Zdravkovic, Rice and Brull take an objective look at the current evidence for cricoid pressure (CP) and professional guidelines for its use, reiterating the persistent uncertainty and general low-quality of evidence supporting use or avoidance.

They note...

• Sellick's original 1961 description is based upon significantly flawed audit data.
• There is much contradictory primary science research showing some effect of CP.
• NAP4 found pulmonary aspiration responsible for more deaths than intubation or ventilation failures, and the US ASA Closed Claims database shows it to be the third most common pulmonary event leading to claims. Thus recommendations and guidelines for the use of cricoid pressure carry very real medicolegal implications even in the absence of quality clinical evidence.
• Microaspiration in elective surgery is common (20%) but does not appear to be modified by CP.
• CP has a variable effect on the ease of intubation.
• There is no agreement on CP application technique nor even on scenarios where it should or should not be used.
• CP guidelines are variable, based on low-quality evidence and largely dependent on expert opinion.
• CP use is largely up to individual judgement, with a pragmatic approach best adopted for its application or release.
• Perhaps the greatest impact can be gained from ultrasound evaluation of gastric volume to identify those most at risk of aspiration?

Be smart

Bedside risk stratification for pulmonary aspiration is probably the single greatest modifiable factor in anesthesia practice to reduce aspiration, almost certainly of greater importance than the ongoing cricoid pressure debate – which may never be conclusively resolved.

summary

• Marko Zdravkovic, Mark J Rice, and Sorin J Brull.
• From the Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Management, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
• Anesth. Analg. 2021 Jan 1; 132 (1): 261267261-267.

AbstractApplication of cricoid pressure (CP) during rapid sequence induction and intubation sequence has been a "standard" of care for many decades, despite limited scientific proof of its efficacy in preventing pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents. While some of the current rapid sequence induction and intubation guidelines recommend its use, other international guidelines do not, and many clinicians argue that there is insufficient evidence to either continue or abandon its use. Recently published articles and accompanying editorials have reignited the debate on the efficacy and safety of CP application and have generated multiple responses that pointed out the various (and significant) limitations of the available evidence. Thus, a critical discussion of available data must be undertaken before making a final clinical decision on such an important patient safety issue. In this review, the authors will take an objective look at the available scientific evidence about the effectiveness and safety of CP in patients at risk of pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents. We suggest that current data are inadequate to impose clinical guidelines on the use of CP because we acknowledge that currently there is not, and there may never be, a method to prevent aspiration in all patients. In addition, we reiterate that a universally accepted medical-legal standard for approaching the high-risk aspiration patient does not exist, discuss the differences in practice between the US and international practitioners regarding use of CP, and propose 5 recommendations on how future studies might be designed to obtain optimal scientific evidence about the effectiveness and safety of CP in patients at risk for pulmonary aspiration.

15 keywords...

hide…