Search

Background Chest compressions and ventilation are lifesaving tasks during cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Besides oxygenation, endotracheal intubation (ETI) during CPR is performed to avoid aspiration of gastric contents. If intubation is difficult or impossible, supraglottic airway devices are utilized. We tested six different airway devices regarding their potential to protect against regurgitation and aspiration during CPR in a randomized experimental human cadaver study. Methods Five-hundred ml of 0.01% methylene-blue-solution were instilled into the stomach of 30 adult human cadavers via an oro-gastric tube. The cadavers were then randomly assigned to one of six groups, resulting in 5 cadavers in each group. Airway management was performed with either bag-valve ventilation, Laryngeal Tube, EasyTube, Laryngeal Mask (Classic), I-Gel, or ETI. Thereafter 5 min of CPR were performed according to the 2010 Guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council. Pulmonary aspiration was defined as the presence of methylene-blue-solution below the vocal cords or the ETI cuff as assessed by fiber-optic bronchoscopy. Results Thirty cadavers were included (14 females, 16 males). Aspiration was detected in three out of five cadavers receiving bag-valve ventilation and in two out of five intubated with LMA or I-Gel. In cadavers intubated with the LT, aspiration occurred in one out of five cases. No aspiration could be detected in cadavers intubated with ETI and EasyTube. Conclusion This study provides experimental evidence that, during CPR, ETI offers superior protection against regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents than supraglottic airway devices or bag-valve ventilation.

Background Efficiently performed basic life support (BLS) after cardiac arrest is proven to be effective. However, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is strenuous and rescuers' performance declines rapidly over time. Audio-visual feedback devices reporting CPR quality may prevent this decline. We aimed to investigate the effect of various CPR feedback devices on CPR quality. Methods In this open, prospective, randomised, controlled trial we compared three CPR feedback devices (PocketCPR ® , CPRmeter ® , iPhone app PocketCPR ® ) with standard BLS without feedback in a simulated scenario. 240 trained medical students performed single rescuer BLS on a manikin for 8min. Effective compression (compressions with correct depth, pressure point and sufficient decompression) as well as compression rate, flow time fraction and ventilation parameters were compared between the four groups. Results Study participants using the PocketCPR ® performed 17±19% effective compressions compared to 32±28% with CPRmeter ® , 25±27% with the iPhone app PocketCPR ® , and 35±30% applying standard BLS (PocketCPR ® vs. CPRmeter ® p =0.007, PocketCPR ® vs. standard BLS p =0.001, others: ns). PocketCPR ® and CPRmeter ® prevented a decline in effective compression over time, but overall performance in the PocketCPR ® group was considerably inferior to standard BLS. Compression depth and rate were within the range recommended in the guidelines in all groups. Conclusion While we found differences between the investigated CPR feedback devices, overall BLS quality was suboptimal in all groups. Surprisingly, effective compression was not improved by any CPR feedback device compared to standard BLS. All feedback devices caused substantial delay in starting CPR, which may worsen outcome.

Introduction Airway management in the out-of-hospital emergency setting is challenging. Failed and even prolonged airway management is associated with serious clinical consequences, such as desaturation, bradycardia, airway injuries, or aspiration. The overall success rate of tracheal intubation ranges between 77% and 99%, depending on the level of experience of the provider. Therefore, advanced airway management should only be performed by highly-skilled and experienced providers. Methods 9765 patients were treated in the out-of-hospital emergency setting by the anaesthesiologist-staffed Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) between 2002 and 2014. Patients successfully intubated upon the first attempt were compared to patients who required more than one intubation attempts regarding several potential confounding factors such as age, gender, on-going CPR, NACA Score, initial GCS, prior administration of anaesthetic drugs, neuromuscular blocking agents, and vasopressors. Results 1573 out of 9765 patients (16.1%) required advanced airway management. 459 patients had already been intubated upon arrival of the HEMS, whereas 1114 patients (11.4%) underwent advanced airway management by the HEMS physician. 67 patients had to be excluded. Data for the remaining 1047 patients (790 males and 257 females) were analyzed further. Primary use of an alternative airway device was reported in 59 patients (5.6%), whereas 988 patients (94.4%) underwent laryngoscopy-guided tracheal intubation. 952 patients (96.4%) could be intubated upon the first attempt and overall intubation success was 99.5% (983 out of 988). Conclusion Our study demonstrates that HEMS physicians performed airway management frequently and that both the first attempt as well as the overall success rate of tracheal intubation was high. Together with the fact that all failed and difficult intubations were successfully recognized and handled and that no surgical airway had to be established, the current study once more underlines the importance of proper training of HEMS care providers regarding airway management.

