Program "Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation", University of Athens, Medical School, Athens, Greece.
Program "Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation", Medical School, Athens, Greece.
Am J Emerg Med. 2014 Feb;32(2):156-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2013.10.048. Epub 2013 Nov 4.
According to the 2010 European Resuscitation Council guidelines on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), one can appreciate that the classic laryngeal mask airway (CLMA) is acceptable as an alternative airway device to endotracheal intubation for airway management in cardiac arrest victims.
To compare a relatively new supraglottic airway device, the Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway (SLMA), with the CLMA in a cardiac arrest scenario.
Fifty healthcare professionals inexperienced in advanced airway management attempted to insert both airway devices in a manikin in 2 scenarios: in the first, chest compressions were not performed (non-CPR scenario), and in the second, uninterrupted chest compressions were performed (CPR scenario). The primary end points were insertion time and success rate at first attempt. The level of self-confidence of each participant was recorded.
SLMA achieves faster insertion times both in the non-CPR (SLMA: 10.4 ± 2.7 seconds vs CLMA: 13.4 ± 3.2 seconds, P < .05) and in the CPR scenario (SLMA: 9.9 ± 2.0 seconds Vs CLMA: 11.9 ± 2.3 seconds, P < .05). The difference between first attempt success rates was not statistically significant both in the non-CPR (SLMA: 96% vs CLMA: 90%, P = .18) and in the CPR scenario (SLMA: 98% vs CLMA: 94%, P = .32). The participants are more self-confident using SLMA instead of CLMA (P < .001) and 94% of them would prefer SLMA for future use.
SLMA could be a useful alternative to CLMA during CPR in the hands of healthcare professionals with minimal experience in airway management.
根据 2010 年欧洲复苏委员会心肺复苏指南,经典的喉罩气道(CLMA)可作为气管插管的替代气道设备,用于心搏骤停患者的气道管理。
在心脏骤停情况下,将一种相对较新的声门上气道装置——Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway(SLMA)与 CLMA 进行比较。
50 名不熟悉高级气道管理的医疗保健专业人员在 2 种情况下尝试在模拟人身上插入这两种气道设备:一种情况下未进行胸外按压(非心肺复苏场景),另一种情况下进行不间断胸外按压(心肺复苏场景)。主要终点是首次尝试的插入时间和成功率。记录每位参与者的自信水平。
SLMA 在非心肺复苏(SLMA:10.4 ± 2.7 秒,CLMA:13.4 ± 3.2 秒,P <.05)和心肺复苏场景(SLMA:9.9 ± 2.0 秒,CLMA:11.9 ± 2.3 秒,P <.05)中均实现更快的插入时间。首次尝试成功率的差异在非心肺复苏(SLMA:96%,CLMA:90%,P =.18)和心肺复苏场景(SLMA:98%,CLMA:94%,P =.32)中均无统计学意义。使用 SLMA 时,参与者更自信(P <.001),94%的人表示将来更愿意使用 SLMA。
在气道管理经验有限的医疗保健专业人员手中,SLMA 在心搏骤停期间可能是 CLMA 的有用替代方法。