PURPOSE: In the 2005 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines, the laryngeal mask (LMA) was proposed as an alternative to tracheal intubation for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). We compared the utility of a newly developed LMA, the Supreme(®) (Supreme), with a conventional LMA, the Soft Seal(®) (Soft Seal). METHODS: A total of 19 novice doctors in our anesthesia department performed insertion of the Supreme or Soft Seal on a manikin with or without chest compression. Insertion time and number of attempts for successful ventilation were measured. After successful ventilation, the amount of air entering the stomach and maximum ventilation pressure were measured. The subjective difficulty of using the devices was also measured. RESULTS: The ventilation success rate of first insertion did not differ between the Supreme and Soft Seal without chest compression. However, the success rate was significantly lower with the Soft Seal than the Supreme during chest compression. Insertion time was lengthened by chest compression with the Soft Seal, but not with the Supreme. Maximum ventilation pressure was higher with the Supreme than the Soft Seal. The amount of air entering the stomach was significantly lower with the Supreme than the Soft Seal. The Supreme also scored better than the Soft Seal on a visual analog scale of subjective difficulty in insertion. CONCLUSIONS: The Supreme is an effective device for airway management during chest compression.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: In the 2005 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines, the laryngeal mask (LMA) was proposed as an alternative to tracheal intubation for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). We compared the utility of a newly developed LMA, the Supreme(®) (Supreme), with a conventional LMA, the Soft Seal(®) (Soft Seal). METHODS: A total of 19 novice doctors in our anesthesia department performed insertion of the Supreme or Soft Seal on a manikin with or without chest compression. Insertion time and number of attempts for successful ventilation were measured. After successful ventilation, the amount of air entering the stomach and maximum ventilation pressure were measured. The subjective difficulty of using the devices was also measured. RESULTS: The ventilation success rate of first insertion did not differ between the Supreme and Soft Seal without chest compression. However, the success rate was significantly lower with the Soft Seal than the Supreme during chest compression. Insertion time was lengthened by chest compression with the Soft Seal, but not with the Supreme. Maximum ventilation pressure was higher with the Supreme than the Soft Seal. The amount of air entering the stomach was significantly lower with the Supreme than the Soft Seal. The Supreme also scored better than the Soft Seal on a visual analog scale of subjective difficulty in insertion. CONCLUSIONS: The Supreme is an effective device for airway management during chest compression.
Authors: Julian T Mulcaster; Joanna Mills; Orlando R Hung; Kirk MacQuarrie; J Adam Law; Saul Pytka; David Imrie; Chris Field Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Gene N Peterson; Karen B Domino; Robert A Caplan; Karen L Posner; Lorri A Lee; Frederick W Cheney Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Arnd Timmermann; Stefan Cremer; Christoph Eich; Stephan Kazmaier; Anselm Bräuer; Bernhard M Graf; Sebastian G Russo Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 7.892