We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Emergency airway placement by EMS providers: comparison between the King LT supralaryngeal airway and endotracheal intubation.
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 2010 January
INTRODUCTION: The ever-present risk of mass casualties and disaster situations may result in airway management situations that overwhelm local emergency medical services (EMS) resources. Endotracheal intubation requires significant user education/training and carries the risk of malposition. Furthermore, personal protective equipment (PPE) required in hazardous environments may decrease dexterity and hinder timely airway placement. Alternative airway devices may be beneficial in these situations.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the time needed to place the King LT Supralaryngeal Airway compared to endotracheal intubation when performed by community EMS personnel with and without PPE.
METHODS: Following training, 47 EMS personnel were timed placing both endotracheal tubes and the King LT supralaryngeal airway in a simulator mannikin. The study participants then repeated this exercise wearing PPE.
RESULTS: The EMS personnel wearing PPE took significantly longer to place an endotracheal tube than they did without protective equipment (53.4 seconds and 39.5 seconds, p <0.002). The time to place the King LT was significantly faster than the placement of the endotracheal tube without protective equipment (18.4 seconds and 39.5 seconds, respectively, p <0.00003). There also were statistically significant differences between the time required to place the King LT and endotracheal tube in EMS personnel wearing protective equipment (19.7 seconds and 53.4 seconds, p <0.000007).
CONCLUSIONS: The King LT Supralaryngeal Airway device may be advantageous in prehospital airway management situations involving multiple patients or hazardous environments. In this study, its insertion was faster than endotracheal intubation when performed by community EMS providers.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the time needed to place the King LT Supralaryngeal Airway compared to endotracheal intubation when performed by community EMS personnel with and without PPE.
METHODS: Following training, 47 EMS personnel were timed placing both endotracheal tubes and the King LT supralaryngeal airway in a simulator mannikin. The study participants then repeated this exercise wearing PPE.
RESULTS: The EMS personnel wearing PPE took significantly longer to place an endotracheal tube than they did without protective equipment (53.4 seconds and 39.5 seconds, p <0.002). The time to place the King LT was significantly faster than the placement of the endotracheal tube without protective equipment (18.4 seconds and 39.5 seconds, respectively, p <0.00003). There also were statistically significant differences between the time required to place the King LT and endotracheal tube in EMS personnel wearing protective equipment (19.7 seconds and 53.4 seconds, p <0.000007).
CONCLUSIONS: The King LT Supralaryngeal Airway device may be advantageous in prehospital airway management situations involving multiple patients or hazardous environments. In this study, its insertion was faster than endotracheal intubation when performed by community EMS providers.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app