We have located links that may give you full text access.
Gum-Elastic Bougie Efficacy for Tracheal Intubation During Continuous Chest Compression in Infants-A Crossover Simulation Trial.
Journal of Emergency Medicine 2016 July
BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines for infant cardiopulmonary resuscitation emphasize that all rescuers should minimize interruption of chest compression, even for endotracheal intubation.
OBJECTIVE: We compared the utility of application of a gum-elastic bougie (GEB) plus Miller laryngoscope (Mil) with the Mil alone during chest compression on an infant mannequin.
METHODS: Sixteen anesthesiologists with more than 2 years of experience performed tracheal intubation on an infant mannequin using the Mil or Mil plus 6Fr GEB, with or without chest compression. Intubation success rate, intubation time, and subjective difficulty scores of laryngoscopy and tube passage through the glottis were measured.
RESULTS: In Mil trials, none of the participants failed without compression, whereas four failed with compression (p = 0.03). In Mil-plus-GEB trials, all participants succeeded regardless of chest compression. Intubation time was significantly longer with chest compression in both Mil and Mil-plus-GEB trials (p < 0.001). The intubation time during chest compression was significantly longer in Mil than in Mil-plus-GEB trials (p < 0.001). Difficulty of operation on a visual analog scale (VAS) for laryngoscopy did not significantly differ between Mil and Mil-plus-GEB trials during chest compression, whereas the VAS for tube passage through the glottis was significantly higher in Mil than in Mil-plus-GEB trials.
CONCLUSIONS: GEB use shortened the intubation time and improved the success rate of infant tracheal intubation during chest compression by anesthesiologists in simulations.
OBJECTIVE: We compared the utility of application of a gum-elastic bougie (GEB) plus Miller laryngoscope (Mil) with the Mil alone during chest compression on an infant mannequin.
METHODS: Sixteen anesthesiologists with more than 2 years of experience performed tracheal intubation on an infant mannequin using the Mil or Mil plus 6Fr GEB, with or without chest compression. Intubation success rate, intubation time, and subjective difficulty scores of laryngoscopy and tube passage through the glottis were measured.
RESULTS: In Mil trials, none of the participants failed without compression, whereas four failed with compression (p = 0.03). In Mil-plus-GEB trials, all participants succeeded regardless of chest compression. Intubation time was significantly longer with chest compression in both Mil and Mil-plus-GEB trials (p < 0.001). The intubation time during chest compression was significantly longer in Mil than in Mil-plus-GEB trials (p < 0.001). Difficulty of operation on a visual analog scale (VAS) for laryngoscopy did not significantly differ between Mil and Mil-plus-GEB trials during chest compression, whereas the VAS for tube passage through the glottis was significantly higher in Mil than in Mil-plus-GEB trials.
CONCLUSIONS: GEB use shortened the intubation time and improved the success rate of infant tracheal intubation during chest compression by anesthesiologists in simulations.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
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