Literature DB >> 33879067

A prospective observational study comparing two supraglottic airway devices in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Maja Pålsdatter Lønvik1,2, Odd Eirik Elden3,4,5, Mats Joakimsen Lunde5, Trond Nordseth6,7, Karin Elvenes Bakkelund3, Oddvar Uleberg8,9.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Airway management in patients with out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is important and several methods are used. The establishment of a supraglottic airway device (SAD) is a common technique used during OHCA. Two types of SAD are routinely used in Norway; the Kings LTS-D™ and the I-gel®. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of these two devices in terms of difficulty, number of attempts before successful insertion and overall success rate of insertion.
METHODS: All adult patients with OHCA, in whom ambulance personnel used a SAD over a one-year period in the ambulance services of Central Norway, were included. After the event, a questionnaire was completed and the personnel responsible for the airway management were interviewed. Primary outcomes were number of attempts until successful insertion, by either same or different ambulance personnel, and the difficulty of insertion graded by easy, medium or hard. Secondary outcomes were reported complications with inserting the SAD's.
RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty patients were included, of whom 191 received I-gel and 59 received LTS-D. Overall success rate was significantly higher in I-gel (86%) compared to LTS-D (75%, p = 0.043). The rates of successful placements were higher when using I-gel compared to LTS-D, and there was a significant increased risk that the insertion of the LTS-D was unsuccessful compared to the I-gel (risk ratio 1.8, p = 0.04). I-gel was assessed to be easy to insert in 80% of the patients, as opposed to LTS-D which was easy to insert in 51% of the patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall success rate was significantly higher and the difficulty in insertion was significantly lower in the I-gel group compared to the LTS-D in patients with OHCA.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Airway management; Airway research; Cardiac arrest; Emergency medical services; I-gel; LT; LTS-D; Laryngeal tube; OHCA; Resuscitation; Supraglottic airway device

Year:  2021        PMID: 33879067     DOI: 10.1186/s12873-021-00444-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Emerg Med        ISSN: 1471-227X


  23 in total

1.  European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 3. Adult advanced life support.

Authors:  Jasmeet Soar; Jerry P Nolan; Bernd W Böttiger; Gavin D Perkins; Carsten Lott; Pierre Carli; Tommaso Pellis; Claudio Sandroni; Markus B Skrifvars; Gary B Smith; Kjetil Sunde; Charles D Deakin
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 5.262

2.  Time used for ventilation in two-rescuer CPR with a bag-valve-mask device during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Silje Odegaard; Magnus Pillgram; Nicolas Erlend Vaugelade Berg; Theresa Olasveengen; Jo Kramer-Johansen
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 5.262

Review 3.  Endotracheal intubation versus supraglottic airway placement in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Justin L Benoit; Ryan B Gerecht; Michael T Steuerwald; Jason T McMullan
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 5.262

4.  Hands-off time during insertion of six airway devices during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomised manikin trial.

Authors:  Kurt Ruetzler; Christina Gruber; Sabine Nabecker; Philipp Wohlfarth; Anita Priemayr; Michael Frass; Oliver Kimberger; Daniel I Sessler; Bernhard Roessler
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2011-04-06       Impact factor: 5.262

5.  Chest compressions versus ventilation plus chest compressions: a randomized trial in a pediatric asphyxial cardiac arrest animal model.

Authors:  Marta Botran; Jesus Lopez-Herce; Javier Urbano; Maria J Solana; Ana Garcia; Angel Carrillo
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Oxygen delivery and return of spontaneous circulation with ventilation:compression ratio 2:30 versus chest compressions only CPR in pigs.

Authors:  E Dorph; L Wik; T A Strømme; M Eriksen; P A Steen
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 5.262

7.  The impact of airway management on quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation: an observational study in patients during cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Joyce Yeung; Mehboob Chilwan; Richard Field; Robin Davies; Fang Gao; Gavin D Perkins
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2014-03-01       Impact factor: 5.262

8.  Effect of a Strategy of Initial Laryngeal Tube Insertion vs Endotracheal Intubation on 72-Hour Survival in Adults With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Henry E Wang; Robert H Schmicker; Mohamud R Daya; Shannon W Stephens; Ahamed H Idris; Jestin N Carlson; M Riccardo Colella; Heather Herren; Matthew Hansen; Neal J Richmond; Juan Carlos J Puyana; Tom P Aufderheide; Randal E Gray; Pamela C Gray; Mike Verkest; Pamela C Owens; Ashley M Brienza; Kenneth J Sternig; Susanne J May; George R Sopko; Myron L Weisfeldt; Graham Nichol
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2018-08-28       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Evaluation of airway management associated hands-off time during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomised manikin follow-up study.

Authors:  Christina Gruber; Sabine Nabecker; Philipp Wohlfarth; Anita Ruetzler; Dominik Roth; Oliver Kimberger; Henrik Fischer; Michael Frass; Kurt Ruetzler
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2013-02-25       Impact factor: 2.953

10.  Comparison of blind intubation via supraglottic airway devices versus standard intubation during different airway emergency scenarios in inexperienced hand: Randomized, crossover manikin trial.

Authors:  Andrzej Bielski; Eva Rivas; Kurt Ruetzler; Jacek Smereka; Mateusz Puslecki; Marek Dabrowski; Jerzy R Ladny; Michael Frass; Oliver Robak; Togay Evrin; Lukasz Szarpak
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.