Effect of intermediate airway management on ventilation parameters in simulated paediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a multicentre randomised crossover trial.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Loric Stuby, Laurent Bourgeois, Jean-Marie Tinembart, Elisa Mühlemann, David Thurre, Johan N Siebert, Laurent Suppan
{"title":"Effect of intermediate airway management on ventilation parameters in simulated paediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a multicentre randomised crossover trial.","authors":"Loric Stuby, Laurent Bourgeois, Jean-Marie Tinembart, Elisa Mühlemann, David Thurre, Johan N Siebert, Laurent Suppan","doi":"10.57187/s.4079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Paediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival rates remain low despite advancements in resuscitation science. Prompt restoration of oxygenation is crucial for achieving return of spontaneous circulation. Delays in airway management are associated with decreased survival rates. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether early i-gel® insertion, without prior bag-valve-mask, could enhance ventilation parameters in comparison with a bag-valve-mask-only approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicentre, randomised crossover study used a simulated paediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest model to compare standard American Heart Association guidelines with an intermediate airway management approach using an i-gel® device. Paramedics and emergency medical technicians from eight participating emergency medical service centres were randomised into teams and performed two 10-minute simulations. Each team employed one of the airway management strategies. Data was automatically collected by a high-fidelity manikin. The primary outcome was alveolar ventilation per minute. Secondary outcomes included metrics for ventilation quality and timing, chest compression performance and timing of adrenaline administration. Statistical analysis involved paired tests suitable for the crossover design.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 30 January 2023 to 13 June 2023, 68 participants formed 34 resuscitation teams. Minute alveolar ventilation was similar between intermediate airway management and bag-valve-mask strategies (difference: 36 ml [95% CI -28 to 99]). A sensitivity analysis showed comparable results. Intermediate airway management delivered more ventilations, but bag-valve-mask enabled quicker ventilation initiation and more ventilations within the target volume. Chest compression fraction was higher with intermediate airway management, although chest recoil was better with bag-valve-mask. Adrenaline administration rates and times were similar in both strategies. Minor protocol deviations were observed but did not introduce significant bias. The study was underpowered due to an error in the sample size calculation, limiting the robustness and generalisability of the findings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In a simulated paediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest model, immediate use of intermediate airway management did not show relevant differences compared to bag-valve-mask. Intermediate airway management devices cannot be recommended as first-line choice but may be considered when bag-valve-mask is challenging. Whichever device is used, the focus should remain on providing high-quality ventilations.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrials: </strong>gov ID: NCT05498402.</p>","PeriodicalId":22111,"journal":{"name":"Swiss medical weekly","volume":"155 ","pages":"4079"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Swiss medical weekly","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57187/s.4079","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Paediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival rates remain low despite advancements in resuscitation science. Prompt restoration of oxygenation is crucial for achieving return of spontaneous circulation. Delays in airway management are associated with decreased survival rates. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether early i-gel® insertion, without prior bag-valve-mask, could enhance ventilation parameters in comparison with a bag-valve-mask-only approach.

Methods: This multicentre, randomised crossover study used a simulated paediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest model to compare standard American Heart Association guidelines with an intermediate airway management approach using an i-gel® device. Paramedics and emergency medical technicians from eight participating emergency medical service centres were randomised into teams and performed two 10-minute simulations. Each team employed one of the airway management strategies. Data was automatically collected by a high-fidelity manikin. The primary outcome was alveolar ventilation per minute. Secondary outcomes included metrics for ventilation quality and timing, chest compression performance and timing of adrenaline administration. Statistical analysis involved paired tests suitable for the crossover design.

Results: From 30 January 2023 to 13 June 2023, 68 participants formed 34 resuscitation teams. Minute alveolar ventilation was similar between intermediate airway management and bag-valve-mask strategies (difference: 36 ml [95% CI -28 to 99]). A sensitivity analysis showed comparable results. Intermediate airway management delivered more ventilations, but bag-valve-mask enabled quicker ventilation initiation and more ventilations within the target volume. Chest compression fraction was higher with intermediate airway management, although chest recoil was better with bag-valve-mask. Adrenaline administration rates and times were similar in both strategies. Minor protocol deviations were observed but did not introduce significant bias. The study was underpowered due to an error in the sample size calculation, limiting the robustness and generalisability of the findings.

Conclusion: In a simulated paediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest model, immediate use of intermediate airway management did not show relevant differences compared to bag-valve-mask. Intermediate airway management devices cannot be recommended as first-line choice but may be considered when bag-valve-mask is challenging. Whichever device is used, the focus should remain on providing high-quality ventilations.

Clinicaltrials: gov ID: NCT05498402.

模拟儿科院外心脏骤停时,中间气道管理对通气参数的影响:一项多中心随机交叉试验
导读:尽管复苏科学取得了进步,但儿科院外心脏骤停生存率仍然很低。迅速恢复氧合是恢复自然循环的关键。气道管理的延迟与生存率降低有关。本研究的主要目的是确定早期i-gel®插入,没有事先的袋阀面罩,是否可以提高通气参数与袋阀面罩相比。方法:这项多中心、随机交叉研究采用模拟儿科院外心脏骤停模型,比较美国心脏协会标准指南与使用i-gel®装置的中间气道管理方法。来自八个参与的紧急医疗服务中心的护理人员和紧急医疗技术人员被随机分成小组,进行两次10分钟的模拟。每个小组采用一种气道管理策略。数据由高保真人体模型自动收集。主要终点为每分钟肺泡通气。次要结果包括通气质量和时间、胸按压性能和肾上腺素给药时间的指标。统计分析采用适合交叉设计的配对检验。结果:2023年1月30日至2023年6月13日,68名参与者组成34个复苏小组。中间气道管理和气囊-瓣膜-面罩策略之间的分钟肺泡通气相似(差异:36 ml [95% CI -28至99])。敏感性分析显示了相似的结果。中间气道管理提供了更多的通气,但袋阀面罩能够更快地启动通气,并在目标容积内进行更多的通气。采用中间气道管理时胸部压缩分数较高,而采用气囊-瓣膜-面罩时胸部后坐力较好。两种策略的肾上腺素给药率和时间相似。观察到轻微的方案偏差,但没有引入显著的偏差。由于样本量计算中的错误,该研究的有效性不足,限制了研究结果的稳健性和普遍性。结论:在模拟儿科院外心脏骤停模型中,与气囊-瓣膜-面罩相比,立即使用中间气道管理没有相关差异。中间气道管理设备不推荐作为一线选择,但当气囊-瓣膜-面罩具有挑战性时可以考虑。无论使用哪种设备,重点仍应放在提供高质量的通风上。临床试验:gov ID: NCT05498402。
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
Swiss medical weekly
Swiss medical weekly 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Swiss Medical Weekly accepts for consideration original and review articles from all fields of medicine. The quality of SMW publications is guaranteed by a consistent policy of rigorous single-blind peer review. All editorial decisions are made by research-active academics.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信