Opting for CPR But Not Intubation May Not Be Wise


If you have an advance directive that cherry-picks the interventions you want to receive if your heart suddenly stops, you might want to rethink your choices, according to physicians writing in JAMA Internal Medicine.

As patients and families increasingly recognize the value of specifying their wishes regarding medical treatment in case they become unable to communicate, they need to better understand the implications of their decisions, the doctors say.

People who prepare for the possibility of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by specifying selected options – “everything but intubation” or “everything but defibrillation” – don’t realize what that can mean, they warn.

Dr. Paul Rousseau of the Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina describes a 77-year-old man with advanced cancer whose code status called for a “partial” code, with “no intubation.”

So while doctors were able to restart his heart, they couldn’t place a breathing tube in his lungs per his written wish. Without the breathing tube, he didn’t get enough oxygen, and as a result, he suffered severe brain damage. He remained comatose in the intensive care unit for another two weeks before he died.

Delivery of selected options during CPR attempts is a troublesome and increasingly frequent preference that often stems from good intentions among families balancing desires to save a life and limit suffering, Rousseau wrote in his paper.

Many staff, Rousseau recounts, felt that despite honoring this patient’s advance directive, they had actually harmed him. Others worried that the patient had not understood the likely outcomes.

“You do everything you can to return functioning, or you don’t,” Rousseau told Reuters Health. “If you are a baker and not using the main ingredient, the food will not come out okay.”

Rousseau would like to see partial codes banned. “When patients survive, it can often portend messy and emotional futures for families as well as physicians, not to mention financial repercussions for hospitals,” he said.

In a linked commentary, Dr. Josue Zapata and Dr. Eric Widera, both from the University of California, San Francisco, say “partial codes” are symptomatic of communication failures.

“A partial code likely represents a partial understanding by a patient or a partial assessment of their priorities by a provider,” they write.

Zapata and Widera advise doctors to ask patients what they hope their treatments will achieve.

“Providing a list of choices may in itself be misleading in that a patient may falsely believe that if a given intervention is offered as an option by a presumably expert and well-intentioned physician, there must be at least some sort of benefit,” they say.

Outcomes after partial codes in hospitals are hard to study; scant research exists. Large-scale studies show that after a full-out resuscitation effort, including intubation, 17 percent of patients live long enough to be discharged from the hospital, according to Zapata and Widera. For patients with advanced cancer, that rate is probably no higher than 5 percent.

Bioethicist Craig Klugman from DePaul University in Chicago agrees that partial codes should not be offered.

“There are many times in medicine when one thing requires a second thing, and to separate them undermines the chance of benefit,” Klugman told Reuters Health. “To offer a ‘choose your own adventure’ procedure violates the oath to do no harm.”

But Dr. Patrick Cullinan, former medical director of an intensive care unit in San Antonio, Texas, disagrees.

Cullinan told Reuters Health that when patients request a partial code without intubation, he often uses either bag masks or BiPAP (bilevel positive airway pressure), which are noninvasive breathing therapies, instead of intubation.

“Partial DNRs (Do Not Resuscitate orders) are helpful in allowing families to feel empowered and have some input,” Cullinan said. “Those staunchly ‘all’ or ‘nothing’ don’t understand subtleties in providing the most compassionate and appropriate care. By placing an unwanted tube, you steal their last opportunity to talk to their family, to tell them ‘I love you.'”

Dr. Melissa Bregger, a chief internal medicine resident at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago who has extensively studied CPR and advanced life support, says that while little data exists, emerging research showing improved outcomes using bag masks instead of intubation is “somewhat promising.” Among critically ill patients, however, not much evidence supports noninvasive measures.

“It depends on what caused the code, and that’s one of the hardest things to figure out during a code,” Bregger told Reuters Health. If patients code due to dangerous heart rhythms, partial codes may prove as effective as full efforts. However, such patients would be unlikely to have participated in planning discussions to request limited measures.”

“It’s a really hard question,” she said.

Risks for Peri-Intubation Cardiac Arrest.


In a retrospective analysis, patients in shock were at higher risk for peri-intubation cardiac arrest, which usually had an initial rhythm of pulseless electrical activity.
Peri-intubation hypotension and even cardiac arrest are concerns in patients undergoing emergency resuscitation. To determine the incidence of peri-intubation cardiac arrest and factors associated with it, researchers retrospectively analyzed records for 410 adult patients who underwent rapid sequence intubation (RSI) at a single urban emergency department during 2007.

