Performance of supraglottic airway devices and 12 month skill retention: A randomized controlled study with manikins

• Published in: Resuscitation Vol. 82; no. 3; pp. 326 - 331
• Main Authors: Fischer, Henrik, Hochbrugger, Eva, Fast, Andrea, Hager, Helmut, Steinlechner, Barbara, Koinig, Herbert, Eisenburger, Philip, Frantal, Sophie, Greif, Robert
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Shannon Elsevier Ireland Ltd 01.03.2011; Elsevier
• Subjects: Airway management; Airway Management - instrumentation; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy; Bag-valve-mask; Biological and medical sciences; Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); Emergency; Emergency and intensive respiratory care; Intensive care medicine; Manikin; Manikins; Masks; Medical sciences; Rescue ventilation; Respiration, Artificial - instrumentation; Resuscitation - education; Retention (Psychology); Skill retention; Students, Medical; Supraglottic airway devices; Time Factors; Training; Training; Airway management; Supraglottic airway devices; Bag-valve-mask; Manikin; Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); Rescue ventilation; Skill retention; Intensive cardiocirculatory care; Rescue; Intensive care; Mask; Clinical management
• ISSN: 0300-9572; 1873-1570
• DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.11.014

Abstract Purpose Airway management for successful ventilation by laypersons and inexperienced healthcare providers is difficult to achieve. Bag-valve mask (BVM) ventilation requires extensive training and is performed poorly. Supraglottic airway devices (SADs) have been successfully introduced to clinical resuscitation practice as an alternative. We evaluated recently introduced (i-gel™ and LMA-Supreme™) and established SADs (LMA-Unique™, LMA-ProSeal™) and BVM used by laypeople in training sessions on manikins. Methods In this randomized controlled study, 267 third-year medical students participated with informed consent and IRB approval. After brief standardized training, each participant applied all devices in a randomized order. Success of device application and ventilation was recorded. Without further training, skill retention was assessed in the same manner 12 months later. Outcome parameters were the number of application attempts, application time, tidal volume and gastric inflation rate recorded at successful attempts, and subjective ease-of-use rating by the participants. Results i-gel™ and LMA-Supreme™ were the most successful in the first attempt at both assessments and in the subjective ease-of-use rating. The shortest application time was found with BVM (8 ± 5 s in 2008 vs. 9 ± 5 s in 2009) and i-gel (10 ± 3 s vs. 12 ± 5 s). Tidal volumes were disappointing with no device reaching 50% volume within the recommended range (0.4–0.6 L). Gastric inflation rate was highest with BVM (18% vs. 20%) but significantly lower with all SADs (0.4–6%; p < 0.001 for 2008 and 2009). Conclusion SADs showed clear advantages over BVM. Compared with LMA-Unique™ and LMA-ProSeal™, i-gel™ and LMA-Supreme™ led to higher first-attempt success rates and a shorter application time.