Search

Background: The 'sniffing position' is widely promoted for teaching airway positioning before intubation, but whether this analogy results in novices placing the head and neck appropriately has not been evaluated. We compared performance following the sniffing position instructions with an alternate analogy, 'win with the chin'. We also compared performance following simple anatomic instructions and no instructions.Methods: A randomized controlled study of medical students and PGY1 registrars in Surgery and Internal Medicine was performed. Subjects independently positioned a simulator manikin head and neck based upon their understanding of four written instructions in random order: (i) the 'sniffing position'; (ii) the 'win with the chin' analogy, (iii) anatomic instructions; and (iv) no instructions (control). Digital photographs following each instruction were analysed by two airway experts for (i) adequacy of overall positioning and (ii) the three components of airway positioning.Results: Eighty-one volunteers participated. The positioning was adequate most often (43.2%) following the 'win with the chin' analogy when compared with the other instructions (37.0% anatomic instructions; 19.8% control; 14.8% 'sniffing position' analogy). Positioning following the 'sniffing position' instructions was not different from no instruction (P=0.53). The 'win with the chin' and anatomic instructions were significantly better than no instructions (P=0.002 and 0.023, respectively).Conclusions: The 'win with the chin' analogy resulted in adequate airway positioning significantly more often than the 'sniffing position' or control. It also maintained atlanto-occipital extension compared with anatomic instructions. Overall, 'win with the chin' was a superior teaching analogy and could replace the 'sniffing position' analogy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) as an add-on therapy for uncontrolled severe asthma is an alternative to biologic therapies like omalizumab (OM). We conducted an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) to appraise comparative effectiveness of BT and OM., Methods: A systematic literature review identified relevant randomized controlled trials. The ITC followed accepted methodology., Results: The ITC comprised a sham-controlled trial of BT (AIR2) and two placebo-controlled trials of OM (INNOVATE; EXTRA). Comparing the BT post-treatment period to ongoing treatment with OM, showed no significant differences in the rate ratios (RRs) for severe exacerbations (RR of BT versus OM = 0.91 [95% CI: 0.64, 1.30]; p = 0.62) or hospitalizations (RR = 0.57 [95% CI: 0.17, 1.86]; p = 0.53); emergency department visits were significantly reduced by 75% with BT (RR = 0.25 [95% CI: 0.07, 0.91]; p = 0.04); the proportions of patients with clinically meaningful response on the asthma quality-of-life questionnaire were comparable (RR = 1.06 [95% CI: 0.86, 1.34]; p = 0.59). The RR for exacerbations statistically favours OM over the total study period in AIR2 (RR = 1.50 [95% CI: 1.11, 2.02]; p = 0.009) likely reflecting a transient increase in events during the BT peri-treatment period., Conclusions: The ITC should be interpreted cautiously considering the differences between patient populations in the included trials. However, based on the analysis, BT compares well with a potentially more costly pharmacotherapy for asthma. Clinicians evaluating the relative merits of using these treatments should consider the totality of evidence and patient preferences to make an informed decision.