Wiese Christoph H R, Bartels Utz, Bergmann Anna, Bergmann Ingo, Bahr Jan, Graf Bernhard M
Department of Anesthesiology, Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Göttingen, Germany.
Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2008;120(7-8):217-23. doi: 10.1007/s00508-008-0953-1.
In 2005 the European Resuscitation Council published new guidelines for advanced life support. One of the issues was to reduce the "no flow time", which is defined as the time without chest compression in the first period of cardiac arrest. In a manikin study, we evaluated whether using the laryngeal tube instead of endotracheal intubation for airway management during cardiac arrest could reduce the "no flow time".
The study was prospective and included 50 volunteers who performed standardized management of simulated cardiac arrest in a manikin. All participants had completed an obligatory course in emergency medicine but had not been specifically trained in endotracheal intubation; they were therefore designated as unfamiliar in using the endotracheal tube to secure the airway, in accordance with the definition of the European Resuscitation Council. We defined two groups for the study: the LT group, who used the laryngeal tube to secure the airway; and the ET group, who used the endotracheal tube and bag-mask ventilation to ventilate the manikin. The participants were initially randomly assigned to one of the groups and thereafter completed the other scenario. Study endpoints were the total "no flow time" and adherence to guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council.
Use of the laryngeal tube during cardiac arrest in the manikin significantly reduced the "no flow time" when compared with endotracheal intubation (109.3 s vs. 190.4 s; P < 0.01). The laryngeal tube was inserted significantly faster than the endotracheal tube (13 s vs. 52 s; P < 0.01) and was correctly positioned by 98% of the participants at the first attempt, compared with 72% using the endotracheal tube.
With regard to the guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council, we are convinced that during cardiac arrest supraglottic airway devices should be used by emergency personnel unfamiliar with endotracheal intubation.
2005年欧洲复苏委员会发布了高级生命支持新指南。其中一个问题是减少“无血流时间”,即心脏骤停第一阶段无胸外按压的时间。在一项人体模型研究中,我们评估了在心脏骤停期间使用喉罩而不是气管插管进行气道管理是否能减少“无血流时间”。
该研究为前瞻性研究,纳入了50名志愿者,他们在人体模型上进行模拟心脏骤停的标准化管理。所有参与者都完成了急诊医学必修课程,但未接受过气管插管的专门培训;因此,根据欧洲复苏委员会的定义,他们被认定为不熟悉使用气管插管确保气道安全。我们将研究分为两组:LT组,使用喉罩确保气道安全;ET组,使用气管插管和袋-面罩通气为人体模型通气。参与者最初被随机分配到其中一组,然后完成另一种情况。研究终点是总的“无血流时间”以及对欧洲复苏委员会指南的遵循情况。
与气管插管相比,在人体模型心脏骤停期间使用喉罩显著减少了“无血流时间”(109.3秒对190.4秒;P<0.01)。喉罩插入速度明显快于气管插管(13秒对52秒;P<0.01),98%的参与者首次尝试时就能正确定位,而使用气管插管的这一比例为72%。
关于欧洲复苏委员会的指南,我们确信在心脏骤停期间,不熟悉气管插管的急救人员应使用声门上气道装置。