Rapid Sequence Intubation Boosts First-Pass Success
TOPLINE:
In a US study of patients without cardiac arrest who required prehospital intubation, rapid sequence intubation (RSI), involving the use of a sedative and paralytic, was associated with increased odds of first-pass success compared with intubation without medication.
METHODOLOGY:
Researchers performed a retrospective observational analysis using the 2022 Emergency Services Organization Data Collaborative dataset containing records from emergency medical services (EMS) agencies in the US.
The analysis included 12,713 patients (median age, 60 years; 58.4% men; 24.2% traumatic cases) who underwent at least one intubation attempt during a 911 response. Patients in cardiac arrest were excluded.
The researchers categorized drug-assisted airway management approaches on the basis of medications administered before the initial endotracheal intubation attempt: RSI (including both a sedative and a paralytic; 51.2%), sedative-only intubation (17.9%), paralytic-only intubation (1.3%), and no-medication intubation (29.6%).
The primary outcome was first-pass intubation success.
TAKEAWAY:
The overall first-pass success rate was 75.1%.
The adjusted odds of achieving first-pass success were higher with RSI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.23; 95% CI, 2.00-2.50) and paralytic-only intubation (aOR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.38-3.24) than with no-medication intubation.
RSI showed increased odds of first-pass success compared with sedation-only intubation (aOR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.88-2.43).
Sedation-only intubation showed success rates similar to those of no-medication intubation.
IN PRACTICE:
"In this analysis of a large national EMS dataset of noncardiac arrest patients undergoing endotracheal intubation, rapid sequence intubation was associated with twofold higher odds of first-pass success compared with sedation-only or no-medication approaches," the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Jeffrey L. Jarvis, MD, MS, EMT-P, Burnett College of Medicine, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas. It was published online on June 04, 2025, in the Annals of Emergency Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The study focused solely on the association between drug combination and first-pass success, without evaluating causation, procedure indication appropriateness, adverse events, or clinical outcomes. EMS treatment protocols were not uniform across agencies, and the dataset lacked information on clinician experience with intubation. Variability in EMS protocols and clinician experience, potential data entry or documentation errors (including reliance on self-reported data), and a small sample size for paralytic-only intubations were additional limitations.
DISCLOSURES:
Funding information was not provided for the study. One author reported serving as an unpaid board member for the National Emergency Medical Service Quality Alliance, the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, and the Prehospital Guidelines Consortium, unrelated to this study. He also reported receiving unrestricted honoraria for speaking on various topics at EMS-related conferences.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
A Simple Way to Close Racial Gaps in Cancer Trial Enrollment
TOPLINE: In a single-center survey, patients with breast cancer from different racial and ethnic backgrounds were equally likely to discuss and participate in clinical trials when given the opportunity. Among patients who declined to participate, ineligibility and time commitment emerged as key barriers. METHODOLOGY: Clinical trials are crucial for advancing breast cancer care, but enrollment among Black and Hispanic women remains disproportionately low, resulting in study populations that do not reflect the diversity of patients with breast cancer. Some studies suggest that when given the opportunity, Black and Hispanic patients are just as willing to participate in clinical trials as their White counterparts. To better understand discussions, participation as well as patient attitudes surrounding clinical trials, researchers analyzed survey responses from 1150 patients with breast cancer who were enrolled in the Chicago Multiethnic Epidemiologic Breast Cancer Cohort and responded to a survey between July and September 2022. Among them, 4.4% were Asian, 19.5% Black, 3.1% Hispanic, and 73.0% White individuals; mean age at diagnosis was just under 54 years. Compared with White patients, Black patients had increased proportions of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC; 14.6% vs 25.0%) and grade 3 tumors (36.9% vs 55.5%). Outcomes of interest were discussions of clinical trials, actual participation, and barriers to participation. TAKEAWAY: Among survey respondents, 447 (38.9%) reported discussing trial participation with healthcare practitioners, with no significant differences between different racial/ethnic groups (adjusted odds ratios, 0.75 for Asian, 1.31 for Black, 0.73 for Hispanic patients compared to White patients). Of the 443 patients who were offered trials, 64.3% participated. Patients who were younger, had more advanced disease, or were diagnosed with TNBC or high-grade cancer were more likely to be offered a clinical trial. While there were differences in trial participation rates across racial and ethnic groups, they were not significantly different after adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Among 158 patients who declined to participate, the primary reasons were ineligibility and lack of interest in trials (23.4% for both) as well as concerns about receiving placebo (10.8%) and the time requirement (10.1%). Patients with an annual household income below $150,000 were also significantly less likely to participate than those with an income of $150,000 or more but this association varied by income bracket, suggesting that financial barriers are more nuanced than annual income alone. IN PRACTICE: The study adds to evidence that patients from racial minority groups are just as willing to enroll in clinical trials when given the chance, according to an invited commentary by Joseph M. Unger, PhD, MS, Fred Hutch Cancer Center, Seattle. The results also 'lend crucial validation' to prior findings showing that structural and clinical barriers — not patient refusal — are the main reasons for trial non-participation, according to Unger. 