Clinical evaluation of the use of laryngeal tube versus laryngeal mask airway for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest by paramedics in Singapore.
OHCA
intubation
laryngeal mask airway
laryngeal tube
prehospital
Journal
Singapore medical journal
ISSN: 2737-5935
Titre abrégé: Singapore Med J
Pays: India
ID NLM: 0404516
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2022
03 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
18
8
2020
medline:
7
5
2022
entrez:
17
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
It remains unclear which advanced airway device has better placement success and fewer adverse events in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the VBM laryngeal tube (LT) against the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in OHCAs managed by emergency ambulances in Singapore. This was a real-world, prospective, cluster-randomised crossover study. All OHCA patients above 13 years of age who were suitable for resuscitation were randomised to receive either LT or LMA. The primary outcome was placement success. Per-protocol analysis was performed, and the association between outcomes and airway device group was compared using multivariate binomial logistic regression analysis. Of 965 patients with OHCAs from March 2016 to January 2018, 905 met the inclusion criteria, of whom 502 (55.5%) were randomised to receive LT while 403 (44.5%) were randomised to receive LMA. Only 174 patients in the LT group actually received the device owing to noncompliance. Placement success rate for LT was lower than for LMA (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.90). Complications were more likely when using LT (OR 2.82,0 95% CI 1.64-4.86). Adjusted OR for prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was similar in both groups. A modified intention-to-treat analysis showed similar outcomes to the per-protocol analysis between the groups. LT was associated with poorer placement success and higher complication rates than LMA. The likelihood of prehospital ROSC was similar between the two groups. Familiarity bias and a low compliance rate to LT were the main limitations of this study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32798357
pii: j63/3/157
doi: 10.11622/smedj.2020119
pmc: PMC9251251
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
157-161Informations de copyright
Copyright: © Singapore Medical Association.
Références
Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2018 Aug;7(5):423-431
pubmed: 28948850
Resuscitation. 2014 Jul;85(7):885-92
pubmed: 24642405
Resuscitation. 2014 Nov;85(11):1629-32
pubmed: 25110247
Resuscitation. 2005 Jul;66(1):21-5
pubmed: 15993725
Circulation. 2015 Nov 3;132(18 Suppl 2):S444-64
pubmed: 26472995
Resuscitation. 2009 Feb;80(2):194-8
pubmed: 19010582
Emerg Med J. 2013 Dec;30(12):1012-6
pubmed: 23307754
Anaesthesist. 2014 Jul;63(7):589-96
pubmed: 24981153
Resuscitation. 2015 Aug;93:20-6
pubmed: 26006743
JAMA. 2018 Aug 28;320(8):769-778
pubmed: 30167699
Resuscitation. 2015 Nov;96:100-8
pubmed: 26234891
Crit Care. 2011;15(5):R236
pubmed: 21985431
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2010 Oct-Dec;14(4):515-30
pubmed: 20809690
JAMA. 2018 Aug 28;320(8):779-791
pubmed: 30167701