Inserting breathing tube may not be best for victims of cardiac arrest

by Barbara Bronson Gray, Healthday Reporter
Inserting breathing tube may not be best for victims of cardiac arrest
Patients in large study seemed to do better when emergency workers used older ventilation method.

(HealthDay)—When a person's heart stops beating, most emergency personnel have been taught to first insert a breathing tube through the victim's mouth, but a new Japanese study found that approach may actually lower the chances of survival and lead to worse neurological outcomes.

have long been taught the A-B-C method, focusing first on the and breathing and then circulation, through hand compressions on the chest, explained Dr. Donald Yealy, chair of at the University of Pittsburgh and co-author of an editorial accompanying the study.

But it may be more important to first restore circulation and get the blood moving through the body, he said. "We're not saying the airway isn't important, but rather that securing the airway should happen after succeeding in restoring the pulse," he explained.

The study compared cases of in which a breathing tube was inserted—considered advanced airway management—to cases using conventional bag-valve-mask ventilation.

There are a number of reasons why the use of a breathing tube in cardiac arrest may reduce effectiveness and even the odds of survival. "Every time you stop chest compressions, you start at zero building a wave of [getting the blood to circulate]. You're on a clock, and there are only so many hands in the field," Yealy said.

Study author Dr. Kohei Hasegawa, a in surgery at Harvard Medical School, gave another reason to prioritize over airway restoration.

Because many don't get the chance to place breathing tubes more than once or twice a year, he said, "it's difficult to get practice, so the chances you're doing intubation successfully are very small."

Hasegawa also noted that it's especially difficult to insert a in the field, such as in someone's living room or out on the street.

Yealy said that inserting what is called an "" or a "supraglottic [over-the-tongue] airway" in people who have a cardiac arrest out of the hospital has been standard practice since the 1970s. But recent studies have suggested that it may not be helping people survive and could even be responsible for serious mental disabilities in survivors.

That spurred Japanese researchers to undertake a large-scale study, expanding and testing the research that had previously been done, Hasegawa said. Their findings are published in the Jan. 16 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The researchers had emergency service personnel working throughout Japan report every case of cardiac arrest and note related data—such as age and sex of each patient, the cause of the cardiac arrest, the technique of airway management used and outcomes—over six years.

Almost 650,000 adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were documented. The researchers analyzed the data to see what factors were associated with a favorable neurological outcome, ranging from good mental performance to moderate disability and severe cerebral disability to vegetative state and death. They also wanted to see what methods appeared to be more or less successful in getting the heart to restart before arrival at the hospital, and achieving one-month survival.

The researchers found that using any type of advanced airway management—such as endotracheal intubation or supraglottic airway—was associated with decreased odds of having a favorable neurological outcome. Those patients who were treated with only the less advanced bag-valve-mask ventilation tended to do better.

However, the study did not establish a cause-and-effect relationship between airway management method and survival and neurological outcomes in cardiac arrest.

Both Yealy and Hasegawa agree that despite the size of this study, it is too soon to recommend a change in practice. "This very basic question of how to best resuscitate a person with cardiac arrest, we can't even answer," said Yealy.

Emergency medical services staff must use the scientific process to learn more about what works and what doesn't, Yealy explained. "We can't tell you the best way yet."

More information: To learn more about CPR, see the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Related Stories

New studies confirm chest compressions alone

Dec 26, 2007

Two large-scale studies published in the Dec. 18 issue of the American Heart Association’s medical journal, Circulation, report that the chances of surviving cardiac arrest are no better – and may be worse – when b ...

Recommended for you

Study: Removing clot helps limit stroke disability

Dec 17, 2014

For the first time in several decades, a new treatment has been shown to limit the damage from a common type of stroke. Researchers in the Netherlands found that mechanically removing a clot in addition to using a clot-busting ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

tkjtkj
not rated yet Jan 15, 2013
Bravo!!! As a retired Anesthesiologist I concur that the enormous stresses induced by endotracheal intubation in a non-anesthetised patient can have very undesireable cardiovascular consequences!! On the other hand, so can aspiration, if the patient is semi-conscious or more depressed ...
If the patient is awake and caN be ventilated judiciously, then i see no reason to intubate 'by protocol' . Presumably, the patient iS already on 100% O2 and the EMT's do, these days, carry O2-Sat sensors .. so decisions might not be all that difficult to make even in the heated and adrenaline-doused situation of arriving at a scene of presumed Cardiac Arrest.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.