'Reducing barriers to enrollment of clinical trials is a scientific and ethical imperative for the cancer community,' the study authors said. SOURCE: This study, led by Nan Chen, MD, University of Chicago, Illinois, was published online in JAMA Network Open. LIMITATIONS: The study population may not have fully represented the broader population of patients with breast cancer in the US. The analysis also lacked sufficient statistical power to detect significant differences in clinical trial discussion and participation between Asian or Hispanic patients and White patients given limited sample sizes. Additionally, survey-based data collection may have introduced selection bias as respondents were likely healthier or had positive experiences with clinical trial discussion or participation. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported partly by grants from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, National Cancer Institute, Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, and National Institute on Aging. Two authors reported receiving personal fees or grants from various sources, outside the submitted work. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Why Reliability Is The Hardest Problem In Physical AI
Dr. Jeff Mahler: Co-Founder, Chief Technology Officer, Ambi Robotics; PhD in AI and Robotics from UC Berkeley. getty Imagine your morning commute. You exit the highway and tap the brakes, but nothing happens. The car won't slow down. You frantically search for a safe place to coast, heart pounding, hoping to avoid a crash. Even after the brakes are repaired, would you trust that car again? Trust, once broken, is hard to regain. When it comes to physical products like cars, appliances or robots, reliability is everything. It's how we come to count on them for our jobs, well-being or lives. As with vehicles, reliability is critical to the success of AI-driven robots, from the supply chain to factories to our homes. While the stakes may not always be life-or-death, dependability still shapes how we trust robots, from delivering packages before the holidays to cleaning the house just in time for a dinner party. Yet despite the massive potential of AI in the physical world, reliability remains a grand challenge for the field. Three key factors make this particularly hard and point to where solutions might emerge. 1. Not all failures are equal. Digital AI products like ChatGPT make frequent mistakes, yet hundreds of millions of active users use them. The key difference is that these mistakes are usually of low consequence. Coding assistants might suggest a software API that doesn't exist, but this error will likely be caught early in testing. Such errors are annoying but permissible. In contrast, if a robot AI makes a mistake, it can cause irreversible damage. The consequences range from breaking a beloved item at home to causing serious injuries. In principle, physical AI could learn to avoid critical failures with sufficient training data. In practice, however, these failures can be extremely rare and may need to occur many times before AI learns to avoid them. Today, we still don't know what it takes in terms of data, algorithms or computation to achieve high dependability with end-to-end robot foundation models. We have yet to see 99.9% reliability on a single task, let alone many. Nonetheless, we can estimate that the data scale needed for reliable physical AI is immense because AI scaling laws show a diminishing performance with increased training data. The scale is likely orders of magnitude higher than for digital AI, which is already trained on internet-scale data. The robot data gap is vast, and fundamentally new approaches may be needed to achieve industrial-grade reliability and avoid critical failures. 2. Failures can be hard to diagnose. Another big difference between digital and physical AI is the ability to see how a failure occurred. When a chatbot makes a mistake, the correct answer can be provided directly. For robots, however, it can be difficult to observe the root causes of issues in the first place. Limitations of hardware are one problem. A robot without body-wide tactile sensing may be unable to detect a slippery surface before dropping an item or unable to stop when backing into something behind it. The same can happen in the case of occlusions and missing data. If a robot can't sense the source of the error, it must compensate for these limitations—and all of this requires more data. Long-time delays present another challenge. Picture a robot that sorts a package to the wrong location, sending it to the wrong van for delivery. The driver realizes the mistake when they see one item left behind at the end of the day. Now, the entire package history may need to be searched to find the source of the mistake. This might be possible in a warehouse, but in the home, the cause of failure may not be identified until the mistake happens many times. To mitigate these issues, monitoring systems are hugely important. Sensors that can record the robot's actions, associate them with events and find anomalies can make it easier to determine the root cause of failure and make updates to the hardware, software or AI on the robot. Observability is critical. The better that machines get at seeing the root cause of failure, the more reliable they will become. 3. There's no fallback plan. For digital AI, the internet isn't just training data; it's also a knowledge base. When a chatbot realizes it doesn't know the answer to something, it can search through other data sources and summarize them. Entire products like Perplexity are based on this idea. For physical AI, there's not always a ground truth to reference when planning actions in real-world scenarios like folding laundry. If a robot can't find the sheet corners, it's not likely to have success by falling back to classical computer vision. This is why many practical AI robots use human intervention, either remote or in-person. For example, when a Waymo autonomous vehicle encounters an unfamiliar situation on the road, it can ask a human operator for additional information to understand its environment. However, it's not as clear how to intervene in every application. When possible, a powerful solution is to use a hybrid AI robot planning system. The AI can be tightly scoped to specific decisions such as where to grasp an item, and traditional methods can be used to plan a path to reach that point. As noted above, this is limited and won't work in cases where there is no traditional method to solve the problem. Intervention and fallback systems are key to ensuring reliability with commercial robots today and in the foreseeable future. Conclusion Despite rapid advances in digital GenAI, there's no obvious path to highly reliable physical AI. It isn't just a technical hurdle; it's the foundation for trust in intelligent machines. Solving it will require new approaches to data gathering, architectures for monitoring/interventions and systems thinking. As capabilities grow, however, so does momentum. The path is difficult, but the destination is worth it. Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Suze Orman: 3 Retirement Curveballs To Watch Out For
Most people don't know how long they'll live or what their old age will look like, and there's no shortage of brutal realities. For example, most people will have to reduce or all together stop driving by their mid-70s. Additionally, the lifetime risk of dementia increases to over 50% among those who reach age 75. And most people are likely to develop a condition requiring long-term care in their senior years. You can hope for the best, but you have to prepare for the worst. Find Out: Read Next: In a recent post on her blog, financial expert Suze Orman discussed three common retirement curveballs. Even if you're lucky enough to dodge these curveballs, you need to know what they are and to stress-test your retirement plan to make sure that if you are struck, you — and your finances — can handle it. This year's Retirement Confidence Survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute found that 3 in 4 people working expect to go on to continue to earn money in retirement. But that doesn't usually happen. 'In reality, only three in 10 people surveyed who are retired are working for pay,' Orman wrote. The top reason retirees opt to go back to work is to be able to make money amid rising costs of living. But what if you physically or mentally can't return to a working lifestyle? Around 46% of Americans ages 75 and older and 24% of those ages 65 to 74 reported having a disability, according to estimates from the Census Bureau's 2021 American Community Survey (ACS). Who's to say that you won't be among the Americans who have a disability in retirement, and one that renders you unable to generate income? Be Aware: Maybe you're set on retiring at the full retirement age of 66 or 67, depending on when you were born. Maybe you're thinking you may even push it back a couple years to make some more money before you bid adieu to working life. Consider the cruel possibility that you may not have a choice but to retire early. 'About two-thirds of people surveyed who reported they retired earlier than planned said it wasn't their idea,' Orman wrote, citing data from the Retirement Confidence Survey. 'About 30% said they stopped working due to downsizing or other strategic staffing changes at their job, and another 30% had a health problem or disability that pushed them to retire early. Some people reported stopping work earlier to care for a spouse or another family member.' Do you want to sail smoothly into retirement? Maybe do leave the full-time hustle and bustle but work as a consultant for a few years before exiting the workforce? Well, yet another brutal reality could strike. A bad health event or some other serious situation in your life may force you to pull the plug fast on the working life. 'Half of the surveyed workers said they plan to have a gradual transition to retirement where they have reduced hours, rather than a cold-turkey full-time stop,' Orman wrote. 'Yet nearly 3 in 4 retirees said they, in fact, didn't have the gradual transition, and instead did an abrupt change from working on Friday and being retired on the following Monday.' They're called curveballs because we don't see them coming. But that doesn't mean we can't prepare for them so that if they do hit us, we're not taken down with them. More From GOBankingRates Clever Ways To Save Money That Actually Work in 2025 This article originally appeared on Suze Orman: 3 Retirement Curveballs To Watch Out For
