Nobuyasu Komasawa1, Takashi Cho2, Ryosuke Mihara2, Toshiaki Minami2. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Osaka Medical College, Japan. Electronic address: ane078@poh.osaka-med.ac.jp. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Osaka Medical College, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The utility of the gum-elastic bougie (GEB) as an assistive device for tracheal intubation during chest compressions has not been sufficiently validated. This study aimed to compare the utility of the GEB during chest compressions on an adult manikin. METHODS:Seventeen novice physicians performedtracheal intubation on an adult manikin using the GEB with or without chest compressions. Intubation success rate, intubation time, subjective difficulty of laryngoscopy, and tube passage through the glottis were measured. P < .05 was considered as significantly different. RESULTS: All novice physicians successfully secured the airway without chest compression with and without the GEB. In contrast, during chest compressions, 7 failed without the GEB, whereas only 1 failed with the GEB (P = .007). Intubation time was significantly longer with chest compressions regardless of GEB use (P < .001). Both laryngoscopy and tube passage through the glottis were perceived as significantly more difficult with chest compressions, regardless of GEB use (P < .001). Subjective difficulty of tube passage through the glottis during chest compression was perceived as significantly more easy by GEB application (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the GEB facilitates tracheal intubation during chest compressions performed by novice physicians in adult simulations.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The utility of the gum-elastic bougie (GEB) as an assistive device for tracheal intubation during chest compressions has not been sufficiently validated. This study aimed to compare the utility of the GEB during chest compressions on an adult manikin. METHODS: Seventeen novice physicians performed tracheal intubation on an adult manikin using the GEB with or without chest compressions. Intubation success rate, intubation time, subjective difficulty of laryngoscopy, and tube passage through the glottis were measured. P < .05 was considered as significantly different. RESULTS: All novice physicians successfully secured the airway without chest compression with and without the GEB. In contrast, during chest compressions, 7 failed without the GEB, whereas only 1 failed with the GEB (P = .007). Intubation time was significantly longer with chest compressions regardless of GEB use (P < .001). Both laryngoscopy and tube passage through the glottis were perceived as significantly more difficult with chest compressions, regardless of GEB use (P < .001). Subjective difficulty of tube passage through the glottis during chest compression was perceived as significantly more easy by GEB application (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the GEB facilitates tracheal intubation during chest compressions performed by novice physicians in adult simulations.
Authors: Togay Evrin; Jacek Smereka; Damian Gorczyca; Szymon Bialka; Jerzy Robert Ladny; Burak Katipoglu; Lukasz Szarpak Journal: Emerg Med Int Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 1.112