Effect of cricoid pressure on laryngeal view during prehospital tracheal intubation: A propensity-based analysis

Emergency Medicine Journal

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 132-137

  Caruana, Emmanuel ^a,b   Chevret, Sylvie ^a   Pirracchio, Romain ^b,c,d  

^a BEAUJON HOSPITAL   (France)

^b SAINT LOUIS HOSPITAL   (France)

^c HÔPITAL EUROPÉEN GEORGES POMPIDOU   (France)

^d SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTRIBUTABLE RISK; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRICOID CARTILAGE; EMERGENCY CARE; ENDOTRACHEAL INTUBATION; ESOPHAGUS INTUBATION; FATTY ACID DESATURATION; FEMALE; HEART ARREST; HUMAN; IATROGENIC DISEASE; LARYNGOSCOPY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; OBESITY; PATIENT POSITIONING; PRESSURE; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; RESPIRATORY DISTRESS; SHOCK; EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICE; LARYNX; PATHOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; RISK ASSESSMENT; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CRICOID CARTILAGE; EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTUBATION, INTRATRACHEAL; LARYNGOSCOPY; LARYNX; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; PRESSURE; PROPENSITY SCORE; RISK ASSESSMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84991624774     PISSN: 14720205     EISSN: 14720213     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2016-205715     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Sellick BA. Cricoid pressure to control regurgitation of stomach contents during induction of anaesthesia. Lancet 1961;2:404-6.
2. Link MS, Berkow LC, Kudenchuk PJ, et al. Part 7: adult advanced cardiovascular life support 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation 2015;132:S444-64.
3. Schwartz DE, Matthay MA, Cohen NH. Death and other complications of emergency airway management in critically ill adults. A prospective investigation of 297 tracheal intubations. Anesthesiology 1995;82:367-76.
4. Hartsilver EL, Vanner RG. Airway obstruction with cricoid pressure. Anaesthesia 2000;55:208-11.
5. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983;70:41-55.
6. Vanner RG, Asai T. Safe use of cricoid pressure. Anaesthesia 1999;54:1-3.
7. Société Française d'Anesthésie et de Réanimation. Intubation difficile. 2006.
8. Cormack RS, Lehane J. Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia 1984;39:1105-11.
9. Langeron O, Birenbaum A, Le Saché F, et al. Airway management in obese patient. Minerva Anestesiol 2014;80:382-92.
10. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med 2009;28:3083-107.
11. Caruana E, Chevret S, Resche-Rigon M, et al. A new weighted balance measure helped to select the variables to be included in a propensity score model. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:1415-22.e2.
12. Trethewy CE, Burrows JM, Clausen D, et al. Effectiveness of cricoid pressure in preventing gastric aspiration during rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2012;13:17.
13. Ellis DY, Harris T, Zideman D. Cricoid pressure in emergency department rapid sequence tracheal intubations: A risk-benefit analysis. Annal Emerg Med 2007;50:653-65.
14. Turgeon AF, Nicole PC, Trépanier CA, et al. Cricoid pressure does not increase the rate of failed intubation by direct laryngoscopy in adults. Anesthesiology 2005;102:315-19.
15. Dehejia RH, Wahba S. Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: reevaluating the evaluation of training programs. J Am Stat Assoc 1999;94:1053-62.
16. Caliendo M, Kopeinig S. Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. J Econ Surveys 2008;22:31-72.
17. Westreich D, Cole SR. Invited commentary: positivity in practice. Am J Epidemiol 2010;171:674-7;. discussion 678-81.
18. Petersen ML, Porter KE, Gruber S, et al. Diagnosing and responding to violations in the positivity assumption. Stat Methods Med Res 2012;21:31-54.
19. Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Stat Sci 2010;25:1-21.
20. King G, Nielsen R. Why propensity scores should not be used for matching. Copy at http://jmp/1sexgVw Export BibTex Tagged XML Download Paper 2015;481.
21. Pirracchio R, Carone M, Rigon MR, et al. Propensity score estimators for the average treatment effect and the average treatment effect on the treated may yield very different estimates. Stat Methods Med Res 2013. Published Online First: 6 November 2013.
22. Pirracchio R, Petersen ML, van der Laan M. Improving propensity score estimators' robustness to model misspecification using super learner. Am J Epidemiol 2015;181:108-19.
23. Austin PC. Assessing balance in measured baseline covariates when using many-to-one matching on the propensity-score. Pharmacoepidem Drug Safe 2008;17:1218-25.
24. Krage R, Van Rijn C, Van Groeningen D, et al. Cormack-Lehane classification revisited. Br J Anaesth 2010;105:220-7.