Kohama Hanako, Komasawa Nobuyasu, Ueki Ryusuke, Kaminoh Yoshiroh, Nishi Shin-ichi
Division of Intensive Care Unit, Hyogo College of Medicine, Hyogo, Japan.
Pediatr Int. 2015;57(1):180-2. doi: 10.1111/ped.12541.
Current guidelines for pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation suggest that supraglottic devices are alternatives for tracheal intubation with minimal interruption of chest compression. We examined the utility of three intubating supraglottic devices, air-Q® (air-Q), Ambu® aura-i (aura-i), and i-gel® (i-gel), utilizing manikin simulation. Twenty-two novice physicians performed securing of airway on an infant manikin with the three devices. We measured the rate of success on ventilation and the insertion time with or without chest compression. Successful ventilation rate did not significantly decrease with chest compression in the three devices (without chest compression: air-Q, 21/22; aura-i, 20/22; i-gel, 20/22, during chest compression: air-Q, 20/22; aura-i, 20/22; i-gel, 18/22). The insertion time with air-Q and aura-i did not extend significantly for chest compression. In contrast, the insertion time with i-gel was significantly extended in chest compression (P < 0.05). Air-Q and aura-i are more useful for airway management during chest compression than i-gel.
当前的儿科心肺复苏指南表明,声门上装置是气管插管的替代方法,对胸外按压的干扰最小。我们利用人体模型模拟研究了三种可插管声门上装置,即Air-Q®(Air-Q)、美普科®光环-i(光环-i)和i-gel®(i-gel)的效用。22名新手医生使用这三种装置在婴儿人体模型上进行气道固定。我们测量了通气成功率以及有无胸外按压时的插入时间。在三种装置中,胸外按压时通气成功率均未显著降低(无胸外按压时:Air-Q为21/22;光环-i为20/22;i-gel为20/22;胸外按压期间:Air-Q为20/22;光环-i为20/22;i-gel为18/22)。Air-Q和光环-i在胸外按压时的插入时间没有显著延长。相比之下,i-gel在胸外按压时的插入时间显著延长(P<0.05)。在胸外按压期间,Air-Q和光环-i在气道管理方面比i-gel更有用。