A randomised crossover comparison of manikin ventilation through Soft Seal®, i-gel™ and AuraOnce™ supraglottic airway devices by surf lifeguards

Wilderness Medical Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment and Prevention of Drowning: 2024 Update

The Wilderness Medical Society convened a panel to review available evidence supporting practices for acute management of drowning in out-of-hospital and emergency care settings. Literature about definitions and terminology, epidemiology, rescue, resuscitation, acute clinical management, disposition, and drowning prevention was reviewed. The panel graded available evidence supporting practices according to the American College of Chest Physicians criteria and then made recommendations based on that evidence. Recommendations were based on the panel's collective clinical experience and judgment when published evidence was lacking. This is the second update to the original practice guidelines published in 2016 and updated in 2019.

Comparing Surf Lifeguards and Nurse Anesthetists' Use of the i-gel Supraglottic Airway Device - An Observational Simulation Study

Purpose

Using a supraglottic airway (SGA) may provide more effective ventilations compared with a mouth-to-pocket-mask for drowning victims. SGAs are widely used by nurse anesthetists but it is unknown whether surf lifeguards can use SGAs effectively. We aimed to compare the use of SGA by surf lifeguards and experienced nurse anesthetists.

Materials and Methods

Surf lifeguards inserted a SGA (i-gel O₂, size 4) in a resuscitation manikin during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and nurse anesthetists inserted a SGA in a resuscitation manikin placed on a bed, and performed ventilations. Outcome measures: time to first ventilation, tidal volume, proportion of ventilations with visible manikin chest rise, and ventilations within the recommended tidal volume (0.5–0.6 L).

Results

Overall, 30 surf lifeguards and 30 nurse anesthetists participated. Median (Q1–Q3) time to first ventilation was 20 s (15–22) for surf lifeguards and 17 s (15–21) for nurse anesthetists (p=0.31). Mean (SD) tidal volume was 0.55 L (0.21) for surf lifeguards and 0.31 L (0.10) for nurse anesthetists (p<0.0001). Surf lifeguards and nurse anesthetists delivered 100% and 95% ventilations with visible manikin chest rise (p=0.004) and 19% and 5% ventilations within the recommended tidal volume, respectively (p<0.0001).

Conclusion

In a simulated setting, there was no significant difference between surf lifeguards and experienced nurse anesthetists in time to first ventilation when using a SGA. Surf lifeguards delivered a higher tidal volume, and a higher proportion of ventilations within guideline recommendations, but generally ventilations caused visible manikin chest rise for both groups.

Wilderness Medical Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment and Prevention of Drowning: 2019 Update

The Wilderness Medical Society convened a panel to review available evidence supporting practices for acute management and treatment of drowning in out-of-hospital and emergency medical care settings. Literature about definitions and terminology, epidemiology, rescue, resuscitation, acute clinical management, disposition, and drowning prevention was reviewed. The panel graded available evidence supporting practices according to the American College of Chest Physicians criteria and then made recommendations based on that evidence. Recommendations were based on the panel's collective clinical experience and judgment when published evidence was lacking. This is the first update to the original practice guidelines published in 2016.

Competence in the use of supraglottic airways by Australian surf lifesavers for cardiac arrest ventilation in a manikin

OBJECTIVES

Lifesavers in Australia are taught to use pocket mask (PM) rescue breathing and bag valve mask (BVM) ventilation, despite evidence that first responders might struggle with these devices. Novices have successfully used the Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Supreme and iGel devices previously, but there has been no previous comparison of the ability to train lifesavers to use the supraglottic airways compared to standard techniques for cardiac arrest ventilation.

METHODS

The study is a prospective educational intervention whereby 113 lifesavers were trained to use the LMA and iGel supraglottic airways. Comparisons were made to standard devices on plastic manikins. Successful ventilation was defined as achieving visible chest rise.

RESULTS

The median time to first effective ventilation was similar between the PM (16 s, 95% confidence interval 16-17 s), BVM (17 s, 16-17 s) and iGel devices (18 s, 16-20 s), but longer for the LMA (36 s, 33-38 s). The iGel frequently failed to achieve ventilation (10%) compared with the PM (1%, P < 0.01) and LMA (3%, P < 0.01) but was not worse than the BVM (3%, P < 0.57). Hands-off time was similar between the BVM, LMA and iGel (10 s for each device), but worse for the PM (13 s, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Lifesavers using the PM and BVM perform ventilation for cardiopulmonary resuscitation well. There appears to be a limited role for supraglottic airway devices because of limitations in terms of time to first effective ventilation and reliability. Clinical validation of manikin data with live resuscitation performance is required.

Comparison of the i-gel and other supraglottic airways in adult manikin studies: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The i-gel has a gel-like cuff composed of thermoplastic elastomer that does not require cuff inflation. As the elimination of cuff inflation may shorten insertion time, the i-gel might be a useful tool in emergency situations requiring prompt airway care. This systematic review and meta-analysis of previous adult manikin studies for inexperienced personnel was performed to compare the i-gel with other supraglottic airways.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before June 2015, including with a crossover design, using the following search terms: "i-gel," "igel," "simulation," "manikin," "manikins," "mannequin," and "mannequins." The primary outcomes of this review were device insertion time and the first-attempt success rate of insertion.

RESULTS

A total of 14 RCTs were included. At the initial assessment without difficult circumstances, the i-gel had a significantly shorter insertion time than the LMA Classic, LMA Fastrach, LMA Proseal, LMA Unique, laryngeal tube, Combitube, and EasyTube. However, a faster insertion time of the i-gel was not observed in comparisons with the LMA Supreme, aura-i, and air-Q. In addition, the i-gel did not show the better results for the insertion success rate when compared to other devices.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this meta-analysis indicated that inexperienced volunteers placed the i-gel more rapidly than other supraglottic airways with the exception of the LMA Supreme, aura-i, and air-Q in manikin studies. However, the quicker insertion time is clinically not relevant. The unapparent advantage regarding the insertion success rate and the inherent limitations of the simulation setting indicated that additional evidence is necessary to confirm these advantages of the i-gel in an emergency setting.

A randomised crossover comparison of mouth-to-face-shield ventilation and mouth-to-pocket-mask ventilation by surf lifeguards in a manikin

Thirty surf lifeguards (mean (SD) age: 25.1 (4.8) years; 21 male, 9 female) were randomly assigned to perform 2 × 3 min of cardiopulmonary resuscitation on a manikin using mouth-to-face-shield ventilation (AMBU LifeKey) and mouth-to-pocket-mask ventilation (Laerdal Pocket Mask). Interruptions in chest compressions, effective ventilation (visible chest rise) ratio, tidal volume and inspiratory time were recorded. Interruptions in chest compressions per cycle were increased with mouth-to-face-shield ventilation (mean (SD) 8.6 (1.7) s) compared with mouth-to-pocket-mask ventilation (6.9 (1.2) s, p < 0.0001). The proportion of effective ventilations was less using mouth-to-face-shield ventilation (199/242 (82%)) compared with mouth-to-pocket-mask ventilation (239/240 (100%), p = 0.0002). Tidal volume was lower using mouth-to-face-shield ventilation (mean (SD) 0.36 (0.20) l) compared with mouth-to-pocket-mask ventilation (0.45 (0.20) l, p = 0.006). No differences in inspiratory times were observed between mouth-to-face-shield ventilation and mouth-to-pocket-mask ventilation. In conclusion, mouth-to-face-shield ventilation increases interruptions in chest compressions, reduces the proportion of effective ventilations and decreases delivered tidal volumes compared with mouth-to-pocket-mask ventilation.