Prehospital airway management in the pediatric patient: A systematic review

Background Critically ill children may require airway management to optimize delivery of oxygen and ventilation during resuscitation. We performed a systematic review of studies comparing the use of bag-valve-mask ventilation (BVM), supraglottic airway devices (SGA), and endotracheal intubation (ETI) in pediatric patients requiring prehospital airway management. Methods We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for papers that compared SGA or ETI to BVM use in children, including studies that reported survival outcomes. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We compared key characteristics of the candidate papers, including inclusion criteria, definitions of airway interventions, and association with outcomes. Results Of 773 studies, eight met criteria for inclusion. Only one study was a randomized controlled trial; the other seven studies were observational. Four studies compared ETI to BVM, two studies compared SGA to BVM, one study compared ETI to SGA, and two studies compared advanced airway management (AAM) to BVM. Primary outcomes varied, ranging from overall mortality and 24-h mortality to 1-month survival, hospital survival, and neurologically favorable survival. Four of the studies found no difference in survival with the use of ETI, and four found increased mortality with the use of ETI. Associations with outcomes could not be assessed by meta-analysis due to limited number of studies and the wide variation in the design, population, interventions, and outcome measures of the included studies. Conclusions In this systematic review, studies of prehospital pediatric airway management varied in scope, design, and conclusions. There was insufficient evidence to evaluate efficacy of pediatric prehospital airway management; however, the current research suggests that there are equal or worse outcomes with the use of ETI compared to other airway techniques. Additional clinical trials are needed to assess the merits of this practice.