Saeedi Morteza, Hajiseyedjavadi Houman, Seyedhosseini Javad, Eslami Vahid, Sheikhmotaharvahedi Hojat
Department of Emergency, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ; Department of Emergency Medicine, Pre-Hospital Emergency Research Center, Shariati Hospital, Tehran Univeristy of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Department of Emergency, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2014 Oct-Dec;4(4):303-8. doi: 10.4103/2229-5151.147533.
Emergency Medical Service (EMS) personnel manage the airway, but only a group of them are allowed to engage in Endotracheal Intubation (ETI). Our purpose was to evaluate if the use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) or Combitube can be used by inexperienced care providers.
A randomized, prospective manikin study was conducted. Fifty-nine participants were randomly assigned into two groups. Experienced group included 16 paramedics, eight anesthetic-technicians, and inexperienced group included 27 Emergency Medical Technician-Basic (EMT-B) and eight nurses. Our main outcomes were success rate and time to airway after only one attempt.
Airway success was 73% for ETI, 98.3% for LMA, and 100% for Combitube. LMA and Combitube were faster and had greater success than ETI (P = 0.0001). Inexperienced had no differences in time to securing LMA compared with experienced (6.05 vs. 5.4 seconds, respectively, P = 0.26). One failure in inexperienced, and no failure in experienced group occurred to secure the LMA (P = 0.59). The median time to Combitube placement in experienced and inexperienced was 5.05 vs. 5.00 seconds, P = 0.65, respectively. Inexperienced and experienced groups performed ETI in 19.15 and 17 seconds, respectively (P = 0.001). After the trial, 78% preferred Combitube, 15.3% LMA, and 6.8% ETI as the device of choice in prehospital setting.
Time to airway was decreased and success rate increased significantly with the use of LMA and combitube compared with ETI, regardless of the experience level. This study suggests that both Combitube and LMA may be acceptable choices for management of airway in the prehospital setting for experienced and especially inexperienced EMS personnel.
紧急医疗服务(EMS)人员负责气道管理,但只有其中一组人员被允许进行气管插管(ETI)。我们的目的是评估经验不足的护理人员是否可以使用喉罩气道(LMA)或食管气管联合导管。
进行了一项随机、前瞻性人体模型研究。59名参与者被随机分为两组。经验丰富组包括16名护理人员、8名麻醉技师,经验不足组包括27名急救医疗技术员基础级(EMT - B)和8名护士。我们的主要结果是仅一次尝试后的成功率和建立气道的时间。
ETI的气道成功率为73%,LMA为98.3%,食管气管联合导管为100%。LMA和食管气管联合导管比ETI更快且成功率更高(P = 0.0001)。经验不足者与经验丰富者在插入LMA的时间上无差异(分别为6.05秒和5.4秒,P = 0.26)。经验不足组在插入LMA时出现1次失败,经验丰富组无失败(P = 0.59)。经验丰富组和经验不足组放置食管气管联合导管的中位时间分别为5.05秒和5.00秒,P = 0.65。经验不足组和经验丰富组进行ETI的时间分别为19.15秒和17秒(P = 0.001)。试验后,78%的人更喜欢食管气管联合导管,15.3%的人更喜欢LMA,6.8%的人更喜欢ETI作为院前环境中的首选设备。
与ETI相比,使用LMA和食管气管联合导管可缩短建立气道的时间并显著提高成功率,无论经验水平如何。这项研究表明,食管气管联合导管和LMA对于经验丰富的EMS人员尤其是经验不足的人员来说,可能都是院前气道管理的可接受选择。