Introduction Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is the most widespread method for emergency airway management. Several studies reported that ETI requires considerable skill and experience and if performed incorrectly, may result in serious adverse events. Unrecognized tube misplacement or oesophageal intubation is associated with high prehospital morbidity. This study investigates the usability of supraglottic airway devices compared to ETI and the skill retention of 41 previously inexperienced paramedics following training using a manikin model. Methods 41 paramedics participated in this study. None had prior experience in airway management, apart from bag-valve ventilation. After a standardised audio-visual lecture lasting 45min, the paramedics participated in a practical demonstration using the advanced patient simulator SimMan ® (Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway). Afterwards, paramedics were instructed to perform airway-management using seven different techniques to secure the airway (ETI, Laryngeal mask unique [LMA], Proseal, Laryngeal tube disposable [LT-D ® ], I-Gel ® , Combitube ® , and EasyTube ® ) following a randomized sequence. Participants underwent reassessment after 3 months without any further training or practice in airway-management. Results During the initial training session, ETI was successfully performed in 78% of cases, while 3 months later the success rate was 58%. For the supraglottic airway devices, five out of six were successfully used by all paramedics at both time points, the exception being Proseal ® . Our data show successful skill retention (success rate: 100%) after 3 months for five out of six supraglottic airway devices. Time to ventilation (T3) was significantly less for LMA, LT-D ® and I-Gel ® at all time points compared to ETI. Conclusion ETI performed by inexperienced paramedics is associated with a low success rate. In contrast, supraglottic airway devices like LMA, LT-D ® , I-Gel ® , Combitube ® and EasyTube ® are fast, safe and easy-to-use. Within the limitations of a manikin-study, this study suggests that inexperienced medical staff might benefit from using supraglottic airway devices for emergency airway management.

Introduction Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guidelines recommend limiting interruptions of chest compressions because prolonged hands-off (i.e., non-compression) time compromises tissue perfusion. 2010 European Resuscitation Council guidelines suggest that chest compressions should be paused less than 10 s during airway device insertion. Methods With approval of the local ethics committee of the Medical University of Vienna and written informed consent, we recruited 40 voluntary emergency medical technicians, none of whom had advanced airway management experience. After a standardised audio-visual lecture and practical demonstration, technicians performed airway management with each six airway devices (endotracheal tube, Combitube, EasyTube, laryngeal tube, Laryngeal Mask Airway, and I-Gel) during on-going chest compressions in a randomised sequence on a Resusci Anne Advanced Simulator. Data were analysed using a mixed-effects model accounting for the repeated measurements and pair-wise comparisons among the airway devices. Results The hands-off time associated with airway management using an endotracheal tube (including all intubation attempts) was 48 s (95% confidence interval: 43–53). The hands-off time for airway management using a laryngeal tube was 8.4 (3.4–16.4) s, Combitube 10.0 (4.9–15.1) s, EasyTube 11.4 (6.4–16.4) s, LMA 13.3 (8.2–18.3) s and for I-Gel 15.9 (10.8–20.9) s. Hands-off time was significantly longer with the conventional endotracheal tube than with any of the other airway systems. Only a third of the technicians successfully inserted an endotracheal tube whereas all of them successfully positioned each supraglottic device. Conclusion Supraglottic devices appear to be a reasonable emergency airway management strategy, even for inexperienced personnel.