A systematic review on suction-based airway clearance devices for foreign body airway obstruction

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Miguel Angel Paludi , Natalino Palermo , Francesco Limonti , Angelica Semeraro , Daniele Ermanno , Sandro Ganzino , Nicola Ramacciati
{"title":"A systematic review on suction-based airway clearance devices for foreign body airway obstruction","authors":"Miguel Angel Paludi ,&nbsp;Natalino Palermo ,&nbsp;Francesco Limonti ,&nbsp;Angelica Semeraro ,&nbsp;Daniele Ermanno ,&nbsp;Sandro Ganzino ,&nbsp;Nicola Ramacciati","doi":"10.1016/j.ienj.2025.101575","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The objective of this systematic review is to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness and safety of negative pressure, anti-choking devices (ACDs) in managing severe foreign body airway obstructions (FBAO) compared to traditional techniques such as the Heimlich maneuver.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A comprehensive literature search was conducted in major databases to identify studies published within the past five years. Eligible studies were appraised for quality using the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction Tool. Data on study design, outcomes, and safety parameters were extracted and analyzed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The review identified studies evaluating various ACDs, including LifeVac and DeChoker, in different settings and populations. Results from retrospective studies and trials on mannequins or cadavers suggested promising outcomes for ACDs in relieving FBAO, with success rates ranging from 71% to 99%. However, concerns regarding usability, training, and adverse events were raised, emphasizing the need for further research.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Review emphasizes traditional maneuvers (thrusts/blows) for all rescuers. ACDs show promise, but further research is needed to determine their role alongside established methods. LifeVac’s design may offer advantages in terms of ease of use, potentially requiring less dexterity compared to Dechoker. Regardless of the device, proper training remains crucial for optimal effectiveness and safe use. Combining ACDs with traditional methods like abdominal thrusts and back blows may be a promising approach for improving airway obstruction management.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48914,"journal":{"name":"International Emergency Nursing","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 101575"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Emergency Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755599X25000059","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this systematic review is to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness and safety of negative pressure, anti-choking devices (ACDs) in managing severe foreign body airway obstructions (FBAO) compared to traditional techniques such as the Heimlich maneuver.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in major databases to identify studies published within the past five years. Eligible studies were appraised for quality using the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction Tool. Data on study design, outcomes, and safety parameters were extracted and analyzed.

Results

The review identified studies evaluating various ACDs, including LifeVac and DeChoker, in different settings and populations. Results from retrospective studies and trials on mannequins or cadavers suggested promising outcomes for ACDs in relieving FBAO, with success rates ranging from 71% to 99%. However, concerns regarding usability, training, and adverse events were raised, emphasizing the need for further research.

Conclusions

Review emphasizes traditional maneuvers (thrusts/blows) for all rescuers. ACDs show promise, but further research is needed to determine their role alongside established methods. LifeVac’s design may offer advantages in terms of ease of use, potentially requiring less dexterity compared to Dechoker. Regardless of the device, proper training remains crucial for optimal effectiveness and safe use. Combining ACDs with traditional methods like abdominal thrusts and back blows may be a promising approach for improving airway obstruction management.
吸吸式气道清除装置治疗异物气道阻塞的系统综述。
目的:本系统综述的目的是全面评价负压防窒息装置(ACDs)在治疗严重异物气道阻塞(FBAO)中的有效性和安全性,并与传统技术(如海姆利克手法)进行比较。方法:在主要数据库中进行全面的文献检索,以确定近五年内发表的研究。使用关键评价和数据提取工具对符合条件的研究进行质量评价。提取并分析了研究设计、结果和安全性参数的数据。结果:本综述确定了在不同环境和人群中评估各种ACDs的研究,包括LifeVac和DeChoker。回顾性研究和人体模型或尸体试验的结果表明,ACDs缓解FBAO的效果很好,成功率在71%至99%之间。然而,对可用性、训练和不良事件的关注被提出,强调需要进一步的研究。结论:回顾强调所有救援人员的传统动作(冲/打)。ACDs显示出前景,但需要进一步的研究来确定它们与现有方法一起发挥的作用。LifeVac的设计可能在易用性方面具有优势,与Dechoker相比,可能需要更少的灵活性。无论使用何种器械,正确的训练对于获得最佳效果和安全使用仍然至关重要。将ACDs与传统方法如腹突和背击相结合可能是改善气道阻塞管理的有希望的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
85
期刊介绍: International Emergency Nursing is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to nurses and other professionals involved in emergency care. It aims to promote excellence through dissemination of high quality research findings, specialist knowledge and discussion of professional issues that reflect the diversity of this field. With an international readership and authorship, it provides a platform for practitioners worldwide to communicate and enhance the evidence-base of emergency care. The journal publishes a broad range of papers, from personal reflection to primary research findings, created by first-time through to reputable authors from a number of disciplines. It brings together research from practice, education, theory, and operational management, relevant to all levels of staff working in emergency care settings worldwide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信