Neuromuscular blockade-assisted oral intubation versus nasotracheal intubation in the prehospital care of injured patients

Abstract

Study objective: To compare nasotracheal intubation (NTI) to neuromuscular blockade-assisted oral intubation (NMB-assisted oral intubation) in the prehospital care of injured patients.

Design: Prospective, randomized study conducted over 21 months.

Setting: A university hospital-sponsored helicopter service.

Participants: Consecutive adult (more than 12 years old) injured patients at the accident scene with an initial Glasgow Coma Scale of 8 or less in whom the airway was not managed immediately by unrelaxed oral intubation or cricothyrotomy. Subjects were randomized by 24-hour time blocks into NTI or NMB-assisted oral intubation treatment groups. Forty-four were entered into the NTI group (39 randomized, two crossed over to NMB-assisted oral intubation), and 33 were entered into the NMB-assisted oral intubation group (38 randomized, seven crossed over to NTI).

Interventions: NMB-assisted oral intubation (succinylcholine 1.5 mg/kg IV) or NTI was carried out according to standard protocols.

Results: The success rate for NTI was 79.5% (35 of 44) and was similar to that of NMB-assisted oral intubation, 75.8% (25 of 33; chi 2 = .16; P = .69). There were no significant differences between the NTI and the NMB-assisted oral intubation groups with regard to sex, age, outcome, and Glasgow Coma Scale. For those patients in whom the initial technique was successful, NTI was significantly quicker than NMB-assisted oral intubation (mean time of NTI, 2.9 minutes; mean time of NMB-assisted oral intubation, 5.9 minutes; Mann-Whitney U, 168.0; P < .01).

Conclusion: In the prehospital management of severely injured patients, there is no significant difference between NMB-assisted oral intubation and NTI in the rate at which endotracheal intubation is achieved. However, practitioners may prefer NTI because it requires significantly less time to perform than NMB-assisted oral intubation.