Protocol for a systematic review on effective patient positioning for rapid sequence intubation. Issue 11 (4th November 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sivajohan, Asaanth; Krause, Sarah CT; Hegazy, Ahmed; Slessarev, Marat
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 12:Issue 11(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-11-04
• Subjects: Adult anaesthesia -- Adult intensive & critical care -- ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY MEDICINE; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062988
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is an advanced airway technique to perform endotracheal intubation in patients at high risk of aspiration. Although RSI is recognised as a life-saving technique and performed by many physicians in various settings (emergency departments, intensive care units), there is still a lack of consensus on various features of the procedure, most notably patient positioning. Previously, experts have commented on the unique drawbacks and benefits of various positions and studies have been published comparing patient positions and how it can affect endotracheal intubation in the context of RSI. The purpose of this systematic review is to compile the existing evidence to understand and compare how different patient positions can potentially affect the success of RSI. Methods and analysis: We will use MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to source studies from 1946 to 2021 that evaluate the impact of patient positioning on endotracheal intubation in the context of RSI. We will include randomised control trials, case–control studies, prospective/retrospective cohort studies and mannequin simulation studies for consideration in this systematic review. Subsequently, we will generate a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram to display how we selected our final studies for inclusion in the review. Two independent reviewers will complete the study screening, selection and extraction, with a third reviewer available to address any conflicts. The reviewers will extract this data in accordance with our outcomes of interest and display it in a table format to highlight patient-relevant outcomes and difficulty airway management outcomes. We will use the Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess included studies for bias. Ethics and dissemination: This systematic review does not require ethics approval, as all patient-centred data will be reported from published studies. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022289773.