Lee Dong Woo, Kang Mun Ju, Kim Yong Hwan, Lee Jun Ho, Cho Kwang Won, Kim Yang Weon, Cho Jun Hwi, Kim Young Sik, Hong Chong Kun, Hwang Seong Youn
Department of Emergency Medicine, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Changwon, Republic of Korea.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Inje University, Busan Paik Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea.
Am J Emerg Med. 2015 May;33(5):691-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2015.03.006. Epub 2015 Mar 12.
This study was designed to compare the performances of 4 airway devices in achieving successful ventilation.
A randomized crossover trial was conducted to evaluate 4 airway devices: laryngeal mask airway (LMA), i-gel (iGEL), PENTAX Airway Scope (AWS), and Macintosh laryngoscope (MCL). Thirty-eight unskilled rescuers performed intubation on a manikin during chest compressions in normal and difficult airway scenarios. The time to ventilation, intubation success rate, and difficulty of intubation were measured.
The time to ventilation of the airway devices in the normal scenario had a median value of 8.8 seconds (interquartile range, 7.3-10.5 seconds) for iGEL, 16.1 seconds (13.9-19.3 seconds) for LMA, 30.6 seconds (24.6-37.6 seconds) for AWS, and 35.0 seconds (29.5-45.9 seconds) for MCL. In the difficult airway scenario, the respective time to ventilation was 8.6 seconds (7.8-10.0 seconds), 15.3 seconds (14.3-20.2 seconds), 29.4 seconds (25.7-36.3 seconds) and 59.0 seconds (46.1-103.3 seconds). The success rates were 100% and 100% for LMA, 100% and 100% for iGEL, 97.4% and 94.7% for AWS, and 78.9% and 47.4% for MCL in the normal and difficult airway scenarios. The difficulties of intubation expressed as numerical rating scale were 2.0 and 2.0 (median values) for LMA, 1.0 and 2.0 for iGEL, 3.0 and 3.0 for AWS, and 4.0 and 5.0 for MCL in the normal and difficult airway scenarios, respectively.
With novice intubators who were unfamiliar with the airway devices, the LMA, iGEL, and AWS were superior to the MCL for establishing an airway without interruption of chest compressions in a manikin study. Intubation with the iGEL was faster and easier than with the other airway devices.
本研究旨在比较4种气道装置在实现成功通气方面的性能。
进行了一项随机交叉试验,以评估4种气道装置:喉罩气道(LMA)、i-gel(iGEL)、宾得气道镜(AWS)和麦金托什喉镜(MCL)。38名非熟练救援人员在正常和困难气道场景下对模拟人进行胸外按压时进行插管操作。测量通气时间、插管成功率和插管难度。
在正常场景下,iGEL气道装置的通气时间中位数为8.8秒(四分位间距,7.3 - 10.5秒),LMA为16.1秒(13.9 - 19.3秒),AWS为30.6秒(24.6 - 37.6秒),MCL为35.0秒(29.5 - 45.9秒)。在困难气道场景下,各自的通气时间分别为8.6秒(7.8 - 10.0秒)、15.3秒(14.3 - 20.2秒)、29.4秒(25.7 - 36.3秒)和59.0秒(46.1 - 103.3秒)。在正常和困难气道场景下,LMA的成功率均为100%,iGEL均为100%,AWS分别为97.4%和94.7%,MCL分别为78.9%和47.4%。以数字评分量表表示的插管难度,在正常和困难气道场景下,LMA分别为2.0和2.0(中位数),iGEL分别为1.0和2.0,AWS分别为3.0和3.0,MCL分别为4.0和5.0。
在模拟人研究中,对于不熟悉气道装置的新手插管者,LMA、iGEL和AWS在不中断胸外按压的情况下建立气道方面优于MCL。使用iGEL进行插管比使用其他气道装置更快、更容易。