ORIGINAL PAPER
The effectiveness of paediatric blind intubation using an Ambu® AuraGain™ Disposable Laryngeal Mask – a randomised, cross-over, simulation trial
Submission date: 2018-07-01
Final revision date: 2018-09-10
Acceptance date: 2018-09-10
Publication date: 2018-10-30
Pediatr Pol 2018;93(5):377-382
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
The main causes of cardiac arrest in paediatric patients are airway obstruction and progressive hypoxia. Rapid endotracheal intubation and the implementation of mechanical ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can affect the minimisation of chest compressions and adequate oxygenation of the blood, and thus increase the chances of spontaneous circulation return.
Aim of the study:
The aim of the study was to compare intubation using a standard Macintosh blade (MAC) laryngoscope and blind intubation using an AmbuR AuraGain™ Disposable Laryngeal Mask (AMBU) as a guide for the tracheal tube under simulated CPR conditions of a paediatric patient with and without chest compressions.
Material and methods:
Fifty-six students from the final year of medicine studies participated in this trial. The study was designed as a randomised, cross-over, simulation study. Participants of the study performed endotracheal intubation during simulated CPR of a paediatric patient, with and without chest compressions during an intubation procedure. Participants had a maximum of three attempts to intubate each of the techniques in individual research scenarios.
Results:
The median time of intubation in CPR without chest compressions using MAC and AMBU was 32 s (interquartile range – IQR; 27–41.5) and 30 s (IQR; 22–43), respectively. The efficacy of the first intubation trial was 28.6% for MAC and 48.2% for AMBU, and the total intubation efficiency for both techniques was 100%. In the case of intubation during uninterrupted chest compressions, blind intubation using AMBU as the guide for the endotracheal tube was associated with better parameters than in the case of intubation using MAC, with respect to both intubation time (32 s [IQR; 22–45] and 47 s [IQR; 33–57], respectively; p = 0.017), effectiveness of the first intubation trial (33.9% and 5.4%, p = 0.002), as well as the total effectiveness of intubation (73.2% and 46.2%, p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
In our study, blind endotracheal intubation using AMBU was associated with more effective endotracheal intubation than standard intubation using direct laryngoscopy, both when the chest compressions were interrupted for the time of intubation and in the case of intubation during uninterrupted chest compressions.
The main causes of cardiac arrest in paediatric patients are airway obstruction and progressive hypoxia. Rapid endotracheal intubation and the implementation of mechanical ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can affect the minimisation of chest compressions and adequate oxygenation of the blood, and thus increase the chances of spontaneous circulation return.
Aim of the study:
The aim of the study was to compare intubation using a standard Macintosh blade (MAC) laryngoscope and blind intubation using an AmbuR AuraGain™ Disposable Laryngeal Mask (AMBU) as a guide for the tracheal tube under simulated CPR conditions of a paediatric patient with and without chest compressions.
Material and methods:
Fifty-six students from the final year of medicine studies participated in this trial. The study was designed as a randomised, cross-over, simulation study. Participants of the study performed endotracheal intubation during simulated CPR of a paediatric patient, with and without chest compressions during an intubation procedure. Participants had a maximum of three attempts to intubate each of the techniques in individual research scenarios.
Results:
The median time of intubation in CPR without chest compressions using MAC and AMBU was 32 s (interquartile range – IQR; 27–41.5) and 30 s (IQR; 22–43), respectively. The efficacy of the first intubation trial was 28.6% for MAC and 48.2% for AMBU, and the total intubation efficiency for both techniques was 100%. In the case of intubation during uninterrupted chest compressions, blind intubation using AMBU as the guide for the endotracheal tube was associated with better parameters than in the case of intubation using MAC, with respect to both intubation time (32 s [IQR; 22–45] and 47 s [IQR; 33–57], respectively; p = 0.017), effectiveness of the first intubation trial (33.9% and 5.4%, p = 0.002), as well as the total effectiveness of intubation (73.2% and 46.2%, p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
In our study, blind endotracheal intubation using AMBU was associated with more effective endotracheal intubation than standard intubation using direct laryngoscopy, both when the chest compressions were interrupted for the time of intubation and in the case of intubation during uninterrupted chest compressions.
REFERENCES (28)
1.
Madziala M, Dabrowski M, Dabrowska A, et al. Comparison of direct versus video-laryngoscopy during simulated pediatric cervical spine immobilization. Pediatr Pol 2017; 92: 406-411.
2.
de Caen AR, Berg MD, Chameides L, et al. Part 12: Pediatric Advanced Life Support: 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation 2015; 132 (Suppl 2): S526-542.
3.
Atkins DL, Berger S, Duff JP, et al. Part 11: Pediatric Basic Life Support and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Quality: 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation 2015; 132 (Suppl 2): S519-525.
4.
Lee JH, Turner DA, Kamat P, et al. The number of tracheal intubation attempts matters! A prospective multi-institutional pediatric observational study. BMC Pediatr 2016; 16: 58.
5.
