↓ Skip to main content

Anaesthetist-provided pre-hospital advanced airway management in children: a descriptive study

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Anaesthetist-provided pre-hospital advanced airway management in children: a descriptive study
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13049-015-0140-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mona Tarpgaard, Troels Martin Hansen, Leif Rognås

Abstract

Pre-hospital advanced airway management has been named one of the top-five research priorities in physician-provided pre-hospital critical care. Few studies have been made on paediatric pre-hospital advanced airway management. The aim of this study was to investigate pre-hospital endotracheal intubation success rate in children, first-pass success rates and complications related to pre-hospital advanced airway management in patients younger than 16 years of age treated by pre-hospital critical care teams in the Central Denmark Region (1.3 million inhabitants). A prospective descriptive study based on data collected from eight anaesthetist-staffed pre-hospital critical care teams between February 1st 2011 and November 1st 2012. Primary endpoints were 1) pre-hospital endotracheal intubation success rate in children 2) pre-hospital endotracheal intubation first-pass success rate in children and 3) complications related to prehospital advanced airway management in children. The pre-hospital critical care anaesthetists attempted endotracheal intubation in 25 children, 13 of which were less than 2 years old. In one patient, a neonate (600 g birth weight), endotracheal intubation failed. The patient was managed by uneventful bag-mask ventilation. All other 24 children had their tracheas successfully intubated by the pre-hospital critical care anaesthetists resulting in a pre-hospital endotracheal intubation success rate of 96 %. Overall first pass success-rate was 75 %. In the group of patients younger than 2 years old, first pass success-rate was 54 %. The total rate of airway management related complications such as vomiting, aspiration, accidental intubation of the oesophagus or right main stem bronchus, hypoxia (oxygen saturation < 90 %) or bradycardia (according to age) was 20 % in children younger than 16 years of age and 38 % in children younger than 2 years of age. No deaths, cardiac arrests or severe bradycardia (heart rate <60) occurred in relation to pre-hospital advanced airway management. Compared with the total population of patients receiving pre-hospital advanced airway management in our system, the overall success rate following pre-hospital endotracheal intubations in children is acceptable but the first-pass success rate is low. The complication rates in the paediatric population are higher than in our pre-hospital advanced airway management patient population as a whole. This illustrates that young children may represent a substantial pre-hospital airway management challenge even for experienced pre-hospital critical care anaesthetists. This may influence future training and quality insurance initiatives in paediatric pre-hospital advanced airway management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 109 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Researcher 9 8%
Other 31 27%
Unknown 27 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 20%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 32 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,381,063
of 23,864,690 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#545
of 1,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,903
of 269,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#7
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,864,690 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,907 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.