A randomised crossover comparison of manikin ventilation through Soft Seal®, i‐gel™ and AuraOnce™ supraglottic airway devices by surf lifeguards. (7th February 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Adelborg, K.; Al‐Mashhadi, R. H.; Nielsen, L. H.; Dalgas, C.; Mortensen, M. B.; Løfgren, B.
• Is Part Of: Anaesthesia. Volume 69:Number 4(2014:Apr.)
• Page Start: 343
• Page End: 347
• Publication Date: 2014-02-07
• Subjects: Anesthesia -- Periodicals; 617.96
• DOI: 10.1111/anae.12545
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0003-2409

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="anae12545-abs-0001"> <title>Summary</title> <p>Forty surf lifeguards attempted to ventilate a manikin through one out of three supraglottic airways inserted in random order: the Portex^® Soft Seal^®; the Intersurgical^® i‐gel™; and the Ambu^® AuraOnce™. We recorded the time to ventilate and the proportion of inflations that were successful, without and then with concurrent chest compressions. The mean (SD) time to ventilate with the Soft Seal, i‐gel and AuraOnce was 35.2 (7.2)s, 15.6 (3.3)s and 35.1 (8.5) s, respectively, p &lt; 0.0001. Concurrent chest compression prolonged the time to ventilate by 5.0 (1.3–8.1)%, p = 0.0072. The rate of successful ventilations through the Soft Seal (100%) was more than through the AuraOnce (92%), p &lt; 0.0001, neither of which was different from the i‐gel (97%). The mean (SD) tidal volumes through the Soft Seal, i‐gel and AuraOnce were 0.65 (0.14) l, 0.50 (0.16) l and 0.39 (0.19) l, respectively. Most lifeguards (85%) preferred the i‐gel. Ventilation through supraglottic airway devices may be considered for resuscitation by surf lifeguards.</p> </abstract>