STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess whether using interventions such as laryngeal mask airways (LMA) and IO lines lead to improved resuscitation in a simulated cardiac arrest when compared to standard methods of endotracheal intubation (ETI) and central line placement. METHODS:Emergency Medicine residents at a single academic center were grouped into teams of four. Each team participated in two simulated ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrests using a high fidelity simulator. Peripheral IV access was unobtainable. Only ETI supplies and a central line kit were available in one case (control) and in the other case those supplies were replaced by an LMA and an EZ-IO drill kit (experimental). Groups were randomized to which set up they were given first. Data examined included time to airway placement, duration and success rate of airway placement, time to vascular access, time to defibrillation, and percent hands off time. RESULTS:44 residents in 11 teams participated. Mean time to airway was shorter in the experimental group (122.8 seconds (s) vs. 265.6 s, p=0.001). Mean duration of airway attempt was also shorter (7.6 s vs. 22.7 s, p=0.002). Time to access was shorter in the experimental group (49.0 s vs. 194.6 s, p=<0.001). Time to defibrillation and percent hands off time did not significantly differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Use of an LMA and an IO device led to significantly faster establishment of an airway and vascular access in a simulated cardiac arrest. The variation in devices did not affect time to defibrillation or percent hands off time.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess whether using interventions such as laryngeal mask airways (LMA) and IO lines lead to improved resuscitation in a simulated cardiac arrest when compared to standard methods of endotracheal intubation (ETI) and central line placement. METHODS: Emergency Medicine residents at a single academic center were grouped into teams of four. Each team participated in two simulated ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrests using a high fidelity simulator. Peripheral IV access was unobtainable. Only ETI supplies and a central line kit were available in one case (control) and in the other case those supplies were replaced by an LMA and an EZ-IO drill kit (experimental). Groups were randomized to which set up they were given first. Data examined included time to airway placement, duration and success rate of airway placement, time to vascular access, time to defibrillation, and percent hands off time. RESULTS: 44 residents in 11 teams participated. Mean time to airway was shorter in the experimental group (122.8 seconds (s) vs. 265.6 s, p=0.001). Mean duration of airway attempt was also shorter (7.6 s vs. 22.7 s, p=0.002). Time to access was shorter in the experimental group (49.0 s vs. 194.6 s, p=<0.001). Time to defibrillation and percent hands off time did not significantly differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Use of an LMA and an IO device led to significantly faster establishment of an airway and vascular access in a simulated cardiac arrest. The variation in devices did not affect time to defibrillation or percent hands off time.