ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2026
Prehospital airway and operational management of severe ammonia intoxication: a case report.
Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmmonia inhalation can cause rapid airway compromise and noncardiogenic pulmonary oedema. Although hospital management has been described, prehospital strategies in severe cases remain largely undocumented. CASE PRESENTATION: A 44-year-old obese male (160 kg) was exposed to an ammonia cloud at a decommissioned power plant. He presented with mucosal burns, severe dyspnoea, and hypoxemia despite high-flow oxygen. Prehospital providers initiated nebulized adrenaline, performed ocular irrigation, and prepared for surgical airway backup. Rapid sequence intubation was conducted under video laryngoscopy. Immediately post-intubation, copious foamy secretions confirmed fulminant pulmonary oedema. Despite FiO₂ 1.0 and a PEEP of 12 cmH₂O, oxygenation remained marginal at 89-90%. Intravenous corticosteroids were administered, burns were covered, and the patient was transported by helicopter to a burn and critical care centre. On-scene decontamination was deferred due to instability; the EMS team underwent full decontamination after patient handover. Ground transport to the nearest regional centre would have required approximately 60 min; HEMS transport directly to the tertiary burn centre (MHH Hannover) took approximately 35 min. Beyond transport time, HEMS use involved inherent aeromedical risks: residual ammonia off gassing in the confined cockpit and cabin posed a risk of mucosal irritation or pilot incapacitation, and inadvertent chemical contamination of sensitive avionics or airframe components posed a corrosion risk. These were weighed against clinical urgency and the absence of adequate regional ICU or burn capacity. No formal risk-based framework currently exists to guide HEMS transport of CBRN-exposed patients; this case underscores the need for one.
conclusionsThis case demonstrates the unique prehospital challenges of ammonia inhalation: the need for early definitive airway management, refractory hypoxemia beyond the capacity of prehospital ventilators, and operational dilemmas such as delayed decontamination, patient weight, and limited local ICU resources. It highlights the urgent need for structured EMS protocols for caustic inhalation events. Beyond the clinical case, this report addresses the complexity of transport decision-making in critically ill patients with incomplete decontamination, including civil aviation safety considerations and the absence of a risk-based framework for CBRN aeromedical transport.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.