Ehrlich PF, Seidman PS, Atallah O, et al. Endotracheal intubations in rural pediatric trauma patients. J Pediatr Surg 2004; 39: 1376- 1380.
6.
Ewy GA, Zuercher M, Hilwig RW, et al. Improved neurological outcome with continuous chest compressions compared with 30:2 compressions-to-ventilations cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a realistic swine model of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation 2007; 116: 2525-2530.
7.
Long E, Sabato S, Babl FE. Endotracheal intubation in the pediatric emergency department. Paediatr Anaesth 2014; 24: 1204-1211.
8.
Eisenberg MA, Green-Hopkins I, Werner H, Nagler J. Comparison Between Direct and Video-assisted Laryngoscopy for Intubations in a Pediatric Emergency Department. Acad Emerg Med 2016; 23: 870-877.
9.
Pallin DJ, Dwyer RC, Walls RM, et al. Techniques and Trends, Success Rates, and Adverse Events in Emergency Department Pediatric Intubations: A Report From the National Emergency Airway Registry. Ann Emerg Med 2016; 67: 610-615.e1.
10.
Boswell WC, McElveen N, Sharp M, et al. Analysis of prehospital pediatric and adult intubation. Air Med J 1995; 14: 125-127.
11.
Tollefsen WW, Brown CA 3rd, Cox KL, Walls RM. Two hundred sixty pediatric emergency airway encounters by air transport personnel: a report of the air transport emergency airway management (NEAR VI: “A-TEAM”) project. Pediatr Emerg Care 2013; 29: 963-968.
12.
Gerritse BM, Schalkwijk A, Pelzer BJ, et al. Advanced medical life support procedures in vitally compromised children by a helicopter emergency medical service. BMC Emerg Med. 2010; 10: 6.
13.
Szarpak L, Karczewska K, Evrin T, et al. Comparison of intubation through the McGrath MAC, GlideScope, AirTraq, and Miller Laryngoscope by paramedics during child CPR: a randomized crossover manikin trial. Am J Emerg Med 2015; 33: 946-950.
14.
Wojewodzka-Zelezniakowicz M, Madziala A, Madziala M. Comparison of the Miller and Macintosh laryngoscopes in simulated pediatric trauma patient: a pilot study. Disaster Emerg Med J 2017; 2: 1-6.
15.
Maconochie IK, Bingham R, Eich C, et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 6. Paediatric life support. Resuscitation 2015; 95: 223-248.
16.
Szarpak Ł, Czyżewski Ł, Kurowski A. Comparison of the Pentax, Truview, GlideScope, and the Miller laryngoscope for child intubation during resuscitation. Am J Emerg Med 2015; 33: 391-395.
17.
Ladny JR, Smereka J, Szarpak L. Comparison of the Trachway video intubating stylet and Macintosh laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation. Preliminary data. Am J Emerg Med 2017; 35: 574-575.
18.
Ladny JR, Sierzantowicz R, Kedziora J, Szarpak L. Comparison of direct and optical laryngoscopy during simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Am J Emerg Med 2017; 35: 518-519.
19.
Bielski K, Smereka J, Ladny JR, Szarpak L. A comparison of the Macintosh laryngoscope and blind intubation via I-gel in intubating an entrapped patient: A randomized crossover manikin study. Am J Emerg Med 2017; 35: 787-789.
20.
Ladny JR, Bielski K, Szarpak L, et al. Are nurses able to perform blind intubation? Randomized comparison of I-gel and laryngeal mask airway. Am J Emerg Med 2017; 35: 786-787.
21.
Benumof JL. Difficult laryngoscopy: obtaining the best view. Can J Anaesth 1994; 41 (Pt 1): 361-365.
22.
Pradhan D, Bhattacharyya P. Difficult airway management from Emergency Department till Intensive Care Unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2015; 19: 557-559.
23.
Lacquiere DA, Heard AM. Management of the ‘Can’t Intubate, Can’t Ventilate’ situation in the field. Am J Emerg Med 2009; 27: 504-505; author reply 505-506.
24.
Szarpak Ł, Czyżewski Ł, Kurowski A, Truszewski Z. Comparison of the TruView PCD video laryngoscope and macintosh laryngoscope for pediatric tracheal intubation by novice paramedics: a randomized crossover simulation trial. Eur J Pediatr 2015; 174: 1325-1332.
25.
Szarpak L, Truszewski Z, Czyzewski L, et al. A comparison of the McGrath-MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes for child tracheal intubation during resuscitation by paramedics. A randomized, crossover, manikin study. Am J Emerg Med 2016; 34: 1338-1341.
26.
Sip M, Dabrowska A, Prucnal K, et al. Supraglottic devices — future or everyday life? Disaster Emerg Med J 2017; 2: 74-83.
27.
Kurowski A, Hryniewicki T, Czyżewski L, et al. Simulation of blind tracheal intubation during pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014; 190: 1315.
28.
Smereka J, Szarpak L, Ladny JR. The LMA FastrachR as a conduit for endotracheal intubation during simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Am J Emerg Med 2017; 35: 1020-1021.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