Peri-intubation cardiac arrest (defined as occurring within 60 minutes after initiation of airway management) was documented on the standardized data collection tool in 17 patients (4.2%), at a median 6 minutes after intubation. Nearly two thirds of cardiac arrests occurred within 10 minutes. Pulseless electrical activity was the initial arrest rhythm in most cases. Arrest was more common in patients with pre-intubation hypotension (12% vs. 3%) and in those with pre-intubation oxygen saturation (<92%).

In multivariate logistic regression analysis, higher pre-RSI shock index and body weight were independently associated with peri-intubation cardiac arrest. Although more than half of patients were initially resuscitated, peri-intubation cardiac arrest portended a 14-fold increase in the odds of in-hospital death.

COMMENT

The association of peri-intubation cardiac arrest with higher pre-intubation shock index, and the finding that nearly all cardiac arrest patients had pulseless electrical activity, highlights the precarious state of hypotensive critically ill patients, especially those with higher body mass index. We are subjecting these fragile patients to a combination of induction agents, airway manipulation, and, especially, positive pressure ventilation. The take-home message? Intubate earlier, if possible, before the patient deteriorates; optimize hemodynamic parameters with pressors, fluids, or blood; and carefully control mechanical ventilation to minimize ventilation pressures.

Source: NEJM.

McGrath Series 5 Video Laryngoscope Outperforms Macintosh.


In healthy adult patients with manual cervical spine immobilization, glottic views were better and intubations more successful.

 

Researchers randomized 88 healthy adults undergoing elective surgery at an academic center in Canada to intubation with a Macintosh laryngoscope or McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope. Attending anesthesiologists who practiced with the McGrath Series 5 on a manikin until comfortable with its use evaluated glottic visualization using both devices, and intubated the trachea using the second device. Manual cervical spine immobilization was applied to simulate difficult intubation. Laryngeal manipulation maneuvers were not permitted. Patients with reactive airway disease, gastroesophageal reflux, ischemic heart disease, recent stroke or myocardial infarction, or cervical spine instability were excluded.

Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. All McGrath intubations were successful compared with 59% of Macintosh intubations. Intubation failures were due to inability to view the glottis. The McGrath group had significantly more Cormack-Lehane grade I or II glottic views (100% vs. 51%) and higher mean percentage of glottic opening (82% vs. 13%). The McGrath video laryngoscope improved the glottic view, compared with the Macintosh, in 66 patients (75%): by one grade in 36%, by two grades in 53%, and by three grades in 11%. Mean intubation time was longer with the McGrath (36 vs. 22 seconds). Rates of complications, all minor, were similar in the two groups.

Comment: The McGrath Series 5 video laryngoscope had a higher intubation success rate and improved glottic visualization in patients with cervical spine immobilization, compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope. The McGrath’s longer intubation time is not clinically significant, and if the study design had allowed for laryngeal manipulation, Macintosh intubations would likely have been more successful but also taken more time. With so many studies showing superiority of video laryngoscopes over direct laryngoscopes, perhaps it is time to halt these types of comparisons and move on to comparisons of one video laryngoscope with another.

 

Source: Journal Watch Emergency Medicine

 

The Efficacy of Cap-Assisted Colonoscopy in Polyp Detection and Cecal Intubation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.


The role of cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) in polyp detection and cecal intubation is unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of CAC vs. standard colonoscopy (SC).

METHODS:

Publications in English and non-English literatures (OVID, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) and abstracts in major international conferences were searched for controlled trials comparing CAC and SC. Outcome measures included the proportion of patients with polyps or adenomas detected, cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, and total colonoscopy time. The statistical heterogeneity of trials was examined and the effects were pooled by random-effects model. The risk of bias was evaluated by the assessment tool from the Cochrane Handbook. Subgroup analyses were performed for possible clinical and methodological heterogeneities.

RESULTS:

 

From 2,358 citations, 16 randomized controlled clinical trials were included consisting of 8,991 subjects (CAC: 4,501; SC: 4,490). Mean age of subjects was 61.0 years old and 60% were males. CAC detected a higher proportion of patients with polyp(s) (relative risk (RR): 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00–1.17) and reduced the cecal intubation time (mean difference: −0.64 min; 95% CI: −1.19 to −0.10). Cecal intubation rate (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99–1.02) and total colonoscopy time (mean difference: –0.97 min; 95% CI: −2.33 to 0.40) were comparable between the two groups. In subgroup analyses, a short cap (≤4 mm) was associated with improved polyp detection, whereas a long cap (≥7 mm) was associated with a shorter cecal intubation time.

CONCLUSIONS:

 

CAC demonstrated marginal benefit over SC for polyp detection and shortened the cecal intubation time.

Source: American Journal of Gastroenterology.