Cargando…
The efficacy of two commercially available devices for airway foreign body relief: A cadaver study
OBJECTIVE: Foreign body aspiration events are frequent in young children and in the geriatric population. They may result in several complications such as hypoxia, edema, cardiac arrest, and death. Recently, two commercially available devices, the LifeVac and DeChoker, have entered the market with t...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10278115/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37342119 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lio2.1057 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVE: Foreign body aspiration events are frequent in young children and in the geriatric population. They may result in several complications such as hypoxia, edema, cardiac arrest, and death. Recently, two commercially available devices, the LifeVac and DeChoker, have entered the market with the claim of relieving foreign body aspiration. Both devices are portable, nonpowered, suction devices that are being considered for use in large public spaces such as schools, airports, and malls despite previous studies detailing variable efficacy. In this study, we aim to contribute further data on the safety and efficacy of these devices through a fresh cadaver model. METHODS: Commonly aspirated foods of three different sizes (saltines, grapes, and cashews) were placed at the level of the true vocal folds in a fresh cadaver. Three participants performed two trials with each food and device. Device use was performed to manufacturer specifications. RESULTS: The DeChoker resulted in gross injury to the tongue and failed to remove the obstruction in all trials. LifeVac was successful in removing the barium‐moistened saltines but failed to remove all other foreign bodies. Both devices applied significant pressure to the tongue. CONCLUSION: With the exception of the LifeVac removing saltine crackers, all trials were entirely unsuccessful in relieving foreign body aspiration. Additionally, both devices may cause significant pressure and injury to the oral cavity in a clinical setting. We conclude bystanders should continue to follow International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's guidelines on resuscitation to aid with relieving foreign body aspiration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 |
---|