Primary and secondary outcomes analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis
Survival to 72 hours after the OHCA
LT Group: 18.3%
ETI Group: 15.4%
Difference of 2.9% (95% CI, 0.2%-5.6%; P=0.05; relative risk, 1.19 [CI,  10.01-1.39]
LT Group: 18.3%
ETI Group: 15.4%
Difference of 2.9% (95% CI, 0.2%-5.6%; P=0.05; relative risk, 1.19 [CI,  10.01-1.39]
Return of spontaneous circulation (As determined by presence of palpable pulses on arrival to the emergency department)
LT Group: 27.9%
ETI Group: 24.3%
Adjusted difference, 3.6% [95% CI, 0.3%-6.8%]; P = .03
Survival to hospital discharge
LT Group: 10.8%
ETI Group: 8.1%
Adjusted difference, 2.7% [95% CI, 0.6%-4.8%]; P = .01
Favorable neurological status on hospital discharge
As defined by a Modified Rankin Scale 3 or less
LT Group: 7.1%
ETI Group: 5.0%
Adjusted difference, 2.1% [95% CI, 0.3%-3.8%] P = .02
Other outcomes included EMS airway management course and hospital adverse events
LT Group: 27.9%
ETI Group: 24.3%
Adjusted difference, 3.6% [95% CI, 0.3%-6.8%]; P = .03
LT Group: 10.8%
ETI Group: 8.1%
Adjusted difference, 2.7% [95% CI, 0.6%-4.8%]; P = .01
As defined by a Modified Rankin Scale 3 or less
LT Group: 7.1%
ETI Group: 5.0%
Adjusted difference, 2.1% [95% CI, 0.3%-3.8%] P = .02
A per-protocol analysis was performed
Analyzed cases in which patients received their designated airway intervention
BVM only patients were retained in their groups for this analysis
Authors believed BVM only was an expected course of airway management
Analysis determined that 72-hour survival was greater for LT than ETI
18.3% vs 15.4%; risk difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 0.1%-5.7%]; P=0.45
Analyzed cases in which patients received their designated airway intervention
BVM only patients were retained in their groups for this analysis
Authors believed BVM only was an expected course of airway management
Analysis determined that 72-hour survival was greater for LT than ETI
18.3% vs 15.4%; risk difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 0.1%-5.7%]; P=0.45
Authors believed BVM only was an expected course of airway management
18.3% vs 15.4%; risk difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 0.1%-5.7%]; P=0.45
A post hoc GEE analysis of both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations was performed
Adjusted for age, sex, bystander- or EMS witnessed arrest, time to EMS arrival, bystander chest compressions, and initial cardiac rhythm
Intention-to-treat analysis:
Difference in 72-hour survival between LT and ETI was not statistically significant (adjusted difference, 2.1% [95% CI,−0.5%to 4.8%]; P = .11
Adjusted for age, sex, bystander- or EMS witnessed arrest, time to EMS arrival, bystander chest compressions, and initial cardiac rhythm
Intention-to-treat analysis:
Difference in 72-hour survival between LT and ETI was not statistically significant (adjusted difference, 2.1% [95% CI,−0.5%to 4.8%]; P = .11
Difference in 72-hour survival between LT and ETI was not statistically significant (adjusted difference, 2.1% [95% CI,−0.5%to 4.8%]; P = .11
PART trial
PROCAMIO Trial
FALLS protocol
STOPP/START criteria
ACS - Risk Stratification
Denver screening criteria
ACEP clinical policies
Clinical decision rules list