We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Comparison of placement of the laryngeal mask airway with endotracheal tube by paramedics and respiratory therapists.
Annals of Emergency Medicine 1994 August
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the learning curve of nonphysician emergency personnel on placement of the laryngeal mask airway as compared to performance of endotracheal intubation.
DESIGN: Prospective, comparative, randomized, patient-blinded trial.
SETTING: Regional hospital operating room.
PARTICIPANTS: Seven experienced paramedics and 12 respiratory therapists trained in endotracheal intubation.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients used as subjects were anesthetized and paralyzed. Each participant then performed placement of both the laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal tube on the same patient in random sequence. Both techniques were observed for speed, difficulty, and effectiveness.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The techniques were timed from the point at which the participant touched the patient to the time they were able to effectively ventilate the patient. Participants also were asked to rate the difficulty of each technique on a 100-mm visual analog score. Failure (three attempts without successful ventilation) rates also were monitored. The mean time to ventilate successfully with the laryngeal mask airway was significantly less than that with the endotracheal tube (38.9 +/- 1.9 seconds versus 206.1 +/- 31.9 seconds, P < .0001). The average number of attempts was 1.0 +/- 0.0 for the laryngeal mask airway and 2.22 +/- 0.21 for the endotracheal tube (P < .01). No one failed to place the laryngeal mask airway; and ten of 19 (52.6%, P < .01) failed to perform endotracheal intubation. The endotracheal tube had a significantly higher rating of difficulty than did the laryngeal mask airway (67.3 versus 8.64, P < .0001).
DESIGN: Prospective, comparative, randomized, patient-blinded trial.
SETTING: Regional hospital operating room.
PARTICIPANTS: Seven experienced paramedics and 12 respiratory therapists trained in endotracheal intubation.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients used as subjects were anesthetized and paralyzed. Each participant then performed placement of both the laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal tube on the same patient in random sequence. Both techniques were observed for speed, difficulty, and effectiveness.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The techniques were timed from the point at which the participant touched the patient to the time they were able to effectively ventilate the patient. Participants also were asked to rate the difficulty of each technique on a 100-mm visual analog score. Failure (three attempts without successful ventilation) rates also were monitored. The mean time to ventilate successfully with the laryngeal mask airway was significantly less than that with the endotracheal tube (38.9 +/- 1.9 seconds versus 206.1 +/- 31.9 seconds, P < .0001). The average number of attempts was 1.0 +/- 0.0 for the laryngeal mask airway and 2.22 +/- 0.21 for the endotracheal tube (P < .01). No one failed to place the laryngeal mask airway; and ten of 19 (52.6%, P < .01) failed to perform endotracheal intubation. The endotracheal tube had a significantly higher rating of difficulty than did the laryngeal mask airway (67.3 versus 8.64, P < .0001).
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Systemic lupus erythematosus.Lancet 2024 April 18
Should renin-angiotensin system inhibitors be held prior to major surgery?British Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 May
Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemias: Classifications, Pathophysiology, Diagnoses and Management.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 13
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