O Meyer1, M Bucher2, J Schröder3. 1. Institute for Emergency Medicine and Management in Medicine - INM, Klinikum der Universität München, Schillerstr. 53, 80336, Munich, Germany. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital of the Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Ernst-Grube-Str. 40, 06120, Halle/Saale, Germany. 3. Department of Medicine III, University Hospital of the Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Ernst-Grube-Str. 40, 06120, Halle/Saale, Germany. jochen.schroeder@uk-halle.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The laryngeal tube (LT) is a recommended alternative to endotracheal intubation during advanced life support (ALS). Its insertion is relatively simple; therefore, it may also serve as an alternative to bag mask ventilation (BMV) for untrained personnel performing basic life support (BLS). Data support the influence of LT on the no-flow time (NFT) compared with BMV during ALS in manikin studies. METHODS: We performed a manikin study to investigate the effect of using the LT for ventilation instead of BMV on the NFT during BLS in a prospective, randomized, single-rescuer study. All 209 participants were trained in BMV, but were inexperienced in using LT; each participant performed BLS during a 4-min time period. RESULTS: No significant difference in total NFT (LT: mean 81.1 ± 22.7 s; BMV: mean 83.2 ± 13.1 s, p = 0.414) was found; however, significant differences in the later periods of the scenario were identified. While ventilating with the LT, the proportion of chest compressions increased significantly from 67.2 to 73.2%, whereas the proportion of chest compressions increased only marginally when performing BMV. The quality of the chest compressions and the associated ventilation rate did not differ significantly. The mean tidal volume and mean minute volume were significantly lower when performing BMV. CONCLUSIONS: The NFT was significantly shorter in the later periods in a single-rescuer, cardiac arrest scenario when using an LT without previous training compared with BMV with previous training. A possible explanation for this result may be the complexity and workload of alternating tasks (e.g., time loss when reclining the head and positioning the mask for each ventilation during BMV).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The laryngeal tube (LT) is a recommended alternative to endotracheal intubation during advanced life support (ALS). Its insertion is relatively simple; therefore, it may also serve as an alternative to bag mask ventilation (BMV) for untrained personnel performing basic life support (BLS). Data support the influence of LT on the no-flow time (NFT) compared with BMV during ALS in manikin studies. METHODS: We performed a manikin study to investigate the effect of using the LT for ventilation instead of BMV on the NFT during BLS in a prospective, randomized, single-rescuer study. All 209 participants were trained in BMV, but were inexperienced in using LT; each participant performed BLS during a 4-min time period. RESULTS: No significant difference in total NFT (LT: mean 81.1 ± 22.7 s; BMV: mean 83.2 ± 13.1 s, p = 0.414) was found; however, significant differences in the later periods of the scenario were identified. While ventilating with the LT, the proportion of chest compressions increased significantly from 67.2 to 73.2%, whereas the proportion of chest compressions increased only marginally when performing BMV. The quality of the chest compressions and the associated ventilation rate did not differ significantly. The mean tidal volume and mean minute volume were significantly lower when performing BMV. CONCLUSIONS: The NFT was significantly shorter in the later periods in a single-rescuer, cardiac arrest scenario when using an LT without previous training compared with BMV with previous training. A possible explanation for this result may be the complexity and workload of alternating tasks (e.g., time loss when reclining the head and positioning the mask for each ventilation during BMV).
Entities:
Keywords:
Bag mask ventilation; Basic life support; Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Laryngeal tube; No-flow time
Authors: Christoph H R Wiese; Utz Bartels; Alexander Schultens; Tobias Steffen; Andreas Torney; Jan Bahr; Bernhard M Graf Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2009-02-13 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: M Bernhard; N H Behrens; J Wnent; S Seewald; S Brenner; T Jantzen; A Bohn; J T Gräsner; M Fischer Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 1.041