Cargando…

EMT-led laryngeal tube vs. face-mask ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation - a multicenter prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Laryngeal tube (LT) application by rescue personnel as an alternate airway during the early stages of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is still subject of debate. We evaluated ease of handling and efficacy of ventilation administered by emergency medical technicians (EMTs) using LT...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fiala, Anna, Lederer, Wolfgang, Neumayr, Agnes, Egger, Tamara, Neururer, Sabrina, Toferer, Ernst, Baubin, Michael, Paal, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5658918/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29073915
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-017-0446-1
_version_ 1783274074856751104
author Fiala, Anna
Lederer, Wolfgang
Neumayr, Agnes
Egger, Tamara
Neururer, Sabrina
Toferer, Ernst
Baubin, Michael
Paal, Peter
author_facet Fiala, Anna
Lederer, Wolfgang
Neumayr, Agnes
Egger, Tamara
Neururer, Sabrina
Toferer, Ernst
Baubin, Michael
Paal, Peter
author_sort Fiala, Anna
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Laryngeal tube (LT) application by rescue personnel as an alternate airway during the early stages of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is still subject of debate. We evaluated ease of handling and efficacy of ventilation administered by emergency medical technicians (EMTs) using LT and bag-valve-mask (BVM) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation of patients with OHCA. METHODS: An open prospective randomized multicenter study was conducted at six emergency medical services centers over 18 months. Patients in OHCA initially resuscitated by EMTs were enrolled. Ease of handling (LT insertion, tight seal) and efficacy of ventilation (chest rises visibly, no air leak) with LT and BVM were subjectively assessed by EMTs during pre-study training and by the attending emergency physician on the scene. Outcome and frequency of complications were compared. RESULTS: Of 97 eligible patients, 78 were enrolled. During pre-study training EMTs rated efficacy of ventilation with LT higher than with BVM (66.7% vs. 36.2%, p = 0.022), but efficacy of on-site ventilation did not differ between the two groups (71.4% vs. 58.5%, p = 0.686). Frequency of complications (11.4% vs. 19.5%, p = 0.961) did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: EMTs preferred LT ventilation to BVM ventilation during pre-study training, but on-site there was no difference with regard to efficacy, ventilation safety, or outcome. The results indicate that LT ventilation by EMTs during OHCA is not superior to BVM and cannot substitute for BVM training. We assume that the main benefit of the LT is the provision of an alternative airway when BVM ventilation fails. Training in BVM ventilation remains paramount in EMT apprenticeship and cannot be substituted by LT ventilation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01718795). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-017-0446-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5658918
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56589182017-10-31 EMT-led laryngeal tube vs. face-mask ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation - a multicenter prospective randomized trial Fiala, Anna Lederer, Wolfgang Neumayr, Agnes Egger, Tamara Neururer, Sabrina Toferer, Ernst Baubin, Michael Paal, Peter Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Original Research BACKGROUND: Laryngeal tube (LT) application by rescue personnel as an alternate airway during the early stages of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is still subject of debate. We evaluated ease of handling and efficacy of ventilation administered by emergency medical technicians (EMTs) using LT and bag-valve-mask (BVM) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation of patients with OHCA. METHODS: An open prospective randomized multicenter study was conducted at six emergency medical services centers over 18 months. Patients in OHCA initially resuscitated by EMTs were enrolled. Ease of handling (LT insertion, tight seal) and efficacy of ventilation (chest rises visibly, no air leak) with LT and BVM were subjectively assessed by EMTs during pre-study training and by the attending emergency physician on the scene. Outcome and frequency of complications were compared. RESULTS: Of 97 eligible patients, 78 were enrolled. During pre-study training EMTs rated efficacy of ventilation with LT higher than with BVM (66.7% vs. 36.2%, p = 0.022), but efficacy of on-site ventilation did not differ between the two groups (71.4% vs. 58.5%, p = 0.686). Frequency of complications (11.4% vs. 19.5%, p = 0.961) did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: EMTs preferred LT ventilation to BVM ventilation during pre-study training, but on-site there was no difference with regard to efficacy, ventilation safety, or outcome. The results indicate that LT ventilation by EMTs during OHCA is not superior to BVM and cannot substitute for BVM training. We assume that the main benefit of the LT is the provision of an alternative airway when BVM ventilation fails. Training in BVM ventilation remains paramount in EMT apprenticeship and cannot be substituted by LT ventilation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01718795). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-017-0446-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5658918/ /pubmed/29073915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-017-0446-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Original Research
Fiala, Anna
Lederer, Wolfgang
Neumayr, Agnes
Egger, Tamara
Neururer, Sabrina
Toferer, Ernst
Baubin, Michael
Paal, Peter
EMT-led laryngeal tube vs. face-mask ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation - a multicenter prospective randomized trial
title EMT-led laryngeal tube vs. face-mask ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation - a multicenter prospective randomized trial
title_full EMT-led laryngeal tube vs. face-mask ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation - a multicenter prospective randomized trial
title_fullStr EMT-led laryngeal tube vs. face-mask ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation - a multicenter prospective randomized trial
title_full_unstemmed EMT-led laryngeal tube vs. face-mask ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation - a multicenter prospective randomized trial
title_short EMT-led laryngeal tube vs. face-mask ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation - a multicenter prospective randomized trial
title_sort emt-led laryngeal tube vs. face-mask ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation - a multicenter prospective randomized trial
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5658918/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29073915
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-017-0446-1
work_keys_str_mv AT fialaanna emtledlaryngealtubevsfacemaskventilationduringcardiopulmonaryresuscitationamulticenterprospectiverandomizedtrial
AT ledererwolfgang emtledlaryngealtubevsfacemaskventilationduringcardiopulmonaryresuscitationamulticenterprospectiverandomizedtrial
AT neumayragnes emtledlaryngealtubevsfacemaskventilationduringcardiopulmonaryresuscitationamulticenterprospectiverandomizedtrial
AT eggertamara emtledlaryngealtubevsfacemaskventilationduringcardiopulmonaryresuscitationamulticenterprospectiverandomizedtrial
AT neururersabrina emtledlaryngealtubevsfacemaskventilationduringcardiopulmonaryresuscitationamulticenterprospectiverandomizedtrial
AT tofererernst emtledlaryngealtubevsfacemaskventilationduringcardiopulmonaryresuscitationamulticenterprospectiverandomizedtrial
AT baubinmichael emtledlaryngealtubevsfacemaskventilationduringcardiopulmonaryresuscitationamulticenterprospectiverandomizedtrial
AT paalpeter emtledlaryngealtubevsfacemaskventilationduringcardiopulmonaryresuscitationamulticenterprospectiverandomizedtrial