Comparison of laryngeal tube evo with tracheal intubation during intra-arrest-ventilation using biphasic positive pressure ventilation - a prospective randomized controlled body donor study

比较喉罩通气与气管插管在心脏骤停期间采用双相正压通气进行通气的效果——一项前瞻性随机对照遗体捐献者研究

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the effects of the new supraglottic airway-device laryngeal tube evo (LT(®)evo) versus that of tracheal intubation (TI) concerning the target parameters of ventilation therapy during mechanical chest compressions in intra-arrest-ventilation with biphasic-positive-airway-pressure-ventilation. METHODS: This prospective randomized crossover study involving Thiel-embalmed human body donors, compares TI with LT(®)evo using biphasic-positive-airway-pressure-ventilation during mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Each body donor underwent ventilation with both airway-devices in randomized order. Ventilatory parameters were recorded at ventilator flow sensors. Primary endpoint was expiratory tidal volume (VT(e)), secondary endpoints included expiratory tidal volume per kg ideal body weight (VT(e)/kgIBW); delta tidal volume (ideal-VT(e); ΔVT); leakage volume (V(Leak)); peak (P(Peak)), mean (P(Mean)), plateau (P(Plat)) pressures; and respiratory rates. RESULTS: Five body donors were included. Linear regression analyses with random intercepts revealed lower VT(e) (-295.7 ± 8 ml; 95%CI:-339.2 to -252.2); p < 0.0001), VT(e)/kgIBW (-5.0 ml/kg; 95%:-5.7 to -4.2; p < 0.0001), P(Peak) (-19.0mbar; 95%CI:-23.1 to -14.9; p < 0.0001) and P(Mean) (-2mbar; 95%CI:-3.2 to -0.8 ;p = 0.001) but higher ∆VT (296.0 ml; 95%CI:252.5 to 339.4; p < 0.0001) and V(Leak) (52.7%; 95%CI:41.6 to 63.7; p < 0.0001) for LT(®)evo. While all tracheal-intubated body donors (100%) were successfully ventilated with biphasic-positive-airway-pressure-ventilation (VT(e)/kgIBW > 2 ml/kg), only one of five body donors (20%) could be ventilated via LT(®)evo. CONCLUSION: In this body donor model of biphasic-positive-airway-pressure-ventilation during mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation, TI provided higher VT(e) and lower leakage than LT(®)evo did. LT(®)evo ventilation frequently failed to achieve tidal volumes above the estimated dead space. These findings suggest that LT(®)evo may be poorly suited for intra-arrest ventilation using biphasic-positive-airway-pressure-ventilation during mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation. When the LT(®)evo is used in this setting, a synchronous 30:2 ventilation strategy may represent a safer alternative. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register; unique identifier: DRKS00037836; registration date: September 09, 2025. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-026-05902-4.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。