G. Hankins*
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medical Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
Nancy Carruthers
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, St. Paul, Minn. Ramsey Medical Center, St. Paul, Minn.
R. J. Frascone
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center, St. Paul, Minn.
Linda Ann Long
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, St. Paul, Minn. Ramsey Medical Center, St. Paul, Minn.
Brian C. Campion
Affiliation:
Franciscan Health Care System, LaCrosse, Wis.
*
Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street S.W., Rochester, MN 55905USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose:

The purpose of this study was to determine the complication rates associated with the use of the endotracheal tube (ET) a the use of the esophageal obturator airway/esophageal gastric tube airway (EOA/EGT during the treatment of patients with prehospital cardiac arrest.

Methods:

A descriptive, quasi-experimental study of 509 consecutive adults, cardiac arrest patients was conducted. Patients were examined prospectively for airway intervention type and complications. Some patients were examined at their final destinations (field, morgue, funeral home), while other patients were examined by EMS providers in the field when airway adjuncts were switched. Also, airways were evaluated for complications by emergency physicians at destination emergency departments.

Results:

The airway in use at the time of examination was the esophageal obturator airway (EOA) or esophageal gas lube airway (EGTA) in 208 patients (40.1%); the ET (endotracheal tube) in 232 patients (45.6%); and an oral or nasopha ryngeal airway in 47 patients (9.2%). Twenty-two patients (4.3%) had both an EOA/EGTA and an ET tube in place at the time of the examination. The survival rates were similar between the EOA/EGTA and the ET groups (28% and 32%, respectively). The complication rates overall also were similar, but the serious or potentially lethal complication rate was 3.3 times more common with the use of the EOA/EGTA than with the ET tube (8.7% versus 2.6%, respectively).

Conclusions:

The complication rate for the EOA/EGTA is unacceptably high, and careful thought must be given to its continued use. Serious questions also arise concerning the complication rates associated with the use of the ET: is the complication rate of 2.5% acceptable or should other airway alternative be considered for use in prehospital care?

Keywords

advanced life supportairwaybasic life supportcardiac arrestcomplicationsEMSEMS systemsendotracheal intubationesophageal obturator airwayesophageal gastric tube airwaynasopharyngeal airwayoropharyngeal airwayprehospitaltraining
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 117 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Pepe, PE, Copass, ME, Joyce, TH: Prehospital endotracheal intubation: Rationale for training prehospital personnel. Ann Emerg Med 1985;14:1085–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. McCabe, CJ, Browne, BJ: Esophageal obturator airway, ET tube and pharyngeal-tracheal lumen airway. Amer J Emerg Med 1986;4:64–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Hammergren, Y, Clinton, JE, Ruiz, E: A standard comparison of esophageal obturator airway and endotracheal tube ventilation in cardiac arrest. Ann Emerg Med 1985;14:953–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Geatler, JP, Cameron, DE, Shea, K, Baker, CL: The esophageal obturator airway: Obturator or obtundator? J Trauma 1985;25:424–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Goldenberg, IF, Campion, BC, Siebold, CM, et al. : Esophageal gastric tube airway vs endotracheal tube in prehospital cardiac arrest. Chest 1986;90:90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar