Emergency front‐of‐neck access in infants: A pragmatic crossover randomized control trial comparing two approaches on a simulated rabbit model

Abstract

Background

Rapid‐sequence tracheotomy and scalpel‐bougie tracheotomy are two published approaches for establishing emergency front‐of‐neck access in infants. It is unknown whether there is a difference in performance times and success rates between the two approaches.

Aims

The aim of this cross‐over randomized control trial study was to investigate whether the two approaches were equivalent for establishing tracheal access in rabbit cadavers. The underlying hypothesis was that the time to achieve the tracheal access is the same with both techniques.

Methods

Between May and September 2022, thirty physicians (pediatric anesthesiologists and intensivists) were randomized to perform front‐of‐neck access using one and then the other technique: rapid‐sequence tracheotomy and scalpel‐bougie tracheotomy. After watching training videos, each technique was practiced four times followed by a final tracheotomy during which study measurements were obtained. Based on existing data, an equivalence margin was set at ∆ = ±10 s for the duration of the procedure. The primary outcome was defined as the duration until tracheal tube placement was achieved successfully. Secondary outcomes included success rate, structural injuries, and subjective participant self‐evaluation.

Results

The median duration of the scalpel‐bougie tracheotomy was 48 s (95% CI: 37–57), while the duration of the rapid‐sequence tracheotomy was 59 s (95% CI: 49–66, p = .07). The difference in the median duration between the two approaches was 11 s (95% CI: −4.9 to 29). The overall success rate was 93.3% (95% CI: 83.8%–98.2%). The scalpel‐bougie tracheotomy resulted in significantly fewer damaged tracheal rings and was preferred among participants.

Conclusions

The scalpel‐bougie tracheotomy was slightly faster than the rapid‐sequence tracheotomy and favored by participants, with fewer tracheal injuries. Therefore, we propose the scalpel‐bougie tracheostomy as a rescue approach favoring the similarity to the adult approach for small children. The use of a comparable equipment kit for both children and adults facilitates standardization, performance, and logistics.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05499273.