Prehospital emergency care : official journal of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the National Association of State EMS Directors
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
A new defibrillator mode to reduce chest compression interruptions for health care professionals and lay rescuers: a pilot study in manikins.
Chest compression interruptions are detrimental during the resuscitation of cardiac arrest patients, especially immediately prior to shock delivery. ⋯ Preshock pause time is reduced by 80% utilizing a novel technology that employs automated analysis and charging during chest compression. Although chest compression pause time is reduced with the use of the new technology, participants do not excessively fatigue.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Direct versus video laryngoscopic intubation by novice prehospital intubators with and without chest compressions: A pilot manikin study.
To evaluate whether chest compressions affect the time taken for intubation (TTI) using the Macintosh laryngoscope and two portable video laryngoscopes (VLs) (GlideScope Ranger and Airway Scope) when used by novice prehospital caregivers, and to compare the TTIs and rates of successful intubation among the three laryngoscopes with and without chest compressions in a manikin model. ⋯ In this pilot study, chest compressions did not significantly affect the TTI using the Macintosh laryngoscope and two portable VLs when used by novice prehospital caregivers in the manikin model on the floor. Considering the fairly short training time, two portable VLs may be potentially useful adjuncts for tracheal intubation during chest compressions for novice prehospital caregivers. Further studies are required to validate whether these findings are clinically relevant.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Comparison of bougie-assisted intubation with traditional endotracheal intubation in a simulated difficult airway.
To compare the success and ease of bougie-assisted intubation (BAI) with those of traditional endotracheal intubation (ETI) in a simulated difficult airway (20.4 seconds for BAI vs. 16.7 seconds for ETI, p = 0.102). ⋯ In a simulated difficult airway, BAI has a higher success rate than traditional ETI without increasing the time to successful intubation. Intubators perceive BAI as being easier to perform than traditional ETI in this simulated difficult airway scenario.