Department of Emergency Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Resuscitation. 2013 Jan;84(1):93-7. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.07.003. Epub 2012 Jul 13.
To assess whether using interventions such as laryngeal mask airways (LMA) and IO lines lead to improved resuscitation in a simulated cardiac arrest when compared to standard methods of endotracheal intubation (ETI) and central line placement.
Emergency Medicine residents at a single academic center were grouped into teams of four. Each team participated in two simulated ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrests using a high fidelity simulator. Peripheral IV access was unobtainable. Only ETI supplies and a central line kit were available in one case (control) and in the other case those supplies were replaced by an LMA and an EZ-IO drill kit (experimental). Groups were randomized to which set up they were given first. Data examined included time to airway placement, duration and success rate of airway placement, time to vascular access, time to defibrillation, and percent hands off time.
44 residents in 11 teams participated. Mean time to airway was shorter in the experimental group (122.8 seconds (s) vs. 265.6 s, p=0.001). Mean duration of airway attempt was also shorter (7.6 s vs. 22.7 s, p=0.002). Time to access was shorter in the experimental group (49.0 s vs. 194.6 s, p=<0.001). Time to defibrillation and percent hands off time did not significantly differ between the two groups.
Use of an LMA and an IO device led to significantly faster establishment of an airway and vascular access in a simulated cardiac arrest. The variation in devices did not affect time to defibrillation or percent hands off time.
评估在模拟心搏骤停中,与标准的经气管插管(ETI)和中央线放置方法相比,使用喉罩气道(LMA)和 IO 线等干预措施是否能改善复苏效果。
在一家学术中心的急诊医学住院医师被分为四人一组。每个团队都使用高保真模拟器参与了两次模拟的心室颤动心搏骤停。外周静脉通路无法获得。一种情况下(对照组)只有 ETI 用品和中央线套件可用,而在另一种情况下,这些用品被 LMA 和 EZ-IO 钻头套件(实验组)替代。组被随机分配到他们首先接受的哪种设置。检查的数据包括气道放置时间、气道放置的持续时间和成功率、血管通路时间、除颤时间以及无手持时间的百分比。
11 个团队的 44 名住院医师参与了研究。实验组的气道建立时间更短(122.8 秒(s)比 265.6 s,p=0.001)。气道尝试的平均持续时间也更短(7.6 s 比 22.7 s,p=0.002)。实验组的血管通路时间更短(49.0 s 比 194.6 s,p<0.001)。除颤时间和无手持时间百分比在两组之间没有显著差异。
在模拟心搏骤停中,使用 LMA 和 IO 设备可显著更快地建立气道和血管通路。设备的变化不影响除颤时间或无手持时间百分比。