C H R Wiese1, J Bahr, A Bergmann, I Bergmann, U Bartels, B M Graf. 1. Zentrum Anaesthesiologie, Rettungs- und Intensivmedizin, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, 37075 Göttingen, Deutschland. chrwiese@gmx.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In 2005 the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) published the new guidelines for Advanced Life Support (ALS). One of the aims was to reduce the no flow time (NFT), without chest compression in the first period of cardiac arrest. Furthermore the guidelines recommend that endotracheal intubation should only be carried out by personnel experienced in this procedure. METHODS: An attempt was made to evaluate whether the use of the laryngeal tube suction (LTS-D) for emergency airway management could contribute to reduce NFT compared to bag-mask ventilation (BMV). In a randomised prospective study 50 participants were asked to perform standardised simulated cardiac arrest management on a full-scale simulator following a one-day cardiac arrest training. Each participant was randomised into the LTS-D and the BMV group for airway management. At the end of each scenario an evaluation of the use of each ventilation procedure by the participants was made by means of a questionnaire. RESULTS: During the manikin scenario (430 s for LTS-D and 420 s for BMV) there was a significant difference in the overall NFT comparing the use of the LTS-D vs. BMV (105.8 s, range 94-124 s vs. 150.7 s, range 124-179 s; p<0.01). This corresponded during the whole scenario to a proportion of 24.6% (LTS-D) or 35.9% (BMV). Using the LTS-D all participants were able to ventilate the manikin successfully (tidal volume 500-600 ml). In a subjective evaluation of the different airway management procedures by the participants more than 90% expressed a positive opinion about the LTS-D with respect to ease of insertion and safety of ventilation. CONCLUSION: The use of the LTS-D on a manikin by emergency physicians after standardised cardiac arrest training significantly reduces the NFT in comparison to BMV. Therefore the LTS-D seems to be a good alternative to BMV during a simulated cardiac arrest scenario.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: In 2005 the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) published the new guidelines for Advanced Life Support (ALS). One of the aims was to reduce the no flow time (NFT), without chest compression in the first period of cardiac arrest. Furthermore the guidelines recommend that endotracheal intubation should only be carried out by personnel experienced in this procedure. METHODS: An attempt was made to evaluate whether the use of the laryngeal tube suction (LTS-D) for emergency airway management could contribute to reduce NFT compared to bag-mask ventilation (BMV). In a randomised prospective study 50 participants were asked to perform standardised simulated cardiac arrest management on a full-scale simulator following a one-day cardiac arrest training. Each participant was randomised into the LTS-D and the BMV group for airway management. At the end of each scenario an evaluation of the use of each ventilation procedure by the participants was made by means of a questionnaire. RESULTS: During the manikin scenario (430 s for LTS-D and 420 s for BMV) there was a significant difference in the overall NFT comparing the use of the LTS-D vs. BMV (105.8 s, range 94-124 s vs. 150.7 s, range 124-179 s; p<0.01). This corresponded during the whole scenario to a proportion of 24.6% (LTS-D) or 35.9% (BMV). Using the LTS-D all participants were able to ventilate the manikin successfully (tidal volume 500-600 ml). In a subjective evaluation of the different airway management procedures by the participants more than 90% expressed a positive opinion about the LTS-D with respect to ease of insertion and safety of ventilation. CONCLUSION: The use of the LTS-D on a manikin by emergency physicians after standardised cardiac arrest training significantly reduces the NFT in comparison to BMV. Therefore the LTS-D seems to be a good alternative to BMV during a simulated cardiac arrest scenario.
Authors: Luis A Gaitini; Sonia J Vaida; Mostafa Somri; Boris Yanovski; Bruce Ben-David; Carin A Hagberg Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: B Bein; S Carstensen; M Gleim; L Claus; P H Tonner; M Steinfath; J Scholz; V Dörges Journal: Eur J Anaesthesiol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.330