BackgroundThe Scandinavian society of anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine task force on pre‐hospital airway management was asked to formulate recommendations following standards for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines.MethodsThe literature was systematically reviewed and the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations.ResultsWe recommend that all emergency medical service (EMS) providers consider to: apply basic airway manoeuvres and airway adjuncts (good practice recommendation); turn unconscious non‐trauma patients into the recovery position when advanced airway management is unavailable (good practice recommendation); turn unconscious trauma patients to the lateral trauma position while maintaining spinal alignment when advanced airway management is unavailable [strong recommendation, low quality of evidence (QoE)]. We suggest that intermediately trained providers use a supraglottic airway device (SAD) or basic airway manoeuvres on patients in cardiac arrest (weak recommendation, low QoE). We recommend that advanced trained providers consider using an SAD in selected indications or as a rescue device after failed endotracheal intubation (ETI) (good practice recommendation). We recommend that ETI should only be performed by advanced trained providers (strong recommendation, low QoE). We suggest that videolaryngoscopy is considered for ETI when direct laryngoscopy fails or is expected to be difficult (weak recommendation, low QoE). We suggest that advanced trained providers apply cricothyroidotomy in ‘cannot intubate, cannot ventilate’ situations (weak recommendation, low QoE).ConclusionThis guideline for pre‐hospital airway management includes a combination of techniques applied in a stepwise fashion appropriate to patient clinical status and provider training.

BackgroundFew publications have addressed prehospital use of ketamine in analgesic doses. We aimed to assess the effect and safety profile of ketamine compared with other analgesic drugs (or no drug) in adult prehospital patients with acute pain.MethodsA systematic review of clinical trials assessing prehospital administration of ketamine in analgesic doses compared with other analgesic drugs or no analgesic treatment in adults. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos from inception until 15 February 2020, including relevant articles in English and Nordic languages. We used the Cochrane and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodologies and exclusively assessed patient-centred outcomes. Two independent authors screened trials for eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias.ResultsWe included eight studies (2760 patients). Ketamine was compared with various opioids given alone, and intranasal ketamine given with nitrous oxide was compared with nitrous oxide given alone. Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one cluster randomised trial included 699 patients. One prospective cohort included 27 patients and two retrospective cohorts included 2034 patients. Five of the eight studies had high risks of bias. Pain score with ketamine is probably lower than after opioids as demonstrated in a cluster-RCT (308 patients) and a retrospective cohort (158 patients) study, Δvisual analogue scale −0.4 (−0.8 to 0.0) and Δnumeric pain rating scale −3.0 (−3.86 to −2.14), respectively. Ketamine probably leads to less nausea and vomiting (risk ratio (RR) 0.24 (0.11 to 0.52)) but more agitation (RR 7.81 (1.85 to 33)) than opioids.ConclusionsThis systematic literature review finds that ketamine probably reduces pain more than opioids and with less nausea and vomiting but higher risk of agitation. Risk of bias in included studies is high.OtherScandinavian society of anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine funded meetings and software. The Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation funded publication. Otherwise this research received no grant from any agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018114399.

In this study, resuscitative experience of the physician did not have a significant effect on survival suggesting that experience does not significantly add to the current ACLS training in responding to ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia. More studies are needed.

BackgroundAirway compromise is a leading cause of death in unconscious trauma patients. Although endotracheal intubation is regarded as the gold standard treatment, most prehospital providers are not trained to perform ETI in such patients. Therefore, various lateral positions are advocated for unconscious patients, but their use remains controversial in trauma patients. We conducted a systematic review to investigate whether the supine position is associated with loss of airway patency compared to the lateral position.MethodsThe review protocol was published in the PROSPERO database (Reg. no. CRD42012001190). We performed literature searches in PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and British Nursing Index and included studies related to airway patency, reduced level of consciousness and patient position. We conducted meta-analyses, where appropriate. We graded the quality of evidence with the GRADE methodology. The search was updated in June 2014.ResultsWe identified 1,306 publications, 39 of which were included for further analysis. Sixteen of these publications were included in meta-analysis. We did not identify any studies reporting direct outcome measures (mortality or morbidity) related to airway compromise caused by the patient position (lateral vs. supine position) in trauma patients or in any other patient group. In studies reporting only indirect outcome measures, we found moderate evidence of reduced airway patency in the supine vs. the lateral position, which was measured by the apnea/hypopnea index (AHI). For other indirect outcomes, we only found low or very low quality evidence.ConclusionsAlthough concerns other than airway patency may influence how a trauma patient is positioned, our systematic review provides evidence supporting the long held recommendation that unconscious trauma patients should be placed in a lateral position.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13049-015-0116-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.